Panama: The Hidden Trillions - <AUTHOR> http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/10/27/panama-the-hidden-trillions/ <comment><USER2> This is what you get when the majority of tax revenue comes from a small tax base. For example, according to Pew Research ([http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/13/high- income-...](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/13/high-income- americans-pay-most-income-taxes-but-enough-to-be-fair/)):

> In 2014, people with adjusted gross income, or AGI, above $250,000 paid just > over half (51.6%) of all individual income taxes, though they accounted for > only 2.7% of all returns filed, according to our analysis of preliminary IRS > data. Their average tax rate (total taxes paid divided by cumulative AGI) > was 25.7%. By contrast, people with incomes of less than $50,000 accounted > for 62.3% of all individual returns filed, but they paid just 5.7% of total > taxes. Their average tax rate was 4.3%.

In the state of California, "New figures from the Franchise Tax Board show that the wealthiest 1% of Californians paid 50.6% of the state income tax in 2012 — up from 41.1% in 2011. It means that of nearly 15 million tax returns, about 150,000 generated more than half the revenue." ([http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-cap- taxes-20140505-column...](http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-cap- taxes-20140505-column.html))

It's not very healthy to collect taxes this way. As the LA Times article indicated, California's tax revenue fluctuates based on the incomes of a pretty small number of people.

When a small number of people provide most of the tax revenue, yet the political discourse constantly accuses them of not paying a fair share, it's not hard to see why they feel persecuted and try to hide their money.

It's also hard to say that they aren't paying their "fair share" when they provide more than half of the government's tax revenue. Anyone who wants them to pay more ought to provide some kind of objective way to calculate what someone's "fair share" of tax is, and that's probably impossible.

<comment><USER3> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_Unite...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States)

>Currently, the richest 1% hold about 38% of all privately held wealth in the United States. while the bottom 90% held 73% of all debt. According to The New York Times, the "richest 1 percent in the United States now own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent".

Your stats don't sound so crazy when you put it in context.

Please feel free to peruse the economic history of states where the rich eventually dodged taxes and left the crushing burden to the middle and poor: ancient Rome, modern Greece, etc.

<comment><USER4> Very few people would consider taxation based on "wealth" to be a fair system. Most people accept income taxes fair enough, but a taxation system based on wealth feels like (and is) simple confiscation.

You hold $100. I hold $1. We live the same life, live the same services, make the same income, and you pay 100x the taxes, if you base it on wealth. Does this really feel fair?

Even better, if you subtract out debt (as you suggest), this gives me an incentive to spend my money, rake up debt, and pay nothing -- wealth is now a liability, didn't you hear?

<comment><USER5> On the contrary, taxation based on wealth would be much fairer than taxation based on income. Unfortunately a wealth tax is pretty much impossible to implement. The closest thing we have is property taxes.

> You hold $100. I hold $1. We live the same life, live the same services, > make the same income, and you pay 100x the taxes, if you base it on wealth. > Does this really feel fair?

Yes, that is fair! How about this scenario instead: I hold $100,000, but suddenly make $300,000 this year because I sold my startup. Trump holds $1,000,000,000, spends $1,000,000, and loses money on a stupid investment so his net income is negative. I pay $120,000 tax, over a quarter of my net worth, while he pays nothing. Is that fair?

<comment><USER6> You think it's fair that the government should punish the frugal for not spending every dime they make?

If you and I earn the same but I spend all of my money on alcohol and pot, while you set aside to pay for your kids' college, how is it fair that you pay more tax?

<comment><USER7> There is an argument wherein you could say that those who merely sit on their wealth are causing economic stagnation. Taxing wealth becomes an incentive for the wealthy to have their money make more wealth, instead of just sitting on a mountain of gold coins and interests rates could again rise.

<comment><USER6> You could make that argument and I might even listen. It's in no sense fair even if it makes economic sense though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> There is a few GOOD aspects of offshore zones and financial secrecy laws which almost nobody takes into account.

In authoritarian countries like Russia, corporate raids made by those who are close to law endorsement structures are pretty common thing. In order to do that, they often put high pressure to a company's owners.

For them it's usually harder to put pressure on a company when it's not clear who are the owners.

Another reason is that often authoritarian countries have ridiculous regulations regarding cross-border trading. So offshore company often is used as a shell company to facilitate easier cross-border trading.

Sure, there is a big abuse of offshores but let's not forget that governments across the globe are not ultimate source of truth and goodness.

If you turn down offshore zones, you will turn down many economies across the globe (especially economies of authoritarian countries which are at the bottom economic freedom rating).

P.S. I lived 22 years in UZ, then 9 years in RU, now in NL.

</comment><comment><USER9> Obama recently bemoaned the 8 trillion or so in wealth that is not circulating with much, if any, frequency in the US economy. As he and others have observed, it's sequestered overseas and at home, waiting for a time when confidence is higher and taxes lower. Unless a mechanism exists to prevent smart money from finding safe havens from taxes, instability and currency flux (Even China is currently failing at this task) redistribution and populist ideals are always due to fail. This is the message the "trickle down" and free market cheerleaders try to communicate, poorly.

<comment><USER10> I suppose a case could be made that people are entitled to a share of the success that they didn't help provide, but no one ever even tries to make it. It's just assumed to be true. Care to make the case?

If you lean on the nebulous idea that being born into a society is somehow a contribution to any particular success in general, I'm going to assume you're bullshitting. Fair warning.

<comment><USER11> It's less a matter of what you are entitled to, and more that society doesn't work very well with gross disparity. I always argue it's in the interests of the wealthy to mind that everyone else is happy with the way things are. Otherwise you get violent populist uprisings. Stability & happiness of the whole country are in the interest of those on top of it.

<comment><USER12> enter the NFL, MLB, NBA & Netflix + cheap flat screen televisions.

<comment><USER13> Keeping the population in line by fattening them up and distracting them only works if they believe in something bigger than themselves.

With the lack of community and the focus on individual and the self, people will not be fulfilled if they know someone else is doing so much better.

It's the classic monkey experiment with cucumbers. If all monkeys get cucumbers, they are all okay with it. If one monkey gets a cherry while the other gets a cucumber, the cucumber monkey feels it's unfair and gets angry.

You can keep humans in shitty conditions if they believe in something bigger than themselves. That the shitty conditions are justified and therefore fair.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Let us not forget countries have a need to compete just like companies.

If a foreign country taxes more than others you must expect some companies/individuals to move their assets to a country that taxes at a lower rate. To expect otherwise would be unreasonable. This is not tax evasion, but people making rational decisions given their options.

<comment><USER15> Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize winner, disagrees: [https://hbr.org/1996/01/a-country-is-not-a- company](https://hbr.org/1996/01/a-country-is-not-a-company)

<comment><USER16> If we're going to appeal to authority Micheal Porter, the most cited author in business and economics and six-time winner of the McKinsey Award for the best Harvard Business Review article of the year agrees :

Porter wrote "The Competitive Advantage of Nations" in 1990. The book is based on studies of ten nations and argues that a key to national wealth and advantage was the productivity of firms and workers collectively, and that the national and regional environment supports that productivity. He proposed the "diamond" framework, a mutually-reinforcing system of four factors that determine national advantage: factor conditions; demand conditions; related or supporting industries; and firm strategy, structure and rivalry. Information, incentives, and infrastructure were also key to that productivity.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> It seems there is too much focus on what is "fair". If one looks at all the opinions it's very hard to come up with unified way to define what is "fair". Going by comments one of the unifying themes is "fair"being defined as "me" paying less and someone else paying more. I think many people feel if 1% payed more in taxes and the rest payed less it would lead to more disposable income in reality it would very likely lead to asset inflation just for a different class of assets.

</comment><comment><USER18> Maybe Obama should consider a tax amnesty? Get money in from outside the US at a low tax rate (something is better than nothing right) and get it circulating in the US creating jobs and funding startups/ideas

Just today we had news about one in Indonesia [http://www.reuters.com/article/us-indonesia-tax- idUSKCN1200R...](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-indonesia-tax- idUSKCN1200R7?il=0)

<comment><USER19> Tax amnesties just encourage future tax evasion, since everyone will always be waiting for another amnesty. They create a moral hazard by causing disrespect for the rule of law.

<comment><USER20> or the government finds a way to finance itself in a way that doesn't exclude itself from economic activity

just a thought, worked 100 years ago from before it started financing itself with a passive income tax

it is entirely possible, also consider that no form of better tax compliance would solve its budget problems. The idea of paying 'fair share' is disingenuous when it is funding embezzlement within the military and defense sector waaaaay before it funds an an oft cited road or school

the biggest irony here is that I'm not a tax protester. maybe closer to a historian.

