Would you get a money from a VC/angel who tweets bad things about your religion? - <AUTHOR> Did you saw people get funded just because of their ethnicity? How you can find VC/angels who are respectful to their selfs? How YC handles this? Any alternatives that you are beware of? <comment><USER4> Who cares if they are just mocking or making a light fun of religion/s. All religions have caused a lot of pain around the world; now it is time for religions to be mocked. Unless they are hateful, take the money.

And no smart VC will ever fund founders just because of ethnicity. If they do, you probably don't want to deal with them anyways.

</comment><comment><USER5> IMHO, no, I won't take the money, not because I'm religious person or something. I expect the person, whom I work with, at-least respect others.

As far as I'm concerned, funding is not just one way evaluation - <USER2> VC/Angel decide/determines whether to fund a startup or not based on founder's characters and technical/business abilities.The startup founder also needs to decide whether they think this money is legal or what's the background of this VC/angel who wants to invest.

Also note, taking stand like this might impact your business too! For example, what will do if you came to know customer is saying bad thing about religion ? Do you still want to take money from them?

<comment><AUTHOR> You have my respect too. Good point for customer side of things.I will research more about that, all I can say is if somebody dont want to buy something from me or want to return because of my religion then i would let them to do so after trying to convince them why they are wrong about my religion if they listen for sure.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> If you have a potential investor that did that, I would politely let him know your religion, and ask him if that's going to be a problem. Better than having support withdrawn later.

</comment><comment><USER7> If you refuse to take money from people who have said stupid things or things you disagree with, you'd better be planning on bootstrapping. ;)

</comment><comment><USER8> No. Its a simple matter of respect.

You can clearly see this individual disrespect a group you identify with.

Regardless of the type of group. You can't have that around.

I've not witnessed ethnic bias in my investor dealings. I'd like to think its all about the Benjamin's.

The alternative is to own your product, build what your customers will pay for. Good, respectful investors will find you & you can pick from them.

</comment><comment><USER9> It depends on the context. If someone is openly hostile in a public setting, then no. They're probably an asshole.

If they mock religion in private, or on Facebook or some other stupid thing, whatever. A lot of people have negative feelings about some religions or political groups, but most of us manage to be polite and professional when we go outside.

</comment><comment><USER10> I have my religious beliefs, but even if a VC/investor was harshly critical of them, I wouldn't refuse their money on that basis alone. Assuming they are professional and capable of keeping business and personal matters distinct, it should not matter even if they think my religious beliefs are totally crazy and say so publicly. The only things that should matter would be - how much money are they bringing to the table, and how much influence/control over the venture do they expect in exchange, and how will they exercise that influence/control in practice.

</comment><comment><USER11> You switch from "religion" in your title to "ethnicity" in the body. Other than a few spelling errors (no big problem) we have basically nothing to judge your character by, though many people around here know a lot about VC's/angels. We simply can't tell you how you will do.

If I were a VC and you wrote me the above email I would probably respond "I love disruption in everything, it's basically my job; it's hard to disrupt the status quo while holding utmost respect for traditions that go back millennia. as such if this bothers you I may not be a fit. On the other hand, you can believe whatever you want! I would question whether you would be as open- minded as my other founders, if you are dogmatic about your core beliefs - <USER3> this will not influence in any way my decision to invest - just prove that you are innovative in business." Then I would look at the email for a few seconds, and delete it rather than send it. Because I can't risk getting into some huge argument over this - being accused of being bigoted, being sued, etc. Plus, who introduced you? If you were introduced to me it would be a different matter.

so, that is how filtering works in the VC world, I think. Please note that I'm not a VC and this is speculation.

</comment><comment><USER12> It depends on what "bad things" are.

I'm not religious myself, but I think there's a clear cut difference between criticizing or scrutinizing an idea (the religion to which you subscribe – or political ideology, for that matter), and "otherizing" its subscribers by way of negative generalizations.

That being said, I agree with others in this thread: People that are unabashedly rude in public might not be the kind of person you'd want to have to deal with on a regular basis.

</comment><comment><USER13> This is not at all an easy question to answer. For me, it would depend on whether I felt the degree to which they were being disrespectful of something core to my identity made things simply not viable. If it doesn't go that far, then working with them may be a means to improve the image your faith has in the eyes of others.

I leave you with the story of Hattie McDaniels, a black american actress who played the maid in a lot of movies at a time when playing the maid was the only role she was likely to get. She was widely criticized by black americans for taking that role. She rebutted those criticisms with a statement to the effect of "I can _play_ a maid for $700 per week or I can _be_ a maid for $7 per week."

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

In short: If you think the money is something you can get and their attitude is not so problematic as to guarantee that it will help destroy your business, I would take the money. If it is such that they will give bad advice, sabotage your business, etc, then walk away.

It's a judgement call.

</comment><comment><USER14> Religion/believes although important should not be mixed with business otherwise it creates tension and breeds hatred. An example is what happened in KY with that woman clerk.

So if a VC/Angel tweets bad things about your religion then you should seek alternative funding for whatever you are doing. Because it will never work even if you pretend those bad tweets didn't matter.

</comment><comment><USER15> I would feel comfortable giving one warning (in person). I'd explain what I saw/heard, I'd explain how I felt about it, and I'd leave it in their court to change their behavior.

If they took it as a learning experience and showed a genuine interest in changing, I'd still be comfortable working with them. If they continued being disrespectful, I'd have to part ways with them.

I always like to give people a chance to redeem themselves; I'm sure I've said stupid things that offended others in the past, and I'm grateful for the opportunities I've had to learn and grow. Nobody's perfect, we're all human.

</comment><comment><USER16> I don't want to see the details, but this is a case where I think the details matter. Attacking the _beliefs_ of a religion is not productive and indicates a problem for me. Attacking a religion based on human rights issues or political positions is completely different.

For example someone could tweet bad things about the gay rights position of my own religion, and I would consider that to be a good thing.

</comment><comment><USER17> YES! I would ABSOLUTELY take the money!!!

And why should YOU do the same? Two reasons:

(1) In 20 years, EVERYBODY will make fun of your religion. (And for good reason.) And finally, (2) In 20 years, you'll be rich, and you won't care about what anyone thinks.

So if I were you, I'd take that money.

<comment><AUTHOR> I do repect what you think. If you are right with item 1 then I will not lose anything. If we drop a blank Iphone under the soil the propability of it's coming out with ios9 is same as propability of item 1 for me, just to influence you; think about the same thing for a human DNA. For me I am rich when I do live according to what I do beleive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> No. It's not really a good sign if the VC doesn't have respect for other peoples religions. Even if the region in question is a bit out there for whatever country, its nice to be nice. Jerks aren't good business partners.

