Swiss say goodbye to banking secrecy - <AUTHOR> http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/business/tax-evasion_swiss-say-goodbye-to-banking-secrecy-/42799134 <comment><USER3> The joke in Switzerland is the U.S. Treasury took actions against Swiss banking secrecy to defend its own business [1]. Indeed, Delaware and Nevada are notoriously light on what paperwork they require to spin up an entity [2].

[1] [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-27/the- world...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-27/the-world-s- favorite-new-tax-haven-is-the-united-states)

[2] [http://www.financialsecrecyindex.com/PDF/USA.pdf](http://www.financialsecrecyindex.com/PDF/USA.pdf)

<comment><USER4> Another joke is that the U.S. is the last remaining tax haven in the world, because despite the U.S. requiring everybody else to share information with them (eg FATCA), they refuse to share information with anyone else.

The U.S. is not a participating country of AEOI.

<comment><USER5> Foreign banks should have called the US' bluff.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It seems like real estate is increasingly filling the role of banking secrecy any way. Real estate LLCs offer the same secrecy as a former Swiss bank account with the benefit with added benefit of having your investment grow potentially 5% a year long term. I don't see governments in the US or UK doing anything about this however.

This article provides a good look at this phenomenon in New York City but its happening in many cities throughout the world:

[http://nymag.com/news/features/foreigners-hiding-money- new-y...](http://nymag.com/news/features/foreigners-hiding-money-new-york- real-estate-2014-6/)

I think real estate as the new bank account has far worse implications. Hiding money in foreign real-estate deprives the local economy of tax coffers as these folks won't actually live there and won't contribute to the tax base in the form of federal, local and state taxes. As well it hurts the country where those seeing to hide money are domiciled. As cities become even more crowded and the housing stock tightens even further, developers "building safety deposit boxes in the sky" to lure hot money seems like it might have bigger societal implications than parking money in a passbook savings account in Switzerland.

<comment><USER7> > Hiding money in foreign real-estate deprives the local economy of tax > coffers as these folks won't actually live there and won't contribute to the > tax base in the form of federal, local and state taxes.

They have to pay property taxes at least. And since they're not living there they don't use any of the taxpayer funded services either. Sounds like a net gain for the local resident taxpayer.

<comment><USER6> Someone who actually lives in a place pumps money into the local economy in addition to paying property and local taxes.

Someone using a real estate as a bank account only pays real estate taxes.

Given the above and the fact that housing and land are extremely scarce commodities in a city, how exactly is someone using housing solely as a bank account a net gain for a resident tax payer?

This is of course just quantifying the financial aspect. What about the social aspect? What happens to the fabric of a neighborhood when development caters to people who don't actually live there?

How is that a net gain resident tax payer?

<comment><USER7> Land may be scarce but housing isn't. We can keep building half-empty 60-story condos and taking rich foreigners' money until the cows come home.

<comment><USER6> And what about the rental market? That's also part of the housing stock no?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I feel that governments ought not have a right to my private financial information without a warrant. If they think I have committed a crime, they ought to be forced to prove such a crime. This is no different than every home having 24/7 interior surveillance with the hope that a crime could be discovered.

Governments, especially so-called "progressive" governments have the wrong belief that our money belongs to the government first and citizens are permitted to keep their 'share.' I know many people here think that a total loss of financial privacy is 'fair,' because of some sort of misguided class- warfare, however how would you feel if your entire computer and web history were transmitted to the government with the purpose of identifying crimes you might commit as opposed to being in response to a warrant that establishes probable cause that you actually committed a crime. Having money in an overseas account does not even come close to reaching a threshold of probable cause for tax evasion. However having overseas money (or in my case, a domestic French account,) doesn't mean you are a potential criminal any more than being black means you are a potential criminal. This is financial "stop and frisk."

In the US this loss of financial privacy and these 'disclosures' amount to a warrantless search. I welcome any counter argument.

Just to be clear, I'm not a 'fat cat' billionaire -- just an American living in France that has the 'privilege' of being taxed (heavily) by both the US and France. My French bank has to disclose information about my accounts to the US Treasury and I have to fill out an FBAR each year to 'prove' to the US that I am tax compliant, thanks to FATCA.

If it weren't for the obvious class warfare aspect, liberty minded progressives would be losing their minds over this violation of the fourth amendment. They'll howl over warrantless wire-taps but many remain silent with the financial equivalent of wire-taps.

I am not advocating tax evasion, nor do I support or defend those actually evading lawful taxation; I am opposed to a police state where everyone is a criminal until proven otherwise.

<comment><USER9> The US govt doesn't take kindly to anyone hiding money to avoid taxes, whether that's setting up a chain of shell companies in the Caribbean or hiding money in the matress.

I disagree with your premise only because any kind of financial secrecy leads to tax evasion, and taxes are how the government exists. It sucks making money over seas and that's because all the fat cats try to stuff their money over there. Nothing against you but a fair law treats everyone the same.

Your argument rings of the "sovereign citizen" movement in the US which is basically a bunch of idiots that chant hail the USA while they simultaneously dodge the IRS.

<comment><USER10> Here's my point of view as a Swiss citizen: Many of us tend to see banking secrecy as just another check and balance. The Swiss government is supposed to be the _employee_ of its people, not the other way round. Banking secrecy gives a tool into people's hands against overly aggressive taxation. For Swiss this has worked well, in general the tax revenue is just fine and taxes are kept reasonable. I'm fine if it gets cut for foreigners though - <USER2> isn't responsible for the checks and balances of foreign citizens towards their nation.

<comment><USER11> But historically you have made a lot of money off these foreigners. Will that matter to lose the business?

<comment><USER10> somewhat, but (a) I think this transition is mostly complete already and the Swiss economy has survived it so far, (b) banking in Switzerland is about 8% of GDP, not significantly more than in many other developed countries and (c) a big chunk Swiss banking revenue is AFAIK still in the domestic market. Will it show up somewhere in a spreadsheet? Certainly. Will it destroy Swiss banking or Switzerland as we know it? Most probably not. [1]

That being said, if 2008 has taught us anything, it's not to underestimate greedy bankers and their favourite puppy 'leverage'.

[1] Some small private banks specialised on this sort of business may go under though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is so long overdue, it's almost useless. Where were these laws in the roaring 80s and 90s when rich people were actually making money (instead of today's stagnation)? Everyone who has cash to move has probably moved their money in obscure location outside the reach of the west (e.g. UAE). These new secrecy deals are just there to solidify the sovereignity of old money in europe.

<comment><USER13> The only people really affected are the ones without any money.

The Americans living abroad not being able to get bank accounts because the local banks are too afraid of US fines or the double taxation of income for those living abroad.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> If you want to have financial privacy, start learning about cryptocurrencies.

Getting to know bitcoin is obvious, but there are also other kids on the block. Monero is the most successful cryptocurrency that has privacy built in: [https://getmonero.org/home](https://getmonero.org/home)

In the medium term no banks in any country will be able to provide you financial privacy.

We're not there yet, bu it is coming.

And as a bonus with cc you get money that cannot be "frozen" because some government says so or money that disappears because your bank/government screws up.

In the future cryptocurrencies will be more real money then fiat currrencies. For some countries this is true alredy today.

<comment><USER15> "Here, put your money in this magic box. It may double in value in a week or it may be worth pennies on the dollar tomorrow. Nobody will know what you do with this money if you shake the box right. Put the box under your bed -- if you lose it, all your money is gone."

Bitcoin and the Swiss banking industry are apples and oranges.

<comment><USER16> >Bitcoin and the Swiss banking industry are apples and oranges.

I'd say it is a babies to cemeteries comparison.

Banking privacy is dead or dying. Cryptocurrencies offer enormous potential however with regard to privacy they are still in the experimental phase and require time to mature and develop.

<comment><USER17> Cryptocurrencies log all transactions in a world-readable log. Their only privacy is pseudonymity, which is very easily breached. And it's quite a hassle to acquire without going through an exchange which logs all your personal information for AML anyway.

<comment><USER18> This used to be the case, but not anymore. As mentioned in one of the parent comments, there are now cryptocurrencies that provide anonymity as well, check Monero [1] and Zcash [2].

[1] [https://getmonero.org/home](https://getmonero.org/home)

[2] [https://z.cash/](https://z.cash/)

<comment><USER19> And you can bet if they gain any traction, they will be dealt with swiftly by the US government under the guise of "war on drugs".

This has been repeated so many times now that it makes my head hurt to think anyone _actually_ believes you're going to have anonymity in banking/money exchanges.

<comment><USER16> Do you think we are in the final days of cash? Will we return to the pure debt based economies of the ancient world and never change course?

