Skylinesort - daniel-cussen http://www.skylinesort.com <comment> daniel-cussen Skylinesort is a novel sorting algorithm that sorts integer keys. It outperforms current sorting algorithms when keys are clustered (not uniformly randomly distributed). I showed it to some profs at Stanford, and might publish it formally.

It sorts in time O(k _u-u_ log(u)+n), where k is the number of bits in each key, u is the number of unique elements, and n is the total number of elements.

<comment><AUTHOR> Why make a website and a domain name before getting peer review to check for mistakes?

<comment> daniel-cussen I did a fair amount of that, but there was a lack of interest because it's just a sorting algorithm. Sorting is considered dead as a field, it's basically solved.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> So I don't really understand this after reading the explanations.

1\. You claim to have explained the height of the sticks "later". Maybe you had it explained in one of the paragraphs, but I just don't see it.

2\. In the diagram that is supposed to illustrate the left sweeping part, it has fancy windows and doors but doesn't have anything to explain why the lines are drawn that way. The home page animation also didn't give me any insight on how that part is supposed to work.

<comment><USER3> Stack height just visualises the repeated transition function for "next spot to jump to". You don't have to compute the stick heights and do searches, just execute p <\- (p | (p + 1)) & MASK for a "right horizontal line". This transition is more simply explained as "set the least significant 0 bit". The important thing is that each successive jump is at least double the size of the previous one, which intuitively gives you the log2 in the worst case complexity. There is a paragraph on right skipping, but not left skipping.

For left skipping AKA "gather", what you're trying to do is log-skip across contiguous zeroes in the auxiliary array. So you skip bigger and bigger regions until you hit a nonzero spot. I'd have to think a bit more to prove that you do actually hit the next number, but the visualisation of the transitions should get you in the ballpark: the tall sticks tend to get numbers written under them by the lesser sticks to their left, and when you are skipping from the right, you tend to hit the tall sticks.

The explanation doesn't mention it, but the left-skips are defined as p <\- (((p+1) & p) - 1) & MASK. This is also simply explained: "clear any contiguous 1s pinned to the least significant end, then subtract 1 to create more 1s" e.g.:

        1100 1100 (      =204)
        1100 1011 (-1,   =203)
        1100 0111 (-4,   =199)
        1011 1111 (-8,   =191)
        0111 1111 (-64,  =127)
        1111 1111 (-128, =255, wrapped)

So the "buildings" get wider as you go, until you hit another nonzero spot, and you start drawing thin buildings again because you start from the element to its left, whose binary representation ends with 11*0.

The bitwise ops are the key to understanding why you can draw the sticks at those heights: for each index i, simply draw to height = 1 + the # of trailing 1s in i. Many trailing ones makes for bigger jumps in either direction. So the wide buildings are also tall.

<comment> daniel-cussen Thanks so much for this great, novel explanation.

<comment><USER3> You have my permission to use it if you like!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Thanks for sharing this. Often sorting algorithms in practice end up being glommed into a Swiss Army knife style sort function to avoid pathological cases. E.g for smaller inputs just use insertion sort, but swap to a different sort of you know the size, etc. it's pretty common in standard libraries (I think). So I am curious: are any pathological cases for skyline sort?

<comment><USER3> Well, it requires a ton of (virtual) memory for [0, 1e9], so much you can't do it on 32-bit machines. If you can figure out that a particular quicksort/etc subproblem has a pretty small abs(max-min), then cool, go for it, but try to reuse the allocations for other subproblems.

With this memory issue, it's not a general purpose sort, nor does it have subproblems that you can defer to other sorts, so you wouldn't be able to use it as a default in those "glomsorts" anyway. So plugging pathological gaps is a bit irrelevant.

<comment> daniel-cussen It definitely requires a ton of virtual memory, and yes, you can't do 32-bit word sorting on 32-bit machines. There's actually a use case involving 24-bit words where the number of occurrences of each word doesn't matter, and where they necessarily start to cluster after each iteration. So there is a use case (I might add it's tailor-made for this use-case). But you can still e.g. sort database keys which might only have a 26-bit maximum, and it'll take advantage of any clustering that exists in the data, like if in a log you get some customers appearing more often than others, or more frequently in streaks. It also works great when your data is in ranges and you don't want to manually account for this: this will skip that entire empty range in logarithmic time. (Example, all your keys are between 1000-1100 and 5000-6000. The empty range 1100-4999 will be traversed in like 12 steps.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Is this cache friendly on a modern cpu? On the face of it, it seems to be quite cache unfriendly.

<comment> daniel-cussen I was surprised to find that it is, especially if the data is clustered. What ends up happening is the elements near the top of the bracket get cached so they can usually be accessed quickly.

Note that if your data is uniformly randomly distributed the caching will hurt and it will be slower than quicksort, as this is quicksort's optimal use case.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> How does this differ from a pigeonhole sort?

<comment> daniel-cussen It is a type of pigeonhole sort. The benefit is you can use a much greater number of pigeonholes because you don't have to check them all when collecting your entries.

That's the benefit of skylinesort: you can skip huge ranges of empty pigeonholes.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Any bar owners? - <AUTHOR> With all of the tech startup entrepreneurs, does anyone have experience in starting a bar? Any facts or figures you could provide about the cost to setup, info for getting licenses, etc.? <comment><USER2> My parents bought an existing bar back in 1993, held it for 3 years and sold it in 1996. I managed it for them while completing my CS degree.

Licensing is a complex topic that varies considerably by location. By state, and then by county or municipality.

Overhead can be relatively low, depending on what you have in mind. You need some basic infrastructure- ice machine, coolers, CO2 systems, etc. Insurance is a bit different for a bar than other businesses, obviously, but not too bad. Inventory is a low cost compared to your cash flow, as is labor since pretty much everyone will be minimum wage plus tips. Maintenance isn't too bad.

Basically a well-run bar is a license to print money. You sell drinks for several multiples of your cost of goods.

Most bars I knew of that had trouble had it due to owners that didn't know what they were doing, at all, in terms of business, or more commonly had a drinking/substance problem.

<comment><USER3> I own a retail business and I'm surprised you left out rent in your list of overhead costs.

You can start in a crap location and gradually build up a loyal customer base. That's cheap and can eventually be lucrative if you're really good at service and marketing, but in many ways you're fighting against the tide - you're inconvenient to your customers and easily forgotten.

A well-run bar in a good location will surely bring in good revenue, but the rent will almost inevitably be expensive as well.

<comment><USER2> I did leave out rent. In our case it was a fairly big number, but we had a fairly large, rambling building. But it was still small compared to our cash flow.

I'd also say that bars are far, far less location-sensitive than retail. You can get away with a bar being a little off the beaten path, and if you're smart, you make that part of the appeal. That works well with a semi-vice industry...

<comment><USER2> I do want to add this-

We tried to open a nightclub a couple years into owning the bar, and we failed miserably. A nightclub is a whole different beast from a bar.

I think the three main reasons we failed were

1- We spent too little money on it. There are clubs, notably the really underground dance clubs, that can get away with being a dark room with a good sound/light system and nothing else. Pretty much any other kind fo club needs to spend a fair amount on decor.

2- The space was too small. Related to the above. Again, maybe an underground club gets away with small spaces, but most need a large space with lots of nooks and crannies.

3- We had no clue how to market a nightclub. A bar needs to feel like it's apart from the world, a sort of refuge in a way, but a club needs to have some sort of aura in addition to that. That's a complicated thing to build up, and we didn't know how and we didn't put in the effort to learn.

An opportunity came up near the end of the bar run to buy what had been one of the mega-nightclubs in town in the 70s-80s. It had gone through several failed iterations in the decade since, and was going for a relatively cheap price. The deal never solidified, and in the end it's probably a good thing it didn't. Someone could have revived the mystique, I think, but it couldn't have been us.

<comment><USER4> A few things to note after having run a club night a while back:

1) We actually managed to go as cheap as possible with our venture. The scene that we were targeting, Gothic/Industrial, is already a hard to come by group of people compared to the larger genres out there, and we even had competition on the same night; however without large decor changes, or even spending more than $500 on opening night, we were able to make a decent enough of a profit. I think marketing may be the key factor here.

2) The space we found was very small - in fact it was a hard to locate bar that was looking for something to take over their Saturday nights. One of the issues we had with the bar owner was decor, which in the end had to be left untouched - thus our Goth/Industrial night took place in a Caribbean/Tiki style bar.