</comment><comment><USER19> YC won't force you to take any money. You could definitely decline any VC you want. But if their tweets are not above a certain threshold of hatefulness then do expect others to be wary of investing in you too.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Because of the character limit I wrote religion to end of question. Please interprete it as religion/beliefs or anything which describes what makes you you. Did anybody had a similar experience?

</comment><comment><USER20> You have to get over the fact that not everyone is going to agree with your religion or beliefs. You have to get over the facts that laws are passed and Supreme Court decisions are made that conflict with your religious beliefs.

In fact you might have found yourself doing the same to someone of different beliefs or religion or even atheists.

But because of diversity you have to work with people with different religion, beliefs, atheism, whatever and you can't force your religion and beliefs on them.

Christianity has been spoken out against because of the beliefs on marriage, abortion, etc. You see all kinds of activists attack Christianity because it doesn't believe in abortions, same sex marriage, etc in general, and while there are some versions of Christianity that do believe in those things, social media and news media attacks Christians based on the views of the Fundamentalists.

If we learned from Brandon Eich and Mozilla, his Christian beliefs to fight gay marriage by donating to a charity for Proposition 8 is what had caused him to resign due to bad PR when his name was released as donating money to it. Laws can quickly change, society can quickly change, you have to think ahead and think how what you do and say will be viewed in the future when things change. You can't always have your way and you have to work with people who don't like your religion but like your product and work ethic.

In IT I learned that having a thin skin and letting things get to you is not the right way to handle things professionally. You will have others attack you because of your religion or beliefs, and you have to work with them. A simple question like are you putting up a Christmas tree will tell them that you are a Christian, and then that is where the rants against Christianity come in, and you have to take it without fighting back and develop a thick skin because you need to get along with people who hold different views and beliefs than you do, and work as a team. You will find that many people are abusive to IT staff when their computer develops a problem and will use swear words and verbally abuse you until it is fixed. In IT one has to develop a thick skin and not let this abuse get to them.

I couldn't handle the abuse and got stressed out because I couldn't manage stress and got sick. I was often attacked because of my religion, even people taking the Lord's name in vain to try and trigger me, making all kinds of degrading comments about Jesus, and all I did was turn the other cheek, and not fight back. If I fought back, I'd be sure to be fired and written up. If I reported them, well management was on their side anyway, and I'd be in trouble.

I don't push my religion or beliefs on others, and I try not to do the same to them that they do to me, I follow the law and keep my mouth shut unless it is about business or IT. I believe in turning the other cheek on issues like this as Jesus taught.

<comment><AUTHOR> I do respect other people, I am HUMAN first of all and pray for all people to find the right path. But can not respect people who do not respect their selfs. Although I do respect people who thinks they came from monkeys, it becomes very funny when they claim other people ANIMAL and their self HUMANs.

<comment><USER21> First off, it's incredibly arrogant to say you pray for people to "find the right path", and incredibly disrespectful. That's completely disrespectful. Not to mention the insult to atheists, it's completely ridiculous.

Please tell the VC that you don't want their money, since obviously you're too proud to to business.

<comment><USER20> Keep in mind that this is a person in a foreign nation that has a different culture, law, society, and way of life that has lead to a religion that prays for others to find their own path. They do not mean to insult atheists, but they have to learn about western culture, western society, and the fact that not everyone here is religious.

I studied global management and international business, and it is hard to fit into a new nation with different people who believe or don't believe different stuff. It would be just as hard for an atheist to fit into his nation, as he has trying to fit into our nation. Remember that this is happening globally as other nations get into tech startups and they aren't aware that they are offending people. It takes some getting used to and you have to forgive him because he is new to our culture and way of life. He has to make some changes to adapt and fit in.

He seems to have a difficult time understanding Evolution, said something like humans evolved from monkeys, some people think other humans are animals. It seems to be some sort of misunderstanding. Maybe in his country they don't teach evolution but something else? He seems to lack understanding of western culture and science, and I think we should help him out.

But I agree his words do insult atheists, but he doesn't mean to insult anyone, he doesn't know any better because he might never have met an atheist before. He hasn't learned how to phrase his words to be more accepting of others who don't share his belief system. He is still learning English and I think we should help him understand that praying for an atheist is an insult to an atheist, and might lead to a series of conflicts.

Our culture and nation is a bit alien to him, and he's still trying to learn it. Got some myths about Evolution he needs to work out. Needs to learn how to get along with others who don't share his religious beliefs. Needs to learn how to phrase his words better to avoid offending people.

Who knows, he could be the Steve Jobs of his nation and not be ready for it yet. I recall Steve Jobs followed Buddhism that believed people should find their own path, I recall Steve Jobs struggling in 1985 and leaving Apple to start over again. Steve Jobs had to learn from his failures to get back with Apple in order to save it. So too must this person learn form their failures and mistakes to fit into western culture and get along with atheists, etc.

<comment><USER22> I've heard taxi drivers at the gas station engaged in intense debate on this issue. Atheism, as you stated, is a belief system. The existence of God can't be disproven. There have been mathematical proofs to that effect. The entire atheist position is based on faith in something that cannot be proven. So what is the underlying motivation of atheism? It might simply be pleasure derived from offending stupid religious people. So offending atheists in return seems to be fair. Anyways, that's the gist of the taxi driver conversation I overheard.

<comment><USER12> Nitpick: Atheism is not a belief system.

The term denotes the lack of belief in deities, and exactly this and nothing else. This also means that it is not based on "faith" at all, as it does not posit any assumptions.

Humanism, on the other hand, can be described as a belief system.

Not to start the ball rolling in a religious debate or anything.

<comment><USER22> The goal of not positing assumptions is impossible and completely discarded by New Atheists and most taxi drivers.

<comment><USER12> I'm not saying that atheists don't personally make assumptions, but that atheism does not.

I'm saying that the claim that atheism is a "belief system" that makes the same kinds of assumptions as religions is intellectually dishonest at best.

This is my point:

There is a difference between a belief that something does not exist (what you're talking about, and a false equivalence), and a lack of belief in that same something (what the term actually means).

Also, not all assumptions are equal: neither "New" Atheists nor taxi drivers go around believing every assumption they hear that has not been disproven.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Well, you could take the money then behead him!

(no of course not, but what is he saying, it might have some validity.. "bad things" is subjective you know? Ask him about it!)

</comment><comment><USER24> Pecunia non olet.

<comment><USER6> Except you get oversight and influence from your VC.

<comment><USER24> If they're telling you to skip church or they'll pull funding, that's one thing...but I'm thinking (based on the disjointed hints about "being repsectful to themselves") and whatnot, this is just run-of-the-mill "This VC disagrees with my religious beliefs, maybe drinks more than I do, etc.".