The US government's relationship with the global banking network is the result of very particular conditions following the end of the second world war and the end of the cold war. As these conditions shift over the next 10-20 years I'm not sure we can predict that these anti-privacy priorities will be maintained.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> FTA:

> _However, poor countries will not be accorded this privilege because they > lack the resources to fulfill the conditions for automatic information > exchange_

So bankers will be offered as a sacrifice but the dictator pillaging his country will be protected. How cute.

</comment><comment><USER21> Only for certain countries: [https://www.sif.admin.ch/sif/en/home/themen/internationale-s...](https://www.sif.admin.ch/sif/en/home/themen/internationale- steuerpolitik/automatischer-informationsaustausch.html)

Tax evaders from USA are safe.

<comment><USER22> I very much doubt that.

When you open a bank account there they'll go to very great lengths to make sure you're not from the US and you don't fall under FATCA (forein account tax complience act), and if you do, then .. well, you usually can't just open an account there, but there are branch offices of course that are ready and willing to do business with people and entities associated with the IRS, probably they are a bit more costly though.

<comment><USER23> This applies even to Swiss citizens with American green cards, unfortunately.

Note private banking has always had different rules from consumer banks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I can't find the article, but Switzerland started sharing banking information with the U.S. a few years ago. This only makes it official.

</comment><comment><USER25> Why does confidentiality play a big factor here?

<comment><USER26> If you have undeclared earnings (undeclared to avoid paying taxes), you'll want somewhere to hide that money.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Time to use Monero.

</comment><comment><USER28> Black money is converted to Black wealth long time back via Quid pro quo [http://qz.com/843902/1-of-indians-now-hold-nearly-60-of- the-...](http://qz.com/843902/1-of-indians-now-hold-nearly-60-of-the-countrys- wealth/)</comment>


Arithmetic Mean vs. Geometric Mean - <AUTHOR> http://thevivekpandey.github.io/posts/2018-04-01-arithmetic-mean-vs-geometric-mean.html <comment><USER2> > It is beacause human heights do not vary too much. No adult is 2x taller > than another adult. (I just checked: tallest adult alive is less than 2x of > shortest adult alive).

Sultan Kosen is 8ft 3in tall, while Jyoti Amge stands at 2ft 1in. [https://i.imgur.com/YhL3bcn.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/YhL3bcn.jpg)</comment>


The Machine that Indexed the Bible (1955) - <AUTHOR> https://books.google.com/books?id=8CkDAAAAMBAJ&pg=RA1-PA173&lpg=RA1-PA173&dq=%22Machine+that+indexed+the+bible%22&source=bl&ots=pIfUbLwwQj&sig=YTAEYqe9iqzK5Pm5Fi8uIfOjq-Q&hl=sv&sa=X&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAGoVChMI74uroM6iyAIVCo1yCh3RKQOf#v=onepage&q&f=false <comment><USER2> I think the best part of the article for me was the times given, how long to prepare the data, process it, and such. The manual labor hours are simply astounding let alone the computing hours once the data was ready

</comment><comment><USER3> If you keep scrolling down, you'll see some interesting simple mechanical hacks in "Hints from the Model Garage" on page "Sidan 181" (that page number is at the top right corner of the browser window).

My favorite hack there is a sartorial one: "Your best hat won't get sat on _[in the car]_ if you stow it out of the way in a holder." The text and a diagram show how to make a hat holder with a coat hanger and metal screws. This of course was in the days when men and women wore hats. (I've read that John F. Kennedy single-handedly killed the hat industry: He didn't like to wear them, and when he became president he set a new fashion trend.)

</comment><comment><USER4> I think this is cribbed from a Popular Science article from November 1956, available at: [https://books.google.com/books?id=8CkDAAAAMBAJ&pg=RA1-PA173&...](https://books.google.com/books?id=8CkDAAAAMBAJ&pg=RA1-PA173&lpg=RA1-PA173&dq=%22Machine+that+indexed+the+bible%22&source=bl&ots=pIfUbLwwQj&sig=YTAEYqe9iqzK5Pm5Fi8uIfOjq-Q&hl=sv&sa=X&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAGoVChMI74uroM6iyAIVCo1yCh3RKQOf#v=onepage&q&f=false) . More strongly, I suspect plagiarism.

The presentation is in almost identical order as the PopSci article, and all of the facts in this mashable.com essay are a subset of those in PopSci, including the quote from "Dr. Grace Murray Hopper". A modern author who knew the topic is more likely, I think, to use "Rear Admiral Grace M. Hopper". The PopSci article also covers many other details - you should read it if this article interests you.

That quote, by the way, comes from page 1 of her 1955 book "Automatic Coding for Digital Computers", available at [http://www.textfiles.com/bitsavers/pdf/univac/HopperAutoCodi...](http://www.textfiles.com/bitsavers/pdf/univac/HopperAutoCodingPaper_1955.pdf) . A search for that quote using DuckDuckGo and Google finds matches only from the book, the PopSci article, and this new essay. This is consistent with my belief that PopSci is the primary and sole information source for this new piece.

FWIW, I learned about the PopSci article because of a reference in the seminal book 'Punched Cards'. One of the chapters describes textual analysis, and cites several articles about the Univac work, at [http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b3958636;view=1up;...](http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b3958636;view=1up;seq=389;size=150) .

<comment><USER5> Wow, what a find. Thanks! Also, ugh.

We've changed the URL from [http://mashable.com/2015/09/27/univac- bible/](http://mashable.com/2015/09/27/univac-bible/), which I think dalke has shown has plagiarized this excellent 1955 article. It's pretty sickening to think of what else these websites must be ripping off without attribution.

I've marked this subthread off-topic because hopefully the thread can be about the extraordinary details of the original article. But props to dalke for an extraordinary bit of research.

<comment><USER6> Might be plagiarized, but the pictures from the mashable article add to the story. People should still check it out after reading the original but they should really source this issue :/

Particularly the last photo, a man drawing out computer workflow with a bible open in front of him. Quite a juxtaposition to think about!

"The lord is my shepherd,

I shall not want;

he makes me lie down in green pastures.

He leads me...."

<comment><USER7> _Quite a juxtaposition to think about!_

This makes me think of _King James Programming_ : "Posts generated by a Markov chain trained on the King James Bible, Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs, and Why's Poignant Guide to Ruby" [http://kingjamesprogramming.tumblr.com/](http://kingjamesprogramming.tumblr.com/)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do you see the world governance/politics in about 30 years? - <AUTHOR> <comment><AUTHOR> I mean we are deprecated. AI has to stop our madness. not the reverse #Trump</comment>


Retranslated Trump. Donald Trump's own words improved by automatic translation - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/reTrumplation <comment><AUTHOR> link to the git [https://github.com/barisione/transequilibrium/](https://github.com/barisione/transequilibrium/)</comment>


How to tell your friend that their startup idea sucks - <AUTHOR> http://hackertourism.com/how-to-tell-your-friend-that-their-startup-idea-sucks <comment><USER2> The presumption here is that you can correctly identify a startup idea that sucks. Here's a quick experiment you can do right now to see if that is true. Try to think of at least one startup that you cannot understand why it is getting traction, press, funding etc. I'm willing to bet you can think of several (I can even think of a couple companies that have actually gone IPO that I still think are dumb ideas).

The fact that you think an idea is dumb is irrelevant. The only opinion that matters are those of the customers. Instead of telling your friend that their idea sucks, ask them what their (potential) customers think of the idea. If she doesn't know, and you really feel like being helpful, push her to get meaningful feedback from a couple customers.

Having a real life customer tell a would-be founder that their idea sucks is so much more impactful than the same feedback from a random friend. Plus, there is the added benefit of saving your relationship.

<comment><USER3> Getting funded doesn't mean the idea is good.

I worked for a company, that got funded many times over the course of 14 years and didn't make any revenue the whole time.

The only thing the founders were really good at, was talking to VCs and banks...

<comment><USER4> and I am jealous of such guys. How do they do it?

surely the VC's and Banks lose their deposit on such deals, so much so they should be expert at picking out the talkers from the doers.

<comment><USER3> They had big customers and their technology was web-analytics. 14 years ago, when Google grew, they had some good point to make.

"Google did it AND we got the biggest websites of our country as customer!"

But all the engineers where much more expensive than what the customers paid.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> When does expressing judgment help?

If asked, I give constructive criticism, which they can act on or not at their option.

If I believe something in their idea may lead to problems, I tell them about the consequences I see. If they disagree, that's fine. I've been wrong before. Judging or evaluating isn't necessary or helpful.

Sticking with constructive criticism and describing consequences one sees helps in many areas beyond start-up ideas.

<comment><USER6> I think it (assumption that friends are afraid) doesn't really apply to the majority of HN audience. We give and read criticism (constructive or not) every day here, it's the second nature for us.

