Ask YC: What do you think is the future of Android? - <AUTHOR>

- Does Android have a future? - How should phone manufacturers adopt or leverage it if they should (including apple)? - Though there were free mobile platforms like Linux, they were not a threat to commercial platforms like Windows Mobile. This can be attributed to other problems with free Linux, like lack of support, cost of building Linux applications to the state suitable to finally put it in a phone and sell. Now Google seems to address these issues by bundling free applications with Android platform (both from Google and from worldwide developer community). Given these aspects, is Android going to give a tough competition to mobile platforms like Windows Mobile? <comment><USER2> From a European perspective, anyone in his right mind should wait till a major handset manufacturer buys into them before starting to develop applications for it.And I must tell big names are very wary of depending on another big name for their products; hence Microsoft Mobile's miserable track record across the pond.

<comment><USER3> <http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/oha_members.html>

It's not Nokia, but it's not quite 'nobody' either.

<comment><USER2> Being in the alliance does not mean that they will do large volume phone production with Android. Samsung and Motorola are always keen on being Linux consortiums. What's their Linux phones' market share in Europe?

I am not saying that Google will never make it. It will take time before they can grab a decent share. The name of the game is wait and see at the moment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Android has already been delayed and there's no news about when exactly are we going to see handsets for it to come out. Also, we don't know yet who won all those spectrum auctions.

If Google did win those auctions, then Android does have a future. If they lost, I'm afraid that Android is probably not going to succeed.

Just look at how Sergey Brin is praising the iPhone and uses it all the time... that should tell you that maybe you should hedge your bets and start looking at the iPhone SDK as soon as it comes out instead of betting on Android... at least iPhone is real.

<comment><USER3> Delayed? I'm developing for it right now with the publicly available SDK. Are you referring to that TechCrunch article that got its facts wrong? The only thing that's been pushed back is the contest deadline.

Apple has a history of creating great things that are never open enough to grab a large share of the market. I'm sure the iPhone is cool and that with the SDK you'll be able to do neat things, but in terms of widespread use.... I'll wait and see.

<comment><USER4> Enjoy: [http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/02/04/googles-android-is- alre...](http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/02/04/googles-android-is-already- delayed/)

<comment><USER3> That an update to the SDK/contest is a few weeks late is not the hand waving that they originally came out with - they had their facts completely wrong, as the 'update' stuff shows.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I'm betting on it being at least somewhat successful, which is why I've been spending a lot of time working on Hecl for it.

I've talked with various other people who seem enthusiastic, because it seems to get a lot of things right: 1) open 2) backed by some muscle 3) reasonably complete API.

My biggest worry is really always-on connections and web apps, which, although they don't give you all the low-level access, are an order of magnitude easier to develop and deploy.

<comment><USER5> Hecl is cool. It's what Jacl should have been. Keep up the good work.

<comment><USER3> Thanks! They have different goals though... Jacl is an implementation of Tcl, whereas Hecl is its own language, that borrows some things from Tcl, but tries to improve on it: the core is smaller, we've abandoned the "everything is a string" idea (note, however, that Tcl does not represent everything internally as a string and hasn't for 10 years), and the commands are different.

Hecl is also very targeted at applications where its small size and flexibility give it a bit of an advantage... There's no way I can compete with JRuby or things like that on standard Java, given their popularity, so I continue to target the mobile/embedded space, even though you certainly _could_ use it as an embedded interpreter in all kinds of different Java apps.

<comment><USER5> How do you think Hecl compares to Sun's own JavaFX Script / JavaFX Mobile?

<comment><USER3> Their language looks interesting, but it's fairly new. They certainly have a lot more resources to throw at it than I do, but on the other hand:

\- Hecl is real, and runs on all kinds of existing mobile phones, even old ones, and is deployed in existing products.

\- Hecl is not tied to Sun, so for instance the Android port has no political implications. I'm doing it because Android looks like a decent bet.

The fact that they made a scripting language at all is proof that my basic idea (scripting language for mobile phones) is on the right track. Incidentally, YC also funded a company that made something similar: <http://tsumobi.com/>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> whatever prediction we make has more probability to cancel it self than happening.</comment>


Linguists Discover Rarity: a New Language - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703843804575534122591921594.html?mod=WSJ_hps_MIDDLETopStories

<comment><USER2> This video has some samples of the Koro language:

[http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/player/news/cultur...](http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/player/news/culture- places-news/enduring-voices-koro-vin.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> "kah-plah-yeh"

Say that out loud and tell me this isn't Klingon.</comment>


Ask HN: How to look for a programming opportunity - <AUTHOR>

A recent thread http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1176962 about a Giles Bowkett blog post went long on the solicitous nature of the article but ignored the most interesting claims:

  Most programmers I know seem to respond to job searches
  by learning new programming languages. The logic there is
  pretty weak. "I can't get a job with a language I know, so
  why don't I see instead if I can get a job with a language
  I don't know." Learning new languages is a good thing, but
  there's a time and a place for everything. It's never a
  matter of your skills being stale; there are still COBOL
  jobs out there. If you're good at programming, and you
  can't get a job, the skill to improve is not your
  programming skill but your job-getting skill. If you've got
  a task that requires two skills, and you have one of those
  skills down solid, but you suck at the other skill, the
  thing to do is not spend even more time perfecting the
  skill you already have down solid.
 As someone thinking about working in programming after not doing much real programming for a few years, I am interested in whether he's right or not.  I am actually planning to dive into learning a new language or relearning C++ with its current set of metaprogramming features and extensive libraries. <comment><USER2> I think this is largely good advice. You could expand it to thinks much more concrete than "improve your job-getting skill": make yourself a portfolio website if you don't already have one. Make decisionmaker-specific pages on your portfolio website targeting the exact interests of the people who you want to hire you.

(Hypothetically assuming I wanted to apply to Google, Big Japanese Megacorp, and Cool Valley Startup, I'd be pitching myself in a very different way in the cover letters and resumes... why show them all the same portfolio? I mean, theoretically I'm supposed to be pretty good at this whole "Build a web page to sell stuff" thing -- if I can't build a web page to sell _me_ , why should they hire me?)

If you don't already have a blog and social proof of value which you can quote to people, start building them. For example: you put a recommendation on your resume in the hope someone calls them, they agree to talk, and then they praise you, right? That's an awful lot of opportunities for the recommendation to not pan out well. Instead, when you ask for a recommendation, ask for a testimonial, too, which you will prominently quote in your Hire Me salesletter. And write the testimonial for them. "Hey boss, can I quote you on '$NAME_HERE is one of the best developers I've ever had the pleasure of working with. He has done things with $PROJECT that we never thought were possible. I'd hire him in a second.'?" (This presumes you have, actually, made a good impression on your boss. If not, then just write down their phone number and pray that no one calls it, because that is apparently what everyone else does.)

Networking is, obviously, another opportunity for improvement. Rather than spending time waiting for someone to call you back, it is (well past) time to start reacquainting yourself with friends and business associates (and mentioning, hey, you're on the market now) and making new friends/business associates.

<comment><USER3> The one point I disagree with is giving people the suggested testimonial. This may vary by culture and person, but there is no better way to guarantee my non-cooperation than telling me what you want me to put my reputation on the line as having said. No matter how good an impression I had before, I'd have a bad one after that interaction.

Otherwise I agree with your advice.

<comment><USER4> I think this is fairly common. I've had two people agree to give me a recommendation on the basis that I write it for them, allow them to see it and change anything that they don't like, and then sign it. As I see it, if you're willing to help me out then I wouldn't want to take up your time unnecessarily. If you want to write the whole thing yourself, then great! But if you're willing to do it but are time-constrained, I'll help you.

<comment><USER5> Different people have wildly different expectations. When my mom wrote a book, she was dumbfounded that she was supposed to write all the back-flap testimonials herself, and then the person they were attributed to just had to sign off on them and put their name on it. All but one of the people said, "Ah great, I don't have to do any work, this is awesome." One person said "WTF is this?" and wrote her own testimonial.

In my limited sample size, I tend to trust & respect the people who say "WTF? It's my name, I'll write it myself" more. Unfortunately, they seem to be in the minority.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Just write code. Work on open source projects, blog, twitter, and keep a GitHub account with interesting projects in it.

I know that many jobs may hire by running "grep" on hundreds of resumes, but I don't think those jobs are the good ones. I think the good jobs want to hire your brain, not for any particular language, but for the overall value you can add to the company.

Working on open source projects and posting your own projects on sites like GitHub demonstrate your ability to understand architecture and write good code in any language.

This is what I'm looking for anyway, and it seems to be what Google is trying to get at with all the silly questions they ask during interviews. How good is your brain?