3) In regards to marketing a nightclub - as previously mentioned by mschwar99, social butterfly types are a great asset here. By getting promoters to hand out flyers (stamped with their promotion id/name, and the promoters targeting very obvious members of our target scene) you can get a good amount of patrons in. By presenting the flyers, the customers will get free entrance, and the actual promoters get a cut based on the amount of patrons they bring in. Your promoters will work extra hard to get the word out as it's purely commission based work at that point.

Sadly, in our case, the reasons we failed were mostly attributed to the NYC smoking ban in bars, the incorrect cross streets being printed on our flyers, as well as midterms taking up the time of our customers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I helped run a large, high volume college bar for around 8 years and then opened and operated my own venture (with partners) for a year or so.

Much of the details of your venture will depend entirely on its location. Sticking to advice that will apply no matter where you are:

If you have to equip the place from scratch and need to do it on the cheap, find restaurant auctions around your location. Restaurant and bar equipment depreciates at a sickening rate, and they go out of business frequently. You can save well over 70% off of catalog for six month old equipment.

Find a local insurance agent and get to know them very well. Don't ever, ever skimp on liability insurance.

In my experience far and away most important aspect of operating a bar is the staff that you employ. Obviously they need to be as trustworthy as possible - employee theft is a constant. Much like fighting illegal downloads you will be fighting to minimize it rather than abolishing it. The theft will rarely be in the form of removing money from the register till, but rather in the form of unpaid product.

The larger reason that your hires will be important though is because hiring the right people is the most effective form of marketing that you can possibly do. Hiring a staff of well connected, social butterfly waitresses, door guys, and bartenders has an infinitely higher ROI than any print or radio marketing that you can do.

Additionally, good employees are perhaps the most important differentiating factor for your business. Unless you are a multi-million dollar Vegas-style theme joint, your business is a commodity. There are already twenty other businesses just like yours. Having employees that are both good at their jobs and eager to establish relationships with your patrons will be key in converting customers to repeat customers.

Could type all day, but the last thing that I would add is that as with any new business you will struggle to gain traction. When marketing I always tended to look at my job as one of disrupting traffic patterns. Potential patrons already had their favorite bar and a list of five others on a short list. My job was to get myself on that list, and in order to do that I would have to offer an awfully compelling reason to get them to disrupt their patterns.

I would usually use either a heavy loss leader (really cheap drinks) on a typically low revenue night or high profile events (big name band / DJ, fight night, etc). Once I had ac customer in the door and I provide a well executed experience it becomes a numbers play much like PPC advertising in the web world. 50% of the people that tried me out will be back someday, I made it on to the short list of 10% of the new customers, 5% wind up being new regulars.

<comment><USER6> Good info, thanks for sharing. I do have one question that stands out as a paradox to me ...

You mention hiring well-connected, social butterfly types. Can't doing this _increase_ your risk/amount of theft? In other words, if many of your patrons are socially connected to your staff, aren't they more likely to expect/get free drinks?

<comment><USER7> I don't think social people are inherently nepotistic. In fact, I consider the expectation of ongoing free _anything_ to be a primary characteristic of anti- social individuals.

That said, if you identify one person that appears to be a social hub, giving them free drinks might be good for business. YMMV!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I co-own a nightclub in San Francisco called Slide (www.slidesf.com). I wouldn't recommend you get into this business without experienced partners (which is what I did). That's kind of like one of those people looking for a "technical co-founder" because they have an idea for a consumer web site even though they have no experience working at Internet companies. Between construction and permitting, it took two years to get Slide open. Of course you can open a neighborhood bar on a smaller budget, but there's still a lot of things do deal with like liquor licenses, security, liability issues, safety, staff management, etc. Like any business, success is hard, and is more likely with domain experience. Good luck!

<comment><USER9> You take the time to post an URL to the site for your club, and I take the time to look at it... --I find a useless and unreadable site at the given URL that requires both javascript and Flash. We can probably just agree that I'm simply not your customer, but did you even think about how many potential customers you've turned away by failing to keep things simple and accessible?

<comment><USER10> LOL do you honestly think this is going to make one bit of difference? Flash sites are pretty much standard for all nightclubs, dance/rave parties and related things, I'm quite sure that the audience prefers a shining moving website over 'accessibility'. I'm also pretty sure 95% of the target audience that even bothers to visit the site won't even know that it's a flash site, and they surely aren't going to make the decision on whether or not to visit the club based on whether or not the website is flash or 'plain' html.

<comment><USER9> You're not thinking it through completely. It is perfectly fine if I'm not his target customer. Same is true for others like me; we're just not the intended target customer.

On the other hand, a javascript/flash-only site can be problematic for search engines, even those engines with the supposed capacity to parse javascript/flash. Outside of the search engine issue is, of course, linking by by human beings. How would you send a friend a link to a show, event, or location page? --You can't.

It really doesn't matter if the target audience is expected to be ignorant or indifferent to security concerns. You can still give them the "shining moving website" with flash in addition to more accessible content. The important part is accessibility improves usefulness and effectiveness.

The site exist to promote the club, but the current design states, "If you use an iPhone, you're not welcome here." Can you honestly say the entire target audience doesn't use iPhones? In essence, the design defeats the purpose. And no, I do not own an iPhone, but that's beside the point.

<comment><USER10> I still disagree. I think the dynamic amongst the target audience is different (I may be wrong, I used to be the target audience 15 years ago but things have probably changed radically since then, plus I'm on a different continent)

That said... I'm quite sure there isn't a lot of traffic to these pages anyway. The question to ask is - am I going to lose customer by not being available on an iPhone? People will already have decided if they're going to come or not, they don't need the site to convince them. If their friends go or if it has good buzz they will, otherwise they won't. The website is, I think, just an item on a checklist - you have to have it but it doesn't really matter if it's good (or googleable) or not.

For the rest, it's a cost/benefit thing I think. The people who design the flyers (which _are_ an important promotion tool) can easily, quickly and cheaply make a flash website from the flyer design. These things are one-off, they rotate every week, requiring someone who does all the tech frills is expensive and makes the turnaround time longer.

(PS no average iPhone user is going to think 'I'm not welcome here', they'll just think 'hmm it doesn't work, let me try at home tonight').

<comment><USER9> I'll agree my "I'm not welcome here" statement was a bit too strongly worded. None the less, you're "let me try at home tonight," statement is actually quite important. --What if the person and their friends were already out on the town looking for a(nother) place to go?

"Let me check what's going on at Slide... hmmm... it doesn't work. I'll check $OTHERCLUB."

Expecting a potential customer to go find another device to access your content/promotion defeats the purpose of building said promotion. Similar is true for making the content/promotion difficult to find via a search engine.

The costs involved in the production of more accessible content are negligible. In fact, it's faster and easier than creating flash content, and you could automate most of it into a form based UI (image of flyer, title, date, time, descriptive text).

I do see your point how club promotional sites might not get a lot a traffic but keeping a promotional site accessible to mobile devices and easily found through search really does makes sense. Advertisements that cannot be seen are far less effective than advertisements that can be seen.

<comment><USER10> I think we can argue this point until we're both blue in the face, but without data or input from someone who actually knows this market we won't really get anywhere; for example I find the example of people googling for places to go out while they're in another place highly hypothetical. As I see it (this is not a personal attack, although I see how it can easily be construed as one - I mean this as a 'meta-cognitive inference of the origins of your position in light of your previous statements and general demographic of this site', so feel free to correct me if you feel I'm mis-characterizing you), you are looking at this from a technology-warped lens, placing too much emphasis on an aspect close to you (i.e., websites). Again I don't have data, but I'm quite convinced that the amount of people who are out on a friday night and google'ing for a place to go is very, very small; so small as to put the accessibility and SEO-iness of the event's website pretty much at the bottom of priorities for a promotor / club owner.

Then again I've just been reading the 'intellectual hipsters' article also on the front page ([http://lesswrong.com/lw/2pv/intellectual_hipsters_and_metaco...](http://lesswrong.com/lw/2pv/intellectual_hipsters_and_metacontrarianism/)) so maybe I'm just an idiot trying to argue a contrarian position from made-up assumptions on smartphone use amongst the club-going demographic :)

<comment><USER9>
      > you are looking at this from a technology-warped lens, placing too much emphasis on an aspect close to you (i.e., websites).

Actually, I'd tend to agree with you but the specific aspect would be "accessibility" rather than websites in general. Since I was disappointed in not being able to see the content on the slidesf.com site, I'm certainly guilty of at least some degree of emotional response.

      > Again I don't have data, but I'm quite convinced that the amount of people who are out on a friday night and google'ing for a place to go is very, very small; so small as to put the accessibility and SEO-iness of the event's website pretty much at the bottom of priorities for a promotor / club owner.