People that put religion before business are not making profitable choices.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> What about YC?</comment>


Windows Phone 10 support officially ends today, here's a 2018 overview of the OS - open-source-ux https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2yzrZvZU6E <comment> open-source-ux For a longer overview of 'Metro' the design language of Windows Phone, here is a 2011 presentation by Jeff Fong, the Design Lead for Windows Phone at the time.

Part 1: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOG4DZV3TIY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOG4DZV3TIY)

Part 2: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jyv- apglS5s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jyv-apglS5s)

I've always thought that Windows Phone 8.1 (2014) as the best bit of interface design Microsoft ever created. (Windows Phone 10 was a bit of a step back in my view, but still good.)

As Android and iOS move closer towards each other in behaviour, Windows Phone shows a refreshingly different approach to mobile interface design. A shame to see it go.</comment>


Ask HN: Where are the enterprise gurus? - <AUTHOR>

Hey guys,
I feel like I know of many great people, blogs, books and articles etc about building consumer products and websites but not so much on how to design and sell B2B enterprise products.
I'm new to the enterprise world and I wish I had more quality information to guide me.
Steve Blank's blog and book on Customer Driven Development has been very useful and interesting for example.
Any suggestions guys?
Thankyou <comment><USER2> Mike Taber's recent writeup on enterprise software is pretty good:

[http://www.miketaber.net/2009/10/29/how-to-sell- enterprise-s...](http://www.miketaber.net/2009/10/29/how-to-sell-enterprise- software/)

</comment><comment><USER3> Are you selling to the enterprise? If you have specific questions, I could probably answer some - based on my experience working for a public Fortune 500 that sells to entreprise</comment>


Ask HN: New to progamming – fundamentals - <AUTHOR> Hi! I'm new to programming, and didn't take any programming courses in college. I've been learning JavaScript, HTML, CSS, PostgreSQL and most recently, Python. I've found that most of my issues with programming come from my lack of the basics of computer science principles. Does anyone have any resources to help with this, specifically websites or books the explain fundamentals in an easy to understand way? Thank you! <comment><USER2> You could try Coursera for some programming fundamentals. I think you will like it.</comment>


DragonFlyBSD 2.4 released - <AUTHOR> http://www.dragonflybsd.org/release24/

<comment><USER2> HAMMER is really good. ive been using it for about a year now and never got any corruption. the reblocker/pruner was initially an IO hog for about 5 minutes at 3am, but that has been fixed. Its totally smooth now. We use Solaris + ZFS + time slider on a storage server at work, and quite frankly, HAMMER has, even at its infancy worked better for me. HAMMER can now extend the file system on the fly, and I expect a file system shrink feature to be ready by the next release. From reading the mailing list it shouldnt be very difficult thing to do, thanks to the reblocker.

</comment><comment><USER3> The goals of Dragonfly have been so interesting, but I hope this isn't another HURD situation (where HURD is also a really awesome project that progresses in babysteps).

</comment><comment><USER4> Have any of you tried it? I haven't played around with it, but it is supposed to be pretty good.

<comment><USER5> Can't get it to run in VirtualBox on an MBP.

<comment><USER6> I think qemu works better for bsds you might try that</comment></comment></comment>


The Problem With Big Bang Theory - <AUTHOR> http://butmyopinionisright.tumblr.com/post/31079561065/the-problem-with-the-big-bang-theory

<comment><USER2> I have to agree with the part of this about Sheldon and his being scripted as behaving like someone with a disorder on the PDD spectrum such as Aspergers and this being seen as something to laugh at.

This acceptance of laughing at those with disabilities such as autism spectrum disorders - the popularization of using the term "RETARD" as an insult - pervades American society.

Yet when people do this they normalize the abuse and victimization of people who do fit clinical descriptions of retarded, or who do have disabilities that lead to them riding the short bus to school.

As someone with an autistic 9 year old I can tell you for a fact that mainstreaming is the hardest part of dealing with his disorder, and as his peers get older, they're increasingly aware that it's okay to use terms like retard, short bus, and the rest as forms of insult - just a joke, just humour - because they see adults and often parents and authority figures doing the same.

Getting back to the BBT. I studied Physics at university. I work in Silicon Valley. I'm now a 40 year old man and very comfortable with where I am in life and who I am. I liked the BBT when I first saw it for the same reasons. It was well observed in places and I enjoyed the playful stereotypes. But I just drifted away from watching it for similar reasons to the OP. It is really just laughing at nerds with lazy humour and makes it safe for dumbed-down mainstream America to continue its anti-intellectual bent, and remain comfortable in ignorance. This plays well for advertisers and those who want us to not take science too seriously when it goes against the desires of political or economic power-brokers, and people who want to stay tuned to TMZ while their lives meander past them without them even noticing.

</comment><comment><USER3> The problem with TBBT is that the writing of the last season(s) is so bad and lazy, that you are wondering why you liked it in the first place. Same thing happened with Two and a Half men. The decline in the writing of both shows coincidences with the introduction of their 3rd show, Mike and Molly.

It's a comedy show, you are supposed to laugh at the characters. None of them should be taken seriously, they consist mostly out of randomly selected quirks that change with each episode. The 'normal' people are just as silly as the nerds. If we were meant to relate to someone, it isn't Penny, but Leonard.

<comment><USER2> This happens with most sitcoms when they get big. They swap out the original writers, who move on to more creative things, and bring in the stable career sitcom writers who know how to run things in bland continuity for ten years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It's a show _about_ nerds, not _for_ nerds. Can't forget this.

</comment><comment><USER5> I think you are going the wrong way with this. I mean who cares, right? It's just a television program that viewers happen to enjoy. In fact, that's how ALL tv shows are nowadays, including Community.

As some would say, "Life isn't tv!"

</comment><comment><USER6> I guess I'm the idiot for thinking this was about the actual big bang theory. I'll move right along...

</comment><comment><USER7> In other news, television shows promote stereotypes</comment>


A Hacker's Guide to Bending the Universe - <AUTHOR> https://backchannel.com/a-hacker-s-guide-to-bending-the-universe-86a5636b04da#.19pdrdsqs <comment><USER2> The writing here is borderline artistic. It really was a beautiful post.