[http://www.fireworksproject.com/pages/extraordinary_people.h...](http://www.fireworksproject.com/pages/extraordinary_people.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> I have to strongly agree with your second paragraph, but finding the good opportunities is the trick.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'd disagree with this. Most of the candidates I've seen turned down weren't rejected because they lack some nebulous job-getting skill. They were rejected because they don't have the CS and programming skills to do the job.

The part I would agree with is that learning a new language != getting better at programming. When you learn a new language, you're increasing your breadth of knowledge - but most employers don't hire for breadth, they hire for depth. They want you to be good at the job they hire you for. And when you pick up a new language, you'll perform _worse_ than on your existing languages, until you've had the practice to bring your skills up to where they were before.

Instead, spend time learning your language _better_. Most languages (even Python) provide different ways to accomplish the same task; try them all out, find out which is best, and most importantly, find out _which is best for which tasks_. Learn some libraries in depth. Write some actual code so you have something tangible on your resume - starting a project from scratching will teach you a lot that maintenance work at your employer won't, and even contributing some patches for an open-source project will teach you something new.

A big problem with many candidates is that their knowledge is very shallow: they'll claim to be an "expert JavaScript programmer", where "expert" means they can only use JQuery snippets they found on the web. And they don't even realize that their knowledge is shallow; they're completely oblivious to the depth of the subject until they meet someone who really does have deep knowledge (and even then, only rarely).

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree with your assessment of learning a new language != getting better at programming, as well as how you become an expert in a particular field.

After reviewing these comments, it seems the interesting aspect of Giles Bowkett's paragraph is the emphasis on networking your way to a person with a need. It's easy to get blinded by the easy access to openings posted on job boards to the existence of non-advertised positions and enterprises you may not be familiar with. Rather than "job-getting" skill I'd call it "opportunity-finding" skills. Getting past HR can be a bear.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I think the claimed point is valid. If you are a good programmer, you can improve your chances of finding a job much more by polishing up your resume, writing awesome cover letters, networking, etc. than you can by learning new programming languages.

It's all about bang for the buck. If you spend 100 hours learning, your programming skills and hence your ability to find a job might improve by a few percent; if you spend 100 hours on marketing yourself better, your programming skills stay the same but your chances of finding a job will improve greatly. It's like a lot of software... once the internals are good enough, it's much better to make the UI good than to keep the UI crappy while making the back end a little better.

Also, anecdotally, every good company that I've interviewed with has said that if I am the right person for the job, then they will give me the benefit of the doubt that I can pick up whatever technologies are necessary.

</comment><comment><USER3> In most cases I agree. If you can't get a job with your primary language, you'll have a harder time getting one in a language you just learned.

But there are exceptions. For instance if you don't have a programming background, learning the basics of something employable is a good idea. Also some things do become obsolete. For instance if your background is VB 5, you should update your skills to be more employable. (Actually you should have done that a few years back...)

Another exception is when a particular area is hot. If not many know a suddenly popular language or library, teaching yourself that tool can give you an edge on those jobs. Of course most jobs are maintaining something that already exists, and so don't need to cool new stuff. And more people try that strategy than there are jobs, so it may be a losing proposition to compete there. But, for instance, a lot of people learned Java back in the mid-90s to jump on a bandwagon, and it worked out for many of them.

Also it is fine to learn something for the job prospects when you have an obvious hole in your resume. For instance if you've been doing statistics professionally and you haven't learned R, you probably should. If you're a Perl web programmer and haven't learned Catalyst, it is at least worth playing with for a couple of weekends. A Java programmer is on solid ground in deciding to learn Spring better.

A special case of the obvious hole is when you need to learn something to get a certification. The whole certification treadmill is something I hate. But there is no question that it can help you, and acquiring relevant certifications is not a useless endeavor.

And a final exception is if there is a specific requirement for a job you want that you have a realistic shot at. For example I learned three languages before my Google interview. I knew that the interview would be in some combination of C++, Java and Python, and I knew none of them. So I learned the basics of all three, and made my lack of experience clear in the interviews. I was not hired for my knowledge of those languages. But without putting out that effort I couldn't have passed the interview. However this kind of situation is the rarest of them all. (This has only happened to me once.)

<comment><USER5> I boned up on C++ before my Google interview because I didn't know it and heard it would be included. It turned out that my interviewers exclusively asked me questions in Java and JavaScript, both of which I had fairly extensive experience in.

Then I ended up working in C++ and Flash once I was hired. Neither of which I had any prior experience with (well, I had a little Flash, mostly as a compiler target). Go figure.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> There are still COBOL jobs. But are they the kind you're interested in?

If you're interested in, say, web programming, you're probably going to have a hard time finding a job doing web programming in COBOL.. no matter how great your interviewing/job-hunting skills are.

The same goes for many other preferences regarding work, from location to the kind of company you'll be working at or people you'll be working with. If most jobs you're interested in largely have openings for people who know language X, you'll probably be better off knowing that language.

On the other hand, it's certainly a good idea to have well-rounded skills. So if you're particularly weak at people skills, or job-hunting skills, it's a good idea to work on improving those, as often being a good programmer is not enough to land the job you want.

<comment><USER9> I can easily find you a job doing web programming in COBOL. The first tech company I worked for decided to build their new task system in COBOL. I can't really remember the framework they were using (RMCOBOL, I think), but they had somehow managed to find a way to get Apache installed on a HP 3000 that communicated with a COBOL web app.

Keep in mind, I'm 20, and I only really started working when I was 18. This all happened two years ago, and I seriously doubt they've stopped using COBOL in that time.

<comment><USER10> The best-paying jobs advertised at the state telecom are for Senior COBOL programmers. That definitely makes me wish I knew it a bit better :P (I did have COBOL classes at college, and I'm 29)

<comment><USER9> It's an easy enough language to master. There aren't a whole lot of constructs. The difficulty is wrapping your head around the massive lines of code that any COBOL program of reasonable complexity is bound to have. Not to mention every variable being defined by what it looks like, no notion of scope, no syntactic sugar like for or while loops, and no notion of methods. It's all supposed to read like English, but while English can pack a lot of meaning in a few statements, COBOL can't do anything in a few statements.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Giles is wrong. Learning a new language/toolkit is actually a "job getting skill." I got my last 3 jobs by learning Javascript, Ruby, and Objective-C. They would not have hired me if I hadn't taught myself how to do stuff in those languages. If it's a startup job you are expected to hit the ground running. Figure out what job you want and then figure out what you need to know to get it.

That said, hardcore C++ skills are in demand everywhere from audio software to robots to games to wall street to scientific research. Even "web" companies need C++, Google, OKCupid, Amazon, etc. If you're already good at it, it's a great skill to polish up.

</comment><comment><USER12> In my college first year, we programmed in two languages Fortran and scheme. It really made me a better programmer. Scheme rocks.

</comment><comment><USER13> MySpace hired this person after they built <http://myspacehire.me/>

I'm sure they've been other examples of people being hired (or not) after turning a cover letter into a dedicated web site for the employer they want - anyone remember any others?</comment>


You've seen Amsterdam and Copenhagen, now check out Groningen - <AUTHOR> http://www.treehugger.com/bikes/youve-seen-amsterdam-and-copenhagen-now-check-out-groningen-where-50-trips-are-done-bike.html

<comment><USER2> Here's a great talk on dutch street design for those interested.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0GA901oGe4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0GA901oGe4)</comment>


Show HN: Compact and fast router for Go - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/takama/router

<comment><USER2> Looks like a good API! Cool work.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks I use it exactly for API of my apps</comment></comment>


America is raising a generation of interns - <AUTHOR> http://theweek.com/article/index/242065/america-is-raising-a-generation-of-interns

<comment><USER2> I feel like the title might be a bit misleading. Nowhere does the article say how this is going to stretch out and impact the workforce over the next 10+ years, but instead sticks to the same discussion of serial internships that has been tread with numerous other articles.

I do think it hits the nail on the head with: "So here's another chasm in the 20-something cohort: the one between the liberal-arts kids and the engineering and science majors." There's plenty of anecdotal (as well as hard) evidence out there that supports that claim.</comment>


Professors Make More Than a Thousand Dollars an Hour Peddling Mega-Mergers - <AUTHOR> https://www.propublica.org/article/these-professors-make-more-than-thousand-bucks-hour-peddling-mega-mergers <comment><USER3> Slightly off topic, but ProPublica does really great investigative work. They recently took over many of the technical functions that The Sunlight Foundation was going to shut down. They do important work on civil rights, criminal justice reform, asset seizure, public corruption, corporate corruption, etc.