<comment><USER21> Of of course. The government should run itself as a business. Just shut down other businesses that are profitable, and take over their market. That worked in the past right.

And the lower taxes should encourage business growth, even despite the fact that the government could come in and take over at anytime.

<comment><USER20> Why would that be a worthwhile conclusion even if you were being hyperbolic?

The US government and others have financed themselves in many ways before income and capital taxes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> A lot of misinformation in the comments on this feed. I can't persuade their authors that their opinions are on the wrong side of history, but I can say that as I've become wealthier I've felt the desire to tip at least 20% and secretly donate to worthy causes. I've also felt troubled by this because it is charity. I'm voting with my dollars for the people and businesses that I believe contribute to my community. Take that to its logical conclusion and it means that the more money I have, the more influence I have in society.

This is antithetical to my dream of a future where people are freed from fruitless labor and authoritarian control. We all live two lives - the one of our dreams and the one that happens while we're making other plans. Right now the vast majority of us have been forced into a default life of making rent and reactionary decision making. Some of us have been lucky enough to find respite in yolo or living for others through our children. But fundamentally we're still trapped in the rat race.

I've come to the conclusion that money represents time that someone has sacrificed for someone else. So the quarter of my income I saved in my bank account last year represents one year of my life, and you can tell by that ratio roughly how much I make per year. Go down a few tens of thousands of dollars and the ratio falls to zero, or even negative. Go up a little the other direction and the ratio approaches 100% and then celebrity. About half of Americans have no savings, which means they aren't being compensated for their lives, not really. So I've already stolen from them, by the fact that I have disposable income and they don't. A handful of Americans make more money from their wealth than they would working, if they ever started (optional work is called a hobby). So they've already stolen from me, because I have to work and they don't. Yet people make the argument time and again that people with the least amount of money (who have stolen the least) should pay higher taxes and the people who have "acquired" the most money should pay lower taxes as some kind of post-incentive. Riiight.

So this old notion that taxation is theft doesn't make sense because money itself is theft. Hoarding vast amounts of it from others so they have to work harder just leads to the vicious cycle of inequality we're stuck in. No, the best way forward that I can see is to opt out of a high income and instead work every day towards a vision of the future where money isn't needed anymore. Where people make bigger contributions doing what they want to do with their lives than they ever could by laboring under someone else's thumb. This is going back to Jeffersonian ideas of trusting society as a whole to make governing decisions rather than leaving elites to pick winners and losers. I would rather take a median income to provide everyone else at least a basic income and watch our culture flourish than subscribe to a meritocratic ideal that crowns the fastest rat.

<comment><USER23> Not having savings doesn't mean others are stealing from them. Frugality is a way to build up savings and get out of the rat race, even if you don't earn much. But it requires conscious choice and sacrifice. Buying a $40,000 truck is completely incompatible with long term economic freedom for most, yet they're selling in huge numbers because of the relatively cheap financing available.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> he says. "Previously, we thought that the offshore world was a shadowy, but minor, part of our economic system. What we learned from the Panama Papers is that it is the economic system."

</comment><comment><USER25> I'm doing a self funded start-up and I moved to Panama from SF to save on taxes. I was paying over 50% tax and now I pay 0% tax. By moving here my start-up went from unviable to very competitive. I am now able to undercut my only competitor and will likely drive them out of business sometime next year. Once that happens I'll raise my prices and make even more money.

This is business; if I didn't do this someone else would do it to me. Same thing happened to me with a previous company and a Chinese competitor. Lost ten years of savings and 4 years of my life on that one.

I much prefer living in the US but it was just impossible to make the numbers work. I could have survived with a 10-20% tax but there is no way that is happening in the near future in the US.

The point I want to get across is; irrespective on what you think is fair the US tax rate is uncompetitive and driving small business out of the country. Big companies get to stay because they can afford the more expensive tax avoidance schemes. Little guys like myself are either driven out of business or out of the country.

<comment><USER26> That's funny, 'cause in my experience, In America, even in California, you mostly get taxed on money you actually make. I mean, mostly; it's complicated. But mostly you pay taxes on the net, not the gross. I mostly don't pay taxes on money I spend on employees and equipment (there are a bunch of exceptions; I pay 7.5% on payroll for employees, and depriciation on capital assets is... well, a matter best left to the accountant. Still.)

And, uh, 50% sure, that's what you pay if you take home a whole lot lot of money and live in California... something that usually doesn't happen during the first years of a startup. In my experience, "starting a business" take home pay rarely gets you much above the 20% tax bracket, even in California; you re-invest the rest.

<comment><USER25> I couldn't post for a while, throttled or something. It's personal tax while I saved for later spending on the start-up. Even when optimized the US company tax rate was too high to be viable. I'm not American but could have move the company here - I wish I could afford it because I love living in SF.

<comment><USER26> ah yes, taxes do tangle time-shifting money quite a lot. The way I have seen people fund companies with labor is corp-to-corp contracting; your client pays your company instead of you, then you can (sortof) pay it out as payroll to other people or equipment that year. (for the ranges of money we're talking about here, there are often ways to write off your equipment the same year. Ask your accountant.) It is somewhat more complex than that, and it is harder to get corp-to-corp contracts than to get w2 contracts, and it still doesn't help much in carrying over money from one year to the next, but people do it, and it is a tax-efficient-ish way to get money from your labor into equipment or payroll for the business.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: I made a platform for free-to-play games - <AUTHOR> https://www.freetogame.com <comment><USER3> Unfortunately not for me. Cloudflare + Google in the site. Have to make an account for "free" games. "score free premium loot, earn ranks, unlock exclusive rewards" uhh.... why gamify the system?

About: We built FreeToGame to create an ecosystem that brings all the best Free-to-Play Games and MMO Games into one place . Our vision is to create the most exciting and rewarding gaming experience by breaking the inflexible concept of digital storefronts. You get more value... and it's all still completely free.

>brings all the best Free-to-Play Games and MMO Games into one place

So a list?

>while rewarding gamers with free premium in-game loot, special offers and exclusive perks

I don't need a list to do that to me.

>by breaking the inflexible concept of digital storefronts

How has this done that?

>You get more value...

Is the value the collection in one place? Or is it the little treats to hand out.

I'm not really sure what this is for. I reckon about 100% of those games require an account first. So this account is just for your "exclusive rewards".

<comment><AUTHOR> Please note you still can use the site without the need to create an account... But the account unlocks more features like for example special offers: [https://www.freetogame.com/giveaways](https://www.freetogame.com/giveaways)

<comment><USER4> I can't use it because "Play now" links lead to server.cpmstar.com ("real-time bidding advertising platform and monetization solution leveraging machine learning and code generation") which is blocked by Blokada - <USER2> software/service I trust.

<comment><AUTHOR> Please read the FAQ at [https://www.freetogame.com/faq](https://www.freetogame.com/faq)

<comment><USER4> Thanks for replying. I read it but I couldn't find a solution to my problem - "advertising", "monetization", "machine learning" evil standing between me and free games.

Edit: Now I see that _some_ "Play now" links are leading directly to the game's website.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I would like to be able to filter out games with in app purchases. Or more specifically, in app purchases that impact gameplay.

I don't mind cosmetics but whenever someone spending money has an advantage, I don't want to touch that game.

<comment><USER6> Please keep in mind that games without gameplay-enhancing in app purchases want you addicted as much as possible.

The reason is that they profit with the ones that pay a lot, and those players only stay if there are many others that play too.

Then there are the ones that put advertising inside the games as an alternative way of making money. Same thing...

Games that have no in app purchases of any kind and no DLCs either are the best, because they have designed the game _without_ profit being a factor in gameplay.

<comment><USER7> That does not make them different then any other online games. Trying to be addictive is current trend no matter what monetization model.

The only games that don't need to be addictive are single player one time payment games. And those are very limited in terms of who they attract.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I can use it as a list of games to avoid?

I'm too poor to afford free games.

<comment><USER7> You can actually play free games, have fun and never pay.

Steam discounts are much more expensive.

<comment><USER9> > You can actually play free games, have fun and never pay.

But it will never be as fun as it could be if there were no in-app purchases and no ads. That always sits in the back of my mind and prevents me from even trying a game with in-app purchases.

<comment><USER7> It is not true. A while ago I moved to free to play games, because pay in advance games were either disappointment or not for me at all. Pay in advance meant that I am paying too much for games that turns up not as advertised, I end up not liking, end up hating or cant possibly continue playing with time limitations I had.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Yep, as others said - no way to get to the actual game without going through 3rd party trackers.

And that's without getting into the actual idea of promoting the worst type of games possible. F2P is an plague.