However, we are a small group of people. The OP's post strongly applies to a more casual audience, who won't read this post.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Apparently I'm an asshole because I have no problems telling my friends their startup ideas suck.

</comment><comment><USER8> Thing you have to realize is that you aren't judging his startup rationally. Nobody judges anything rationally on its logical merits because humans just don't operate that way. Humans make judgments on an emotional basis and then afterward their brain automatically comes up with reasons they had that emotional reaction. So the first thing to recognize is that your opinion of your friend's startup is mainly based on the way he presents it and other emotional factors. Most people will never believe any of this is true since they think human decision-making is primarily rational. It isn't.

Anyway if you have that judgement try to identify the generally non-rational reason you felt that way and tell him. Then you can go through the things like market size, team etc. and talk about them on a rational basis, but with the understanding that investors make decisions on an emotional level also. Probably that reinforces market size being #1 in their evaluation, since a large market means more money.

</comment><comment><USER9> Don't tell them. Most likely, you're not qualified and your opinion doesn't matter.

<comment><USER10> Yup. I would've told the Twitter guys their idea was useless, but hey, turns out people really liked it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I've told lots of people their startup ideas sucks. For a time, lots of people asked me for my opinions and advice on their startup ideas, from a context of "I want to raise seed funding, how do I do it".

Here's a few phrases that let people know their startup idea sucks without being judgey on them:

\- How did you validate that there was a market for this? \- How many businesses have committed to pay for this? \- This sounds like a 2-sided marketplace, how are you going to solve the chicken-and-egg problem? \- Sounds cool, but consumer is really hard. Are you sure you wouldn't prefer to build a nice B2B startup instead?

The last one is interesting. Lots of people have ideas that are "like facebook but different". Many companies like that have succeeded (instragram, whatsapp, twitter, secret). But those companies are very very hard to build, and thousands of startups like that fail. So its not so much that their idea sucks - as it might be really cool - just more that they might prefer to build a different startup in a different space, especially if its their first startup. Nothing says early validation like 50 people who give you their credit cards - not easy in B2C.

<comment><USER12> > instragram, whatsapp, twitter, secret But those companies are very very hard > to build,

I thought part of what made those companies interesting was how easy they were to build. I'm not saying their success was easy but they weren't hard to create were they?

Twitter was created in 3 months. Instagram was created by 2 people. Not sure about Whatsapp or Secret but neither seem much harder. Of course scaling might have been a ton of work but that came after success.

<comment><USER11> It's the product prototype that's easy to build. The company itself is very hard to build (gaining traction is probably the hardest part, and you won't last long without it).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> My simple answer to this: don't.

I have a number of friends who are reflexively critical. Great people generally, and I'm glad to have them as friends. But I've just stopped telling them about new things I might be working on. If you're doing a startup, extra discouragement is rarely something you need.

If a startup sounds dumb, that's probably because you're not an early adopter in the target market. As an example, the first personal computers were absolutely terrible for most people unless a) they were hugely in love with technology, or b) had a very specific business purpose that the tech could actually solve. A lot of people surely looked at early home computers and thought they were dumb businesses. In retrospect, we can tell which the dumb ones were, but at the time it sure wasn't obvious.

If you want to help a friend whose startup idea is suspicious to you, don't critique the idea; encourage them to prove the idea with their target audience. Prod them them to interview 10 potential customers and see how many have the hypothesized problem. Help them to do a concierge version [1] of the product and see how much money they can collect. Assist them in doing a landing page test.

But please don't critique the _idea_ unless you have deep expertise in the domain or are actually an early adopter in the target market. Feel free to critique things within your professional skills, of course; if you're a visual designer, it's ok to tell them their logo could use some work.

[1] [http://scottlthompson.com/lean-lesson-flashback-the- concierg...](http://scottlthompson.com/lean-lesson-flashback-the-concierge- mvp/)

</comment><comment><USER14> Sure, there are a lot of companies that initially sounded like bad ideas. But there are ideas that aren't just bad; they aren't thought through.

I hear dozens of people tell me about an idea and it's apparent that there's no chance they will succeed with this. A lot of time they're trying to enter a market they know nothing about (as this article described), for example finance students trying to do a clean-tech startup. Other times, it's the market opportunity. These ideas that suck so badly are just people who haven't been around startups to realize how to think about them. They're the kind of people who I wonder if they've ever read The Lean Startup, PG's blog, or any of the commonly-accepted startup wisdom.

</comment><comment><USER15> A friend of mine told me his startup idea once (he wasn't pursueing it then, but he thought about it a long time and had created a small prototype in paper).

I was just honest and came up with arguments why his niche market wouldn't pay for his product (he thought the governement would pay for his product). If he was truelly sure about his startup, i wouldn't be able to convince him. Neither would anyone be able to convince me :-)

</comment><comment><USER16> I thought and still think the idea behind AirBnB sucks. What the hell do I know? Ideas that seem to suck are often the ones that knock it out of the park.

</comment><comment><USER17> If you tell 100 friends their startup idea sucks you'll be right 99 times, but remembered for the one time you were wrong :P

</comment><comment><USER18> I just added "Difficult Conversations" to my to-read list. Thanks for the recommendation.

</comment><comment><USER19> I always give my advice for nearly anything in question form. It lets the person figure it out for themselves. I try to put in as little judgment as possible, so that they aren't in a "defensive" mode but more in a "contemplative" mode.

</comment><comment><USER20> I agree with the OP that double sided businesses are extremely high bars for a lot of founders to tackle. Yet, I think it's silly to tell someone their idea is dumb.

Would GitHub have sounded like a great idea at the beginning? Or Twitter, or even Facebook for that matter?

</comment><comment><USER21> Nobody wants advice that starts off by making them feel like a fool.

</comment><comment><USER4> Many times you ask for blunt feedback, you rarely get it from friends. Its like they are loathe to hurt your feelings.

Not sure if its same for all startups or the ones which may not be exactly dumb.

</comment><comment><USER22> Most startup ideas sorta suck. Doesn't mean they won't be lucrative.</comment>


Facebook is using the iPhone's camera as users scroll their feed - <AUTHOR> https://thenextweb.com/apps/2019/11/12/facebook-camera-ios-iphone/ <comment><USER2> I'm sure nobody will like this idea, but cameras and microphones should have a physical switch that kills the power and data feed, in my opinion. So you would have airplane mode and trade-secret sharing mode. Power should be diverted to an LED so that people can see you have disabled camera and microphone.

<comment><USER3> Jeff Bezos wanted this (though unsure if it was his idea) for the original Amazon Echo. The "mute" button was originally transparent, revealing the circuitry of the switch, enabling users to visually verify that the circuitry of the button severed the microphone in order to power the red mute LED.

I don't think it's that nobody _likes_ the idea, I think the problem is that very few people really care. You see this in products everywhere. Rough edges sacrificing the user experience which could be technically solved but are punted in favor of More Important Things.

<comment><USER4> > Jeff Bezos wanted this (though unsure if it was his idea) for the original > Amazon Echo.

What happened to this feature? If Bezos wanted this it would be there.

<comment><USER5> > What happened to this feature? If Bezos wanted this it would be there.

Maybe the Echo team said it was too hard, and Bezos had to "disagree and commit".

<comment><USER6> Wouldn't it be the echo team who must disagree and commit?

<comment><USER5> "This isn't one way. If you're the boss, you should do this too. I disagree and commit all the time."

\-- Bezos in his 1997 letter to shareholders

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Apple should add a status bar icon that appears whenever your camera is on and in use. Or even color the status bar similarly to how they do for GPS, tethering and calls being active.

<comment><USER8> It doesn't solve all the problems, the status bar can be hidden or faked unfortunately [https://krausefx.com/blog/ios-privacy-watchuser-access- both-...](https://krausefx.com/blog/ios-privacy-watchuser-access-both-iphone- cameras-any-time-your-app-is-running)

<comment><USER9> I'm quite fine with only malicious apps spying on me _to begin with_. I'm pretty sure Facebook or other large players wouldn't use that kind of trick.

Obviously that might not be enough for everyone, but it's by far the best solution that works with existing hardware. Tomorrows phones might have indicator LEDs or hardware switches, but my current one doesn't.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> dont install their app, just use it in the browser

edit: and they wont let you use messenger that way, for no good reason. So just use messenger on desktop or in desktop mode. edit: or mbasic.facebook.com for messenger

<comment><USER11> Just delete your account. They'll only find a million other ways to violate you.

<comment><USER12> New favorite way to perma-delete your account: start posting eggplant/peach emojis.

Unlike the "delete my account" button which actually just deactivates your account until you're ready to come home, triggering the algorithms' sex- account ban is the cortez-burn-your-ships approach to account deletion.

<comment><USER13> Turns out this is not a joke.