If you have some spare cash, setting up a recurring monthly donation in any amount really helps them operate and plan for the future. I've added a subscription to the WaPo and recurring donations to ProPublica, ACLU, and The Marshall Project. This work is too important to neglect.

<comment><USER4> There are some stories they do that are really good. But as with all stories - ProPublica or not - please understand there may be an implicit bias or agenda.

On a different matter involving trial lawyers and an industry group, they reported a "scandal" where there was none. I am familiar with that issue (so I have my own biases!). It was my opinion that they were repeating the trial lawyer's argument and calling that an investigative journalism piece. Others may disagree with my assessment. I do not want to link to that story here.

This is one reason why I choose not to financially support ProPublica.

EDIT: I'm getting sick of the downvotes on Hacker News. This is not reddit where a downvote == disagree. Just don't upvote it. It's frustrating to take a few minutes to write a comment and then watch it get nuked because it's "controversial". But please feel free to downvote away because my off-topic rant.

<comment><USER5> I downvoted you because you are repeating the tired old trope about implicit biases and agendas. It's as if once we think we've identified someone's agenda, we can tell whether they're telling the truth. But this is false: the proper way is to assess the quality of reporting _first_ , and _if_ it is low- quality, _then_ we can ask questions about how shoddy work got through, and then the answer might be biases and agendas. If it's good reporting, then biases and agendas are irrelevant. But in any case objective quality always comes first.

<comment><USER6> You can have objective high quality reporting and still be pushing an agenda. It will show in what you choose to report and what issues you just don't talk about.

<comment><USER7> The alternative is neutrality, as in the old "we have to give 50-50 time to both sides". So 50% to climate change activists and 50% to climate change deniers, and so on. Is that really better than objective bias? I would think it's not. NYTimes also (publicly) gave up on neutrality in 2012, I believe.

The real problem today is most media today (and I don't include ProPublica in this) isn't even objective anymore. They're just biased, and engage in biased activism, with little objectivity and facts in its way.

Glenn Greenwald did an interview on this issue recently, which I think is worth watching for his perspective on this. Some may see Greenwald as "biased", but I think he's not only less biased than most "journalists" or pro-establishment figureheads on TV, but that more journalists should strive to be like him:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTC- GvWRlQ8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTC-GvWRlQ8)

<comment><USER8> The 50/50 method is often referred to as "false balance".

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

I found the media bias article on Wikipedia to be a good primer on types of bias to keep in mind while reading.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias#Types](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias#Types)

It's also been useful in identifying which types of bias people refer to when they're talking about bias. I know I personally didn't have a system in place to categorize these things, and generally thought of only a few of them at a time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Most of economics is an intellectual veneer to justify politically motivated policy actions. The 'science' is seldom predictive, nor does it even attempt to be. It has more in common with augury.

This blurb, for instance, openly admits their expert opinions are for sale,

'Economists have an "incentive to get a reputation as someone who will make a certain type of argument. People will hire you because they know what testimony you will give," said Robert Porter, an economist from Northwestern who has never testified on behalf of a corporation in an antitrust matter.'

<comment><USER10> This theory would make a lot more sense if political tradewinds adhered a little more closely to economic consensus.

Economists broadly want to eliminate the mortgage interest deduction, corporate interest deductions, and reduce the corporate income tax, want employers to stop providing health insurance as an employment benefit ([http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/tax- reform](http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/tax-reform), [http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/healthcare](http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/healthcare)), and broadly disfavor rent control ([http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/rent- control](http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/rent-control)). Yet before we go off accusing economists of being right-wing shills, they also broadly want carbon taxes over income taxes ([http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/carbon- taxes-ii](http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/carbon-taxes-ii)) and favor open immigration policies ([http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/high-skilled- immigrants](http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/high-skilled-immigrants)).

None of these are particularly politically-fashionable positions to take, with the possible exception of the CIT issue, which plays well with one half of the electorate and is broadly viewed as liquid evil by the other half.

<comment><USER11> Economists are in favor of carbon taxes because the alternative is environmental regulation. They favor open immigration policies because it brings flexibility to the job market. Leading to less job security for low skill workers and more profits for multinational companies.

Economists are not intentionally supporting multinationals interests over people's interests. They do so as a side effect of their belief in the correctness and practical relevance of microeconomics and neo-classical theories. This behaviour is in turn encouraged and rewarded by multinationals and investment banks, leading dissenting voices to be marginalized. Of course there are notable exceptions, Stiglitz, Krugman, Rodrik, and a few others. But the general point is that if you want to get an economics PhD from a red brick university you will have to support this viewpoint.

<comment><USER12> I would be very curious to know why this has happened to economists _alone_ \--out of all the liberal arts departments. Are sociologists, historians, and political scientists immune to these influences? Or have the multinationals just refrained from attempting to influence them? What explains the lack of "multinational capture" among non-economist academics?

<comment><USER13> Well, the other liberal arts departments don't portend to not be liberal arts departments. Economics sells itself as rigorous and predictive. And "multinational capture" has occurred in myriad actual scientific fields, for similar reasons (using the prestige of rigorous, academic work to convince governments to do things).

There's also the matter of the "rational actor" theory of human behavior, the a priori assumption of classical economics. It describes a being which is basically non-existent among flesh and blood humans. But corporations can form themselves in the image of this mythical economically rational being. And so, if classical economics does objectively describes the world, corporations are the uber-mensches of such a world and poised to dominate it in perpetuity - <USER2> clear incentive to capture and control the field, lest dissident economists succeed in espousing a revision of their core assumptions.

<comment><USER14> The "rational actor" is just a model, only applicable to limited situations, and acknowledged to be so. It's a specifiable model against which to test hypothoses. This rather shopworn critique - "humans aren't like idealized rational actors!" \- is based on the implication that classical-type economists think that the model is _fully congruent with reality_. They don't! And furthermore, they wouldn't agree that "corporations" (hey, why not unincorporated entities too?) can form themselves in this way. They recognize the limitations of information, incomplete knowledge of preferences, and limited foresight and prediction - and these apply no less to groups of people as they do to individuals. If you tried to suggest in a classical-school economics environment that corporations _can actually, in real life,_ form themselves into idealized rational actors, you'd probably give them gut- busting laughing fits.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The sad fact is that academics these days occupy themselves with chasing money and power, not science (at least the ones in "elite" schools).

Check out the movie "Inside Job":

\- Glenn Hubbard (the Dean of Columbia University School of Business). His work for Countrywide Financial for $1200/hr, attesting that the lender's loans were no worse than a control group of mortgages and not fraudulent, was examined by an attorney for MBIA. MBIA was suing Countrywide over its mortgage practices.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Hubbard_(economist)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Hubbard_\(economist\))

\- Frederic Mishkin, who, according to the Wall Street Journal, was paid almost $135,000 by the Icelandic Chamber of Commerce in 2006 to author a report that praised the stability of Iceland's economy and banking system—two years before they collapsed.

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

Most of the profs in "elite" business schools sit on boards of big companies like GE, are members of Council on Foreign Affairs, etc.

Just sad.

<comment><USER16> Genuinely curious: You think business school profs serving on the boards of big companies is "sad"? If I wanted to get an MBA, I would prefer to learn from people who have actual real-world experience rather than studying with someone whose experience was purely theoretical...

<comment><USER17> I think there's a valid concern about academic independence from industry. Without a reputable source of independent research, we fall into gaslighting pretty quickly.

<comment><USER18> This also reminds me that I really wish the restrictions can be reduced or removed so board of directors (like @pmarca) and CEOs can tweet more on public companies, which is part of what I mean by "Yishan-style CEOs".

<comment><USER19> This would be great. Lifting the restrictions that keep insiders from publicly disclosing information would likely improve market efficiency, reduce the value of true insider trading, reduce the spoils that go to information thiefs, and help to motivate and educate new entrepreneurs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> The best way to handle this seems to be accountability. There needs to be a reasonable way to hold companies to what they say. Currently, a company says the effect would be X in 5 years. In 5 years, these effects should be studied and if the variance is more than a reasonable standard - the merger should be relooked at and appropriate recommendations should be taken.

The current system looks at merger decisions as a one time policy decision. It should take it up as an iterative exercise.

<comment><USER21> This is really interesting. One solution would be social norms expressing scepticism towards pundits that made bold claims without publicly placing a large bet corresponding to the position.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> This seems like a problem that appears everywhere in science, not just in the case of economics. There is a known phenomena of science results agreeing with the organizations that fund the science, and this seems to be an extension to that.

Is there any good way to solve it that won't result in less valid science work getting funded?

<comment><USER23> >Is there any good way to solve it that won't result in less valid science work getting funded?

Bona fide science has peer review and falsifiability. Also imperfect, but nowhere nearly as commonly manipulated as is economics for hire by business interests and their think tanks.