<comment><USER3> Thanks for pointing that out. I wouldn't have read it without your comment, and I'm better off for having done so. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> From a couple of weeks ago:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11383090](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11383090)

This is one of those sites that annoyingly tacks on a unique ID to the end of the url thus tripping up HN's dupe detector.</comment>


Ask HN: How do you send money to friends? - <AUTHOR>

In Canada, we have email money transfers. Every major bank supports this function. This acts as the main payment method for collecting money.<p>How do people in the United States and other countries do this? Do people actually use paypal, square up, and google wallet? <comment><USER2> • The absolutely best way: have your payees have an account with your bank and have internal-to-your-own-bank transfers. Some USA banks make this very easy.

• Second best, bank to bank transfers of money to your trusted payee. International transfers are in a state of flux, and may after 2013 be able to avoid high fees. Not yet though.

Otherwise:

• Trusted payee who is sophisticated and smart: Bitcoin.

• Trusted USA to USA party: Dwolla. See: [http://Dwolla.com](http://Dwolla.com) Dwolla only for trusted parties or individuals! Dwolla has surprisingly small cost, because they do _NOT_ deal with credit cards. Best for others who have DWOLLA accounts, or USA to USA bank transactions or people willing and able to submit to USA law and bank regime.

• The credit card interbank system typically has fees in the vicinity of 2% to 3% of the gross transaction. Avoid.

• Avoid PayPal. The PayPal terms of service agreement indicates that whatever PayPal decides in a dispute, PayPal's decision is final without appeal. This in known as a contract of adhesion in the USA, where one party has all of the power. Because of this, do not use PayPal. Look up "contract of adhesion" for details.

• Most other online services rely on the credit card interbank system with its high fees of 2% to 3% for transfers. Avoid.

Off Topic:

• Non-trusted parties? Don't deal with them without a letter of credit. Look up "letter of credit" for details.

</comment><comment><USER3> Venmo is getting really popular. I use Venmo on a weekly basis for any shared expenses with friends or co-workers in the Bay Area.

The reason for its quick traction is that if you hook up your checking account you can send money without any fees, and also because they give out referral bonuses for inviting others.

<comment><USER4> Another vote for Venmo. There are no fees associated as long as you pay from bank account or debit card. Credit card costs 3%. Easy to find friends through social media. Easy to get friends to sign up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> UK here, we split our house bills and pay each other by bank transfer. No fee, as instant as your internet connection, account number/sort code pairs are safe to share and all that's needed. Europe wide there are similar id numbers that cover all banks to my knowledge, so you can do the same there.

Free bank to bank transfers to anyone you deal with regularly seems like a completely necessary part of a useful consumer banking system to me.

</comment><comment><USER6> Cash if we can meet in person (i.e. a collection for a shared gift or fundraiser), PayPal otherwise.

</comment><comment><USER7> In India, we have this bank to bank transfer system called National Electronic Funds Transfer. Takes a few hours, and it can be done online if you have registered for internet banking from your bank. It is the most convenient way for us.

</comment><comment><USER8> I remit monthly to parents (and in-laws) in Australia and India from the US via Bitcoin.

So far international wire or Western Union fees outweigh net losses due to market volatility. We'll see how that continues...

</comment><comment><USER9> Direct deposit into account when both of us are in Australia. Requires bank account number of recipient. Doesn't incur fees like paypal does.

</comment><comment><USER10> in europe we just transfer money fromany bank account to any other. this way i easily pay bills or send money to anybody i like. we have smartphone apps to do so. it seems strange to me that the us did not get so far yet.

</comment><comment><USER11> Venmo was really big in my unviversity circle, but more recently Google Wallet.

</comment><comment><USER12> If they are a friend, I meet up with them in person and give them cash.

</comment><comment><USER13> paypal until square cash became available a few months ago

</comment><comment><USER14> Paypal, Venmo and Chase QuickPay.

</comment><comment><USER15> Square Cash

</comment><comment><USER16> uk: bank transfer, instantaneous and free</comment>


Who wins in any civil war? - <AUTHOR> I'm in a country that currently seems to move towards some kind of internal conflict, or civil war.
Our political leader has been against imigration from when she started until 2010, something must have happened between 2010 and 2015, because she turned around 180 degree and decided to let in everyone, no background checks, no visa, etc.
Four years later(2019) statistics say it's been more peaceful than 2014, but the crime we see and hear most are pretty violent, even if crime statistics went down.
Police force has been weakened over the last few years so they can't really deal with the violence that's out there.
Following that line, I came to the conclusion that this is happening on purpose. Let in strangers who have more experience with violence than the existing population, weaken police, watch it all burn down - that's what it feels like.
Now I came to the prediction that this will lead to some violent outbursts in the next few years and that will require to either strengthen police with more officers, or militarize (so comming violence will benefit weapon manufacturers).
Any Ideas on this? It's hard to google this, because everytime american civil war comes up.
Edit: if you flag me, please leave a comment about the why <comment><USER2> Users flagged this, probably because the post is much too strong flamebait not to produce a flamewar if people started replying.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)</comment>


How can you measure your company culture? - <AUTHOR> https://learn.onevest.com/tutorial/4113252400226109216/how-can-you-measure-your-company-culture

<comment><USER2> We can get close to measuring culture, but I don't think we'll truly ever be able to in a way that's valuable. Some companies use eNPS (employee net promoter score) to gauge overall happiness, and it is a good high-level indicator overtime and to see when it drops and spikes. But ultimately you're measuring happiness, and with this OneVest metric, you're focusing on retention; both get at the core of whether or not culture's doing its job but that doesn't really mean it's "measuring culture". Liked the perspective though, thanks for sharing this!

</comment><comment><USER3> It's hard to come up with a universal indicator, because different situations require different cultures.

Examples:

\- Some companies have incubation models - small teams trying new things. If they work, they grow. If not, everyone leaves as things wind down.

\- Services heavy firms have higher turnover than pure product companies. (It's hard being a service employee)

\- Same with sales heavy cultures.

\- If you're a great employer in Des Moines (Iowa) you'll have less turnover than Silicon Valley.

I love metrics, and struggle with this a lot. A couple signs:

\- Why do people leave? (Money? To become a teacher?)

\- Do you have to pay more than the competition?

\- How many of your A players recruit their best friends?

\- Do customers want to be employees?

\- Do ex-employees want to become customers?

Very hard to benchmark!</comment>


TabNine now charges 99$ instead of 30$ for personal licenses - <AUTHOR> https://tabnine.com/buy <comment><AUTHOR> I personally started using it when I saw it on hackernews and thought about buying it. $30 seemed to be a good affordable price for me as an independent developer. But $99 is a big number for me. So I think, that's it. Bye TabNine

<comment><USER2> Try emailing the author. You'd be surprised how flexible single-person companies can be. Maybe the new price is a temporary test so your email would be valuable feedback.</comment></comment>


Hermann Zapf, 96, Dies; Designer Whose Letters Are Found Everywhere - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/10/arts/design/hermann-zapf-96-dies-designer-whose-letters-are-found-everywhere.html <comment><USER2> Previous discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9671922](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9671922)

</comment><comment><USER3> Date: June 9, 2015.