I doubt it's intentional, but you mixed the wrong bits, and then argued against them (straw man). The SEO of a site is relevant at all times and on all devices. The (mobile) accessibility is a more specific use case, where the looking-while-out-on-the-town would be an example.

Without data, we're probably wasting time discussing it, but I don't think you're an idiot/hipster for arguing the other side. In fact, I appreciate your comments. If you look at the down-votes I've gotten, they pretty much prove if one of us is an idiot for arguing an "unpopular" point of view, it would be me. Until I saw the down-votes myself, I never dreamed keeping things accessible, particularly advertising promotions, would be such an unpopular view.

<comment><USER10> I was indeed sloppy and did mix various aspects, and argued ad hoc against the examples given; alas that's the fate of quick discussions such as this one where the wording of arguments is not double-checked :) I think overall though that we both understand each others underlying positions well. Generalized, my point is that the business case for these less-tangible aspects of website development is hard to make. I'm sure you agree with the overall sentiment that these aspects are only worth doing for a business when there's an expected positive ROI, so now all we can do is argue over at which point that break even point lies. So at least we can agree that it's not very productive to further try convincing one another :)

<comment><USER9> Yes, convincing each other is pointless. ;)

At the same time, I'm still curious what could be learned from the data? What are the real usage/access patters of mobile devices on such sites? --Mostly due to always wanting to know more about how most people use mobiles. I think it would be fun to analyze the data just to see what I could learn from it.

Since I'll probably never get access to the log data, I'll be left wondering. Oh well. I guess I'll have to find some other curiosity to occupy my time, but luckily I have a lot of them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I own a bar, and am using it to fund a new business. It's a great business, if you can get into a popular spot.

Only caveat: it takes a lot of discipline to manage large amounts of cash. If you have a problem with drugs or prostitutes, you will fail. It's not your cash... it's next week's payroll, liquor order, rent, etc.

<comment><USER12> Out of curiosity, what was your initial capital investment?

<comment><USER11> I put up $15,000 of my own money, and took on about $250,000 in debt.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> jwz does: <http://www.dnalounge.com/backstage/permits-index.html>

I think if you peruse his site a bit, there are lots of rants about how difficult it was for him to get this started.

<comment><USER14> Further, as a nerd who lives in flyover country but has at least made the mandatory pilgrimage to San Francisco, I think jwz offers some (admittedly jaded) insight into the culture of SF as a whole. The dnalounge blog and his own LJ feed are practically required reading for those of us who wish to hear what goes on beyond the silicon valley echo chamber.

<comment><USER15> Best jwz story:

<http://jwz.livejournal.com/94645.html>

<comment><USER16> My degree is in Engineering and I'm still constantly amazed at the amount of sophistication that goes into all the things we take for granted. Scaling web apps to x-million users? Ha, that's nothing compared to what other people do every day.

<comment><USER17> And yet, the web app scaling guys are making 2-3x those people in salary alone.

<comment><USER15> At least the SWAT team level engineers (World's Toughest Fixes) are getting paid a lot (and may get a pension).

Part of me thinks web stuff is so hyped because it sells magazines

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> From talking with a "bar designer": Every bar should have a choke point, that is a place where customers have to squeeze past many other customers. This isn't an annoyance, but an essential part of the experience.

<comment><USER19> That's really interesting. What's the reasoning behind it?

<comment><USER18> I think brc nailed it... (Sorry to be slow on catching up on thread.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I highly recommend working as a bartender for a bit before thinking about owning one.

<comment><USER11> Owning a bar and being a bartender are two different things. Bartending is a service industry job, while owning a bar is about managing people.

<comment><USER12> The point of being a bartender is to get a small glimpse at the inner-workings of a bar.

<comment><USER21> And to be able to tell when the bartender is stealing from you.

<comment><USER11> It's so easy and tempting for a bartender to steal that sometimes I catch myself stealing from myself.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> From a good friend who ran a very trendy bar in NYC several years back, regarding his employees: "If you think they're stealing from you, they're stealing more than you think."

</comment><comment><USER23> JWZ:

<http://www.dnalounge.com/>

<http://jwz.livejournal.com/profile>

edit:

1) dupe.

2) @netik is involved with DNA lounge too.

</comment><comment><USER24> Licensing is usually state, county and sometime city specific. You will need to check with your local city hall.

Usually the distribution of licenses is per capita, i.e. for so many people you can have xx licenses. In Boston you can't get a license unless you legally purchase it on a secondary market or have relatives in the town hall or are prepared to bribe your way through (see Diane Wilkerson case)

In Florida, where I operated a restaurant for a bunch of years, it is much easier to get a license if you have a kitchen and do certain percentage of revenues in food sales; the total time to get one from scratch I think was 3 month or so and the total cost was few hundred dollars.

Your biggest problems are employee theft and liability issues. Theft usually comes in 3 forms, theft of product, theft of time and outright theft of money. Liability is usually silly lawsuits, I had a cook who fried his elbow in a deep fryer while high, I had slip and falls, I had broken teeth, fights, orgies in a bathroom, etc.

If you could - get an experience person and partner with him for first few years, you will be thankful that you did.

</comment><comment><USER25> What state are you in? My grandmother's boyfriend is in the process of selling his bar in CA and I bet I could ask him some questions for you.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! Post back CA-specific bar info if you have any. I'm not in the market to buy up his bar or equipment yet, though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> If you don't have prior experience you need to find someone who does to help you run it.

Licenses vary greatly from state to state. There are a myriad of details to master.

<comment><USER27> Just to amplify, the climate and expense of getting licensed is going to vary by _orders of magnitude_ depending on the location.

Here in DC the actual license is a few grand (by the books), but I heard it could cost up to $100k when you factor in all the lawyers you'll need to actually get it approved.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I'm doing some early research into starting a brewery or brewpub in a small town in Michigan. I'm hoping to bootstrap as much as possible, but I'm pretty sure I'm going to be taking on at least some kind of loan. Licenses in this area aren't bad. Visit your local City Hall and give your state's Liquor Control Commission (or equivalent) a call.

</comment><comment><USER29> I have always been interested in owning a bar as well. Almost did if it wasn't for getting a much better job to come along. Where you thinking about, interested in an investor, what are you actually going to do with this information?

</comment><comment><USER30> You might find JWZ's experiences interesting: <http://www.dnalounge.com/backstage/>

Then again, it might scare you off. Maybe it's just that CA is particularly bad, I dunno.

<comment><USER31> The DNA Lounge is also a nightclub, which is by all accounts a more difficult industry to be in.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Problem with bar is dealing half with the cops and half with customers that don`t want to pay you back.

<comment><USER33> What do you mean pay you back? if you're lending people alcohol, you're doing it wrong.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Review my startup, ActiveInbox (GTD Gmail plugin w/ $20k donations) - <AUTHOR> Check it out at http://www.activeinboxhq.com
In short, it creates a better Gmail to help you: 1) get your inbox empty, 2) ensure everything gets completed, 3) do things faster in Gmail.
At its heart, it transforms emails into a flow of actions. It uses GTD principles in Gmail for great control, and adds neat efficiency shortcuts like Previous Emails to write better replies.
This is the public beta. We have a long history... but really briefly, a hobby turned into a full-time uISV about a year ago when we received $20,000 in donations - and realized the support it had! And the potential to do something really interesting to bring emailer's peace of mind. If I can share any extra info that would be of interest, please just ask. (I don't know if that's a good or bad number for donations, but I'm really mindful that we're still in a very humble place).
Would love your fresh eyes to give that great and honest HN feedback on the website, ActiveInbox and anything else that grabs your attention :) <comment><AUTHOR> I should mention that while it's GTD at the core, it includes productivity features never before seen in Gmail...

1) instantly see emails when you reply to catch up on recent discussions 2) label-emails-as-you-send-them, so you can add tracking labels to the emails you send 3) right click any contact/label to see recent conversations

... and a few more besides, all customizable :)

For anyone worried about security - as I would be - it does not require any Gmail username/password as it works within the browser; and all XHR requests are there to see (and the source is openable, although it's minified).

</comment><comment><USER2> This looks like it might be _very_ similar to something that's been bouncing around in my head for quite a while - I greatly look forward to trying it out!

Any chance you'd consider working with the Mailplane[1] author to get it integrated? That's my Gmail client of choice, and Ruben has integrated other tools like Rapportive, so I'd hope that something could be worked out.