In fact, this seems like a good time to mention the only Senator I've ever seen in decades of observing politics who actively attacks this problem is Elizabeth Warren.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-elizabeth- warren...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-elizabeth-warren- picked-a-fight-with-brookings--and- won/2015/09/29/bfe45276-66c7-11e5-9ef3-fde182507eac_story.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> This article is focussed on anti-trust regulation, but the problems it addresses are much broader.

Every spending and tax law, for example, is scored by the Congressional Budget Office/Joint Committee on Taxation to determine the budgetary impact. Economists are hired to lobby these organizations about the "right" way to score policy, and then the organizations might or might not adjust their methodologies. Sometimes Congress can place pressure on the scoring organizations, too.

This would all be fine, except that neither the economic methodologies nor the data are publicly available. Sure, the big picture methodology is disclosed, but not the key assumptions.

If the economic methodologies were disclosed in full, I'd be all for outsiders suggesting ways to improve the methods. Then a scientific discussion could be carried out in public, and I think it would be obvious to anyone observing the process that the JCT or CBO economists are trying to do the best job that they can.

One step towards disclosing methods is through documentation, but given the importance of detail in the types of analyses that JCT and CBO do, supplemental documentation is unlikely to be sufficient. Instead, the organizations need to make their analytical code available. In other words, CBO and JCT should make their code available to the public and take outside suggestions for improvements. They should be open source!

Granted the data won't always be available to the public given that CBO and JCT rely on administrative data that is highly private, but they can at least produce dummy datasets and detailed summary statistics.

All of this same reasoning applies to the anti-trust situation. They ought to open source their analyses as well.

[Disclaimer, I'm a contributor to a few open source models for public policy analysis.]

</comment><comment><USER4> It's not just economists. I recall professors in other departments were contacted for "consulting" work. General Electric offered one political science professor a lucrative hourly rate (I think it was $650/hr) to consult on a legal case for the Dabhol power plant. This was years ago, so surely the fees have gotten larger. The professor turned it down for other reasons but said it would have been "easy money".

<comment><USER24> Take the money, write the op. But before sending it off, offer the academic you disagree with most fervently half, and ask her/him to write a counter- opinion. Publish both.

<comment><USER25> And never get asked again.

<comment><USER26> > And never get asked again.

I understand that jononor's post [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12971712](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12971712) was describing the most intellectually honest, rather than most profitable, approach; and in that capacity it's not clear, I think, that your objection is really an objection.

<comment><USER25> Indeed it is not clear. ;-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> As someone who studied economics and works as an economist, I agree economics today is full of bull$h^t and biased "experts" and politicking masquerading as legit social science work, I see it daily. And it goes on in mainstream and heterodox economics, in industry and in academia.

(I'd preferred to call my job something like " _statistician focused on economics and finance_ " \- not economist, but it didn't fit on the business card)

I just wanted to point out $1000 an hour pay is a quite common amount paid to any/all professions when law firms needs an outside expert opinion for a case.

This $ is not unique to company merger cases nor economists.

e.g. if a lawsuit needs a medical expert or engineering expert it's likely they are getting paid ~$1000 an hour for this time. And I don't doubt the clients are being billed way more than that - $1000 is just the expert's cut.

Not defending anything, just pointing out this amount is what law firms commonly pay for outside "professional expert" opinion work.

</comment><comment><USER28> One of my favorite econ professors at Stanford got an inquiry from a big oil company.

They wanted her to do some consulting for them, relevant to mergers, acquisitions and the result on oil prices.

She wanted to politely tell them no. So she quoted triple her normal hourly rate, already hundreds of $ per hour.

They said "sure" \-- so she had to tell them no the old-fashioned way :)

</comment><comment><USER29> « They debated who had the better case. Carlton conceded that AT&T and T-Mobile would have found it hard to win at trial, according to an attendee. But he wished it had gone to court. He was eager to try out a new and provocative argument for mergers: That even though prices would have risen for customers, the companies would have achieved large cost savings. The gain for AT&T shareholders, he contended, would have justified the merger, even if cell phone customers lost out. »

According to this, obviously hearsay, Carlton truly wanted to argue that a merger was beneficial because shareholders won even though customers lost; this boggles the mind because the major intent of anit-trust law is to protect customers!

</comment><comment><USER30> Curious if there is a way to force these companies to place bets on the predictions that they make. They say that a merger is going to do XYZ -- well, with what degree of certainty? And are you willing to take a position tied to the outcome? Because as it stands, they can make an argument it will help with consumer choice -- but that isn't the driver, it's about profits. So if the idea is to protect the consumer or benefit them, make a prediction about that and then take a position where you will get an additional payoff if you are right. If you are wrong, you'll be "fined" by having to cover the bet.

</comment><comment><USER31> Dennis Carlton is as crooked as they come. Smart for sure, selfish of course. He has a legion of poorly paid graduate students publishing his junk science and manipulating data from flawed studies to say whatever it is he likes.

And at the end of the day, what makes you smart does not mean you're intelligent. Just because you can master a discipline to achieve your goal of extreme wealth accumulation is unimpressive. I feel that some day when money does not matter, rich people who actually created very little value (and may have even been a net negative) will be looked on as one of the great evils of society.

</comment><comment><USER16> I guarantee the lawyers are making way more than $1000 per hour... so why vilify the professors?

<comment><USER32> Lawyers from the very first day in law school are _intended_ to serve their clients (guilty or not); in the other hand professors -and educators in general- are supposed to be a lighthouse for knowledge, not another source of bad science due being paid.

<comment><USER16> In this context, calling professors "educators" is like calling lawyers "paralegals." Professors are _academics_. They are being paid for their professional, informed _opinions_ based on knowledge and years of study. This is the same as lawyers sharing their _legal opinions_ based on educational background (knowledge of the law) and real-world experience.

Also: In mergers, there is no "guilty or not". There is contract law, risk mitigation, strategy, and negotiation. Lawyers do so much more than simply saying what is "legal or illegal."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I don't understand. Why doesn't some academic analyse these professors' claims and show that they're bunkum, as the article claims?

<comment><USER34> Then that academic can make a company out of it, and charge $2000/hr. :)

The issue is academics cashing in on their research. I think this is fine in general. Having been through grad school I've worked with professors who I felt placed their entrepreneurial endeavors ahead of their educational requirements. This is an ugly practice. Ethical standards need to be in place to address this. If you're primarily conducting business using your academic credentials, then relinquish your chair to someone else, and take up some "fluff" title and pay your grad students out of your own kitty. Also, pay the university for the non-human resources you use, because it's like you're a hairstylist renting a chair in a salon to obtain and service clients.

I think this is primarily the reason why there's a generation of postdocs sitting on the sidelines waiting for a full professorship. They eventually get bored (and hungry) and move into the private sector, robbing academia of fresh blood and new ideas. So a de facto privatization of research emerges. We all lose when this gets out of hand.

<comment><USER26> > If you're primarily conducting business using your academic credentials, > then relinquish your chair to someone else, and take up some "fluff" title > and pay your grad students out of your own kitty.

This may be fair to ask of the professor, but it is perhaps reasonable to consider whether it is fair to ask of his or her graduate students (who are probably not to be blamed for their advisors' extracurricular habits). I work in math, where corporate sponsorship is (generally) not an issue, and so my opinion may be skewed; but it seems to me that a graduate student of someone with a 'fluff' title might be perceived less seriously than a graduate student of someone with a grander academic title, and so suffer even if his or her work is sterling. (On the other hand, perhaps driving students away from working with corporate consultants is a desireable side effect …?)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> While in school I went to an event hosted at the home of an Econ professor who worked on the Microsoft trial. It was lakefront property in a very posh suburb. We called it "The house that Bill Gates built."

</comment><comment><USER36> See also, Google's anti-competition monopoly-shill joining the Trump team

[https://theintercept.com/2016/11/15/google-gets-a-seat-on- th...](https://theintercept.com/2016/11/15/google-gets-a-seat-on-the-trump- transition-team/)

</comment><comment><USER37> It is possible mega-mergers make sense economically. However economists do not take into account individual ambition. A chairman or a CEO might say satisfying words for a merger, but with real plans to increase prices due to increased market share

</comment><comment><USER38> I'm an adjunct instructor. I'll do it for half that.

</comment><comment><USER39> I never knew you could get a job writing automation scripts. That's pretty cool.

</comment><comment><USER40> The is why The People are sick of "experts".</comment>


Ask HN: Open-source projects that could use documentation help? - <AUTHOR> Hey HN, a friend of mine is a budding technical writer, and is trying to get some actual documentation experience under her belt. Anyone have a project they could use some docs for? <comment><USER3> AngularJS can really, really use some help there.