</comment><comment><USER4> This was a few months ago. The font designer who just died this week was Adrian Frutiger.</comment>


The World in 2025: 8 Predictions for the Next 10 Years - <AUTHOR> http://singularityhub.com/2015/05/11/the-world-in-2025-8-predictions-for-the-next-10-years/ <comment><USER2> Of all the claims, there are two that jump out at me:

 _Perfect Knowledge_

"you'll be able to know anything you want, anytime, anywhere, and query that data for answers and insights" \- This is such a vague claim that it is bordering on the ridiculous.

 _Disruption of Healthcare_

"..dematerialize, demonetize and democratize today's bureaucratic and inefficient system." People have been trying to improve the efficiency of healthcare systems for decades. There is a lot of bureaucracy and legislation that would need to change in order to deliver what the author is describing.</comment>


Cal Berkeley Takes on The World - <AUTHOR> http://www.gototheboard.com/articles/Cal_Berkeley_Takes_On_The_World Or at least a few of the World's problems.  Funding for a number of ideas to help solve world issues. <comment><USER2> More schools ought to do this. It promotes students getting involved, innovation, and introduces both investors and students to each other.</comment>


Now Asm.js Is Available for JXcore Applications - <AUTHOR> http://oguzbastemur.blogspot.com/2015/02/now-asmjs-is-available-for-nodejs.html

<comment><USER2> JXcore, for those who are unaware (like I was), is a multithreaded fork of Node.js.

[http://jxcore.com/home/](http://jxcore.com/home/)

<comment><USER3> And includes Mozilla's SpiderMonkey as an alternative to V8.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Really awesome! I guess the reason to do this is basically portability?

<comment><USER5> It's not so much portability as optimization. Valid asm.js is also valid JavaScript, so it can run in V8 unmodified, but it runs without the asm.js modifications.</comment></comment>


Use Someone Else's Password, Go to Jail (EFF) - <AUTHOR> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/07/ever-use-someone-elses-password-go-jail-says-ninth-circuit <comment><USER2> So, only the computer _owner_ can authorize someone to have a password. Problem: the owner of most devices now is the manufacturer, not the purchaser, who is only a licensed user.

<comment><USER3> Courts and the law aren't so literal. They'd almost certainly treat person that controls/rents the server as owner even if they were just renting space in the cloud.

The idea is that an end user can't give you authorization when it was explicitly revoked by the actual owner/operator.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This use by the EFF of a non-sequitur ("even _with_ their knowledge and permission" in the opening sentence, together with the article's title) opens it up to the accusation of being deceptive. There are enough sound arguments that the CFAA, or at least the way it is sometimes used, is bad law.

</comment><comment><USER5> So, if I unknowingly used a public library computer that had been left logged into an administrative account...

</comment><comment><USER6> Does this mean Mint.com and Yodlee type services are now criminal actors?

<comment><USER3> Only if companies explicitly revoked their authorization. It's not the password sharing that is the issue, it's the accessing information without authorization.

The court decision doesn't do a good job laying out a clearl rule for when password sharing is unauthorized action, but it fairly clearly says that the sort of netflix password sharing isn't violation of CFAA.</comment></comment>


Children of the Revolution  - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904491704576572552793150470.html#printMode

<comment><USER2> <Ms. Chen didn't respond to requests for comment via email and Facebook.>

This reads as a tongue in cheek reminder that Facebook is blocked in China.

< He applied for a permit to tear down the century-old mansion and to build a new villa...>

The seemingly prevalent distaste for old things continues to frustrate me. So much history and tradition cast aside.

I'm disappointed the article dwelled almost entirely on Bo GuaGua after an opening that suggested a more diverse article. While the hypocrisy is particularly striking in China (due to it's stated values and recent history), I think the privilege of children belonging to wealthy and powerful families is well known to be a worldwide phenomenon.

That said, the separation of rich and poor is painfully visible in China. Glowing shopping centers with carefully planned architecture and spotless windows stand directly across from tattered shops with merchants huddled amongst piles of cheap goods and street vendors selling stir fried noodles for less than 1 USD.

<comment><USER3> >>The seemingly prevalent distaste for old things continues to frustrate me

Sigh, I need to say this about old buildings...

Sweden kept out of both world wars and that was an economic miracle for a previously very poor country.

But despite not getting the cities destroyed by bombing (or street-to-street fighting), lots of old building and whole city centers were torn down in the 1950s and 1960s, to build new buildings.

The whole country has sorely regretted it since then. Surviving old stone houses are generally really expensive.

Please learn from other's stupidity, instead of repeating it; that is partly why our brains evolved to be big.

Edit: Ah, that mansion wasn't even in China. Sorry for bothering.. :-)

<comment><USER4> If you want to preserve old buildings, buy them and hold on to them. Prices depends on supply and demand: if you reduce the supply of something and hold demand constant or increase it, that thing becomes valuable. The problem with preserving "old" buildings through legal means it that doing so prevents new supply (which usually means "more units for an acre of land") from coming online, thus increasing housing costs altogether. See: [http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/11/a-tale-o...](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/11/a-tale- of-two-town-houses/6334/) and [http://www.amazon.com/Gated-City-Kindle-Single- ebook/dp/B005...](http://www.amazon.com/Gated-City-Kindle-Single- ebook/dp/B005KGATLO?ie=UTF8&tag=thstsst-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957) for more.

I regret not being able to live in places like Boston and L.A. because poorly conceived preservation laws remove building rights from owners and prevent them from constructing dwellings I and many others might actually be able to afford.

<comment><USER3> The point was, it is a bit late to preserve old buildings in Sweden... :-)

Re Boston/LA -- that is not relevant for Sweden either, since the biggest city is quite small (ca a million people), so there is space to be used, if it was handled well. (It isn't, but that is another story.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "Mr. Bo went to Oxford University... The current cost of that is about £26,000 a year. His current studies at Harvard's Kennedy School cost about $70,000 a year... A question raised by this prestigious overseas education... is how it was paid for."

I agree with the article's sentiment. That said, would the Wall Street Journal express similar outrage at the son of an American senator attending Oxford? What about the daughter of a German finance minister? Is it really surprising that a wealthy, well-connected Chinese kid went to school at Oxford? I have to wonder just how unbiased the author is.

<comment><USER6> But the American senator or German finance ministers aren't supposed communists who should only be earning around $22,000 per year from their positions. This is all what this article is about.