[https://gulfnews.com/lifestyle/fb-instagram-ban-eggplant- pea...](https://gulfnews.com/lifestyle/fb-instagram-ban-eggplant-peach-as- sexual-emojis-1.1572411550840)

<comment><USER14> I don't say this often, but I can't believe it. What an absolute farce.

<comment><USER15> Voter manipulation, hate speech, sales of guns, anti-vaccination propaganda are quite OK though.

Just watch your veggies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Giving & taking back photos & camera access is pain in the ass.

Apple already solved this exact issue with location, where you can grant it for one time only and be re-asked next time.

Hope they use the same mechanics with camera & photos.

<comment><USER17> They're so user hostile that they don't even allow you to copy and paste pictures. You MUST save them, giving them access.

Honestly, I have no idea how one company can be so horrible. It's like they read the site about Dark Patterns and asked themselves: What if we combined them ALL?

<comment><USER18> Have you read anything from or about Zuck? Remember when he said that everyone around him is sheep? And then there was a brief period of time when everyone thought he grew up? And then turns out he didn't. Oops.

<comment><USER19> Why would he? The way he does things is very clearly working, as he is one of the most successful people on Earth by typical measurements. Everything he has done has been validated as "the right thing" by the market.

<comment><USER20> Sorry for getting all political on this but we need to stop associating success only with financial wealth.

He is successful at amassing billions of dollars. From my point of view, his success in the grand scheme of things is below zero. His actions have degraded quality of life and hurt future generations.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> The narrative is that the app using the camera is a bug. I don't know what to think about that yet. On one hand, I expect Facebook (and many other things) to spy on users in every way possible. On the other, it seems to be the rear facing camera being activated and I would think they'd get more value out of the front facing camera. Who knows though. Guess it's time to go all Snowden on my phone. Or maybe just full RMS...

<comment><USER22> Full RMS. Always go full RMS

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> IIRC The app used to have a feature that allowed you to swipe to the right to quickly bring up the camera. I wonder if this bug is a remnant of that feature.

<comment> ga-vu The feature still exists. It's for their Stories support. Basically, the iOS app is prematurely pulling up the camera view. Nothing super shady as the linked (garbage) article implies.

<comment><USER24> Facebook is not entitled to the benefit of any doubts.

<comment><USER25> The article is clearly crap though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Somebody explain this to me, as I've never worked at a large company. Facebook has tens of thousands of employees. How is more not known about the extent that they track you like this (and other slimy practices)? I imagibe if somebody leaks something it would be impossible to pinpoint who exactly did so. Does really nobody whistleblow?

<comment><USER27> I work for Facebook.

Most of internet articles about Facebook is complete trash and over exaggeration. And most HN commenters are paranoids.

There are no leaks because there's actually nothing to leak. Thousands of engineers routinely perform thousands of experiments on different features (including both UI and data), and there's no mastermind who designs or even approves all these changes. Sometimes bugs happen, sometimes bug in data handling happen (like tables joined which are not supposed to be joined).

Also, I don't know about Facebook's significantly slimy practices. Facebook collected my phone number and matched it to something? I don't care, because the worst can happen is I will get more interesting ads. I know that Facebook (despite these endless accusations on HN) does not sell data, my credit card won't be stolen, I won't get unwanted phone or email spam, and that's good enough for me.

<comment><USER28> Besides refuting some maybe overly dramatic criticism, you also have nothing to hide. Why are you using a throwaway account?

<comment><USER29> So ironic. Exercises his right to privacy/anonymity but questions those that lament the loss of theirs.

<comment><USER30> Please keep personal swipes out of your comments here.

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Why doesn't Apple turn on a green light when the camera is in use, just like their laptops do when using the webcam? Or even something like the GPS indicator you see when an app is using your GPS? Seems like a pretty easy fix. Could even do it in software.

<comment><USER32> Well, there is no green light to turn on at the moment.

<comment><USER33> Eh, they could put a camera icon in the status bar just like they do with the location icon if a service/app is trying to access the user's location.

<comment><USER32> I believe you can hide that programmatically.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Honestly, I never thought that I'd be defending facebook, but I honestly think its a bug.

It always takes some time until the camera is initialized and the first frame rendered on the canvas. I bet the Instagram app, Snapchat, Twitter and WhatsApp are doing the same thing. I honestly think it is a feature to improve the user experience when starting the camera.

That being said, while they are already using the camera, they'd probably be able to do some on device ML to detect faces, emotions etc. But I'm pretty confident they're not constantly streaming your private camera feed.

</comment><comment><USER35> Like the article says, in the meantime revoke the camera permissions in order to circumvent this colossal cluster*uck..

</comment><comment><USER36> Really I related I suppose, but if you've never attempted to use the camera or microphone in the FB app it doesn't even show those permissions in the app settings, just basic Locations, Photos, etc.

Is that normal?

<comment><USER37> Yes, the way the Settings app works, it doesn't show permissions until the app requests them (the idea being, I suppose, to avoid cluttering up the settings screen for apps that will never need access to certain things).

<comment><USER38> So if I don't see the Camera settings, it means Facebook hasn't been using them?

<comment><USER39> Correct, assuming they haven't found some side-channel to bypass the permission system.

<comment><USER40> Abusing a side-channel like that is an easy way to get booted from the App Store.

<comment><USER39> _Getting caught_ abusing a side-channel like that is an easy way to get booted from the App Store.

FTFY. Also, it's Facebook. Surely they have some strategic/political strings they can pull?

<comment><USER41> Apple revoked Facebook's enterprise certificate when they were found to be abusing it. Apple holds the reins here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> I thought this was common knowledge ([https://simplecapacity.com/wp- content/uploads/2016/07/Mark-Z...](https://simplecapacity.com/wp- content/uploads/2016/07/Mark-Zuckerberg-Tapes-His-Camera-And-Audio-Jack-With- Pieces-Of-Tape.-THIS-Tells-You-Something....jpg)). Not affiliated in anyways but EFF (non profit) offers removable stickers for blocking cameras, not to mention that it's also a donation. This is one set [https://supporters.eff.org/shop/laptop-camera-cover-set- ii](https://supporters.eff.org/shop/laptop-camera-cover-set-ii)

Down side is that on newer iPhones you'll have to cut it down to not block all the screen, small price to pay for a little extra privacy.

Also why does iOS have a blinking status bar when the camera is on or at least provide on the settings app how much camera was used per app (in minutes or frames and at what time stamps), this way one can easily validate if the app is using the camera without the user prompting for it.

<comment><USER43> I implore you to enter the nearest dive bar or Applebee's and ask people what is "common knowledge" with respect to digital privacy.

Yes, we are surrounded by people who live and breathe these sorts of details. For many of us, it's our day jobs.

We have to uphold some sense of decency and ethics at the highest levels in order to protect those who are otherwise unaware of the threats.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> I've long suspected this as the Facebook app in particular causes the phone to get hot around where the main camera module ic is located. It is also a battery drain. They appear to be doing this in collaboration with Apple as the battery usage for the camera does not increase despite the camera constantly being initiated while using the Facebook app. I've also noticed that when certain ad platforms inject their code into Safari taboola/outbrain the same heating occurs. This would make sense as taboola and outbrain appear to be linked to Israeli intelligence. I guess they not only don't care about our privacy they also don't care about our battery life / health of our devices either. It sort of reminds me of how windows would spin up your HDD In the middle of the night and scan through your entire hard drive causing it to prematurely fail. All under the guise of windows update or whatever the cover was for what I consider criminal damage.

<comment><USER41> Or maybe the main processor is near the camera? It's not a conspiracy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> ... and I was only joking when a few years back, I asked my then girlfriend if she could maybe not check her Facebook feed lying next to me in bed, "because who knows, Zuckerberg might be watching us through that little camera".

I was _joking_ , damnit.

</comment><comment><USER46> Has a bunch of PMs or whoever decided that they'll f __* up the business in the long term chasing OKRs? It looks like they introduce these sort of "features" every now and then which should spark more outrage but looks like people don't care even if they are aware. I am unfortunately in the minority who cares enough not to use FB/IG :-(

Also, the hypocrisy [1].

[1] [https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/22/mark- zuck...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/22/mark-zuckerberg- tape-webcam-microphone-facebook)

</comment><comment><USER47> this is either priming the video feed to make it quicker when you want to access it, or it's malicious.

i mean, it's Facebook, no way it's malicious right?

</comment><comment><USER48> A week later:

"Apple announces apps will no longer have access to the camera for more than a minute after authorization, will have to tell call new iOS methods to say when they're done using the camera, indicators will appear in the status bar when camera is on, ..."

When they could have just had a green light like macbooks, at least on the front (or if they care about rights of others to know when they are being recorded, the back too)

</comment><comment><USER49> It's something new they are working on. Something about augmented reality ads or something like that (I have a friend working at Facebook).