[https://docs.angularjs.org/guide](https://docs.angularjs.org/guide)

[https://docs.angularjs.org/api](https://docs.angularjs.org/api)

<comment><USER4> Another vote for this, at first Angular seems to have a lot of documentation, but when you try and use it, you find most of it is out of date, or no longer 'the angular way'

<comment><USER5> Google could really pay for it. After all they're the copyright holders.

A lot of smaller OSS without coporate backing really need better docs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is an interesting problem, because it's not unique to technical writers.

Some suggestions: * Mozilla. [https://www.mozilla.org/en- US/contribute/](https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/contribute/) , [https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/MDN/Getting_started](https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/MDN/Getting_started) Shoot them a mail and they can probably connect her with a project to work on. MDN in particular can always use someone to browse through the contributions and correct/improve them. They'll even connect you with a mentor to get you started if you ask!

* Open Hatch. [http://openhatch.org/search/?q=&contribution_type=documentat...](http://openhatch.org/search/?q=&contribution_type=documentation) I've tried to use this site in the past, it's a little rough around the edges but if you're looking for single bite-sized tasks you may find them here.

Other than that, try browsing Github issue lists and seeing if there's anything that strikes your fancy?

</comment><comment><USER7> The git man pages are a mess. And not easy to fix. But it is a much needed task.

One of the challenges is that the pages are constructed from from multiple files as an attempt to factor out the documentation of switches that are common to multiple git commands, but I think this makes a lot of the pages harder to read. I'd rather the man page for git log (say) document just its unique options and then at the end say "git log also accepts any of the rev- list options...see it for details."

</comment><comment><USER8> The Perl 6 project is always happy about doc contributions. Currently we have a specification, which is aimed at compiler writers: [http://perlcabal.org/syn/](http://perlcabal.org/syn/) and then the beginning of some user-facing documentation: [http://doc.perl6.org/](http://doc.perl6.org/)

"Translating" specification documentation into user-facing documentation would be very helpful. For questions, feedback and getting started, it's best to reach the community through IRC: [http://perl6.org/community/irc](http://perl6.org/community/irc)

</comment><comment><USER9> While it may not look like it, in my opinion the uwsgi project desperately needs documentation help.

[http://uwsgi-docs.readthedocs.org/en/latest/](http://uwsgi- docs.readthedocs.org/en/latest/)

There is just an endless list of features, and no clear red thread as to what you actually need to get going.

It's hard because it just supports _everything_ for some reason.

</comment><comment><USER10> I'll throw urllib3 into the hat:

[https://github.com/shazow/urllib3](https://github.com/shazow/urllib3) -> [https://urllib3.readthedocs.org/](https://urllib3.readthedocs.org/)

There are tons of use cases and recipes littered in the Github issues and StackOverflow answers that need to make it into the official docs. Really there should be examples for how to do anything that another http library like Requests documents how to do.

That said, I'd suggest your friend starts with a project she has an affinity for. Perhaps she has used it before, or plans to use it in the future.

<comment><USER11> requests sits atop urllib3.

<comment><USER10> As the author of urllib3, this fact does not elude me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> A great opportunity here is Bluebird, the JS promises library [0]. The current documentation is nice, but only covers the API itself, with very few use cases. A "getting started" guide is badly needed for newcomers to BB and promises in general. A well-written guide would be a great star on your friend's resume.

[0] [https://github.com/petkaantonov/bluebird](https://github.com/petkaantonov/bluebird)

<comment><USER13> As a docs contributor, we'd love more better documentation and will entertain pull requests improving the documentation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> From what I've seen from the Summer of Code and Outreach Program for Women, the GNOME project does a good job of mentoring new volunteers. I think there is a real need for technical writes to improve their various guides.

[https://wiki.gnome.org/DocumentationProject/](https://wiki.gnome.org/DocumentationProject/)

</comment><comment><USER15> The manpages for GNU utilities are usually stubs that essentially say:

      The full documentation for XY is maintained as a Texinfo  manual. If
      the info and XY programs are properly installed at your site, the command

              info coreutils 'XY invocation'

      should give you access to the complete manual.

(This is, btw, one of the best reasons to love the BSDs.)

This wouldn't exactly be a great training project for a technical writer since the content is essentially there and would need to be transformed into decent manpages. This _is_ , however, an _open source project that could use documentation help_ , and one with unmatched popularity, so this might be interesting for someone else who would like to acquire experience with open source documentation while doing something that lots of sysadmins will appreciate.

<comment><USER16> Note newer versions of coreutils will have links in the man pages directly to online manuals through [http://www.gnu.org/s/coreutils/ls](http://www.gnu.org/s/coreutils/ls) etc.

BTW the coreutils man pages are a subset of the full manual, and I think that adding more information to man pages can make things harder to find.

The thinking at present is that linking directly to a web page for the full manual is what most users would prefer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Respect for taking on some of the less desirable work in the technical world.

</comment><comment><USER18> Depending on the type of documentation you want to write GNOME has plenty of options. Join the Documentation Project team and you can choose to work on user manuals, code tutorials, API docs for all the libraries in the stack (also used by EvolveOS, ElementaryOS, Cinnamon, XFCE, MATE) or even on the Human Interface Guidelines:

[https://wiki.gnome.org/DocumentationProject/](https://wiki.gnome.org/DocumentationProject/)

[https://wiki.gnome.org/DocumentationProject/Contributing](https://wiki.gnome.org/DocumentationProject/Contributing)

Documentation is a sore point for the majority of FOSS projects, just pick the one you like most and I'm sure they will be happy to have someone willing to help. :)

</comment><comment><USER19> [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_Docs_Project](https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_Docs_Project)

</comment><comment><USER20> You can check out the Apache open source projects , they list the documentation requirement as a JIRA bug.

Apache NLP which needs documentation [https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project+%3D+OPENN...](https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project+%3D+OPENNLP+AND+resolution+%3D+Unresolved+AND+issuetype+%3D+Documentation+ORDER+BY+priority+DESC)

UN Online Volunteering This is on the social contribution side ,may not be your choice , but its good to know. [https://www.onlinevolunteering.org/en/vol/opportunity_search...](https://www.onlinevolunteering.org/en/vol/opportunity_search/?typ=8)

</comment><comment><USER21> MDN : [https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/](https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/) All the new webrtc api need a refresh on their documentation.

I'm sure there's other parts that needs to be updated.

This is the collaborative bible for web developers, think of it as a wikipedia for the web apis.

(edit : I'm saying that in case you or your friend does not know that already)

There's also yunohost here : [https://yunohost.org](https://yunohost.org) that would need some documentation.

</comment><comment><USER22> The biggest problem with this question is that to write good documentation for a project you need to really understand that project.

So I would honestly suggest your friend takes on something open source that he/she knows really well already, and is interested in taking a deep dive into.

There's not an open source project on the planet that would turn away better documentation, so it really doesn't matter what you choose. But choose something your friend CAN improve, with knowledge and understanding of how it works.

</comment><comment><USER23> I'm not affiliated with the project, but I've used openFrameworks ([http://www.openframeworks.cc/](http://www.openframeworks.cc/)) and really liked the library but found the documentation is pretty lacking. It's basically just an API reference and a few small programming guides. Even as an experienced developer I still found myself stumbling over how basic things worked because the documentation didn't really give any guidance.

</comment><comment><USER24> If the goal is to gain more experience your friend should look for projects that appeal to them or are in an area they wish to gain experience in. For example, if they want to do code-level work, find a dev library - if they want to do user-level work find that. Also, some of the more established doc projects might be better to learn from than a project that has no docs - <USER2> the gnome docs team, etc.

</comment><comment><USER25> I am working on a project called openstack-poppy For information about poppy: [https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Poppy](https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Poppy) [https://poppy.readthedocs.org/en/latest/](https://poppy.readthedocs.org/en/latest/) If you would like to contribute, please let me know.

</comment><comment><USER26> We're always looking for someone to help improve our documentation over at Review Board ([https://www.reviewboard.org/](https://www.reviewboard.org/)).

As our support for third-party extensions grows, we're especially interested in writing a series of guides to help extension authors, as well as those using our API to do interesting things.

</comment><comment><USER27> Your friend might like to check out what documentation projects are available for the next round of the Outreach Program for Women internships.

[https://wiki.gnome.org/OutreachProgramForWomen/2014/December...](https://wiki.gnome.org/OutreachProgramForWomen/2014/DecemberMarch#Participating_Organizations)

</comment><comment><USER28> BroadleafCommerce at [http://www.broadleafcommerce.com/docs](http://www.broadleafcommerce.com/docs). Pull requests/changes are at [https://github.com/BroadleafCommerce/docs](https://github.com/BroadleafCommerce/docs)

</comment><comment><USER29> MOAI - its a fantastic framework for all kinds of things, but it always needs more documentation: [http://getmoai.com/](http://getmoai.com/)

I'm willing to help you learn the framework so you can write the docs.