I can only guess that the commission on all these referral links pays well enough to not bother with any ethics.

<comment><USER11> Free to play is not all a plague.

A significant chunk of the world's largest games right now are free to play.

As an example, I can play Fortnite with my friends on other platforms for free. That's impressive.

<comment><USER10> Yeah, not all. But OP's site is packed with "traditional" F2P games that sell expendable resources to negate the effects of artificial progress delays or generally subpar free playing experience. No pain points = no sales. So the gameplay is rigged or screwed to create said points where none needed.

Fortnite is an exception. It pioneered the model of selling cosmetic and vanity items that have no direct effect on the gameplay. Good on them.

Similarly, New Destiny 2 is a repackaged shareware model - a demo for free with the full game for $. Again, it's a fair arrangement.

Not so with the pay-to-dominate and pay-to-accelerate games that OP's site is peddling.

<comment><USER7> That means they are not for you. Games for people that are not you are not plague.

<comment><USER10> These games are exploitative and unethical by design, but, yes, you are right there are people who play them.

<comment><USER7> They are however not the kind of games that makes people addicted, sleep deprived, getting in trouble in school or neglect family. The games that have worst consequences on people who don't manage them well are not free to play category. They tend to be big online games.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Nice! I have some suggestions.

\- Allow search games by name, description and tags.

\- Filter by game genre would be nice.

\- Add a section to show paid games that are being sold by 0 money. Like the free games of the week from Epic Games. When the game is no more free, it can be removed from the site.

\- Allow users to suggest games (this can even help you).

<comment><AUTHOR> llagerlof you can already select the genre/tag at [https://www.freetogame.com/games](https://www.freetogame.com/games)

Thank you for your suggestions :)

<comment><USER12> Oops, now I found it. I briefly checked this page but didn't immediately saw the filters. Maybe put them on top, below de navigation bar, above the "Best Free to Play Games for PC and Browser in 2020!" section?

Thank you!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I applaud your efforts, but the selection of games I see (at first glance to be honest) does not seem to appeal to me.

Is it a coincidence the first games I see are all 'scantily-clad-chesty- wizard-princesses' themed games?

Wishing you all the luck, it's a nice platform!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks kelvin0 :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> This looks really awesome. Great design, loads super fast, and has a ton of good information.

Where are you getting reviews from? Some of them are many weeks ago; did you source them from somewhere or are these all from people using the platform already?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks :) Most reviews are from current users, but there is some old reviews that I moved from my old blog.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Nice! Really pleasant interface.

However, everything returns MMOs and Strategy returns RPGs for some reason. Steam does this as well and I think if filtering is fixed it can really set the site apart.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback. Can you send me the link with the issue? Please note some RPGs have strategy elements...

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I entered hoping I could filter the list. I wanted to find browser based games that don't require third party account creation (or any other account creation). I couldn't figure out how to do it, so I left.

If filtering is possible, please make that more visible in the UI (assuming you want to target users like me).

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for your suggestion :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Congrats on the launch! Although these are games I wouldn't normally play, the site looks very professional and stylish. Well done.

</comment><comment> tech-historian Nicely done. Clean and fast.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm glad you like it :)</comment></comment>


Judge Alsup learns to code and schools Oracle - <AUTHOR> https://plus.google.com/110412141990454266397/posts/fk5VXPpiQZR <comment><USER2> The quoted exchange is between Judge Alsup and Oracle's counsel, David Boies, and concerns the issue of what damages Oracle intends to seek in phase 3 of this trial (phase 1: copyright liability; phase 2: patent liability; phase 3: damages). The jury hung on the major copyright claims and the judge has yet to rule on the ultimate question whether the 37 Java API packages at issue are even protectible by copyright. Oracle proved infringement concerning the nine lines of code constituting rangeCheck and the judge held as a matter of law that Google had infringed respecting a couple of test files that were subsequently removed from Android. In this context, under applicable law, Oracle may elect to get statutory damages of $150K for each of the infringements or it may elect to go after what are known as "infringer's profits" - meaning that it would ask the jury to award it damages measured by profits made by Google on account of the infringing acts. Mr. Boies is telling the judge that Oracle wants to go for infringer's profits "as a matter of principle" and the judge is telling him, in effect, that he is astounded that Oracle would be prepared to make a claim for a billion dollars (or some other very large number) based essentially on nine lines of code among the tens of millions of lines of code in Android and a few test files. Mr. Boies strains to offer various rationales for how Oracle might prove damages of this type, mostly tied to the idea that Google gained in time to market for its Android product by relying on the infringing materials. The judge basically tells him that this position is ridiculous and that he cannot believe that an attorney of Mr. Boies's stature would even make it (at one point, he notes that Oracle is trying to make a "federal case" out of this and, catching himself, says (I paraphrase here), "oops, this _is_ a federal case . . . well, seeks to make a _bigger_ federal case out of it than it is"). (The Groklaw report on this exchange is worth reading and even fun in spots - it may be found here: [http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120515120106322#U...](http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120515120106322#Update_5))

This exchange highlights the rather unfavorable position that Oracle finds itself in on the copyright issues. It has won nothing of significance and stands to get very little from the jury on these issues. Concerning the broader claims on which the jury hung, it still faces a potent objection from Google that it cannot assert copyright violations based on the 37 API packages owing to defects in how the Java program was registered with the copyright office. It also faces the risk that the judge or a court of appeals will hold that APIs are not copyrightable.

A word on this last item: Much as the developer community believes very strongly that APIs should not be copyrightable, the Ninth Circuit law that is binding on this judge (beginning with _Johnson Controls_ in 1989) is not particularly favorable in that it provides that software programs are to be analyzed item-by-item on the facts of each particular case to determine whether any particular component is protectible expression versus an unprotectible idea, function, system, or method of operation (this is in stark contrast to the First Circuit, which held that judges could make categorical judgments that certain components are functional by nature and hence unprotectible by copyright (as opposed to patent), as the menu structure was held to be many years ago in the Lotus/Borland case. Google is arguing the issue categorically ("APIs are inherently unprotectible under copyright law") but this makes for a tough sell in a jurisdiction where the appellate authority has said that such issues cannot be categorically determined. Google has alternative arguments, the main one tied to a leading Ninth Circuit case ( _Sega_ ) that Google argues enables copying of functional elements of any program needed to ensure compatability. But, in my view, astute as this judge is, he will be bound to apply the fact-specific approach, making it tough for him to adopt Google's strongest argument and thus significantly reducing the prospects for a definitive ruling from the judge along the lines sought by Google (of course, this might come on appeal, where the court is free to reshape its earlier precedents in light of modern-day realities in the software world).

<comment><USER3> This is somewhat off topic, but why does the same lawyer show up so often?

David Boies has argued in Bush v Gore, defended Napster, worked for SCO in SCO v Linux, argued the recent California gay marriage law, was the council for US team in the recent America's cup case, and now he's Oracle's lawyer here (at least I see the last connection).

I can't discern a pattern to those cases other than their high profile nature. Wouldn't it make more sense to hire someone that is an expert in computer IP law for SCO, Oracle, Napster type cases, a constitutional lawyer for the Gay marriage and Gore v Bush type cases, etc. How can one guy be the go-to for so many high profile cases?

<comment><USER4> He seems to lose a lot too.

<comment><USER5> You bring out the best person for the toughest jobs, not the easy ones.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Article appears to be a mis-statment of the actual quote (from <http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120515120106322>)

      > Judge: We heard the testimony of Mr. Bloch. I couldn't
      > have told you the first thing about Java before this
      > problem. I have done, and still do, a significant amount
      > of programming in other languages. I've written blocks of
      > code like rangeCheck a hundred times before. I could do
      > it, you could do it. The idea that someone would copy that
      > when they could do it themselves just as fast, it was an
      > accident. There's no way you could say that was speeding
      > them along to the marketplace. You're one of the best
      > lawyers in America, how could you even make that kind of
      > argument?

It sounds like the judge is saying that he has written code before, just not in Java. Presumably this was some time ago, before he decided to become a judge.

<comment><USER7> So he was playing dumb earlier for the benefit of the jury - to make the advocates spell out their case clearly. This is what he was responding to:

      > This copying allowed them to use fewer resources and accelerate that. Suppose they
      > accelerated it two days. They're making $3 million a day now [...] If you just get
      > one or two days' acceleration, that's $6 million

This is a good point; it's common to underestimate how long it takes to code something. And time to market is often strategically crucial - that is, productivity isn't just efficient, but can be the difference between success and failure. rangeCheck is trivial; but writing, testing, debugging, naming and documenting take time. A trivial typo bug in rangeCheck can cost a disproportionate amount of time - and it's amplified here, when rangeCheck was used to test other code. (Who shall unit test the unit tests?)