[1]: <http://mailplaneapp.com/>

<comment><AUTHOR> I've long since admired Mailplane and it would be great to do something with Ruben - I didn't realize that he was open to collaboration. Will get in touch.

And if you have any thoughts about what you like, don't like, or would love to see and want to discuss it more deeply, I'd love to go into it :) Just say hi at firstname.lastname@example.com (or the community forum: www.getsatisfaction.com/activeinbox)... or here at HN of course!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Proper Link : <http://www.activeinboxhq.com>

I think the site is quite clear and your call to actions are pretty good however

"Transform emails into actions with GTD® for a better Gmail & Google App" - this is a little hard to read, same with the ActiveInbox text, maybe try a different colour?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks you! Is it just the colour or the font as well?

And what browser are you using? We use a slightly different font on Chrome/Mac than we do on other setups...

<comment><USER3> Chrome latest version :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> So this is supposed to be a more convenient way to label and file emails...? Interesting idea, but I'm not sure I'd gain any productivity from an app like this.

I installed it and tested out, and it just feels messy to me. Gmail already feels cluttered enough with all of the buttons and crap everywhere, and your app just adds to that.

Also, the To Do labels are goofy (Next, Action, Some Day, Waiting On). I think you can come up with something more intuitive and user friendly.

One last thought - is GTD a commonly used term? I had never heard of it prior to visiting your site, and to do some searching to figure out what it meant.

<comment><AUTHOR> GTD is Getting Things Done, a really popular productivity method ("the art of stress free productivity"). It's our niche to start out with, while we are still small (I'm the only full time person involved, although revenue is getting to a point where we can consider expanding).

As we refine features, and expand what it can do, I think we will become very useful to a much wider audience. (And thank you for the comment on cluttering - I will work through that with Pete, the designer - I absolutely agree nobody wants more clutter in Gmail!). Which is the time we will move away from highlighting GTD for new users.

Our goal with ActiveInbox is to deliver peace of mind (the guarantee that everything is prioritized and will be taken care of, and contacts will be impressed with your performance), and increase your flow to get through your email quickly & effortlessly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's a really minor thing but on this page: <http://www.activeinboxhq.com/install.html>

In Chrome the dialog box on the page says: "This extension can access: Your data on gmail.com, google.com and 3 other websites". But when it popped up in my chrome it said "4 other websites".

It's not a big deal, but it briefly weirded me out when I don't know what those sites are, and when it's different to what I was expecting.

Will let you know what I think of the actual app once I have had a play.

<comment><USER5> To add to my feedback:

I really like it so far. It's nice to be able to archive emails and get them out of my inbox but know I won't forget about following up on them.

The archive/skip and go to next buttons are good, but I wish there was a delete and go to next. I have a lot of junk to get through :)

<comment><AUTHOR> The extra inbox processing buttons are part of Plus (it's a forerunner to the 'create your own shortcut buttons' that we're working on).

If you're wondering, the background to that is that free gives you good email control and a full implementation of the essential useful features; and Plus increases your efficiency :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> HN Meta bitching question on my part. How come this Review my startup request gets multiple points in minutes and hits the front page, yet mine gets nothing in hours?

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1743398>

(feel free to down vote as needed)

<comment><USER7> Not to continue the off-topic, but I've noticed this problem and started a mailing list just focusing on review requests (<http://minvp.com>). Of course, that too dropped off the new page with no comments :)

<comment><USER8> I like the idea too, but would rather subscribe to an RSS feed. I get enough email already...

<comment><USER7> Haven't advertised yet, but if you go to <http://minvp.com/apps> you'll find everything I send out in the email.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> It looks cool, but I almost expect a short video these days showing me exactly what it does.

<comment><AUTHOR> A very very good idea. I've been holding off slightly because - well, partly stage nerves ;) - but because it's hard to get it professional. You are right though, I will put _something_ together... it will be the easiest way to showcase what it can actually do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Seriously, I'm in love with this after just a few minutes of use. This is something I have always wanted in my gmail, but never saw a proper solution floating around. Great job.

</comment><comment><USER11> And what about the "Reference"? IMO, not all emails are tasks, some of them are just data to be stored. What should I do with those?

<comment><AUTHOR> Exactly, so today's email client broadly serves two functions: 1) to manage emails (which is to say, manage the flow of tasks that emails represent), 2) be a knowledge base.

Reference labels are essentially meta data - so you might create a general reference labels for invoices, receipts, meeting notes, etc. You can then use ActiveInbox's sidebar menu to drill into the knowledge base -> look for meeting notes for a given project, or invoices for a given contact.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> _I'd like to use ActiveInbox for Gmail with Internet Explorer/Google/Outlook/Lotus Notes_

What about Safari and Mail?

<comment><AUTHOR> I will add them as options!

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> but what is it?

Its not clear what it is on the webpage, is it a browserplugin, service or what? It should be more prominent, you have to try downloading to find out.</comment>


Rum Deal: America's booze laws are terrible - <AUTHOR> http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2014/06/america_s_booze_laws_worse_than_you_thought.html <comment><USER3> Okay, what the _heck_ is with this business of secondary markets for licenses in the US? You can _sell_ a liquor license? You can _sell_ a taxi license (aka medallion)? Why? How does treating licenses as property make any legal sense, or serve any public good?

In the UK, if you want to sell booze from your shop, you write to the council and apply for a license. They check you and your shop out, and if you seem okay, they grant it. If you want to drive a taxi around your town, you write to the council and apply for a license. They check you and your car out, and if you seem okay, they grant it. This seems really simple and, frankly, natural. It's how all sorts of licenses work in the private sector too - <USER2> about copyright licenses, tenancies, etc. How on earth do you get from there to licenses being a kind of property?

<comment><USER4> You make a license trade-able when you care about limiting the supply, but you don't care who gets it. The purpose of a taxi medallion is to limit the total number of taxis, and the purpose of a liquor license is to limit the number of establishments that sell liquor.[1] But the government doesn't care who has the license. Making it trade-able ensures that the license goes to the person or organization that values it most highly (Coase Theorem: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem)).

[1] These purposes aren't, on their face, unreasonable. Taxis generate undesirable congestion, and establishments that serve liquor tend to create undesirable drunk people. If you don't believe me, take a walk through Wrigleyville in Chicago on a Friday night, where you can see an endless parade of taxis picking up an endless parade of drunk students.

<comment><USER5> _take a walk through Wrigleyville in Chicago on a Friday night, where you can see an endless parade of taxis picking up an endless parade of drunk students._

But isn't this supply meeting demand? If there were too many taxis, wouldn't the supply eventually cull itself when nobody can make enough money?

<comment><USER6> The subtext behind an invocation of Wrigleyville is that drunk bar clientele from outside the area makes it difficult to live in. Wrigleyville is a running joke among people who live on the north side of Chicago.

<comment><USER7> And now I suddenly feel the need to stand up on behalf of people four years younger than myself and say: drunk college douchebags are people, too. They have equal rights and an equal stake in governance, too.

<comment><USER8> Sure, but the issue in this case isn't about rights or governance, it's about local issues caused by non-local individuals. Vancouver has a similar issue, where the drinking/clubbing/partying district, Granville Street in the heart of Vancouver's downtown, is a huge destination for partygoers from all over the region; not just Vancouver, but outlying cities and suburbs as well; a city of around 600k has to take on the responsibility of hosting the drunks, clubgoers, partiers, concertgoers, etc. of a region of 2.8m people, and many of those party people live and work outside of the city, pay taxes outside of the city, pay rent outside of the city, and only come downtown to party.

That results in an increased cost of policing the area (since all drinking and clubbing establishments are forced together), the increased cost of cleaning (everything from garbage and smashed bottles to a surprising amount of vomit), increased regulation, transportation congestion, medical care, etc.

It also results in a neighbourhood which goes from a mostly pedestrian mall- esque area full of shops and boutiques to a shitshow where you might get punched for no reason (as happened to a friend's boyfriend as they were walking home from the movie theatre; shattered his jaw, which had to be wired shut).

The problem isn't necessarily 'outsiders are bad', but rather that these people come downtown, drink, have a good time (or a bad time), but feel no responsibility for the area. They don't have to walk through it after a bad night to get to work and see the catastrophe they caused, so they may never realize the social and economic impact of bad behaviour. If it were their mailbox kicked open or their doorstep puked on or their neighbour hospitalized, it might encourage more restraint, or at least more consideration, but unfortunately that's not usually the case.

I think that's generally the problem with the 'drinking district' in a lot of cities; people from everywhere _but_ there go there to party and have fun, and if they don't, they cause problems and then head on home, lost in the crowd, and probably don't even remember it the next day.