</comment><comment><USER30> Come join the FreeBSD documentation team and help improve what is already considered world class documentation

[https://www.freebsd.org/docproj/](https://www.freebsd.org/docproj/)

<comment><USER31> Its far too good to need help. Clearly they want to show a before after comparison...

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Erlang could definitely use help by putting libraries into context and more user-friendly documentation of library functions.

The Erlang community has done a great job so far as it goes, but still needs help.

</comment><comment><USER33> Radare2 project needs good documentation too [http://rada.re/y/?p=documentation](http://rada.re/y/?p=documentation)

</comment><comment><USER34> Shoebot, a python based creative coding tool could really do with better docs.

(Disclaimer, I am the leäd developer for the last few years)....

[edit] Come find us at shoebot.net [/edit]

<comment><USER35> Clickable - [http://www.shoebot.net](http://www.shoebot.net)

</comment></comment><comment> T-A This has been begging for bids for a while now: [https://worklist.net/19870](https://worklist.net/19870)

</comment><comment><USER36> nimrod could really use better documentation... I am trying to get into it but unless you want to dig through the stdlib its quite hard to get up and running with a _real_ project... esp GUI based

<comment><USER36> its a shame, because it is a really great language

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> The select2 library could use some lovin' with actual examples: [http://ivaynberg.github.io/select2/](http://ivaynberg.github.io/select2/)

</comment><comment><USER38> Just start reading manual pages; I've come across quite a few grammar errors that could use cleaning up, I just haven't had the time.

</comment><comment><USER39> OpenSSL

</comment><comment><USER40> OpenStack.

</comment><comment><USER41> Every project could use better docs.

Everyone, including your friend, should contribute to one they know how to use. If you don't know how to use it how are you going to write docs for it?</comment>


US Fleet Tracking forces Tech Collaborative to close - trees planted in protest - <AUTHOR> http://www.indiegogo.com/okccoco-tree

<comment><AUTHOR> Local news reporting on the issue: [http://newsok.com/downtown-oklahoma-citys- co-working-collabo...](http://newsok.com/downtown-oklahoma-citys-co-working- collaborative-closes-blames-lawsuit/article/3714949)

</comment><comment><USER2> Was surprised to hear it on local NRP this morning. Pretty crappy situation for us in the community.

<comment><USER3> Is there a link to that report?

<comment><USER2> <http://kgou.org> I hit them up on their contact form saying I heard their bit this morning but don't have anything to read online for more info.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Another side of the story: [http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2012/10/04/us- fleet-tracki...](http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2012/10/04/us-fleet- tracking-timeline/)

</comment><comment><USER5> The worst part is they tried to settle for more than US Fleet tracking donated and US Fleet tracking declined.

</comment><comment><USER6> It's sad to see yet another small business crushed by the litigation of a large corporation.

</comment><comment><USER7> It's a pretty sad situation. I've been bummed since I found out the CoCo was closing.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> more news <http://t.co/SaeQwf6Q></comment>


Show HN: Fuzzy Search Magic Cards and Pin for Help Playing over Webcam - <AUTHOR> https://magichorde.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hello! I've been playing MTG over webcam with friends and made a site to quickly search for cards & keep track of cards while they are in play. I decided to open this up to anyone else since I'm sure there are others playing over webcam. It is still a work in progress, and if you have feedback, I'd love to hear it. You start typing the name of a card, and it automatically starts fuzzy searching the card titles. So if you type "Chron", it will bring up "Chronatog", "Chronic Flooding", etc. If you click on the card, it moves it below to the pinned cards, and you can search for something else. Clicking on the pinned cards will remove them. I have a few things to fix, and will be adding things, but it should be usable at the moment.</comment>


How Did the Deaths of Four People Cost the U.S. Government $6.5 Billion? - <AUTHOR> http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/02/how-did-the-deaths-of-four-people-cost-the-u-s-government-6-5-billion/

<comment><USER2> When I saw "the Deaths of Four People Cost the U.S. Government $6.5 Billion" I imagined the government taking 6.5 billion from taxpayers and spending it extremely inefficiently. But I am not a journalist living in New York City (if the blogger wrote the headline or an editor for the New York Times if an editor wrote the headline of the blog post)! What the headline is really talking about is the government's _failing to collect_ death taxes that it could have collected if Congress had voted differently.

So apparently according to this journalist every time the government fails to collect X dollars that it could have collected through the legitimate operation of elections, Congressional votes, etc, that failure "costs" the government X dollars. I am having trouble escaping the implication that the headline writer believes that any money that Congress could have voted to collect _rightfully belongs_ to the government, and if the money remains in private hands, maybe that is worth a blog post in the New York Times!

<comment><USER3> Hi, can we please stop using the phrase "death tax"? It's called estate tax. Legally. Calling it a death tax does not change any of the underlying mechanics or reasons to support/oppose it.

Signed, George Orwell

<comment><USER2> Sure, but I did it because the OP did it. Also, there's a good chance that Orwell would have just as much of a problem with "estate tax" as with "death tax", "estate tax" being the choice of people with an agenda after all.

<comment><USER3> It's taxing estates, not deaths. Every other tax is named after what it taxes. Income tax, sales tax, gasoline tax.. get the picture?

And that person with an agenda was Teddy Roosevelt who implemented it almost 100 years ago, back in simpler times when the lying in politics was mostly about people's mothers' moralities and lineages.

<comment><USER4> There was lots of corruption back in the day.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Really poor title for the NY Times. The deaths didn't cause the government to lose money. It's not the government's money to begin with, it's the property of the people who died.

It's distressing to see the country's premier newspaper resort to linkbait.

<comment> brown9-2 Is it really link bait?

The amounts in question are tax revenue that the government would have collected in other years which were not collected this year due to the one- year-only-exemption.

How is missed revenue opportunity not lost money?

The question comes down to semantics of how you interpret a missed chance at revenue, we can probably leave the question of the fairness of the inheritance tax out of it (for now).

<comment><USER5> The tax code is what it is. The deaths of the four people did not cause the government to lose the money. The structure of the tax code did.

<comment> brown9-2 Dubner's point here is that the _timing_ of the deaths did in fact cause the government to miss out on some tax revenue. I agree he's being a bit cute about the wording, but it is just a blog post - not a NYTimes cover news story. He's trying to make a point about the quirks and odd facets (some might call them ridiculous) of our tax code.

<comment><USER6> Or, maybe not. You see, this year, you not only get to avoid the death tax but you also miss out on the step-up in tax basis. So, you can pass assets down to your heirs tax free but they then have a much larger tax bill if they ever realize the gains on those assets.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> And meanwhile, the government spent over a _trillion_ dollars more in FY 2009 than it had received in revenue.

Over half of government spending is in three areas that _will not_ be touched by members of either party: Defense, Social Security, and Medicare & Medicaid.

Whining about the loss of a piddly $6.5 billion one year is like going on about cutting pork or "waste" - a demonstration that one wants to appeal to peoples' anxieties about unsustainable government spending while being utterly uninterested in doing anything about the problem.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget>

</comment><comment><USER8> When the death of a citizen benefits the government, the citizen should seek the death of the government.

The government is supposed to be for the benefit of the citizen not the other way around.

<comment><USER9> When the death of a citizen benefits his heirs, should the citizen seek the death of his heirs?

<comment><USER8> You are not forced to give your inheritance to your children. You are forced to give it to the government. That's why your rephrasing does not work.</comment></comment></comment>


How to read one hundred books in a year - <AUTHOR> https://forrestbrazeal.com/2017/12/03/how-to-read-100-books-in-a-year-and-still-have-a-life/ <comment><AUTHOR> Full reading list, for anyone interested: [https://forrestbrazeal.com/2017/12/03/the-100-books- challeng...](https://forrestbrazeal.com/2017/12/03/the-100-books-challenge- full-reading-list/)</comment>


Archivrfy - <AUTHOR>

Archivrfy is the simplest and cheapest way for archiving and searching emails. You can see the landing page at http://archivrfy.simplelander.com/ We really appreciate your thoughts and feedback. <comment><USER2> Why not Archivrfy.com?</comment>


GPL vs BSD, a matter of sustainability - <AUTHOR> http://www.matusiak.eu/numerodix/blog/2007/12/15/gpl-vs-bsd-a-matter-of-sustainability/ <comment><USER2> I think it's pretty obvious this is a 5 year old article. And in fact, it has ideas that are much more appropriate to 10 years ago than today.