To answer Groklaw's final question as to why Alsup couldn't decide on API copyrightability yet, he clearly said he needed to do a lot of reading. He not only has to decide according to law, he is in effect creating law, since this specific issue hasn't been decided earlier. His ruling has wider significance than just this particular case. Future potential litigants will read his ruling, and will avoid court if it's clear who would win. Although he is only one judge and so his precedent won't be binding on a full bench/higher court, those judges would also carefully read his judgment. He'd better get it right, not only in the result, but in the reasoning, and integrating it with related cases.

It's great that Groklaw is making these transcripts - because the court is a public institution, I think the official transcripts should be available (and why not video too? The emphasis in oral argument sometimes isn't captured in a transcript.)

<comment><USER8> While the basic line of reasoning is valid, it is absurd in the context of the rangeCheck function.

There might be a nine line function that takes a day or two to get right, but for even a bad programmer, rangeCheck would take a few minutes. With thorough tests, maybe ten minutes. I've barely touched Java code in over a decade, but I could write that function -- with tests -- in less than two minutes.

RangeCheck is the kind of function you'd get on a quiz in your first week of your first CS class in college.

<comment><USER9> You could not type that function and tests 2 minutes.

<comment><USER10> Working on it myself, after having read what the code does and being committed to re-implementing it myself, it took me 3.5 minutes and there were 2 bugs. (I needed to look at the original code again to determine that to == length and to == from were both allowed -- those were the bugs.)

A set of tests took me about 6 minutes.

<comment><USER7> Did you include the time it took to read what was needed, including the different exceptions? I would estimate, if one wasn't fresh and up for a challenge, 15 minutes (against your approx 10 minutes). And given that a day of programming isn't pure programming, I'd double it to 30 minutes. It _feels_ way too long, but it's a realistic, day-in-day-out estimation.

Programming takes time... which is why it's so powerful if you can reuse code (as Bloch did), and even better if you can find a way to reduce the code needed, or best, to avoid needing any code.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> What's more interesting is Oracle's lawyer's "rebuttal" to Alsup (according to Groklaw):

      > I'm not an expert on Java -- this is my second case on Java, but I'm not an
      > expert, and I probably couldn't program [rangeCheck] in six months.

I don't know, how can anyone be taken seriously after something like that? He's clearly either stupid or willfully ignorant if he thinks he (a no doubt well-educated and intelligent man) couldn't learn to program rangeCheck in six months.

Yes, I know, of _course_ his defence against this charge will be "I can't be expected to know industry-specific things like this," but then why on Earth are you allowed to regulate and prosecute it?

<comment><USER12> Perhaps you classify this as willfully ignorant, but I suspect he has no idea what it is like to program. He also probably assumes that if they're litigating it, it must be important or hard to do. With mental barriers like that, I could see him believing he couldn't do it in six months. But, again, you may consider that the same as willful ignorance.

<comment><USER13> It's almost certainly willful ignorance. Boies is a very talented litigator and one important skill for a litigator is quickly achieving a fluency in the subject matter of the litigation. Boies has done quite a bit of software work, so he almost certainly gets the gist of what it is like to program.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> His middle name is Haskell. What did you expect? <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Haskell_Alsup>

</comment><comment><USER15> What a stud, and what a perfect rebuttal to the deeply flawed "Please don't learn to code". Willful ignorance is never a good solution. It's due in large part to the how fashionable it is to be "dumb", and "non-techy", and "etc" that our public policy w/ respect to science and technology is such a junk show. The only way out of the current patent mess and into some semblance of a functioning society which can actually enjoy the fruits of technology and invention is people like this Judge who have "learned to code".

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> The post on Groklaw he is referring to. Very fun read:

<http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120515120106322>

(the quoted part is on update 5)

</comment><comment><USER16> Judge Alsup didn't learn to code during the trial - he already coded before it! It's just that he learned about Java during the trial.

\---

Judge Alsup: "I couldn't have told you the first thing about Java before this problem. _I have done, and still do, a significant amount of programming in other languages._ I've written blocks of code like rangeCheck a hundred times before."

\---

</comment><comment><USER17> On a slightly different note (from that same Groklaw article), I like Oracle's defense against Google's claim that they didn't have access to the patents in question:

"Access? Google organizes the world's information! Of course they had access to the patents."

<comment><USER18> Also, Google Patent Search. <http://www.google.com/patents>

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Leads me to believe that "all patent office employees should learn to code."

(Yes, I know this technically about copyright, but the principle still applies.)

<comment><USER9> Most recent patent officers in the computing area are programmers.

<comment><USER20> Since you've been downvoted (not by me), I'll ask for a citation, for interest and so that you can redeem your post.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I just wish Florian Mueller would learn how to code. :)

</comment><comment><USER13> It's actually a little dangerous for the Judge to be introducing his personal experience like this. The Judge cannot serve as a witness, and editorializing in a way that amounts to the presentation of expert testimony can be grounds for reversal.

<comment> jim-greer The jury was not present for this exchange, since it was a motion. I think reduces the danger considerably, but I'm not a lawyer.

<comment><USER13> Ah, didn't catch that part. Yes it does.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Is there anyway to view this without being forced into creating a google+ account?

edit: I can see it when browsing from my pc, on mobile I get redirected to a G+ signup form.

<comment><USER6> You don't have to create a google+ account to read it. I just tested in a logged-out browser, and it worked fine.

<comment><USER22> Thanks, the signup redirect appears to be mobile only.

<comment><USER23> Yup, same here, mobile devices must go through a g+ signup to get to the content. This aggressive pushing of g+ is why i won't use it, and nobody else should either.

<comment><USER24> Curious. On my Android phone I was able to see the post.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> All due respect, but I think the Judge is missing the point here. Its kind of like saying "I can carve a turkey, therefore any high-schooler could do open- heart surgery". Sure, its easy to check whether an integer is in a range. But THEN what do you do? Return 0? Throw an exception? How does the result of this little function combine with thousands of others to form a coherent and productive API? Of course, as system architects, we can decompose the large, complex problem into smaller problems, and repeat the process until the sub- tasks are trivial. But then for the Judge to look at one of the results of this process and declare the whole thing trivial is really a monumental misunderstanding of what goes into creating a world-class API.

</comment><comment><USER26> Can someone point me to the source, and context, of what Judge Alsup said that led to this post?

<comment><USER27> <http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120515120106322>

</comment></comment><comment> throwaway63-90 Alsup: "How could you even make that argument?"

Oracle: "Because Oracle is paying me to make losing arguments?

Because I can't code, and I don't need to? I get paid to file lawsuits.

Judge Alsup, I'm just a caveman lawyer..."

</comment><comment><USER28> It's good they got a judge who knows a little about programming :D As far as the case in general, I think it's quite interesting, but I personally feel Oracle has somewhat of a case, but to what extent, I don't know.

<comment><USER29> Another important question apart from whether Oracle has a case, is whether Oracle _should_ have a case when the results of that case are taken in the context of the entire software industry. In other words, is the law giving Oracle a valid claim against Google worth the potential damage caused to software development outside of Oracle and Google?

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Having followed this case for some time now, I almost get the feeling that the judge is taking sides.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm definitely cheering on Google and find Oracle's case despicable and absurd, but still.

<comment><USER31> Judges always take sides - they are humans after all. Their job is it to ignore that and let "justicia" decide. Given how ridiculous Oracle's claims are, he has to look after it that ridicule does not take over and damages the trial.. I don't think he really sides with Google, he has probably just adopted his programmer's world view in this case, and sees how ridiculous the claims really are. In many other tech cases (ahem, copyright infringement) judges are not as competent and can't imagine the real implications of their rulings.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Very curious to what kind of code he has written: was it a part of his judicial duties, on his own?

</comment><comment><USER33> Judge Alsup for Supreme Court Justice!!!

</comment><comment><USER34> I posted a comment on a legal article, and I have now learnt to be a lawyer! Tomorrow I'll be a judge!

</comment><comment><USER35> _Begins Slow Clap_

<comment><USER35> Awe come on. 4 down votes?!