<comment><USER7> Chinese ministers barely even claim to be communist these days; anyone in the government who takes communism seriously is seen as left-fringe. It's true that they seem to be miraculously making more money than their official salaries, but that's _also_ true in many countries, including Europe and the US. Some are shadier than others; it ranges from outright dirty stuff (taking bribes, insider trading) to gray-area stuff (accepting free trips and gifts) to semi-legit stuff (giving paid speeches and doing private-sector consulting on the side). US Senators get paid $174,000/year, for example, yet their average net worth is $14 million. Some of that is wealth accumulated before entering office, but a typical Senator also makes quite a bit more than their official salary when in office. Though I can certainly believe that the scale of shadiness is much higher in China.

<comment><USER6> As a matter of fact, in Europe and the US, when it becomes known that a public official spends much more money than what he/she should be able to afford, it is a scandal. I'm not saying that there is no corruption in the West, just that it is by no mean a double standard to talk about (alleged) corruption in Communist China, as it was said in the comment I was responding to...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> "Do you think in 50 years, 100 years, the world will be any different? It'll always be kings, Mom, even if we don't call them that."

8:27 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZMWoR4oIc8>

Just give us another 100 years, you'll see. :)

</comment><comment><USER9> China makes Wall Street look like the Sisters of Charity. 'Serve the People' -- yeah right Lei Feng would be rolling in his grave.</comment>


Academic Bankruptcy - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/15/opinion/15taylor.html?_r=1&src=tptw

<comment><USER3> It seems like schools are focused more on expanding their brands, and growth than educating.

I think there are certain industries, like health care and education that shouldn't be treated like for-profit ventures. It probably won't sit well with this crowd, but there are some things in life that should supercede wealth acquisition.

<comment><USER4> > and education that shouldn't be treated like for-profit ventures

There's an assumption here that for-profit ventures perform worse or serve interests worse than non-profits. In my experience with non-profits, there's lower accountability, higher salaries with less performance, less accomplishing of the organization's objectives, and more corruption and politics. Nonprofits have historically done very poorly at their stated aims, and vastly, vastly underperformed for-profit companies in building up the world. Also, the majority of universities and schools are already set up as non-profits, which might be part of why they're so dysfunctional.

<comment><USER5> Pretty much everyone who should be going to college is going to college. The market is saturated. The for profit colleges are targeting people, largely, who shouldn't be going to college. They use misleading statistics to dupe unsuspecting people. People who think the college has their interests at heart. This goes on in the non-profit college sector but is much more pernicious and rampant in the for profit sector. Default rates for student loans in the for profit sector are higher than for the non-profits.

Non-profit, mostly, have standards for admission. The for-profits don't. They just want people to spend money. Faculty at for profit colleges get fired if their standards are too high. The for profit system is all about getting students in and making sure they never fail a course. Keep them paying. For profit motive in education as it currently exists is a disaster.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The author is a fraud. How the Times let him write without making it plain that he is a (failed) entrepreneur in an online education scheme, I don't know.

First, writers who go on about the how high tuition, but don't investigate how much people actually pay can never be trusted. The only figures to contemplate are average and median tuition actually payed. The stated tuitions are simply the maximum; it is true that Trustees have spiked the maximum in the last 20 yrs, figuring, why not make Saudi princes pay as much as possible. This is not inflation, but a policy change that affects a vanishing minority of students. Any writer who doesn't make this plain is either stupid or dishonest, and my advice is, stop reading as soon as he or she pulls this stunt.

(I realized how much fraud there is in journalism on these themes, when I looked into in-state tuition at my old school, College Park, and was startled to see it is the same, after indexing for inflation, as it was in the late 70's. Admittedly Maryland is a fairly well-heeled state, most state schools have been savaged by legislatures in the last 23 years.)

Presumably the Times pays him because they like what he says; clearly there is no fact checker. In one of his earlier [diatribes]([http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/7/19/what-if- colle...](http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/7/19/what-if-college- tenure-dies/why-tenure-is-unsustainable-and-indefensible)) the claim was let pass that the average 'full professor' makes $12,198,578 / 30 = $406,619.26 per annum. He also suggests that it is typical to spend 5 years as an associate professor, then 30 as a full professor. The data on a large state university are before me: these are the numbers for the humanities faculty:

        62 full profs at average $99,431  --nice work if you can get it.
        69 assoc profs at avg $64,722
        51 asst profs at avg $53,687

His claim about full professors would suggest that there should be something like six full professors for every associate prof; in fact, there is less than one. (That the number of untenured assistant professors approaches the same figure though this status lasts only ~7 years; this suggests well over half of them will soon be in real estate at age circa 40 -- shows how savage and efficient a market Universities constitute....)

For all I know, the Universities should all be drowned at sea, but we'll never know if we are given out and out liars like Prof. Taylor to read.

</comment><comment><USER7> It was interesting that the author was the chairman of the religion department at Columbia. If ever there was a college curriculum that was not worth having a student spending many thousands of dollars and four years or more of one's life "studying" it would be that.

<comment><USER8> Given that religion both has been and continues to be one of the bigger driving forces behind just about every major event in human history, I'd say that understanding it is paramount to any serious analysis of, not only history, but any number of current events.

<comment><USER7> So read some books about religion from a local public library for free. No need to spend 4 years and $40,000.

When someone gets a college degree in Electrical Engineering I think the goal is not really to learn electrical engineering or electronics -- again you can learn those things faster and cheaper on your own -- the goal really is to get a document whereby an institution declares you are fit to enter the electrical engineering field as a working professional. If you get a degree in Religion, what "field" are you certified to work in? The religion field? The priesthood? Professorship of religion? Do we honestly need more of those and/or to the extent we do could it not be done cheaper and faster, outside a university? Perhaps done by a church-related organization?

Also, though I agree that religion is influencing some things, I don't think religion really "drives" most of anything that's really important anymore, like inventions and innovation, like building things, like creating new products and services, developing new technologies. The vast majority of that activity is totally perpendicular to religion. If anything, one of the biggest areas where I see religion making an impact is as an anti-science, pro- superstition, anti-education, anti-progress force, especially in areas of medicine and biology. But you could easily never take a class or read a book on religion and go on to become an excellent businessman, scientist, engineer, inventor, programmer, musician, etc. And still read or talk or think about religion, in your free time, whenever you felt like it. And again, for free.

<comment><USER8> This falls back to the discussion on what the role of a University education is. Personally I fundamentally disagree that Universities should be relegated to glorified career training and certification bodies. Why should universities deal with certifying that someone is "fit to enter the electrical engineering field as a working professional". Couldn't that be done cheaper and faster by some sort of professional society of electrical engineers?