GPL is a hindrance to your code, not a help... unless you're lucky enough to have your code become popular with a large open source community.

GPL prevents any proprietary software maker from using your software. It requires that if you use the code, your software also be GPL. Well, good luck with that. Software companies need to make money for a living, and most of them want to do it selling their software, not hoping someone will pay them to support their software.

In practice there's no difference between BSD and GPL in the worst case, and in the best case, BSD is better.

Worst case:

Some awesome devs make Cool GPL Software™. Hundreds of large proprietary software companies like the look of the software, but it's GPL, so they can't use it. They use something else. Cool GPL Software™ loses out on all the manpower that could have been given to it by proprietary software makers.

vs. BSD:

Some awesome devs make Cool BSD Software™. Hundreds of large proprietary software companies like the look of the software, and use it, but never open source their changes. Cool BSD Software™ loses out on all the manpower that could have been given to it by proprietary software makers.

end result: the same, but the BSD guys feel butthurt, and the GPL guys feel ignored

Now, the best case, which is what actually happens quite often these days:

GPL (same as above)

vs. BSD:

Some awesome devs make Cool BSD Software™. Hundreds of large proprietary software companies like the look of the software, and use it. Some of them contribute their work to the original BSD project, because it's good karma, good publicity, and keeps the community around that software alive. Cool BSD Software™ gains a bunch of hard work from devs who get paid to work on their software 40+ hours a week.

end result: GPL guys feel ignore, BSD guys feel elated.

This is why I'll never use GPL for any software I write.

<comment><USER3> _"GPL is a hindrance to your code, not a help... unless you're lucky enough to have your code become popular with a large open source community."_

On the contrary. GPL helps those people that I want using my code to do so. Namely, those people who would contribute code back under the GPL. The GPL encourages them to do so, while BSD hurts this cause. So it's BSD that is a hinderance to my code, not GPL.

 _"GPL prevents any proprietary software maker from using your software."_

Good. They can go fuck themselves.

Proprietary software makes can pay programmers to write software for them. I'm not going to help them for nothing if they're not going to contribute any changes they make back.

 _"Software companies need to make money for a living, and most of them want to do it selling their software, not hoping someone will pay them to support their software."_

They're welcome to try to make that money without my giving my code away to them for free.

 _"In practice there's no difference between BSD and GPL in the worst case, and in the best case, BSD is better."_

You're dreaming. GPL has proven its value time and again. The only reason to use BSD is if you want to help someone make a profit for free, without them contributing anything back, and let your own code be assimilated and made closed-source. I choose not to do that, thank you very much.

 _"Some awesome devs make Cool GPL Software™. Hundreds of large proprietary software companies like the look of the software, but it's GPL, so they can't use it."_

Once again, fuck large proprietary companies. I have zero sympathy for them, and aren't going to be slaving away for them for free.

<comment><USER2> I never said large. Small proprietary companies also can't use GPL. I guess, fuck them, too? Fuck anyone who wants to actually make money writing software for a living? How very 1998 of you. Doh, I did say large. Well, crap. How about "thousands of small proprietary companies..." ?

<comment><USER4> Still doesn't mean I owe them anything, if I want to give away code for proprietary companies to use then that's genererous and perfectly fine.

Likewise there's not something wrong with with only writing open source for open source, where you will be priviledged to have any enhancements made to your code available to you.

And if 'you actually want to make money writing software' then you really can't demand that there should be code lying around for you to use and sell.

Complaints about people not wanting to write code that proprietary companies can use for free and sell simply appals me. As if the 'companies' should have some god-given right to use open source and make money?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The important thing to realise about the GPL's freedom is that it is not so much "freedom for the developer" as preserving "freedom of the user". To keep software in the ecosystem free and to allow any user to see the source code of a piece of software running on their computer.

Of course I can see the value of both type of license and each has their place. In my lovely land of Linux/KDE/Firefox/GNU the GPL is fine for everything since you don't have to worry about pesky companies wanting to incorporate your end-user code into their products. However, for a library which you might want to be used by commercial game developers etc. a BSD-style license makes lot more sense as otherwise people will go elsewhere or implement it themselves. This is why a few years we switched the license of PolyVox (<http://www.volumesoffun.com/polyvox-about/>) to be zlib rather than GPL.

</comment><comment><USER6> [all the talk about microsoft really smells of 2007 :)]

> BSD freedom, on the other hand, is "lossy".

How so? I can still download the original BSD-licensed code without any loss.

> If I get BSD code I have a lot of freedom, but the next guy doesn't.

Why? In the worst case the next guy will just start from wherever I started.

> It's fairly well known that there is BSD code in Windows.

And be thankful for that - who knows what else could have crept in there.

> And obviously, whatever Microsoft did with that code, they have no > obligation to release their changes.

And no obligation to release all the other unrelated code.

> Microsoft is still sitting on BSD code that is free for _them_ , but it's no > longer free for anyone else.

Apple too, but that's what the BSD license is for.

<comment><USER7> You assume that the original code is still available, which might not be the case.

<comment><USER8> In that case it's exactly the same as if Microsoft never used the code... it would still have disappeared. That's what would have happened if it were GPL code. Proprietary software vendors can't use GPL code, because there's no way they can use it without making their entire product GPL... which most software vendors won't do.

<comment><USER9> In that specific case you are right.

But in the case of (for instance) the Linksys NSLU2 (or various WRT and WAG models), the whole community around them was possible because the code was available and people could mess around with it. In this case it was to Linksys advantage to use GPL firmware, to the users advantage that more could be done with the device, and to the community's advantage because changes and improvements could be fed back to the general linux ecosystem.

<comment><USER8> Linksys sells hardware, not software, it's not a valid comparison. People can copy their software all they want - they still have to buy the hardware to run it on.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I still prefer BSD and MIT style licenses.

GPL is great for making a system remain open, yes, but it also results in some commercial applications shying away from it, and it might ultimately die without proper use.

Game Developers love BSD/MIT, and they do contribute back to the BSD projects they use for several reasons.

And what matters in the end, that is reach end users, means that those end users would not have all those cool games without BSD and MIT tech available.

<comment><USER11> So do I.

Mostly I run away from GPL code, whatever I do I can't choose to make it available or not, I have to, I consider that a restriction of my freedom, and while I would like that everyone who makes changes or improvements to any of my code to contribute back, I think it's unfair to force them to it, because I don't want to be forced either. Most of my stuff is BSD or MIT, and for some less serious things WTFPL.

GPL has that "viral" effect that I hate, you are free to change but you have to keep it GPL, I don't know if it is possible to change GPL software into non GPL, can anyone tell me more about that?

<comment><USER12> The only way to convert from GPL to a different license is for all the copyright holders (approximately every contributor who has a single line of code in the project) to release a version with a new license. For projects with a small number of contributors this is simple, just call them up and negotiate a proprietary license. I expect that there would be better chances of success if the proposition was "money for license" instead of a plea to go to a BSD-like license. Of course the more contributors the greater the likelihood one of them will reject the offer and thereby make dual-licensing impossible.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> GPL operates on the premise that people are generally selfish and evil, and will never contribute back unless forced to.

BSD operates on the premise that people are generally decent, and many (though not all) will contribute back on principle.

<comment><USER14> Didn't FreeBSD have some problem with fundraising recently?

Apple used FreeBSD to create Darwin, OS X and iOS. Did they end up contributing back?

<comment><USER15> > Apple used FreeBSD to create Darwin, OS X and iOS. Did they end up > contributing back?

Yes, quite a bit. An example, FreeBSD recently switched from gcc to clang as their main compiler. clang was an Apple project.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Author of this article is missing LGPL entirely. LGPL allows anyone to ensure that all changes to his code are published freely, but also allows packaging with commercial closed-source code into single downloadable file (unlike GPL).

<comment><USER17> That's not entirely true. The LGPL requires that the end user be able to re- link the product with an API-compatible version of the LGPL-licensed library.

On platforms that support dynamic linking this is easy to allow - just package the LGPLed library as a dynamic library the user can easily replace. On platforms that don't (e.g. iOS) it's harder, and I believe it's still 'gray' what's required in practise - or even if the requirement is possible to satisfy. Some will say if you supply object files so that the end user can relink, that's fine.

<comment><USER18> >Some will say if you supply object files so that the end user can relink, that's fine.

It's not "some will say"; supplying object files for your code and source for the LGPL library is specifically listed as an option in the LGPL itself.

<comment><USER17> yes - but that option is followed with "...so that the user can modify the Library and then relink to produce a modified executable containing the modified Library."