Fine....</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Need help with job offer negotiation - <AUTHOR> Background: I'm about to receive an offer for a position originally posted two levels above my current position.  I passed the technical interviews with essentially no missed questions.  But because the job description states 10 years of experience, whereas I have 8, the HR is preparing me an offer at one level below (but still an equivalent promotion for me).
Secondly, I graduated during the last recession, so my salary history is low.  Their HR has heavily indicated that they base offers on prior salary history, with a 10-15% max bump.  Glassdoor has base salary at 30% higher than mine, same company and title, but HR denies that it is accurate.
Due to circumstances, 10-15% may not bring much net savings increase for me.  Presumably the job is of higher responsibility and workload, so only 30% becomes meaningful to me.
Questions:
1. How should I feel about being brought in one level lower strictly because of years of experience on paper?  If there were doubts about my ability, they certainly didn't test harder questions during the interview.
2. How do I get HR to match what is on Glassdoor?  I might get another offer soon, but HR indicated they want a prompt response.  I doubt my company would move fast enough with a counteroffer too (VP is on vacation).  On the other hand, I don't think they have another candidate ready, and they moved very quickly with me.
Thanks HN! <comment><USER2> If you haven't already, read this article by our own "patio11": [http://www.kalzumeus.com/2012/01/23/salary- negotiation/](http://www.kalzumeus.com/2012/01/23/salary-negotiation/)

Like others said, be nice but firm. Once during an interview, I was told that my desired salary range was above the top of the band for that job. I said with a big smile: "That's not my problem!" The interviewer said "You're right!"

<comment><USER3> Another good comeback is "I guess that puts your band below my desired salary, then." and then _say nothing else_.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> How bad do you want this job? If not bad enough, say this to the HR:

"I appreciate the offer but I strongly believe that my market value should get me $desired and if you cannot match that, I will not be able to move forward."

Hit send, close tab and go away from your emails for a while. If they truly value your skills since they already interviewed you, you will get the deal. If not, hey you didnt lose anything

This has worked for me many times.

<comment><USER5> Thanks. I've got some unique circumstances that do let me walk away, and I'm only asking for parity within the company.

<comment><USER6> There is far more demand than supply for developers right now. If there are other equivalent employers available to you, you don't have to do anything other than politely insist on market rate, and be fully prepared to walk away if they won't meet that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The biggest leverage you can have in any negotiation is a willingness to walk away. If you negotiate from that perspective, you'll always be in a position of strength.

Decide if you are willing to walk away. If you passed the interviews with no missed questions and the company has already invested a lot of time into you, it would be idiotic of them to pass on you for a measly extra 15%. Think about it. They'd have to spend hours/days/weeks sourcing more candidates, who then would drop off at various stages of the interview funnel. This process is costly, wasting the time of recruiters, HR people, engineers, management etc etc.

There is a real dollar value on that time. On top of that, costs like healthcare and on-boarding you into the team would cost tens of thousands. 15% is nothing compared to the total cost of hiring and ramping up an employee - especially relative to the value that you would produce (which is presumably a multiple of your salary).

So decide if you're willing to walk away, decide what compensation you want, and be firm yet reasonable/friendly. If they don't budge, then simply walk away and I bet they will scramble to find a way to keep you. On the off chance that they don't, then don't feel bad; you did your best and you probably don't want to work somewhere that underpays you relative to the market anyway.

</comment><comment><USER8> Being an HR professional I would never ask for pay stubs to confirm someone's wages. What you are being paid is really non of there business. I always ensure that our Total compensation model is comparable to the industry and will work with the candidate to get them something we both can agree on.

I honestly wouldn't want to work for a company like that.

Also if your looking at even considering a counteroffer form your current employer don't!!! If they value you as an employee they should not wait for you to resign to counter with more money.

<comment><USER5> This was a job with the state, so I thought the rules were rigid and payscales well defined. They ended up offering slightly above what I asked, which I should have realized that it meant they would have offered even more.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Please tell me you didn't share your previous salary with HR :)

Also 8 vs 10 years of experience is not a significant difference so that HR can BS you.

They are moving quick on you because you're a solid candidate, and they are trying to close quick.

Don't let HR BS you, once you get an offer, counter them at 10-20% of where you want to be, or simply give them a range that you feel comfortable with.

You are the scarce resource, and at an advantage. They've already budgeted for the position at 2 levels above yours, so they have the money. No reason you shouldn't be able to get it.

Be firm, don't accept their lowball.

<comment><USER10> Just wondering, how would you respond when being asked about your previous salary? I'm asking because I'm currently in negotiation with some companies, and being asked for your previous salary seems to be common practice.

<comment><USER6> I was pushed hard on this last time I was interviewing. We danced around a bit, with them requesting and me declining, until they said they must have my previous salary because it is their policy. So I responded that it was my policy not to disclose my salary. They couldn't argue with that, and I got the offer I was looking for (which I ended up turning down anyway, but that isn't the point.) This is in the UK, but I don't see why it wouldn't apply anywhere.

<comment><USER10> Thank you for your insight.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> brown-dragon I found this advice on negotiating to be most helpful:

1\. Always stay polite. Getting emotional works against you in most cases.

2\. Don't give ultimatums. Saying "I want this and this" is fine - don't add "or else...".

3\. In your current situation, you have lost some negotiating leverage (your previous salary, your experience) but it's not unsalvageable. Simply bring them up and counter them yourself:

* Your previous salary is not relevant - only what you want to accept now. HR has a desire to lowball you so you should counter with a higher-than-market request.

* Your experience is _not_ an issue. If they want you for the job then you are qualified for the salary that job entails.

4\. Use the fact that you are _already_ giving them something by accepting an offer _one level below_! Make this a big deal and ask for compensation for doing a higher level job.

5\. Pick a price that is 10% above market value and have a list of reasons you want it (new house, car, ...). Do not be afraid to stick to your ask. After all, they need you to do the job just as much as you need their job.

6\. When picking a number do not pick a round number (numbers like 30% sound like you have not given it much thought. Numbers like 101,300/\- sound like you have figured out your finances and have a good reason for your ask).

7\. Be patient and remember you _both_ want something out of this.

Good luck!

Edit: The Lightning Guide to Software Resumes has a short section on negotiating that is a good summary. A better book is "Never split the difference" by Chris Voss which is, I think, the best book on the subject.

</comment><comment><USER11> If it's in the bay area I'd say just give your number, they'll do something. An offer is an offer... It's like buying a car, they give their offer and you give yours until it works out. I've done it so many times.

Though, the base salary is the hardest thing to negotiate. A lot of companies won't change that number no matter how good you are, because they try to maintain their employees within the same bracket and avoid any frictions between people. Simply by asking I got double sign-on, more RSU's, etc. But from experience if it's not a google or one of the big 5, then they won't bump up the base salary. So you should target sign-on and RSU's/stock/options.

</comment><comment><USER12> I'd recommend being very polite, but direct with the recruiter.

"I appreciate your generous offer and would love to join the team! The role is exciting and the team is fantastic. The current offer feels like it comes in a bit under market both in terms of title and compensation.

I am ready to accept an offer at the initial level at a starting salary of <$$$$>. I totally understand if this doesn't work for the broader team, but I want to make sure our partnership starts off in alignment to ensure a mutually beneficial long-term relationship."

Written on my mobile, so it's a VERY rough draft, but something like that.

Don't let people under pay you, but also be realistic w/ your talent level.

</comment><comment><USER5> Update: I just sent my proposal in, with salary and market calculations along with a request to keep the higher title.

Ironically, they gave me their 10-15% formula as a lowball tactic, but once I did the calculations this way it came out slightly higher than market.

This was because of differences in benefits and net savings from cost of living.

I guess the question is now, how can I ask for higher than market? I'm not sure if I can. I may be a rare candidate that fit all their checkboxes and they need to move quickly, but this is a good step for me too.

<comment><USER4> I don't mean this in a disrespectful way but I think you are too hung up on market vs non-market. Just decide what is a good number for you to quit your current job and ask for that . If you get it, take it. If not, move on. Don't make it too difficult for you.

<comment><USER5> You are right, and I felt much better after calculating the exact number I needed and left it with them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> > 1\. How should I feel about being brought in one level lower strictly > because of years of experience on paper? If there were doubts about my > ability, they certainly didn't test harder questions during the interview.

Personally, I would not have felt too great about this. Are you really excited about this new job or are you switching just for the raise? The fact that they even have a hierarchy that's 3 level deep, counted in number of years and all that _after_ a supposedly 8 year cut off just doesn't seem right. I think the HR is just trying to get you for the lowest offer they think you will find acceptable, not for what they think you ought to deserve.

About the response time don't sweat it. If they really want you, they'll be willing to hash out the details. Hiring for a single position can take 3 months or more, it's a lot of wasted effort if a company gets to the point of making an offer and having candidates decline.

Now, as far as _how_ you should negotiate is concerned, I'm sorry, I don't think there is a one-size-fits-all solution to that.

Hope this was helpful.

<comment><USER5> Thanks, I'm okay with a hierarchy... it's pretty standard for engineers isn't it? The number of years is a bit old school, true.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> If I may, and this is a general consideration, not necessarily applying to this specific case, there is often a "mislabeling" of seniority as "experience".