<comment><USER7> There would be a lot fewer problems with out-of-towners throwing up in "drinking districts" if:

1) Nightlife and fun weren't utterly concentrated into single small districts, forcing people to commute to go out for an evening.

2) Cities and towns dealt civilly with college students instead of treating them as pinatas.

<comment><USER6> Nightlife isn't concentrated into small eras because of licensing. If you want bars and nightclubs spread out through an area, you are arguing for liquor licensing.

In neither the Vancouver example nor the Wrigleyville example is the problem "college students".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Philip K. Howard has a new book out: The Rule of Nobody. (Note: I haven't read it, I've just seen a few interviews and considered buying the book.)

The premise is that the fact that laws are constantly added but almost never removed is crippling us. Also, unfair laws are almost always unfair in someone's favor, and the groups benefiting will defend those unfair laws tooth-and-nail, and the morass of laws becomes even more stagnant.

I think Howard is usually seen as conservative, because he's seen as anti- regulation. I tend to think he's anti-stupid-regulation, which is a subtle but important difference. But even if you disagree with Howard in broad strokes, you have to admit that the alcohol laws in this country are pretty good supporting evidence for his premise.

<comment><USER10> A longtime wish of mine is that every law ever written came up for review every decade or so, providing ample opportunity to adjust and remove laws to fit changing cultural norms. There is probably a downside to this that I'm not seeing, not being a lawyer and all that.

<comment><USER11> There are quite a few downsides.

The first problem is that now you have to dedicate a whole lot of work to maintenance. Even if this was done in good faith, you'd have millions spent just reading and rubber stamping laws. Legislatures get little done as it is to add more work.

Then, we have the problem of getting the legislature to take this seriously. What stops gigantic omnibus renewals that, for all intents and purposes, lead to the same thing that we have now?

There's also the risks to partisan fighting over controversial laws. Imagine what happens to an impasse over immigration law, or gun control. The winner, politically, would always be the side that would be more capable of tolerating no law at all. This is far more politically charged than just keeping whatever was the consensus in the past.

So that proposal is only a good idea if you believe that having a harder to govern country is something you want. Rarely a popular opinion among people that make laws.

<comment><USER12> The legislature that unwittingly passed an honour for the 'Boston Strangler' (used his real name, not that name) lends pretty clear evidence to the idea of legislative rubber-stamping instead of disinterested investigation and fact- checking.

Politicians aren't scientists, and don't operate from root causes and facts; they operate from manipulating social factions and perceptions. If they don't see something as important to their key social factions, it's not worth their attention. Honour this Albert de Salvo guy? Sure, why not? Do it and let's move on to the stuff I want to deal with.

[http://www.snopes.com/legal/desalvo.asp](http://www.snopes.com/legal/desalvo.asp)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The piece provides several examples of regulatory capture [1], where concentrated efforts by private interests overcome diffuse interests of the public for their own profit.

The problem is that while a private interest group can focus all their efforts on one issue, the public has many diverse interests and has to be on guard against all the possible private interest groups at all times.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture)

<comment><USER14> I wonder what could be done to help fight this. Not just for alcohol, but regulatory capture in general. Network neutrality is in the same boat. Other than having a generic consumer advocate lobbying group, what could be done?

<comment><USER15> Fix campaign financing laws to limit the power of money in politics. The only reason the politicians listen to the impassioned few over the apathetic many is because the impassioned few are willing to supply the money needed to get reelected. Fix that, and politicians will start representing the interests of the broadest swathe of the electorate or, _gasp_ , voting with their conscience based on what seems like the right thing to do.

Sadly, we seem to be going the opposite direction on this at the moment.

<comment><USER13> A recent and relevant approach to addressing campaign finance is Lawrence Lessig's MayDay [1] movement, which is sort of a SuperPAC virus (a SuperPAC to end SuperPACs).

[1] [https://mayday.us/](https://mayday.us/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> You should try Canada's laws for a while. Some of the highest taxes on alcohol in the world, almost no province allows drinking outside homes or licensed establishments (so be prepared for a $300+ fine for having wine at a picnic). All of this managed through archaic licensing systems run by bureaucratic power-tripping morons.

<comment><USER17> Ontario takes it one step further, even. We have a government run monopoly on liquor and wine sales (the LCBO) and a _non-government-run government- protected monopoly_ on beer sales (the Beer Store).

To make that clear: the only company that is allowed to run a beer store in Ontario is The Beer Store. The Beer Store is owned by an association of InBev (Belgian company) and Molson/Coors (headquarters in Denver).

So Ontario has a government-protected beer retail monopoly that isn't even run by Canadians.

We just had an election. The Beer Store issue was completely ignored by all major parties.

<comment><USER18> In Sweden, we have a state monopoly on all alcoholic beverages, except for bars and restaurants. We have very high taxes on liquor, not so much on beer and wine. The monopoly is called _Systembolaget_ (The System Company). They are among the biggest buyers of alcoholic beverages in the world, and they have a mean assortment.

Private import is regulated, but it's way more relaxed within the EU countries. Systembolaget will (must) import anything you want which they don't carry, and the process is generally very convenient.

While Swedes love bashing "Bolaget", I think a lot of people are quite satisfied - the opening hours are a little cumbersome (closing at 6-8 PM on weekdays, 3 PM Saturdays, closed on Sundays) but IMO that's counterbalanced by the great assortment.

We used to have a monopoly on the production of liquor as well. It was called Vin & Sprit (Wine & Spirits) and was the company who created Absolut Vodka. Absolut sold very well and they couldn't leave a profit (or something like that). They put all profits into advertising instead, making Absolut a very well known brand. The sitting administration recently sold the company to Pernod Ricard.

<comment><USER19> >and they have a mean assortment.

This is one of those ridiculous lies that Swedes like to tell themselves. There are single stores in France and Germany with a larger assortment than the entire beställningssortiment. Anything even slightly obscure requires ordering from abroad, with all the crap that entails.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> The SC mini-bottle law has an interesting history. It was originally promoted by the Baptists to prevent alcoholism by limiting how much you could get in your glass (open-pour became illegal) The waiter or bartender had to crack the seal on the mini-bottle in front of you and pour the entire contents into your glass. No more, no less.

This quirk in the law caused an unintended side-effect. Mixed drinks became very popular because now your Manhattan had quite a bit of alcohol in it -- a full mini bottle each of whiskey and vermouth.

<comment><USER21> > to prevent alcoholism by limiting how much you could get in your glass

because people couldn't possibly concieve the idea of drinking more than one mini bottle... /s

I really can't understand this kind of thought process.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> As a (western) European, these laws strike me as completely unnecessary and obviously damaging. The union's ad (page 2) makes no sense at all. Kids here aren't dying by the bunch, and I'm pretty sure I can buy all kinds of booze (from mixed fizzy drinks to beer and wine to hard liquor to everclear) in any arbitrary convenience store...

<comment><USER14> _Sigh._

Yes, yes, we know. All of the laws, customs, and cultural traditions in western Europe are much more rational/intelligent/better/whatever than those in America.

The real story, as usual, turns out to be fairly complex. Americans have a very odd and unique history with alcohol. Most notably was the temperance movement [1], which really started all of this hullabaloo. This caused an amendment to our Constitution...something tough to do and even tougher to undo. And yet, eleven years later, it was repealed (thankfully).

But, and here's the big but: To temper the temperance movement (which, by the way, had proven considerable political power), there were these crazy laws that were enacted to limit alcohol buying. The predecessor to the ATF was born [2]. And things like the 3-tier system were created, along with all sorts of bans on homebrewing and whatnot.

Essentially all of the regulations on alcohol have their roots in either the temperance movement or the anti-drunk driving movement (i.e.-MADD), which is a neo-temperance movement. Most of them were political concessions. Anymore, folks have profited tremendously off of artificial supply limitations, and they seek to keep those limitations in place by lobbying (quite effectively) against repeal or reform.

[1]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperance_movement_in_the_Uni...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperance_movement_in_the_United_States)

[2]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Alcohol,_Tobacco,_Fi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Alcohol,_Tobacco,_Firearms_and_Explosives#History)

<comment><USER23> _Sigh_. Yes, yes, we know the US is special. So is everyone else. ;)

The temperance movement was not restricted to the US. The Swedish temperance movement started in the early 1800s, and gained a lot of strength with the starting of IOGT in the 1880s. This latter growth was strongly influenced by the Good Templar movement in the US and Canada. The peak was likely the Swedish prohibition referendum in 1922, where 51% of the voters voted against prohibition. (There have only been six referendums; others include "join the EU?" and "adopt the Euro?")