<comment><USER50> That somehow sounds more dystopian than covert surveillance

</comment></comment><comment> swamp-agr Paste content from link below to your /etc/hosts file:

[https://pastebin.com/raw/FAV2f9eA](https://pastebin.com/raw/FAV2f9eA)

On Android you could prevent Facebook by blacklisting same hosts via Firefox + NoScript.

</comment><comment><USER51> "We further noticed the issue only occurs if you have given the Facebook app access to your camera." Are there any good reasons for FB to be asking for this, or for people to grant it?

<comment><USER52> It allows the user to snap and post a picture in-app, rather than using the system camera app.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> Just disable permissions for camera and microphone in the Facebook app. It doesn't affect uploading photos, and you can still use Messenger to take selfies and send voice messages.

</comment><comment><USER18> Delete that thing off your phone. I use Instagram pending a better platform but Facebook is useless to me.

<comment><USER54> Instagram is Facebook

<comment><USER55> That's why I started posting photos to LinkedIn

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> Get out of my personal business Mark.

<comment><USER57> Just dont use his products.

<comment><USER58> It's been reported many times that Facebook creates shadow profiles for everyone who does not use FB, and still tracks them across the web. So avoiding them is harder than "just dont use his products"

<comment><USER59> But you can at least avoid having your own camera/mic turned on all the time if you're not using the app.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> Genuine Question: How is Apple's review system also not at a fault here?

</comment><comment><USER61> The web browser version of FB is half decent, use that if you must.

"I don't know why. They "trust" me. Dumb fucks." — Mark Zuckerberg ([https://www.businessinsider.com/exclusive-mark- zuckerbergs-s...](https://www.businessinsider.com/exclusive-mark-zuckerbergs- secret-ims-from-college-2012-5))

<comment><USER62> I'm sure YOU never said anything stupid over IM when you were 19.

I'm sure YOU'VE not changed a bit in the past 16 years (the Zuck IMs were from 2003).

Yeah, it was a stupid thing to say, but again... 19.

[disclaimer: FB has no interest in me speaking on their behalf, unofficially or otherwise]

<comment><USER63> On the other hand, if I was at the head of a company the scale of Facebook I'd just admit my past mistakes, apologise and do my best to regain people's trust. To the best of my knowledge, Zuckerberg hasn't done any of that and tried to cover up other potential mistakes by deleting all his past IMs from people's messaging histories [0] (something normal users still can't do).

[0]: [https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/6/17203114/facebook-mark- zuc...](https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/6/17203114/facebook-mark-zuckerberg- messages-deleted-messenger-inbox)</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Scenery — Asynchronous communication for teams - <AUTHOR> http://scenery.app <comment><USER2> It's not clear what it does, and not a clear enough benefit for me to be interested to give my email. I'd suggest explaining a bit more about what it does or will do. Comparing to team chat and wiki solutions would be interesting? I can use Slack with notifications off. Also email is async. Why is this better?

</comment><comment><USER3> The site doesn't respect mobile. FYI</comment>


HackerOne breach lets outside hacker read customers' private bug reports - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/12/hackerone-breach-lets-outside-hacker-read-customers-private-bug-reports <comment><USER2> I think this is a disproportionately negative title compared to what actually happened, and solely for one word, "breach".

My opinion is that it conveys something more serious than a bug. Thousands of secrets have been leaked on Github/Bitbucket, and we don't need to report every single one as a "breach".

For instance many AWS credentials have been reported as being leaked on HackerOne, but I don't see Ars writing an article for each one saying "X company breach let's outside hacker have full access to X's infrastructure"

</comment><comment><USER3> The breach is here: [https://hackerone.com/reports/745324](https://hackerone.com/reports/745324)

TL;DR: One user reported a bug to sign-in using cURL. HackerOne replied with admin credentials (session) to show that login works.

Nobody noticed. One guy logged in, downloaded a significant amount of sensitive data (private exploits!) and then told HackerOne. They give 20'000 USD to say nothing about it.

End of story.</comment>


SeL4: OS with formal correctness + security proof - <AUTHOR> http://sel4.systems/

<comment><AUTHOR> _seL4 can run Linux in a virtual machine._ (x86 + Intel VT-x + EPT + MSI HPET). _We are working on supporting virtualised Linux on ARM processors with virtualisation extensions (presently A15 /A7 cores), a release should not be far off._

Apparently _seL4 is the world's only hypervisor with a sound worst-case execution-time (WCET) analysis, and as such the only one that can give you actual real-time guarantees, no matter what others may be claiming._

Naturally _the confidentiality proof makes no guarantees about the absence of covert timing channels._

From [http://sel4.systems/FAQ/#virtualisation](http://sel4.systems/FAQ/#virtualisation)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> [http://youtu.be/lRndE7rSXiI](http://youtu.be/lRndE7rSXiI)

 _The implementation is correct against this abstract specification ... so bug-free, etc. The implications, there 's many of them, but just a few obvious ones: it's not possible for this kernel to have a buffer overflow; it cannot - it provably does not use uninitialized variables or dereference null pointers, there's no stack smashing, you can't have code injection, there's no return oriented programming. Any of that stuff is just not possible - provably. So that's nice!_</comment>


Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection spread (2005) - <AUTHOR> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1232869/ <comment><USER2> > We have identified chloroquine as an effective antiviral agent for SARS-CoV > in cell culture conditions, as evidenced by its inhibitory effect when the > drug was added prior to infection or after the initiation and establishment > of infection. The fact that chloroquine exerts an antiviral effect during > pre- and post-infection conditions suggest that it is likely to have both > prophylactic and therapeutic advantages.

This is in vitro, but other studies and anecdotes are showing in vivo efficacy of hydroxychloroquine.</comment>


Flat UI, mirrored - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/iurevych/Flat-UI <comment><USER2> This whole episode has underlined a few major differences among developers and (current) designers. Developers are more open, contribute code and discuss about bettering each other.

While Designers seem secretive, ego-filled and seeking pointless exclusivity.

Eg: Developers: HackerNews / Github, etc Designers: DesignerNews / Dribble, Forrst, etc.

Any designer that has been open about his work and process has become a legend - Dieter Rams, Johnathan Ive, etc.

<comment><USER3> I think that this is part of a bigger problem; a lot of people find design to be "easy" in that it's subjective - Client A doesn't like your work but Client B does. Can't even get a job in the field? No worries, people flock to 99Designs and Fiverr for cheap, tacky work that validates the crummy designer. Working for someone with no morals? They'll show you some styles they like and tell you they want it "exactly" like that, and if you want a paycheck, you'll do it and _maybe_ you'll learn something about the technique that you can translate into more original works. Some people just honestly don't think they'll ever be caught or that they have a right to be "heavily-inspired" because "you don't _own_ that".

<http://youthoughtwewouldntnotice.com/blog3/> has been around for awhile, but now with Pinterest, Dribbble and other resources, it's becoming a lot more common to find the people who are making it difficult for designers to feel like they can truly stand out.

Outside of flat copying/pasting code, it takes a little more to get it to be functional. By nature, lots of developers are working in teams where collaboration/pair programming is promoted to begin with. You work on projects where it is essential to team up to figure out what's going on and what could make it better. In order to ensure the project continues to move forward and work, there needs to be a method to the madness that everyone understands. At the agencies I've worked at, while everyone was a designer, we all had our specialties and we didn't really work together much outside of talking about general branding guidelines/techniques, etc.

In design, all it takes is having the same software to mimic something. So when someone that is actually doing honest-to-goodness original, clever stuff gets jacked by the hacks-at-large, it is easy to get defensive and want to lock it down, particularly when you make your livelihood getting clients that like your style and it is suddenly watered down by clones and you're not getting paid to do what you made popular anymore. On Dribbble, I've seen it go so far down the hole that people have both claimed the original artist was the hack or said "Really reminds me of [hack]'s work.." on someone's copy of a copy.

<comment><USER2> I think the problem is people confuse design and aesthetics a lot. Design is inherently meant to be universal, and obviously if something is really well designed it does make the product compelling and attractive.

Design cannot be copied, while aesthetics can.

One can copy a single design - say an icon for example, but they cannot copy the original designer's workflow and thought-process in coming up with the final design, it is and always will be unique to each individual. A copy-cat can't come up with an entire icon-set after copying a single icon, whereas the original designer can. And I seriously doubt good designers not getting work due to scummy photocopiers grabbing up jobs.

In regards to 99Designs & Fiverr:

The only requirement of a client on there is that it needs to look good. And it's easy to make something look good, but does that work with their overall product? Does the product even have a design language of its own?

And usually the clients are low-budget shops which even if they wanted to can't afford a decent designer. The same problem exists for developers as well - Do we see top developers crying foul about their code being re-used?