They are not the same thing.

Now explaining that to a HR might be an issue, but while it is clear that two years are different from ten, eight years in a given role/position in a "dynamic" firm - possibly a small one where you have to deal with a multitude of different problems - might be equivalent (or at least it is equivalent in my mind) to fifteen or more years in a big firm/highly structured multinational where the same role/position revolves around doing only what is on the paper.

</comment><comment><USER15> Regarding years of experience this quote from Code Complete book could be useful "If you have not learned the language/framework in 1-2 years, more years won't help you" :)

</comment><comment><USER16> Go up. If they are offering under market then consider pushing for higher than your baseline/benchmark. You only get one chance to start a new job and you don't want to be pissed off when you do. Tell them that anything less than X will be demotivational. If they are being unreasonable then so should you. And just be hardline about the level.

</comment><comment><USER17> I think it's important to feel good about your compensation when starting a new job. You don't want it hanging around in the back of your mind. It might eat you up mentally.

I would ask for fair market value in order to avoid this possibility.

</comment><comment><USER18> The other thing to consider... don't only negotiate for money part of the salary. Think of vacation time, and other perks as well.

<comment><USER5> Thanks, I might try to get the title back after the final number is done.

<comment><USER12> Don't address one item and then move to another. Be upfront about all of your concerns at once. If I moved up on salary and then had a prospect re-counter on title, I'd pull the offer.

<comment><USER5> Thanks for your advice. I sent my concerns before receiving an offer letter now. Before I was hoping to get a first number from them, but it would definitely cause them more bureaucratic resistance to change offers.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Toilet paper orientation - <AUTHOR> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toilet_paper_orientation

<comment><USER2> First world problem. Just appreciate the fact that there IS toilet paper.</comment>


New Species May Evolve from Cancers - <AUTHOR> https://www.quantamagazine.org/can-new-species-evolve-from-cancers-maybe-heres-how-20190819/ <comment><USER3> For the biologists out there: what parts of this theory are limited by actual phenomena? What parts just push the bounds of a mental model used by scientists to help understand biology? As a non-biologist, it's sometimes hard to know the difference.

Also, what are the arguments for not saying transmissible cancers are parasites?

<comment><USER4> It's helpful to see how there are fundamental precedents for externally mediated genomic change, which may then give rise to phenotypic ("what we see") or genomic ("the source code of what we see") differences:

Transposons or "jumping genes" [1] are segments of DNA code which can move around within a genome by themselves (autonomously).

Presumably though, over time, enough of these moving in the right place - <USER2> combination with some other mutation - might confer some benefit that leads to speciation [2].

edit: length / clarity

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

[2] - [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wandering-fly- gen...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wandering-fly-gene-suppor/)

<comment><USER5> DNA is nothing like source code. Why do people keep repeating this analogy.

At any rate, cell differentiation/compartmentation _within_ a tumor has been observed, so things do get blurry indeed. It's also worth noting that there isn't a single definition of 'species' and it's all just semantics that changes depending on your field. (The traditional 'inter-fertile over two generations' you learn in high school is helpful but doesn't stand up to many observations.) Ultimately a species is what biologists say is a species.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm not sure what triggered the association for me, but it reminded me of Peter Watts' _The Things_.

[http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/watts_01_10/](http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/watts_01_10/)

<comment><USER7> I remember in that short story The Thing begins to call _humans_ "living cancer" because of how specialized human cells were to the point that cells in certain structures like the brain wouldn't be able to support themselves on their own.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Strange question, but at some point, could the self-sustaining cancer cells taken from Henrietta Lacks be considered a separate species?

<comment><USER9> I think they need a special environment?

<comment><USER8> Technically, all life does.

According to Wikipedia, the cells have a tendency to contaminate pretty much any suitable environment around and proliferate easily. Seems almost more like a fungal or bacterial growth than what we'd typically consider cancer.

<comment><USER10> Does it still contain all the information that makes Henrietta Henrietta? like face structure, hair colour etc?

<comment><USER11> Probably, but may have significantly mutated all over the place, corrupting that information. Additionally there are more stable chromosomes than in a normal human. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeLa#Chromosome_number](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeLa#Chromosome_number)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > _Some species also have complex features, such as cells organized into > structures resembling muscles for movement, for example. She just doesn't > find it plausible that such complexity arose from a cancer._

Wouldn't that (theoretically) be be easier for cancer cells? The article doesn't state if these muscles came from "new" genes that were evolved for this or if they reactivated pre-existing genes from more complex ancestors, but the latter seems like a significantly smaller evolutionary leap than the former, and cancer cells would be in the unique position to be able to do that.

</comment><comment><USER13> I had seen a lot of Myxozoa previously. I remember being thrilled when the origin of Myxosporeans were disclosed. It was a "in your face" moment. The cnidarian traits were clearly there for anybody to see it.

But I agree that many have just too complex life cycles to be a cancer. The idea of a microbe using a TASER like weapon is also really bizarre if we think about it. They are also too numerous to appear just by chance (again and again), and then evolve to attack seaworms, and later evolve again to invade fishe's hearts, muscles, gallbladders, gills... too much stable complexity for a cancer.

</comment><comment><USER14> I know a few people that would argue that HeLa cells night as well be their own separate species after dealing with cell line contamination and all by HeLa cells, it's more in a joking sense afaik but there might be something to treating some of these cancer cell lineages as new species

</comment><comment><USER15> I seem to remember there being an X-Files episode that presented this theory.

</comment><comment><USER16> So they may not as well? Is this news?

</comment><comment><USER17> Explains why that red lump on my back asked to borrow some cash.

</comment><comment><USER18> Reminds me of Tasmanian devil with the transmissible face cancer

<comment><USER19> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil_facial_tumor_disease](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil_facial_tumor_disease)

Or CTVT

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

Parasitic transmissible cancers are very rare, because they generally lack the ability to adapt genetically, and get wiped out after a few thousand years, when all their accumulated mutations start to impact their survivability.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Isnt this a movie ?</comment>


Wikipedia and Inherent Open Source Bias - <AUTHOR> http://contentini.com/wikipedia-and-inherent-open-source-bias/ <comment><USER2> I tried adding my zombie game Dead By Zombie to Wikipedia in a list of, oh, zombie games, but it was deleted for not being notable. I thought that many of the games that were listed were, well, not notable and insignificant. I also dug around and learned that the person who single-handedly rejected my game was a teenager. From that experience and reading about other folks experiences I concluded that it was futile unless I wanted to game their system.

</comment><comment><USER3> It's true that wikipedia is imperfect. One of the ways in which wikipedia is imperfect is inconsistent treatment of subjects whose notability is borderline. Luckily this doesn't impact too badly on the usability of the encyclopaedia for most people since the borderline-notable articles are the ones that are least read.

The article suggests that this should be fixed by making wikipedia easier to edit, allowing people who can't quite grok the complexities of the existing interface or difficult guidelines like "Verifiability" to make their own entries. I am extremely unconvinced that this would raise the overall quality of wikipedia.

Overall I think there are two schools of thought about wikipedia. I join the school of thought which thinks it's like a dog walking on its hind legs: instead of complaining that it's doesn't work perfectly we should be amazed that it's done at all. This guy seems to be in the school of thought that thinks the dog might walk a lot further if we gave it shoes.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's quite the metaphor you've got going on there...

Not at all: what I'm saying is that it would be better if it had a more diverse, representative audience contributing to it. That just makes sense. Why wouldn't you want older, more experienced people contributing to an encyclopedia? Or women!??

I agree that given the current complexities of the system, a wider audience would currently not be able to easily improve the quality - there would be plenty of mistakes. But this is the fundamental problem, and some would say responsibility, that Wikipedia now faces.

<comment><USER4> I'm intrigued by criticisms of Wikipedia, because most of them are terrible. Often poorly constructed, illogical or just plain demented. This one however is a genuine problem. I first read about it on Wikipedia a few years back:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias>

 _The origins of Wikipedia's bias

The average Wikipedian on the English Wikipedia is (1) a man, (2) technically inclined, (3) formally educated, (4) an English speaker (native or non- native), (5) white, (6) aged 15–49, (7) from a majority-Christian country, (8) from a developed nation, (9) from the Northern Hemisphere, and (10) likely employed as a white-collar worker or enrolled as a student rather than employed as a labourer.[1]_

They've got various projects to counter this imbalance and it all seems worthwile. I'm glad to see coverage of things like the Second Congo War (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Congo_War>) which were mere stubs when I first looked at them have been thouroughly fleshed out.