Instead, Sweden moved to a quota system - the Bratt system - first for hard alcohol and then for all the lowest alcohol drinks. While the quota system disappeared in the mid-1950s, the government still has a monopoly, excepting through bars and restaurants.

While on the other hand, Iceland had prohibition from 1915 until (in some form or other) 1989. That ending is still celebrated as "Beer Day", because until then the Icelandic temperance movement had successfully argued that strong beer, being cheaper than hard liquor or wine, would cause more depravity so should not be sold. People ended up mixing legal, weak beer with hard liquor to make an ersatz strong beer. Prohibition of that mix finally tilted the scales to end prohibition.

Norway had prohibition from 1916 to 1927, again, from the same temperance movement that was strong in the US.

<comment><USER14> I'm quite aware of the global temperance movement. However, you've missed my point completely. My _sigh_ was because every time somebody brings up something in the US that needs to be changed or reformed, you can bet that some European will come in and say, "As a European, I'm shocked this is like this!" As if we all got in a room and decided that whatever the thing is was the right thing to do, and it all sounded like a good idea at the time. In reality, these things, especially laws, go through complex histories, compromises, concessions, and interests. I gave an overly brief history of the alcohol laws in the US, or at least their influences. Just to give a _little_ context.

In reality, this discussion should be around regulatory capture. But that's too hard, so instead, we get into a Europe vs US pissing match. It's stupid. It's foolish. So, instead of discussing how to better fight regulatory capture, we just try to show off how special we are. I say again: _sigh_.

<comment><USER24> The fact that Europe doesn't have these regulations yet the sky hasn't fallen is in fact relevant to the discussion, is it not?

Just like when one looks at the much maligned US gun laws: Washington State has a similar murder rate to that of British Columbia, thus the gun laws probably don't have much impact on murder rates.

<comment><USER14> No, it's not. And it saddens me that you think it is. This is an issue of regulatory capture, not "Should we have these laws." The entire article is about regulatory capture, and how special interest groups are able to effectively block changes to these laws. The fact that Europe (or at least some of Europe) doesn't have these laws is completely irrelevant.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> "It is still more revolting if the grounds upon which it was laid down have vanished long since"

I'm surprised that the author, being a current Pennsylvanian, didn't mention the Johnstown Flood Tax. Despite that particular flood having occurred all the way back in 1936, we're _still_ paying the tax on liquor.

</comment><comment><USER26> In addition to having similar liquor license quotas, British Columbians pay a markup of 123% for wine and 170% for spirits. Our provincial liquor board generates $1.2B per year from a population of only 4.5 million people. There are different dynamics here as we have public health insurance. Liquor and tobacco sin taxes are a form of pre-payment on future healthcare expenses of heavy consumers.

<comment><USER27> Although it's all just silly because in BC you still pay for health insurance anyhow through MSP.

BC should really take a note from Saskatchewan or Alberta. Paying for health coverage in this country is an atrocity, especially with the high liquor/tabacco taxes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I love Blue Laws and States that dictate what can be sold in State run liquor stores.

No no, really, I have exactly the same taste as some random guy in the state capital.

<comment><USER29> When I lived in Columbia, SC, we couldn't buy anything on Sunday mornings before noon. There were a few exceptions, mostly stuff like food and medicine. I tried to buy a broom and some cleaning supplies at 11am and every store that I went to told me to come back in an hour.

I felt like I was being punished for not being a church goer. It was an odd experience.

<comment><USER30> _I felt like I was being punished for not being a church goer_

That's exactly it, but it's a little odd the stores were open to tell you to come back in an hour.

<comment><USER31> In the UK, a common loophole for extending "Sunday trading" laws is that, while they can't exchange money for goods, they can let you in the store and collect the things you want to buy so you'll be ready for "opening" and can go straight to checkout.

<comment><USER29> That was partially it. The other part was the stores that were open during the prohibited times usually sold allowed items also (medicine, food, diapers, etc.)

As far as I know, the law has been repealed. Before I moved away I saw them implement Sunday beer and wine sales (still no sunday liquor sales) and do not remember having difficulty buying the previously restricted items on Sunday.

It was weird entering a Wal-Mart (or other large store) and seeing a large section of items roped off.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> If it's legal to build a _firearm_ [1] for personal use, then it should probably be legal to distill spirits at home [2], though I don't advocate doing both at the same time!

[1]: [https://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/firearms- technology.html#co...](https://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/firearms- technology.html#commercial-parts-assembly)

[2]: [http://www.ttb.gov/faqs/genalcohol.shtml](http://www.ttb.gov/faqs/genalcohol.shtml)

</comment><comment><USER33> Same arguments can be used against rent control. In NYC, loft leases in newly trendy nabes can garner up to $5M in "key money". The rent regs are nearly impossible to phase out, because both landlords and some renters benefit by them, though arguably they hurt the market as a whole and are patently unfair to first-time residents.

Regulation of commerce always risks unintended (though often forseeable) consequences.

</comment><comment><USER34> It's even worse than that... I live in Illinois, a state where there are not statewide quotas... however:

The cities have the ability to add extra licensure requirements, so quotas can and do exist at the city level. Further, there are strange rules about entry to taverns - for example age of entry need not be legal drinking age which differ by city. There are also city or even smaller administrative district rule over what can be sold, pricing rules (e.g. near the college campus there is a rule about the minimum price of a drink special that doesn't apply to a lot of other parts of town) and so on.

<comment><USER35> Regarding the age of entry, I recently walked past a bar in Chicago with a posted minimum age of 23. This struck me as odd (and somewhat offensive). I did a few searches, but had trouble locating any relevant information. Do you happen to know if the legislation provides insight into this sort of practice?

<comment><USER36> I know of quite a few places in Chicago with a mid-20's minimum age. To my knowledge it has nothing to do with any legal requirements but is based on the idea that slightly older people are less rowdy/better able to handle their drinks.

When I was 21/22 I rarely had a problem getting passed the bouncers in places with the higher age limits because "you don't look like you're going to do anything stupid"

<comment><USER35> Legality aside, because I don't doubt it is legal, something about the deliberate act of posting an age makes me deeply uncomfortable.

What I don't quite understand is they can turn away anyone for any [non- protected] reason already. What could be the thought process behind posting this? Especially when the establishment is unlikely to enforce it, as you noted.

As an establishment, feel free to turn away a large, intoxicated group. Similarly, it is your right and responsibility to avoid over-serving. And furthermore, you may choose to establish whatever ambiance you choose through your decor, music, lighting, and even pricing. Between these things, you can maintain the atmosphere and attract the customer base you desire.

<comment><USER36> I think it just makes things easier. Sure people over 25 are still capable of causing problems, but I'd bet they are much less likely to be trouble and much more likely to politely leave when told they are. It also makes things much easier at the door. If a group of college kids decide to show up one night it's much easier to say "can't let you in, too young [and I don't make the rules]" than "won't let you in, I don't want to have to kick you out." It lets the bouncer deflect the decision and appeal to an authority that's not in the conversation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Liquor laws.... cigarette laws (who can sell/etc.... and even auto sales.

Heavily regulated industries abound, those are three very big ones whose taxes fund a lot of services but more importantly whose political donations fund even more protection.

In Georgia there was a big stink about restaurants storing customer alcohol, seems the locals took offense and were confiscating private alcohol because of lack of tax stamps.

If people ever thought there were not enough taxes they never bothered to add them all up. Even taxes, fees, and whatnot, that do not hit you directly get you in the end

</comment><comment><USER38> I remember trying to buy more than two 40oz bottles of malt liquor when I was in the USA. It made me laugh as it's only about as strong as Carlsberg Special Brew, and my Nan drinks that.

<comment><USER39> So...

Are you saying you weren't allowed to? If so, why not? You can walk into any random liquor store that I'm aware of and buy gallons of beer or hard liquor if you want to

<comment><USER38> I was not allowed to buy more than two. This would have been in either Jersey, Maryland, Delaware or Pennsylvania. I am going back 20 years or so.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> "Some argue that home distilling is more dangerous than home brewing, but I don't buy that."

I buy it. In fact, I'm pretty certain of it.

But otherwise, good article. I'm continually frustrated when I try to buy beer on Sunday and they don't allow Sunday sales in my town. Of course, the two stores directly outside the city limits do pretty well from the law but I don't know that it accomplishes much else. Except maybe promoting drunk driving.

</comment><comment><USER41> For a capitalist and (relative to most of Western Europe) a centre/right country, the US sure has a lot of anti-business laws.