A degree should be seen as a certification of knowledge, not a certification you are qualified to work in a certain field. There is nothing inherently wrong with going to university for love of learning and knowledge without focusing on what job it will lead to.

 _But you could easily never take a class or read a book on religion and go on to become an excellent businessman, scientist, engineer, inventor, programmer, musician, etc. And still read or talk or think about religion, in your free time, whenever you felt like it. And again, for free._

You can replace "religion" in the above statement with just about any other university subject and the statement will still be true. I'm not arguing that religion is necessary or important for everyone to study, just that it is a valid field of academic inquiry and study and as such very much belongs in a university setting.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> It feels that education is next in line for disruption, right after print media.

"College product" is overpriced and is largely sustained by "parent pressure". Parents and society in general do not know yet any acceptable/established alternatives.

My bet is on "open horizontal stack". Right now, every college is a small "vertical stack": its own library, teachers, physical space, etc. I think in the future we will have one national library (e.g. Chegg.com), one network of educational spaces, one network of classes (e.g. SupercoolSchool.com), one employment system for students, one office for transfer of technology, etc.

<comment><USER10> I feel that your two statements do not agree well with one another. On the one hand, I do agree with you about the eventual future of education.

However, I feel the timeline on that is fairly long, and it doesn't seem likely nothing else will be disrupted before that.

<comment><USER9> Ad_Astra, I agree with you. There are two tracks of innovation for education.

        Track 1: Fixing existing system
        Track 2: Building new educational stack

First track can lead to faster traction. But the "Google of education" is likely to be born on the second stack.

<comment><USER7> There's so much regulation & inertia with Track 1 that I'd lean to Track 2. In fact, I've already started taking a whack at it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is a good response to an article that was on the main page just a day or so ago.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1603795>

</comment><comment><USER12> He says that universities shouldn't be expanding because their job is to educate more people. Come again?

<comment><USER13> And spending too much on expansion leaves nothing to spend on teaching.

<comment><USER12> Ok, but he should more clearly separate his fiscal advice from his ethical advice.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I think education system should ideally create _employers_ instead of employees.

</comment><comment><USER15> The article seems suggest that academic institutions have over the last twenty years engaged in a scam of massively expanding their physical plant at the expense of students and teaching with the expectation that constantly rising tuitions and endowment investments would pay for it. This what's driven the other end of the "education bubble" and this is what has to stop.

Why the article veers off to combining the Columbia and NYU philosophy departments at the end, I don't know (though I could make, dark, knowing comments out of frustration).

I'd say that American society ought to take a complete U-turn and start valuing and providing the highest possible quality education to the most and the most qualified citizens, not as good sold to people but as an investment in the _whole_ of society since an educated population is a benefit to _everyone_ , not just the educated.

But that wouldn't fuel another massive ripoff, so it doesn't seem too likely...

<comment><USER16> >I'd say that American society ought to take a complete U-turn and start valuing and providing the highest possible quality education to the most and the most qualified citizens, not as good sold to people but as an investment in the whole of society since an educated population is a benefit to everyone, not just the educated.

Nearly everyone I know that I would consider 'the best and brightest' got most of the school they wanted paid for through scholarships. Many of them got housing paid for, too. This is even more true of grad school; it's often said that if you have to pay for your own grad school, you probably don't belong there, but there are a whole lot of programs for qualified people in undergrad, too.

And really, I think if we're talking about 'the good of society' we need to look real hard at what sort of degrees we are paying for.

I'm not one of the "best and the brightest" - I'm not claiming to be some sort of 'john galt' figure, carrying the world on my back, hell, I don't even know if I'm a net positive. but I think I've made some small contributions. Some people, I think, create real value services I provide, services that are quite a lot cheaper than the competition. And the book I wrote, while it's not the best book in the world, is the most up-to-date book on the subject. I mean, I haven't sold that many copies, but we're most of the way through the first printing... it's something.

If after highschool someone told me "Hey, go to school... we'll cover housing, tuition, books, everything" I'd have gone to school and studied history. If I did that, do you think I would have contributed back more or less? Maybe I would have written a book then, too... sort of a "war nerd, only without the wit" or something. I dono. Maybe I would have done something good and important that was enabled by the degree... but my guess is that I wouldn't.

I mean, what actually happened was that my parents said they'd try to help, but I'd have to work to cover a large part of it, and it'd be a hard slog through community college, then through a UC. This was 1997-1998, so obviously, there were huge opportunities available for the taking. Now, you can argue that maybe I should have gone back to school in 2002, but while the boom lasted, working was unquestionably the best decision.

<comment><USER15> I said "to the most and the most qualified citizens"... Perhaps America is doing great for the most qualified. But the education its providing for a wide range of average seems seriously problematic. Also, this country need to provide high _quality_ education - currently, it's mostly providing "high quantity" education.

IE, yes perhaps an excess of history PhDs might not be a useful thing to produce. But a base-line knowledge, of say, history, economics, mathematics or etc. among a large percentage of the population is a crucial good - <USER2> society, for _me_. I want an informed electorate, I want a population less likely to fall for bogus scams, I want "line workers" qualified to step into other positions, etc...

<comment><USER16> > this country need to provide high quality education - currently, it's mostly > providing "high quantity" education.

how do you propose to raise the quality while also raising the quantity?

Right now, it seems, the major differentiators between the 'quality' schools and the not-so-good schools is exclusivity. If you go to a top school, you can be assured that nearly all your peers passed through a very stringent filter, and the same with your lecturers. (though, my understanding is that you are unlikely to actually have much two-way interaction with your lecturer.) If you get into a top school, you know that if you screw off too much, they kick you out.

We already have a system of 'community colleges' that will let anyone in and are almost free. These schools are judged "not very good" not really because of the quality of their instruction, but because of the lack of a filter. Anyone can pay a couple bucks and show up at a community college. I've taken a few classes myself. The thing is, most people just aren't serious. Take a math class? most of the students will drop out before the class finishes. Community college is full of people like me who put their career ahead of formal education.

Yeah, you could change that a little by providing reduced-cost housing, but I think you'd still have a whole lot of people who just aren't that serious, or who see better opportunities elsewhere.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Learnings from a Failed IoT Startup...Opinions? - <AUTHOR> http://venturebeat.com/2015/06/16/5-reasons-why-my-iot-startup-failed/

<comment><USER2> Good writeup, but I can't help but laugh a bit at the outcome pivot:

 _" We decided to build a solution to this problem — FundaMine, a community to help professionals interact with others in their profession."_

 _Literally_ the "well, we don't know how to make what people want, so let's address what we as startup people want" outcome. _Literally_.