[LGPL 2.1, section 6a]

Can an iOS user do that? I would not like to depend on saying "Yes" to a court.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This whole idea started because copyright is broken. Both licenses are artifacts of this. The original copyright had a term of 14 years, a reasonable balance when granting a limited monopoly. As they extended the term and strengthened the laws, there is no longer any balance and there is nothing limited about the monopoly.

Somewhere in all of this, their is an ideal copyright law with ideal terms and limits which maximizes the progress of science and useful arts.

I believe the success of the BSD license shows it is closer to the optimum than the GPL.

<comment><USER4> >I believe the success of the BSD license shows it is closer to the optimum than the GPL.

Well the GPL licence is the most used open source licence of all, so I'm not sure how 'the success of the BSD licence' would somehow show it as being closer to the 'optimum'.

<comment><USER20> How are you measuring "most used"?

<comment><USER4> By what most open source code projects are licenced as.

<comment><USER20> In theory you could have a million projects used by very few people under one licence, and a few projects used by very many people under another licence.

It might be interesting to know how many people use software under each licence.

<comment><USER19> Not only is it interesting, it's a better metric when determining the value software brings to society. This is about the optimum in 'promoting the arts and sciences'. The project count is irrelevant.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> > "So who is right? Well, the BSD camp is."

Unfortunately, it's not quite that black and white.

When it comes to operating systems, for example, I believe in using "the right tool for the job". Depending on the situation, that might be Windows, Mac OS, or Linux.

The same holds true with the BSD vs. GPL argument. In some cases, the BSD is the better license. In others, the GPL is.

Personally, I am thankful the GPL exists. Were it not for the GPL, I would not be typing this comment on this laptop running Debian. However, my MacBook Pro and iPhone are sitting just a few feet away from me. I likely wouldn't have either of those if it weren't for the BSD License.

As a user, I am thankful for those who release their code under the GPL. As a developer (and I use that term very loosely), I put any code I publish under the BSD license. I do not care what anyone else does with it -- if someone can use my code to improve their own commercial product, so be it.

The BSD vs. GPL debate will never die because there is no one "winner" in all cases -- and we all benefit from that.

<comment><USER22> Please read the whole article before commenting.

<comment><USER21> Yep, my mistake. I got that far, started my comment, and got distracted by the phone. When I hung up, I looked back at my comment, thought I was done, and submitted it... then realized I hadn't finished reading. My bad.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> From the Guidelines:

      Please avoid introducing classic flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say about them.

</comment><comment><USER24> The GPL is better than BSD at starting a community of developers, in the same way that games with rules are more fun than Calvinball.

<comment><USER8> Not if you want to leverage the millions of professional software developers out there. With GPL you're stuck with the hobbyists and the very few companies that can survive getting paid for support of their GPL software.

You know what's BSD/MIT licensed (or similar)? Python, Ruby, Rails, and probably a million other things you use every day. Good software is good at making a community of developers, regardless of the license.

<comment><USER9> "With GPL you're stuck with the hobbyists and the very few companies that can survive getting paid for support of their GPL software."

Not really mate.

Lots of companies use linux for firmware and release their firmware code. Linksys, Netgear and Western Digital are just a few that spring to mind.

<comment><USER8> None of those companies sell the firmware. They sell the hardware. The firmware is only useful if you buy their hardware.

<comment><USER9> So what? They're still commercial entities using and contributing to GPL software, which is what the post I replied to claimed doesn't happen.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> The article is from 2007. What BSD code is still in Windows? I know the network stuff was, but I think they re-wrote all of it.

The EULAs used to include sections about the regents of Berkley, but I can't find that in the Windows 8 EULA.

<comment><USER25> AFAIK only the network stuff was, up until XP and Server 2003. They rewrote all of that for Vista, partly because the original code didn't keep up well with newer developments.

<comment><USER26> Nearly correct according to <http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/6/19/05641/7357> the initial code was provided by Spider but since NT3.5 it's been mostly (see the article for why I say mostly) MS code in the kernel (and the userland code is BSD 'cos it works and ain't broken)

<comment><USER9> Jesus, haven't seen anyone cite K5 for serious purposes in a long time. That place a cesspit these days :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> "So who is right? Well, the BSD camp is."

Gave up at this line.

As far as I'm concerned the licenses give different freedoms and pointing at one or the other as objectively superior is just dick-waving.

<comment><USER25> If you bother reading the complete article, they come to an actual conclusion and comparison at the end.

<comment><USER9> Why would I bother, the conclusion has been declared in the first section, and as the guy says - we've all witnessed enough flame wars in the last 20 years to know the arguments inside out.

The article was written five years ago, and we still haven't stopped the arguments, therefore it doesn't say anything revolutionary.

\--edit-- I've done as you asked now, it's not as long as I thought it was at first glance.

Conclusions aside, I disagree that with the statement that BSD is freer license, because the GPL guarantees the transmission of freedom, which BSD does not. The BSD license provides (almost) absolute freedom to the individual holding the code _right now_ , which the GPL does not. I don't think it's possible to declare one objectively more free than the other. I'm not sure it's useful to either, apart from in the context of a flamewar.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: A job dashboard for the big five tech giants - <AUTHOR> https://www.silicongiants.com <comment><AUTHOR> If you have any feature ideas, questions or suggestions, feel free to post them and I'll respond to or include whatever I can.</comment>


In Japan, fax machines remain important because of language and culture  - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/in-japan-fax-machines-find-a-final-place-to-thrive/2012/06/07/gJQAshFPMV_story.html?wprss=rss_social-world-headlines

<comment><USER2> The same can be said when comparing texting in Japan to the US. Most texts in Japan are sent via email directly from their feature phones to the iphones. Rarely, you will get a text via SMS. Here in the states, people are still paying an absurd amount to send a few bytes.</comment>


A rather alarming email from the Apple - how to solve this situation? - <AUTHOR>

Hi guys, We've received rather alarming email from Apple (I am attaching it on the bottom) saying that we did something we did not do.
I must say that we are digital publishing startup and we have more than 100 apps on our iTunes developer account. All apps belong to our publishers (clients) and we can suspect that some of them has crossed the line (but not us).
Of course in front of Apple we are the client. We understand it and that's why we have just asked Apple support member (during scheduled call) to help us identified THIS app or have some tools from Apple allowing us to monitor such forbidden behavior of our publishers (we do NOT control our publishers).
But Apple said something what can be translated into "screw you developer, you are guilty and you will be punished".
Have you faced similar case to ours? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks!
{  Email from Apple START QUOTE *
We are writing to inform you that your company is not in compliance with the iOS Developer Program License Agreement (PLA) due to documented evidence of manipulation of the user reviews and/or chart rankings associated with your apps on the App Store.
Section 12.2 (Termination) states:
(f) if You engage, or encourage others to engage, in any misleading, fraudulent, improper, unlawful or dishonest act relating to this Agreement, including, but not limited to, misrepresenting the nature of Your submitted Application
(e.g., hiding or trying to hide functionality from Apple's review, falsifying consumer reviews for Your Application, etc.).
Be aware that employing services that manipulate App Store chart rankings or user reviews on your behalf may also result in the loss of your developer program membership.
Please address this issue promptly.
 END QUOTE  } <comment><USER2> > But Apple said something what can be translated into "screw you developer, > you are guilty and you will be punished".

Really? I'm not reading that at all. Of course the letter sounds a bit cold and harsh, but that's how these types of (semi-automated) mechanisms will work. How likely is it for the mechanism that triggered this e-mail to be aware that you are just a middle-man for the real app publishers? Moreover, why should they care? As the listed publisher, the responsibility to police your clients is rightly on you.

 _Please address this issue promptly._

Sounds to me like they are giving you an opportunity to respond.

<comment><USER3> Agreed, just work with them.

Also be prepared to terminate one or more of your publishers if it turns out that they are breaking the rules.

<comment><AUTHOR> We would love to work with them but they are not responsive. Also I would like to terminate particulate app but Apple doesn't say anything which app.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> > Please address this issue promptly.

That`s what you do.

1\. Tell them that you provide a service to clients yourself.

2\. Ask them if they can give you information on which app`s reputation system was tempered with.

3\. Tell them that you will address this issue immediately and that you will remove the apps from the Appstore (indefinitely!!). Don tell them you will talk with your customers and try to fix this or something. Be frank and let them know that you apply a no tolerance strategy (just like them).

</comment><comment><USER5> [http://www.buzztouch.com/forum/thread.php?fid=0E80F80D42F634...](http://www.buzztouch.com/forum/thread.php?fid=0E80F80D42F6347BF973186&tid=0E80F80D42F6347BF973186) \- seems that Apple put some heuristics on and there is a group of people facing the same problems</comment>