</comment><comment><USER42> This article doesn't even bring up ABC (alcohol boards) who's sole purpose is to waste taxpayer money on sting operations at bars and push for esoteric laws that make it harder and harder to get a drink.

Make no mistake -- alcohol boards and organizations like MADD are simply neo- prohibiitonist movements co-opted by religious zealots.

</comment><comment><USER43> It made sense until he advocated home-distilling.

<comment><USER44> What's the problem with home-distilling?

<comment><USER45> Among other reasons, it's relatively easily to have a catastrophic fire. Unlike winemaking and brewing, where your end product will be in the range of 4% to 13% ABV, which generally won't burn, you can easily distill to 150 proof (75% ABV) with a simple pot still (or 190 proof with a column still).

150 proof is a highly flammable liquid. The vapor is flammable. If you have a vapor leak it can ignite. The flame is invisible. In other words, it's not something to take lightly.

In the micro distilling industry, I personally know of a half dozen fires over the past couple years. It's easy for something to go wrong very, very quickly.

Here is an article on the most recent fire: [http://newsok.com/blast-rocks- moore-distillery/article/49079...](http://newsok.com/blast-rocks-moore- distillery/article/4907972)

<comment><USER46> Yeah, catastrophic fires are an issue. And yet we've no problem with home storage of gasoline for lawn mowers (and yes, we don't typically collect gasoline in gaseous form over heat sources).

Catastrophic fires are also an issue with deep-frying turkeys, and in fact with deep-frying anything.

And we do already have a well-formed body of law dealing with responsibility for fires, damage to neighbour's homes &c.

'Someone might maybe do something wrong' isn't really a good reason for there to be a federal ban on most behaviours. I'd be much less incensed were it at the city or even neighbourhood level.

<comment><USER45> I mentioned fires as a point I would be concerned about.

While distilling is heavily regulated at the Federal, state, and local levels, the Feds did not ban it due to concerns over fire safety. Rather, a chief reason is "to protect the revenue," which, in the case of Federal excise taxes, is substantial. ($13.50 per proof gallon; a proof gallon is 1 gallon at 50% ABV.)

The Feds don't really concern themselves with fire safety. Rather, just as you desire, that's regulated at the state and local level. The TTB outlook is that you have to satisfy the local and state levels as far as fire safety is concerned.

<comment><USER47> Sort of off-topic, but back when I worked in a lab, we often needed 200 proof ethanol that wasn't denatured with methanol or some other noxious substance. The company I worked for had an ATF license to purchase ethanol without the associated tax.

The cost of 1 gallon (3.79 L) of 200 proof ethanol was $8. You could dilute this with 1 part water and end up with the equivalent of vodka for $4 per gallon. It goes to show how much alcohol taxes are.

That being said, the 200 proof alcohol was pretty vile. It smelled like the cheapest vodka you could buy. I remember a few gallons going missing over the years, so somebody didn't mind the taste.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Mozilla Supports LGBT Equality - <AUTHOR> https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/03/29/mozilla-supports-lgbt-equality/ <comment><USER2> _This post is to clarify Mozilla's official support of equality and inclusion for LGBT people, and to outline a series of actions we are taking to reaffirm this position._

I read the whole post several times and did not find a single concrete action, let alone a series. On the other hand, I am aware of one concrete action undertaken by Brendan Eich that is directly counter to all the feel-good rhetoric spouted off by this post.

<comment><USER3> That's because there is no need for concrete actions. Mozilla as a foundation/corporation never discriminated anyone, and they already have guidelines that promote equality.

<comment><USER4> And then there's the part where they made someone who is absolutely, positively against the concept of gay people having the same rights as everybody else the figurehead of the organization.

<comment><USER3> I'm not saying that was a right move - But this is Brendan private view on the matter, which don't reflect the view of Mozilla, as stated by that post (and their guidelines). And Brendan already said that his private views won't get in the way of the views of Mozilla.

I understand that some people want Brendan to step down from his position (and I'm going to guess he probably will soon-ish), but he was elected because he was considered the right guy for the job, and I don't see Mozilla firing him anytime soon, at least without giving him a chance.

<comment><USER4> I'm saying that, while that might fly as CTO or any other role of the organization, CEO is a role analagous to President. The personal views of the chief executive very much influence the entire organization, and therefore it should not be surprising that their personal life becomes part of their professional one.

<comment><USER5> Note the the Mozilla Corporation is controlled by the Mozilla Foundation. So the position of CEO of Mozilla is in fact under that of the chairperson of the foundation. If something is analogous to "president", it would be the latter one (held by Mitchell Baker), not the CEO.

<comment><USER4> I would say the president of the foundation (/the board) is analogous to the electoral college :)

<comment><USER6> No, not quite.

For example, at Mozilla-wide gatherings (e.g the summit that happened last fall) the CEO of the Mozilla Corporation is the one who typically gives some sort of talk about general strategy, market positioning, product plans, but Mitchell Baker is the one who gives a talk on overarching organizational goals: things like what Mozilla stands for and which issues Mozilla should be trying to address as an organization.

And so it is in day-to-day operation. Mitchell sets the "moral tone" much more than the CEO does; the CEO's largely involved with executing the Corporation's strategy.

There is no real analogy to the US or other national government I know of here; the organizational setups are very different. I've been trying to think of something that would be somewhat similar, and so far all I've got is Moses and Aaron in the Book of Exodus, with Mitchell as Moses and the CEO as Aaron. Not a perfect analogy, but way closer than anything involving a President.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> To be honest, I suspect Brendan Eich probably has some pretty fucking stupid opinions about homosexuality. But what does that have to do with software? And shouldn't he have the right to hold those opinions, offensive as they may be, without worrying about their effect on his career?

On one hand, corporate "position statements" (which declare opinions like cells declare osmotic pressure) like this are pretty sickening. On the other hand, I think it's a bit silly that the tech community has required Mozilla to make this one.

<comment><USER8> > And shouldn't he have the right to hold those opinions, offensive as they > may be, without worrying about their effect on his career?

Since you are bringing this to the table, let's turn the question around: Should he? Why? I agree that he should have the right to hold an opinion, but what earns him the right not to have his public exhibition of it affect his career?

<comment><USER9> You're esentially asking why he shouldn't be publically bullied out of a position in which he's the most qualified because of his (assumed) belief that marriage can only be between a man and a woman (a belief that the majority Californians who voted in 2008 also held.)

I don't agree with that belief, but the comments here and around the web have been absolutely disgusting: comparing him to the KKK and the Nazis, claiming he hates gays, calling him a bigot, etc.

More likely, his belief stems from ignorance instead of hate or bigotry. Why shouldn't the public exhibition of his opinion affect his career? Because people should be taking the moral high ground and empathize in a way that Eich obviously didn't when he made that donation.

Perhaps, instead of shitposting on HN or parading around Twitter about his (assumed) opinions when people haven't actually met Eich, they should reach out and offer their perspective by sending him a personal e-mail detailing how his actions have harmed people. He might even see it your way and change his deeply held belief.

<comment><USER8> > You're esentially asking why he shouldn't be publically bullied

Read again. I am asking why his public opinion shouldn't affect his career.

> Because people should be taking the moral high ground and empathize in a way > that Eich obviously didn't when he made that donation.

As far as I'm concerned his position affords him wealth and political influence in the organization, so his opinions, especially when they are not in line with those of the organization he represents, reasonably _will_ affect his career, as much as they will affect the public opinion on Mozilla. Empathizing with him and calling for his resignation are not mutually exclusive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I have to admit that this whole episode had given a small doubt on if my company can have an inclusive environment.

I have _very_ conservative religious and political views - but I recognize that people have good and amazing attributes regardless of my opinion on their personal lives.

I enjoy being working (and friendships) with diverse people who challenge my beliefs, and who I can help in meaningful ways despite our differences.

My pause comes from my wondering if the company develops a significant group of people who won't let my own personal beliefs remain separate from the work environment.

I'll hopefully forget this sad episode in a few short weeks, so I doubt anything will change in my heart for the worse.

<comment><USER11> From [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7201428](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7201428):

 _I 'm a trained nuclear physicist, and a biblical literalist._

You're probably a talented, hard-working, _good_ person. I wish you no ill. In fact, all else equal, I'd prefer you to lead a happy, successful life.

But I'm as likely to hire you as I am to hire a believer in alien abductions. Such beliefs are evidence of a person's thought patterns and general mental stability. Even if otherwise competent, hiring would be risky. If ever "social fit" were an excuse not to hire, this would qualify.