I will say though, that no matter how many non-white, blue-collar, elderly woman from developing nations sign up for Wikipedia I doubt many will be interested in baby-sitting a list of Content Management Systems.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think the open source projects just have more people who would take notice and revert the vandalism of the filthy deletionists.

<comment><AUTHOR> Not in this case: both open source and proprietary listings tend to notice + argue their cases, if they're flagged for deletion. It just seems that proprietary systems get a harder deal of it.

For example, check out the history of the PivotX listing mentioned in the article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PivotX&action=...](http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PivotX&action=history) \- although it was flagged as 'non notable', it got away with staying on the list just by deleting the 'spam' flag and saying 'but we're not a blatant advert' (but not dealing with the notability argument at all). After that, nothing has been said.

Compare that with the attention that Ektron (a well known proprietary system) received: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ektron)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Wikipedia is rapidly becoming irrelevant - because of the deletionists. Looking on Wikipeidia is by definition looking for little-known or obscure facts. These are exactly what get deleted. It will soon be a shrine to the obvious.

</comment><comment><USER7> I have to disagree with the author's premise. Just because the majority of Wikipedia editor's are male, this doesn't inherently mean the system will be biased.

The writer points out that many editors are not university educated like this means that their edits are of less worth than those with a degree. That's laughable.

To summarize: more FUD aimed at Wikipedia.</comment>


Apple Submits New Spec for Live Streaming to IETF - <AUTHOR> http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/apple_submits_new_spec_for_live_streaming_to_ietf.php

<comment><USER2> This looks less like something specific to the iPhone and more like Apple finally fixing an embarrassing issue with QuickTime. QT tried to support streaming media in the same manner as RealMedia and NetShow (now part of Windows Media), but it never got the same degree of performance as the other two. (Which is really a condemnation, since their competitors haven't done a real good job either! It left Adobe/Macromedia a wide opening for Flash to get through!) Apple used to use QT streaming as a showcase for showing Stevenotes and other live events as well as demonstrating their once commitment to open source by making versions of the streaming server available for other OS platforms.

It may be making purses out of sow's ears at this point... As impressive as QT once was, it really is a creature of the CD-ROM multimedia era, and it really shows if you've ever worked with the APIs like I have. (There were design considerations for driving laser disc players via HyperCard in it's original specs!)</comment>


Ask HN:Which websites and magzines you follow and read? - <AUTHOR>

For programming, hacking and technology news, articles and events. <comment><USER2> <http://thechangelog.com/>

<http://slashdot.org/>

<http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/>

</comment><comment><USER3> HN for programming and hacking.

For tech and science: <http://technologyreview.com> <http://sciencemag.org>

</comment><comment><USER4> I've been alpha-testing newspaper23.com -- more information, less noise.</comment>


Show HN: React-Schemaorg: Strongly-Typed Schema.org JSON-LD for React - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/google/react-schemaorg <comment><AUTHOR> I have a slightly longer post describing this work and the reasoning behind it on dev.to[1].

        [1]: https://dev.to/eyassh/react-schemaorg-strongly-typed-schemaorg-json-ld-for-react-4lhd

<comment><USER2> [https://dev.to/eyassh/react-schemaorg-strongly-typed- schemao...](https://dev.to/eyassh/react-schemaorg-strongly-typed-schemaorg- json-ld-for-react-4lhd)

Is there a good way to generate JSONschema and thus forms from schema.org RDFS classes and (nested, repeatable) properties?

<comment><AUTHOR> By JSONschema do you mean [this standard]([https://json- schema.org/](https://json-schema.org/))? I don't know of a tool that does that yet, the JSON Schema is general enough with allOf/anyOf that it should express schema.org schema as well.

Depends on the purpose here. With this, my goal was to speed up the Write- Update-Debug development loop. Depends on the use case, simply using Google's Structured Data Testing Tool [1] might be a better way to verify schema than JSON-schema?

      [1]: https://search.google.com/structured-data/testing-tool

<comment><USER2> There are a number of tools for generating forms and requisite client and serverside data validations from JSONschema; but I'm not aware of any for RDFS (and thus the schema.org schema [1]). A different use case, for certain.

[https://schema.org/docs/developers.html#defs](https://schema.org/docs/developers.html#defs)

<comment><AUTHOR> Definitely a cool area for exploration. I'm not aware of JSON Schema generators from RDFS either.

It should be possible to model the basics (nested structure, repeated structure, defining the "domain" and "range" of a value).

Schema.org definitions however have no conception of "required" values[ _], however, so some of the cool form validation we see in some of these tools might not apply here.

      [*] _Consumers_ of Schema.org JSON-LD or microdata, however, might define their own data requirements. E.g. Google has some concept of required fields, which you can see when using the Structured Data Testing Tool.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Announcing the Square CTF - <AUTHOR> https://squarectf.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> Square is running a CTF. You can signup on [https://squarectf.com/](https://squarectf.com/) and the puzzles will be released on Wednesday (Oct 4th). You'll have until Friday of the following week to solve puzzles if you want to compete for the prizes (otherwise you can solve them at your own pace).

The challenges are going to be fun and you'll learn a thing or two along the way!

Our target audience is people who have never or seldom participated in a CTF before and who have minimal security background. So for example, we posted a tips & resources page.

We recommend you work as a team (3-5 people should be ideal) and we can help pair people up if needed.

Happy to answer questions.</comment>


Grokking V8 closures (2012) - <AUTHOR> http://mrale.ph/blog/2012/09/23/grokking-v8-closures-for-fun.html <comment><USER2> Now I really wonder what the state of v8 internals is today. Anyone have more up-to-date information?

<comment><USER3> This is still true and unlikely to change in the observable future.

There is only one update: inlining with a change of context should now be supported on all architectures. I will update the post.</comment></comment>


Re: License for Google's patent - <AUTHOR> http://firstname.lastname@example.com%3E

<comment><USER2> For some reason this strikes me as really weird.

We should be _happy_ that google grants a license for something they shouldn't have had a patent on in the first place?

Continued generosity indeed.

<comment><USER3> Didn't Google actually introduce mapreduce into the mainstream and thus Hadoop is just an open-source clone of Google's system ?

Given that patents are a way of live in the US, why wouldn't Google patent this ? Would you prefer someone else instead ?

On a related note -- how many patents does the Apache Foundation own ?

<comment><USER2> Mapping and reducing have been part and parcel of programming for the longest time. Packaging the concept in a framework and patenting it should not have been possible.

<comment><USER4> It's not like they just patented the method signatures map(sequence) and reduce(sequence) -- there's a global-scale distributed filesystem, the method of dispatching tasks so they have high odds of node-locality or rack-locality to the data they're operating over, all sorts of redundancy and failover necessary to run clusters where machines fail every minute by virtue of having so many of them..

I mean I'm as against software patents as the next guy but this isn't the most trivial one I've seen. Glad they licensed it to ASF.

<comment><USER2> In their original map reduce documentation they explicitly state they were inspired by programming languages containing map/reduce functionality.

Adding all kinds of bells and whistles to it does not make it 'novel'.

Redundancy, failover, node locality and rack locality have all been done many times over in the past, maybe not in that context but that is just a combining of concepts.

To be awarded a patent you should at least do something original.

<comment><USER5> If someone builds a better mousetrap, it's patentable. And it's still a mousetrap. Combining a bunch of existing concepts in a new way is the basis for the patent system. It's the only way to progress: iteration.

Putting that aside, what Google did with MapReduce _was_ original. There are a number of challenges that each of the individual concepts never had to overcome, which required new, unique concepts to be introduced to make the system work.

<comment><USER2> > If someone builds a better mousetrap, it's patentable.

Only if the mechanism is novel. And that's the problem here, the mechanism is identical, just larger.

Running map/reduce on an array or on a petabyte data set does not change the fundamental method at all. There are just countless implementation details to be taken care of, but any competent programmer could extend the original concept of map/reduce to that level.

<comment><USER5> _Running map/reduce on an array or on a petabyte data set does not change the fundamental method at all._

It very much changes the fundamental method. It takes something that was once impossible given all existing techniques and technologies, and makes it possible. The new techniques and technologies are at the core of the patent.

 _any competent programmer could extend the original concept of map/reduce to that level._

Patently false. At the very least, you need a decent sized team of very competent programmers, DBAs, and system administrators to architect and build the system, and another programming test team to ensure that it is reliable. And then you'd only have a working prototype. This isn't nearly as trivial as you make it out to be. Hadoop is evidence of that, it's going on 4 years and four thousand changesets, with changes by over 50 people from Apache, Yahoo! and the general public. Its source directory (for only the common project, not including the HDFS) clocks in at 328 KLOC.

MapReduce wasn't some little side project hack-job.

But then again, you could probably code up Stack Overflow in a weekend, couldn't you?