<comment><USER3> I totally agree with you re: design vs. aesthetics (even went on a tangent about it some weeks ago).

> And I seriously doubt good designers not getting work due to scummy > photocopiers grabbing up jobs.

Knowing some very well-known designers, I can assure you that they are losing work. Big companies reach out to these artists about their style and how much it would cost, and after not hearing anything for a few months, these companies magically show up with a new ad campaign or line of t-shirts that looks all-too-familiar. I know a good illustrator that works for a company where he is asked to copy works created by his own friends in the industry. Not all of them are bad at what they do, which is why they are hired instead. It's slimy work, but if you're good at it and can churn them out, it makes for easy income until you can break out on your own. I would wager that a lot of designers begin their careers this way. Some eventually make their way out of it to stand on their own two feet while others get comfortable with the fact that they are essentially paid to plagiarize based on what's hot right now.

> Do we see top developers crying foul about their code being re-used?

This is irrelevant, but when we're talking about front-end stuff, yes. We just saw a witch hunt here the other week. But as far as the rest it's not really comparable; developers are being paid to come up with solutions that work within a set of rules we all have to adhere to given the technologies available. Designers are being paid to come up with solutions that are intentionally unique. Code is on the web as-is, and outside of not giving credit where credit should be due, there's not really much you can do about someone copying a few lines that are part of languages that can only be written effectively so many different ways. With visuals, there really are no rules; how I created my illustration may have been an entirely different way than someone who copied it did, but it doesn't matter because the end product is the same. As we progress into using SVGs for artwork instead of images, it'll be interesting to see how these worlds collide and if we begin diffing code on a large scale to find copycats rather than use tools like TinEye.

While this means that remixing pieces will be easier and I hope that's the direction we go (and embrace), it still means the originals are a simple copy and paste away from being stolen in their full vector glory. Can't wait!

<comment><USER2> While there are cases (like you mentioned), it's also the designer's part to hustle a bit. If one has the skills and the know-how, they can be unstoppable if they want to.

Tangential to your example: I knew an illustrator who used to sketch animals in a cartoon-style, but she kept at it and eventually got hired by Rovio. But she didn't get the role just for her skills, she got it because she hustled - made an Angry Birds' fan-video and made a physical copy of it and mailed it to Rovio.

Talent alone won't help in succeeding, only persistence will. Heck, talent can be acquired, persistence on the other hand, mostly isn't.

Also, original art/design will always get credit if it is promoted properly.

<comment><USER3> This has nothing to do with the hustle; this is post-hustle - that's why these companies are even reaching out to the artists directly. The ones that know exactly who they're trying to copy are the worst offenders.

> Also, original art/design will always get credit if it is promoted properly.

This is simply not true, which is why Twitter is often a platform used for calling people out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Why not just respond to the initial dcma rather than playing a game of cat and mouse. No one is going to use it while it has dubious copyright status anyway.

<comment><USER5> They did. [https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2013-03-06-LayerV...](https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2013-03-06-LayerVault- counternotice.md)

Mirroring it while Github drags their feet reenabling seems fair enough.

<comment><USER6> Github per the DMCA needs to wait 10 days before reenabling it.

"[...] replaces the removed material and ceases disabling access to it not less than 10, nor more than 14, business days following receipt of the counter notice, unless its designated agent first receives notice from the person who submitted the notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) that such person has filed an action seeking a court order to restrain the subscriber from engaging in infringing activity relating to the material on the service provider's system or network."

<comment><USER7> Is there a (non-malevolent) reason for this clause? It seems to be something put in to deliberately slow down proceedings and apply a penalty to the accused regardless of what happens.

<comment><USER8> It's there to deter fake counternotices by giving the original issuer time to seek an injunction / file a lawsuit I think.

<comment><USER9> Are there penalties for being wrong or mistaken? It seems pretty one-sided.

<comment><USER10> Not for mistaken so much but if you can prove mal intent, yes there are penalties.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'd be interested to know about the distinction between US and UK copyright here.

In the UK, copyright will only vest in something if it is an "original work"[1]. Taking LayerVault's claim, there are only so many ways one can represent a "settings" option and the use of gear symbols is so common as to mean that no copyright attaches simply because it is not original. How much skill and effort was invested in thinking about what symbols to use?

[1] <http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-applies/c-original.htm>

<comment><USER5> It's the same here. <http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq- general.html#protect>

"Copyright, a form of intellectual property law, protects original works of authorship..."

A specific representation of gears could be copyrighted. The general concept of gears-as-icon can't be.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Looks like the Streisand Effect (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect>)!

</comment><comment><USER13> It's amusing that there are 188 forks now.

I expected a fork, but not from the author. I don't know that this is a good idea since it could cause a termination of his account. I think that is at github's discretion.

I'd never heard of LayerVault before, but based on what I've seen of the "infringing" design which amounts to 3 similar (but different) icons, they are clearly wrong to issue the DMCA. This is what I'll remember about LayerVault. Not all press is good actually.

I'm glad that @iurevych is filing a counter notice, but what is too bad, is that links from press like Smashing Magazine and CSS Tricks are not working. This will hurt FlatUI.

I really hope that LayerVault drops it at this point, but if they pursue a lawsuit, I would like to see it fought.

</comment><comment><USER14> When I saw the story first, I half expected someone to come up with a 'whack- a-mole' script.

Every time the original repo disappears, mirror it with a variant of the same name.

Not condoning, and like to get you banned from Github, but this was always going to happen.

</comment><comment><USER15> What is the deal with this?

It was posted here <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5321603> a few days ago but that link is now dead. is this the original one on github or something?

<comment><AUTHOR> The original was on DesignModo's Github account, but was taken down due to an unjustified DMCA takedown request from LayerVault. Github's DMCA policies prevent that from being made available again within 10 days.

This version is hosted on iurevych's (the original creator of Flat UI) Github account.

<comment><USER16> It's not github policy, it's explicitly part of the law.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Ah the sweet sweet workings of the streisand effect. This new fork now has more forks and stars than the original ever had.

How's that DMCA thing working out for you LayerVault?

</comment><comment><USER18> Not exactly the right solution to a DMCA takedown notice...

</comment><comment><USER19> So, to see an example, I have to build it and deploy an application? I don't understand this tendency of posting links to a github page that presents no screenshots or examples.

<comment><USER20> There is a gh-pages branch, which means it's a Github page: <http://iurevych.github.com/Flat-UI/>.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Perhaps more interesting is the 84 forks (other mirrors). Is GitHub going to remove them all?

</comment><comment><USER22> I love the drop down menu, has anyone come across any tutorials to create something similar?

</comment><comment><USER23> Is this the correct thing to do? Wasn't it taken down for a reason?

<comment><USER24> Sort of. It was taken down because LayerVault filed a DMCA notice, but you don't have to prove anything to file a DMCA notice (and yes, this is a broken system).

<comment><USER23> Well, I agree - I once filed a DMCA notice, but in that situation, the person actually copied some of my icons, instead of being deeply inspired. While I do agree there is a difference, there is a fine line - I do agree however that in this case, that the majority could easily be fixed. Even though it's not exactly a 1 on 1 copy, it's too inspired from the examples I saw, mainly being the design news icon.

<comment><USER24> IANAL, but I don't think that "too inspired" is really the sort of thing that is covered by the DMCA, and in any case, you can't file a notice to take down the whole project just because you think three icons are derived from your work.

As for the newspaper icon, it has already been pointed out that LayerVault's version is far more similar to this icon from The Noun Project (<http://thenounproject.com/noun/newspaper/>) than it is to the Flat UI version.

The other claims I've seen are that the gears icon (not even close), the "talking head" (not even close), and the color palette (not something you can copyright).

More importantly, this fork doesn't seem to contain any of those disputed icons, so I don't think there's anything improper here.

<comment><USER23> Upvote for the Noune Project part!

LayerVault might of bought a Noune Project icon license however, but still, it's all too coincidental, even when you look at the colour scheme.

You can't copyright a shape & colour combinations (mainly squares) however, so it does make it tougher to call something a huge 'rip'

<comment><USER24> I did consider that they might have bought a license from TNP, but if they had, that would not grant them _exclusive_ rights to the icon.

Let's suppose they had bought such a license, and let's call the shared similarity between the LV icon and the FUI icon "X". Let's also suppose that X is copyrightable. The problem is that X is _also_ shared by the TNP icon. So LV wouldn't have ownership of X, and wouldn't have any right to file a DMCA notice based on it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> divs with border radius

</comment><comment><USER26> even original bootstrap goes flat in its new rc..!

</comment><comment><USER27> can I fork DMCA?

<comment><USER28> <https://github.com/github/dmca.git>

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> fork it! they can't stop us all!