I'm sorry if that sounds bigoted or close-minded, but beliefs affect behavior. This is true no matter how much one tries to keep quiet at work.

Edit: I realize this is religious discrimination, which is illegal in the US. Obviously I would never tell the person the true reason for not hiring. To those who think this is abhorrent: Would you hire a Scientologist? How about a member of the Westboro Baptist Church? We all draw a line somewhere.

<comment><USER5> I'm an atheist (like I assume you are), but what you just described is straightforward religious discrimination, which is illegal in the US and many other places, for good reason.

<comment><USER11> I'm honestly curious: What's the good reason? We discriminate based on beliefs all the time. Why exempt religious ones?

I'm fine with my own anti-religious views being cause for not hiring me. (In fact, it's perfectly legal for employers to do so today.)

<comment><USER5> > We discriminate based on beliefs all the time.

We do? I certainly hope we don't. Discrimination is wrong regardless of whether its on beliefs or attributes. Maybe you meant another word than "discrimination" here, or I am misunderstanding you somehow?

<comment><USER11> I'll give an example of what I mean by discrimination: If someone is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, you probably don't want to hang out with them. You might avoid talking to them. If said conspiracy theorist ran a donut shop, maybe you'd go so far as to walk another block to buy donuts. That's the sort of discrimination I'm talking about: simply avoiding interaction with someone.

<comment><USER5> Ok, that's not what I think is generally meant by "discrimination". "Discrimination" is usually taken to mean what you earlier said: that you wouldn't hire someone to work for you if they were a biblical literalist. That is illegal, and should be.

Employment has some amount of state regulation - you can't not hire someone because of their religion or the color of their skin. It isn't fair for people of a certain religion or ethnic group to not be hire-able, and beyond that it is also just impractical in a country like the US. If no one hired anyone but their own ethnic group and religion, the economy would be completely stagnant, because the US is so diverse.

<comment><USER11> You make it sound like people are born with a religion, which can never be changed. Discriminating based on immutable characteristics such as ethnicity, sexual preference, or gender is wrong and I'm glad many such forms of discrimination are prohibited.

But beliefs can and do change. Moreover, beliefs are the reasons why people do what they do. Choosing to avoid interacting with people who express certain beliefs seems totally fine.

I doubt the economy would suffer much if religious discrimination were allowed. First, it already happens (especially against atheists). Second, most people (including myself) are willing to overlook the vast majority of differences in beliefs. There's only a fringe who end up with slightly lower wages.

I knew my opinion was controversial, but I didn't expect this reaction from people. I guess I stumbled onto something you can't say.[1]

1\. [http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html)

<comment><USER5> I didn't say a person's religion can't change? Obviously people change religion all the time. But that is not the reason why discriminating based on religion is wrong.

Again, the first reason is moral. Imagine if catholic people were the majority in some area, and on average wealthy, and wouldn't hire muslims which in that area were a poorer minority. That's just not fair - why shouldn't all people in that region have the same employment opportunities?

The second reason is practicality. There are so many religions and ethnic groups in the US, everyone has to work with everyone else. Otherwise we are losing out on a huge amount of economic potential. Let the best people work at the best jobs, even if their religion doesn't happen to match their employer's. It's a job, not a place of worship.

Also, I never said you can't say what you said. Only that I and the law disagree with you, on this topic. But I wouldn't hold what you said against you - not employment-wise (I would still potentially hire you) and not in any other way actually (if we met in person, we'd probably get along just fine). Disagreement doesn't need to be the end of the world.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> While I do support LGBT people, I fail to see how my browser's CEO should take a stance on this. You may call me short sighted if you want, but I fail to see how caring about the employee's personal values have anything to do with Mozilla's products.

There are plenty other fields where personal values can be reflected on your work, but Mozilla? I can't even find sarcasm on how they could make a prejudice.

I know that people called him out on twitter, but this whole story is going nowhere.

</comment><comment><USER13> The Mozilla Foundation (and Corporation) are in a difficult position here, because they are being blamed for someone else doing something unethical, but it would also be unethical for them to do (or have done) anything differently in response to it.

Brendan Eich's behaviour in 2008 in trying to take the choice away from couples to marry just because they happen not to be straight is a despicable step to interfere with the rights of others. His apology this month ([https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at- mozilla/](https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/)) didn't express regret for making the donation, only for "having caused pain"; nothing in the apology suggests that he has actually changed his views. It fits the classic pattern of an apology for how other people reacted to what he did, rather than for what he did.

As abhorrent as I find his personal actions, it would not be appropriate for Mozilla to take political activities into account when making employment decisions, such as about promotions or dismissals. If employers could fire people for their political views or activities outside of work, it would be a net loss to our civil and human rights, even if in some cases such laws shield advocates for stripping away freedom and non-discriminatory treatment under the law.

The Mozilla Foundation has acted entirely fairly and appropriately here, and it is not fair to blame Mozilla for the actions of Brendan Eich or for not discriminating against him on the basis of his political beliefs.

</comment><comment><USER14> I am so bored of seeing this over and over again. There is absolutely no ties between someones professional and personal life. As is, between a foundation/corporation and the views of any of their employees - yes this includes chairman. Give it a rest for crying out loud.

</comment><comment><USER15> Until 2 years ago the president of the United State opposed gay marriage.

It was OK for him to be _President of the United states_ , while publicly opposing gay marriage.

But it's not OK for the _CEO of a browser company_ to publicly oppose gay marriage?

</comment><comment><USER16> Excuse me, but is this a settled issue? One opinion is OK, a different one deserves being ostracized, losing one's job? When did this happen? I don't think I got the memo.

</comment><comment><USER17> The first paragraph makes it sound like Eich's appointment as CEO stirred some controversy around LGBT inclusion. Did I miss something? I haven't seen anything about this yet. Barring some event like this, I think it's stupid for Mozilla to make a politically charged statement just for the heck of it.

<comment><USER4> Brendan Eich donated $1,000 in support of Prop 8, which made gay marriage illegal in California.

<comment><USER17> OK, thanks for the information. If there's a link to an HN thread or two about that discovery/controversy, I'd be happy to see it.

Not sure why I'm getting downvoted for asking for more information, but such is HN I guess.

<comment><USER3> You're probably getting downvoted because this has been the "hot" topic of the week, and so your comment appear as trollish.

Those are probably the "big" two threads about it: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7459529](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7459529) and [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7475627](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7475627)

For more, you can just search his name on hn.angoia.com and sort by date: [https://hn.algolia.com/?q=brendan#!/story/sort_by_date/0/bre...](https://hn.algolia.com/?q=brendan#!/story/sort_by_date/0/brendan)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> This statement is incompatible with the actions of the CEO. If the CEO doesn't believe in the mission, this can never be more than lip service.

<comment><USER5> While it might be incompatible with an action he once took, (1) that was many years ago, and (2) on the other hand in this statement and on his personal blog he voiced support for inclusiveness and fair treatment of everyone, and to follow that up with actions.</comment></comment>


Steve Blank: Airman Roachclip, Ashley P. - <AUTHOR> http://steveblank.com/2010/04/01/airman-roachclip-ashley-p/ <comment><USER2> The 'gravity will be turned off prank', at <http://steveblank.com/2009/05/13/gravity-will-be-turned-off/> is even funnier. At first I was wondering if this was meant to be an April Fool's joke - given the other prank, probably not.</comment>


Desktoply - A site to share an image of your desktop, quickly and easily - <AUTHOR> http://desktop.ly

<comment><USER2> What problem is this solving?

I don't see any examples of what the site actually is or does, nor what other users are doing. I'm certainly not going to sign up just to figure out what it is.

Nice name, though.

<comment><USER3> I probably know what it does: namely, it is a way for people who like intimate details of other peoples lives to satisfy their curiosity. But when the site asked me to sign up without showing me examples (the desktops in the pic of the MBP do not count because they are cut off at the bottom) I said, "Naa."

<comment><AUTHOR> You can see my profile at <http://desktop.ly/dean-perry> Oh and I'm one of the co founders. I'm also the developer & designer :) We will remove the need to signup to view the users page shortly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> It's certainly a well-designed site, if perhaps... limited in its use.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! It's basically a site to showcase your desktop. No more forum threads full of expired links to desktops. Just one place for them. Like homescreen.me but for desktops. Oh and I'm one of the co founders. I'm also the developer & designer :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Aren't there like 5 other versions of this?

<comment><AUTHOR> Other versions of Desktoply or other versions of desktop sharing sites? We haven't found any (apart from loads of posts on forums) hence why we made Desktoply :)</comment></comment>