<comment><USER2> > But then again, you could probably code up Stack Overflow in a weekend, > couldn't you?

Thanks for playing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> What does that mail really mean? Does the patent grant extend to end users of Hadoop, or just the Apache foundation? What about users who patch their Hadoop? Is it revocable?

I'm sure there is good will here, but the system is disgusting.

<comment><USER7> Google granted the license under the Apache License terms, and through distribution of Hadoop these extend to the end users of Hadoop under the very same Apache license. (AFAIUI, IANAL)</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What are some good podcasts? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> No such thing as a fish

ITunes link: [https://itunes.apple.com/de/podcast/no-such-thing-as-a- fish/...](https://itunes.apple.com/de/podcast/no-such-thing-as-a- fish/id840986946?l=en&mt=2)

Audioboom link: [https://audioboom.com/channel/nosuchthingasafish](https://audioboom.com/channel/nosuchthingasafish)

</comment><comment><USER3> Not exactly podcasts, but if you're interested in history, then I highly recommend Will Durant's audiobooks on audible. There's hours upon hours of great material. I've also been listening to a bit of Pema Chodron lectures. And also, if you're not already initiated, I suggest Terence McKenna and Robert Anton Wilson's stuff from back in the day.

</comment><comment><USER4> Totally biased and shameless plug [https://bitsvsbytes.com](https://bitsvsbytes.com)

</comment><comment><USER5> [https://fqxi.org/community/podcast](https://fqxi.org/community/podcast)

</comment><comment><USER6> I generally enjoy podcasts that point me elsewhere. So:

EconTalk is an educated economics podcast from a right/libertarian-ish perspective, which I do not share.

[http://www.econtalk.org/](http://www.econtalk.org/)

TWiM (This Week in Microbiology) is simply great even if you are not a microbiologist, and I'm not.

[http://www.microbe.tv/twim/](http://www.microbe.tv/twim/)

The Art of Wrestling is also excellent, and to be clear, I do not like or watch wrestling.

[http://coltcabana.com/](http://coltcabana.com/)

</comment><comment><USER7> Jocko podcast</comment>


Ask News.YC: What titles are you using in your startup? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> (Sorry about the weird characters..trying again)

Suggest you remove "CEO" from your title.

Having that word in your title has one, and only one, positive effect – your co founders are agreeing that you are the leader - and that increases your team's efficiency in the race to develop your prototype.

But the negatives are far too many.

When investors think of the word "CEO", what typically comes to their mind is a person experienced in taking companies from the startup stage to the exit stage. Furthermore, a having a CEO position filled indicates to them that a significant funding round is in place.

If you are thinking that by giving yourself that title today you are positioning yourself for being the CEO post-funding, that is a false assumption. What is more likely is that at some stage in the company's evolution, an outsider will be better suited to take the company to the next level.

Of course, there are many, many exceptions such as Dell, Bezos, etc. But rather than claim the CEO title at the onset, and subject yourself and future CEO candidates to unnecessary discomfort, ("we are seeking a CEO" versus "we are seeking to replace our CEO"), let your funding stockholders make that decision.

What's most important is that your baby gets funded avoid all barriers to that critical event.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah this was on my mind as well. Obviously thinking pretty far down the road but I guess that's the fun of it.

So in that case what do you think of "President" or "Supreme Allied Commander"? Pros and cons I guess.

<comment><USER2> "President" is technically correct if you have a corporation, since every corporation must have a President and a Secretary (one person can be both). Your other choice may seem nice, but it will lead to more questions. Your best bet is to keep it simple for now and go with "Co-founder". As of right now, it's all noise anyway...what matters is the title given to your product by your users :-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> Suggest you remove "CEO" from your title.

Having that word in your title has one, and only one, positive effect – your co founders are agreeing that you are the leader - and that increases your team's efficiency in the race to develop your prototype.

But the negatives are far too many.

When investors think of the word "CEO", what typically comes to their mind is a person experienced in taking companies from the startup stage to the exit stage. Furthermore, a having a CEO position filled indicates to them that a significant funding round is in place.

If you are thinking that by giving yourself that title today you are positioning yourself for being the CEO post-funding, that is a false assumption. What is more likely is that at some stage in the company's evolution, an outsider will be better suited to take the company to the next level.

Of course, there are many, many exceptions such as Dell, Bezos, etc. But rather than claim the CEO title at the onset, and subject yourself and future CEO candidates to unnecessary discomfort ("we are seeking a CEO" versus "we are seeking to replace our CEO"), let your funding stockholders make that decision.

What's most important is that your baby gets funded avoid all barriers to that critical event.

</comment><comment><USER3> I've given myself the title Executive Coffee Drinker, and my partner is the CIO - Chief Idea Officer.

As for co-founder - I think it sounds a bit weak. Even if there are more than one founder, they can all be called Founder. Vice President's of other companies aren't called Co-Vice Presidents.

<comment><USER4> You're taking rules too literally:)

Co-founder is a well accepted and used title. And like you say, co-vice presidents isn't and thus one is used and the other isn't.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> What are most people calling themselves? We have three co-founders, one of whom runs the place.

Right now we're going with:

CEO, Co-Founder

Co-Founder

Co-Founder

I can't decide if I like this or not, but I've seen it in quite a few places.

<comment><USER5> I think it works great. Everyone should always be prepared to wear multiple hats of course. It give you all a lot of flexibility when meeting and talking to other people / potential partners & affiliates / investors, etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> We usually just use Co-founder, sometimes but rarely "CEO" and "Tech lead".

What do you write on your business cards?

</comment><comment><USER4> My biz cards to come will read: ceo / co-founder

My partner: chief technology officer / co-founder

-Zaid

</comment><comment><USER7> Co-Founder</comment>


Ask HN: *How* do you use/organise your (personal) server? - <AUTHOR> I have a small virtual server for running my side projects, and hosting some websites, but I am considering utilising it more so I would like to hear how do you organise/manage/use your (personal) servers. I am more interested in the way you manage your personal server that what you do with it.
My setup is really basic:
- I use GNU screen to run things in the background.
- I restart some unreliable programs on crash using `while sleep 3; do cmd && break; done` loop; some of them are restarted by systemd.
- Again, for some other programs I use docker.
What I don't like about my current setup:
- I don't know any way to say "if A or B crashes, kill C and restart them all in order B, A, C." Something like Erlang's supervision trees would be perfect but for programs.
- Since the internet connection can be unreliable (or battery might die unexpectedly...), I always start a GNU screen session as soon as I login. I wish there was a better interface for managing those screens (like a web browser with tabs).
- I am not fond of the terminal... Thankfully `fish` makes it so much more bearable with its zero-configuration autocomplete that works like charm, but for some tasks I would love to have a GUI -perhaps a web interface. A perfect example would be cron: I would take something like crontab.guru over editing files manually every single time.
----
Looking forward to your answers! <comment><USER2> > \- Again, for some other programs I use docker.

I use and recommend dokku + some CI/CD to manage deployment of dockerized services.

I am also interested in the answer to this question. I love the idea of having some kind of control panel and monitoring setup for my own personal servers but, in practice, there seems to be nothing out there that isn't overkill for me. I also love the idea of having my server setup described entirely in code so that it can be destroyed and reconstructed with ease, but...

I read recently that servers should be treated like cattle and not pets, which rings true, but I'm not sure if applying that advice is worth it for my personal stuff (currently running two servers).

</comment><comment><USER3> I use tmux to run my program. I run it with gdb attached, so when it crashes, I can find the error as soon as possible. I can easily write a gdb script to relaunch it if crashes, but for now, I want to capture issues and debug them timely, so I don't restart it, I keep the crash state.

I also use terminal for most cases, but I made a simple web console. this is to gracefully shutdown the service, in case someone is still connected.

</comment><comment><USER4> I only run 2 docker containers in a server, so I don't need anything complex.

I couldn't really fine a simple alerting tool, so I wrote a script that periodically checks if my docker containers are alive or not, and ping me on Telegram if one of them dies.

</comment><comment><USER5> systemd actually can do a lot of restarting logic through the various ways in which dependencies on other units can be declared. I use systemd for basically everything that runs as a service on the system.

</comment><comment><USER6> Maybe you could actually use Erlang as your process manager?</comment>


How to land a startup internship - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@aashaysanghvi/how-to-land-a-startup-internship-269b1845857e#.kg5z1o2wu <comment><USER2> how to land a start-up internship: find a start up you are interested in and offer them free labor.</comment>


Dxc4 chess API – Designed to power chess applications - <AUTHOR> http://dxc4.com

<comment><USER2> huge potential for fun and games here - nicely implemented api, clean, well organised and intuitive.</comment>