</comment><comment><USER30> if I were you, i'd sue them, or would send some request to the right place, for taking invalid actions towards you.

</comment><comment><USER31> Ha, this is so baller.

</comment><comment><USER32> in the end, designmodo paid layervault for DMCA takedown notice for publicity.

now err body's gon use flat ui. great marketing.

<comment><USER5> That's quite the accusation. Any evidence?

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> From the images we've seen all side by side this seems to be a rip of someone else's work.

Nicking people stuff isn't what Hacker News is about. I've had articles I've sent hours writing and issued DMCA takedown notices, just as the same as if someone stole my code.

To take down a site using your stuff, you use a DMCA takedown notice.

\- That doesn't mean you're abusing the DMCA

\- That doesn't mean that the party that nicked your stuff is in the right.

UPDATE: to those discussing individual works, the issue is that the icons are not individually similar but rather that the whole set copies design elements from the other.

If FlatUI has picked more sources to be inspired from, they'd be in a better position.

<comment><USER34> Your assuming someone nicked your stuff. With millions of sites out there are a lot of layouts, icons, and whatnot that look similar that are not in fact copy's. Worse designers are rarely the type of people that think of the (millions) ^ 2 possibilities.

Honestly, unless your talking about a large file with a lot of entropy your probably in the wrong sending a DMCA take-down request.

<comment><USER35> >Your assuming someone nicked your stuff

you're

>Honestly, unless your talking about a large file with a lot of entropy your probably

you're, you're

<comment><USER30> mate and that's actually DOES NOT changes his point =) grammar Nazies should stop reading hacker news

<comment><USER36> I suppose spelling it like that is how you work round Godwin's law.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do you avoid micromanaging? - <AUTHOR> Quite often I find my self watching others on my team very close, commenting on every PR, trying to have an opinion on every discussion, etc. While I understand I am doing it, at the same time I find it hard to stop my self, in the fear of things going "wrong" or not work.<p>Where do you draw the line when it comes to letting the team (or individuals) go on their own? <comment><USER2> It's simple! Get a big enough team and you'll have to stop!

...

I found it useful to reframe my goals as a manager. Now my primary goal is to set up systems and people so that if I went away for a month, the team would keep functioning. With this goal, stepping in to prevent a single mistake is now counterproductive, because you have squashed a learning opportunity that would benefit your team long term. I now imagine that I have a budget of 5 or so interventions per week. I can use them to prevent a problem, or offer advice, or adjust a process. But I know that if I go over budget, I will either overwhelm my team and break down their autonomy, or I will be trying to do too much myself. Setting a goal of staying above the fray keeps me from succumbing to the anxiety that I must always be improving everything I can touch.

</comment><comment><USER3> If the whole team is junior, your role is to mentor them. Set high expectations and help them reach the results you require. If you have senior members, lean on them to do that mentoring. I think it is appropriate to ask quality questions: how are you measuring success and failure, what alerting and monitoring is in place, what happens if condition $FOO occurs, how are you measuring costs, etc. But your role shouldn't scale to reviewing all code changes and likely should evolve to not looking at code at all. As a manager, you are supposed to be a multiplier of your teams efforts and help them all to level up. By interacting at the PR level, you are not multiplying their efforts. I also recommend reading The Manager's Path

</comment><comment><USER4> Manage your team like building a machine. It should run on its own and keep running without your input. If you're always micromanaging, it won't have room to run on its own.

The role of many managers is to observe the team, relay/filter information coming in from other teams and out to other teams.

At a later stage you can start to optimize the process. Observe common mistakes and inefficiencies - things from sexual harassment to too many emails dragging the team down. You don't always want to patch mistakes with more tools and regulations, as every patch has a cost. Treat every problem like a bug. Sometimes there is a root cause, which causes several problems at once.</comment>


How ISIS Games Twitter - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/06/isis-iraq-twitter-social-media-strategy/372856/

<comment><USER2> The closing paragraph:

Media attention has focused, not unreasonably, on ISIS's use of social media to spread pictures of graphic violence, attract new fighters, and incite lone wolves. But it's important to recognize that these activities are supported by sophisticated online machinery. ISIS does have legitimate support online—but less than it might seem. And it owes a lot of that support to a calculated campaign that would put American social-media-marketing gurus to shame.</comment>


10,000 hours to greatness - <AUTHOR> http://www.smallshock.com/?p=114 <comment><USER2> I'm not sure this guy is fully grasping the idea that Gladwell was pushing across. I don't think the point was that 10,000 hours is a magic number to strive for in order to become an expert (although he does say that persistently), rather he was emphasizing the direct correlation between work and ability that we often don't recognize, and that realistically, 10,000 hours will put you far ahead of your friends. I think 10,000 hours is known as the statistical breaking point because leaders of industry are often there at their peak, but they would still be experts if they were at 8000 and everyone else was at 6000. The idea is purely comparative, and the number has no special counterintuitive quality to it. I spend about an hour a day pissing, but that doesn't mean that by 27 ill be THE EXPERT. Ill miss and exercise poor urinal decorum like I always do, and no breaking point will allow the gift of expertise to show up at my doorstep. The point of this idea is to understand that anybody can be the beatles if they've worked effectively harder than the norm, not that they have worked enough to be the beatles. This is still an important point though, and I think this author should attempted to work above and beyond the expected norms, but not so he can hit the magic number. He just needs enough that he's better than everybody else.

<comment><USER3> Hello. I'm "this guy." Totally surprised by my unknown, abandoned blog getting 1,500 visits all of a sudden. The internet is a wonderful place.

1\. Indeed, Gladwell pushes the idea of a 10,000 hour goal quite heavily to the point he seems to want to make it a mantra. 2\. I understand Gladwell's point much more so now than when I wrote this piece two years ago (Jan. 6, 2009).

There was a comment last month (<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2262619>) about using an annual calendar to encourage yourself to work on a task (or whatever). I went out and got one and have been using it as suggested in the Seinfeld article.

After a month, with most of the days "x'ed" out, I realized the important correlation between a dedication to routine to get better (or even the best?) at something. It's not like this is a deep revelation or anything, but the lesson is clear: do the work, and (likely) get better. And I totally agree with you're comment: "He just needs enough that he's better than everybody else."

Heck, even being better than my previous self is good to me.

Thanks for reading. Now I have to restore my database connection ...

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> See also: <http://norvig.com/21-days.html> (Teach Yourself Programming in Ten Years by Peter Norvig)

<comment><USER5> I did some napkin math on the 10,000 hour thing.

10,000 hours is N hours daily for M years

3 hours for 10 years.

4 hours 15 min for 7 years

5 hours for 6 years

6 hours for 5 years

7 hours 30 min for 4 years

10 hours a day for 3 years

15 hours a day for 2 years

Just incase somebody wants to pick up a new skill =).

<comment><USER6> Thanks. And that is "deliberate practice" which is a whole other magnitude of difficulty from just practice or play.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > Perhaps biased, my wife's pursuit of her undergrad and master's degrees, > coupled with her unbridled passion for learning what we need to do to give > our daughter the best education and upbringing possible is surely close to > that number. It shows; my daughter has an insatiable curiosity that, > according to Gladwell, is a direct result of how we're raising her.

Having recently devoured a bunch of the works of Steven Pinker, I question this. If their daughter is naturally curious, it could be inherited rather than learned. In "The Blank Slate" Steven Pinker has an entire chapter on children. There he says that all studies that try to figure out what styles of parenting lead to what results, none of them control for heritability. They simply assume that the child's behavior due to styles of parenting. But what if curious parents lead to curious children because of their genes, and not their style of parenting? Pinker goes on to argue that what the evidence shows is that the style of parenting has absolutely no long-term effect on a person's behavior. Instead, what matters is genes, culture (in particular the child's peers), and chance events.

<comment><USER8> _In "The Blank Slate" Steven Pinker has an entire chapter on children._

Do you still have the book at hand? I looked it up the last time there was a big thread about this on HN. Pinker bases most of that chapter on the work of Eric Turkheimer, as his bibliographic references should show. And Eric Turkheimer has substantially revised his opinion about what heritability studies mean after continuing his research and thinking about the data more. I'll recommend here two articles from Turkheimer's faculty web page

<http://people.virginia.edu/~ent3c/vita1_turkheimer.htm>

that more readers of Pinker's book ought to know about, to bring their understanding of human behavioral genetics up to date.

[http://people.virginia.edu/~ent3c/papers2/Articles%20for%20O...](http://people.virginia.edu/~ent3c/papers2/Articles%20for%20Online%20CV/Johnson%20%282009%29.pdf)

[http://people.virginia.edu/~ent3c/papers2/Articles%20for%20O...](http://people.virginia.edu/~ent3c/papers2/Articles%20for%20Online%20CV/Turkheimer%20%282008%29.pdf)

<comment><USER7> Yes I have the book at hand, but it's on Kindle, and it's somewhat painful to look up the references on a Kindle. Thanks for giving me these articles. I will read them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The ability to spend 10,000 hours of deliberate practice on something is an inherited talent.