<comment><AUTHOR> Agreed! Making what you yourself want is actually a legit thing to do in a startup as long as you know that there are more people like you!</comment></comment>


Show HN: Pdd – tiny date, time diff calculator - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/jarun/pdd <comment><USER2> Nice. This tool pops up exactly when I needed it!</comment>


Sony Announces 4K A7s Camera - <AUTHOR> http://nofilmschool.com/2014/04/nab-2014-sony-officially-announces-4k-a7s-camera-well-firmware-version-4-0-f5-f55/

<comment><USER2> Call me dyslexic but I find it hard not to read "4K A7" as "AK 47" ...</comment>


Amazon faces lawsuit over Chinese battery that allegedly burned down a garage - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/27/21238919/amazon-lawsuit-battery-fire-choice <comment><USER2> Note that it's the customer's insurance company that's suing Amazon, not the customer, so they'd have more resources to spend on a lawsuit than an individual would (plus experience with suing to recover these kinds of damages). The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court in Minnesota.

The defective product was designated as "Amazon's Choice", which would seem to imply at least some level of endorsement of its quality by Amazon, no matter how much Amazon wants to disclaim responsibility for that in their fine print.</comment>


Feinstein-Burr 2.0: The Crypto Backdoor Bill Lives On - <AUTHOR> https://www.justsecurity.org/32818/feinstein-burr-2-0-crypto-backdoor-bill-lives/ <comment><USER2> The stated intention of these bills is unachievable. I don't mean technologically - key escrow is certainly possible. I mean as a practical matter, given the makeup of the commercial sector in the US. The capability to render plaintext to authorities on request is incompatible with how large companies handle information security.

That being the case, why is this bill still being pursued, given that it's a dead letter?

1\. By continuing the kabuki dance, legislators and regulators may hope to spook companies like Apple into self-regulating, to avoid public regulation. Good luck with that.

2\. Legislators might be doing this mostly for show.

3\. Legislators might keep pushing the bill until all the meaningful bits have been planed off (an option compatible with (2)), and further might not realize that their resulting product is toothless.

 _NB: I am talking my book a little here, since I 'm a party to several bets that meaningful crypto regulation in the US will never happen._

<comment><USER3> Why would the government want to make practical and common practices illegal even though compliance is infeasible?

Why are speed limits set so low? Why is tax code so full of questionable loop holes?

It provides a mechanism to target whoever you want to target for other, unrelated reasons.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The budget figures surrounding these repeated, "whack-a-mole" efforts should be forcibly transparent to the public. And reported.

If the public could readily see how much of their tax dollars (and, as well, what percentage of public employees' schedules / work hours) were being poured into _trying the same thing -- already just decided -- over and over again..._

Well, it's the only thing I can think of. Make this self-serving, lobby- machine-service activity and expense as transparent as possible.

Preferably with criminal penalties for hiding it from public examination and accounting.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I found it interesting that intelligence and terrorism investigations would no longer be covered by the bill. You read that right - what seems like the primary justification is no longer covered. As the article's author says, it _seems particularly odd given that the bill's sponsors are, after all, members of their respective chambers'_ intelligence _committees_ :

 _A second change would eliminate section (B) under the bill's definition of "court order," which obligated recipients to comply with decryption orders issued for investigations related to "foreign intelligence, espionage, and terrorism." The bill would then be strictly about law enforcement investigations into a variety of serious crimes, including federal drug crimes and their state equivalents._

The article author makes a few guesses about why that would be: 1) A _concession in a recurring jurisdictional turf war with the judiciary committees_ ; I understand turf wars and concessions; though I don't quite understand how this change fits that description, I'll take his word for it. 2) Intelligence agencies have opposed back doors; and 3) major tech companies are worried about a high volume of requests from intelligence agencies.

But what about this possibility: Intelligence agencies and/or tech companies don't want intelligence investigations to be codified and legalized, giving all parties laws that can be broken. Better to be in a legal gray area. (I don't know what already is codified or how much gray area there is.)

<comment><USER5> My take is that this law would force companies to structure their services in a way that made plaintext recoverable. And then intelligence agencies could continue to use National Security Letters and their special secret court to get the material they wanted. Or do their fancy hacking.

In other words, a side-effect of the law is to outlaw NSA-hard security design, and that's enough for them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is an interesting case. What if a law is passed that is impossible to comply with? For example, what happens if all CEOs are required to flap their arms and fly to the moon to sign something? How does that get overturned?

</comment><comment><USER7> This is a line too far for me. I will not comply. I think we should all insist that we build systems where the encryption is open source, out of our control and we never have access to the keys.

It's time to get rid of passwords too. Start, step by step, getting users used to keys, and used to being responsible for them. IT won't happen overnight.

Doing this takes care of a whole lot of social engineering problems too where hackers could call your customer support reps and get access to an account via an out of band password reset.

It's not just about not trusting the government, it's about not trusting yourself. Your company could make mistakes procedurally, your employees can make mistakes via human weakness or trickery, and as a society we need the trust that comes with real security.</comment>


The Case Against Reality - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-illusion-of-reality/479559/?utm_source=aefb&single_page=true <comment><USER2> < _As we go about our daily lives, we tend to assume that our perceptions—sights, sounds, textures, tastes—are an accurate portrayal of the real world. Sure, when we stop and think about it—or when we find ourselves fooled by a perceptual illusion—we realize with a jolt that what we perceive is never the world directly, but rather our brain's best guess at what that world is like, a kind of internal simulation of an external reality. Still, we bank on the fact that our simulation is a reasonably decent one. If it wasn't, wouldn't evolution have weeded us out by now? The true reality might be forever beyond our reach, but surely our senses give us at least an inkling of what it's really like. Not so, says Donald D. Hoffman, a professor of cognitive science at the University of California, Irvine._ >

This fallacy has been refuted a million times going all the way back to the Greeks. Any attack on the validity of the senses has to use knowledge acquired via the senses to "prove" the senses are invalid. It is self-contradiction and thinking in a circle. How did we learn that perceptual illusions are "fake" apart from further analysis and a wider context of sensory data? The classic example is the bent-pencil-in-the-water trick. We learn this is an illusion (and eventually much more about the properties of light, water, etc.) by pulling the pencil out of the water and examining it directly with our senses (our eyes, and if you are a serious doubter you can actually touch the pencil to see it is straight not bent).

Hoffman is just regurgitating what he learned in college which is primarily the Kantian attack on consciousness. Kant's view is that we can never know "true reality" because our perception of reality is mediate by our senses. But this is a denial of consciousness (it is unavoidably based on sense data) and implicitly a call for "consciousness" to be in contact with reality by no means whatsoever, i.e. non-causally.</comment>