<comment><USER8> [citation needed]

I really mean that. If you have evidence for that belief, please share it here. The leading world expert on the subject of development of expertise, K. Anders Ericsson,

<http://www.psy.fsu.edu/faculty/ericsson.dp.html>

is decidedly not of that opinion, after having seen many examples of introducing systematic deliberate practice into the environments of people who formerly didn't have opportunities for such practice.

<comment><USER9> Even if you examine a "deprived" group (the kind professors are always trying to make excuses for) such as inner-city kids, you will find stark differences between talent and drive from one person to another. Why does one boy spend 10,000 hours practicing basketball or music, while the others watch television all day?

Maybe nobody introduced "systematic deliberate practice" to them? Or, you know, maybe some people are just lazier than others.

<comment><USER8> _Why does one boy spend 10,000 hours practicing basketball or music, while the others watch television all day?_

Good question. Have you examined any research on the issue? What sources do you recommend?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Just out of curiosity, would working 2000 hours a year for five years make you a "superstar" too?</comment>


Ars Technica struggles in UK expansion - open-source-ux https://digiday.com/media/conde-nasts-ars-technica-struggles-uk-expansion/ <comment><AUTHOR> As a Brit I'd personally prefer a single international/American edition anyway. I've never really understood the value in local editions of tech websites, with Engadget being the first pointless example of this from my perspective.</comment>


Recovering from a rm -rf / - <AUTHOR> http://serverfault.com/questions/769357/recovering-from-a-rm-rf <comment><USER2> This must hurt so much. I feel really sorry for the guy.</comment>


Show HN: A public space for early product ideas - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/shoulditbemade <comment><AUTHOR> A Twitter feed of great product ideas people are thinking of building.

Get your product ideas out of your head and in front the public.</comment>


The Pope Is About to Weigh in on Climate Change. Not Everyone Is Happy - <AUTHOR> http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/06/17/415234013/the-pope-is-about-to-weigh-in-on-climate-change-not-everyone-is-happy <comment><USER2> So more non-scientists with a history of not "believing" in science weighing in on climate change?

</comment><comment><USER3> Nice. If he says it, it must be true, he's infallible ;-)

Can we also get pro vaccination and evolution statements, please?

<comment><USER4> I'm still waiting for a Pope to admit there's no God, but that one might take a while.</comment></comment>


Aaron Cheung Brings Homejoy Customers to Fly Maids - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/aaron-cheung-brings-homejoy-customers-to-fly-maids-2015-10 <comment><USER2> See related discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10466888](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10466888)

(That thread includes a comment by Aaron Cheung.)

</comment><comment><USER3> This is not going to end well for Aaron. Did they return some of the $40 million raised for homejoy?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> some good reporting here with some new details</comment>


Google's Sneaky Ads for Chrome in Gmail - <AUTHOR> http://mashable.com/2008/12/30/google-chrome-ads-in-gmail/ <comment><USER2> How dare they try to promote software they wrote.

<comment><USER3> I agree I don't really see what's so sneaky about this. I believe they give a link to both Mozilla Firefox and Google Chrome.

Google wants you to get the best Gmail experience... that's just not going to happen in IE.</comment></comment>


Cellular Networks Down Specifically in Major US Protest Areas Since ~2:30pm PST - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/MarkSchmidty/status/1272648875749314567 <comment><AUTHOR> News articles just started popping up. But none of them have addressed the overlap between outages and protest sites, yet.

[https://www.businessinsider.com/verizon-sprint-att-t- mobile-...](https://www.businessinsider.com/verizon-sprint-att-t-mobile- service-down-some-areas-us-2020-6)

[https://whdh.com/news/cellular-service-outages-affecting- car...](https://whdh.com/news/cellular-service-outages-affecting-carriers- across-united-states/)

[https://techcrunch.com/2020/06/15/t-mobile-calling- outage/](https://techcrunch.com/2020/06/15/t-mobile-calling-outage/)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> There were dozens of livestreams going from each major protest city here: [https://woke.net/#streams](https://woke.net/#streams)

10 minutes ago there were none.

Right now Sacramento, Seattle, Louisville have a handful.

But that's it.

The DDoS behind the outages can be tracked here: [https://digitalattackmap.com/#anim=1&color=0&country=ALL&lis...](https://digitalattackmap.com/#anim=1&color=0&country=ALL&list=0&time=18427&view=map)

<comment><AUTHOR> Sacramento is down again. All livestreams suddenly cut out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER2> There is another post on the front of HN: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23532560](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23532560)

The detective work there says it was a technical glitch as opposed to the conspiracy theories making rounds.

</comment><comment><USER3> Is there any particular evidence linking it to the protests? The heat map looks like it's large urban areas in general, which is not surprising.</comment>


I totally mean it: Inflation never solved the flatness problem - <AUTHOR> http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/10/i-totally-mean-it-inflation-never.html <comment><USER2> There is a 23 lectures course »The early universe« [1] from MIT by Alan Guth, inventor of cosmological inflation. I am only half way through and inflation is only mentioned in the introductory lectures and will not be discussed in more detail before the last third of the course so I will not dare to voice any opinion on the blog post. At least up to the point where I am now, the course is very accessible and I would certainly recommend it for everyone interested in the topic.

[1] [https://youtube.com/watch?v=ANCN7vr9FVk](https://youtube.com/watch?v=ANCN7vr9FVk)

</comment><comment><USER3> I find this essay very curious, especially the strong view against the Bullet Cluster supporting the model of Dark Matter. This is the first time in professional astronomy I've seen this brought up. The details in the linked essay say as much as a few studies find that it's improbable that the two clusters collided at the speed that would be required. It was funny to see my same concern raised in the second comment on the blog:

> I don't get it. How does modified gravity explain displacement of visible > and gravitating matter in the case of Bullet Cluster?

> The improbability of conditions that are needed to set up the collision is > another question.

I didn't find the reply especially convincing, or the arguments for the likelihood of small numbers raised in the main essay. Attachments to certain "elegant solutions" by theorists have posed significant hurdles to scientific progress. Einstein removing the cosmological constant for an expanding universe is a famous example.

<comment><USER4> > I didn't find the reply especially convincing, or the arguments for the > likelihood of small numbers raised in the main essay.

The author isn't trying to convince you of her counterargument to doctrine. The author is trying to convince you to be _less convinced_ by hand-waviness in lieu of rigorous deduction. The author doesn't even believe that inflation is incorrect, nor does she claim to believe MOND over standard dark matter models; she is pointing out that taking one good, well-evidenced, well- reasoned theory and using it as a prop to chock up a piece of shaky, though attractive, supposition is bad science. She's pointing out that even highly regarded thinkers can allow simplification for the purpose of communication and impact to erase complexity in reasoning and teaching.

So yeah, her arguments may not convince you. She's not trying to convince you, she's trying to show you reasonable doubt. Different standard of evidence.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> [https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics/comments/7711mr/backreactio...](https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics/comments/7711mr/backreaction_inflation_never_solved_the_flatness/doit3ii/)

> > "I am fascinated by this for the same reason I'm fascinated by the widely- > spread and yet utterly wrong idea that the Bullet-cluster rules out modified > gravity. As I explained in an earlier blogpost, it doesn't. Never did. The > Bullet-cluster can be explained just fine with modified gravity. It's > difficult to explain with particle dark matter."

> As others explained to her in the comments section of that earlier blog post > [1], she was wrong. And yet here she is, saying it again, this time even > more confidently.

[1] [http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-bullet- cluster-...](http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-bullet-cluster-as- evidence-against.html) (The Bullet Cluster as Evidence against Dark Matter)

<comment><USER6> So a commenter on HN quotes a commenter on Reddit who said that some commenters on BackReaction 'explained to her she was wrong'.

That's grand and all, but is anyone in that chain actually a cosmologist like Sabine Hossenfelder?

<comment><USER5> the commenter on Reddit happens to be an astrophysicist

<comment><USER6> Well that's one hurdle cleared. Here's their comment history if anyone is interested: [https://www.reddit.com/user/ididnoteatyourcat](https://www.reddit.com/user/ididnoteatyourcat)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This seems like a Bad Article. It's pretty apparent from the maths that we are:

A) Very close to the critical density _right now_ that would give us a flat universe

B) That we will rapidly diverge from having a flat curvature with a deviation from that critical density

C) Therefore at the start of the Universe we must have been even closer to 1 than we are now (and we're pretty close)

The way we measure the flatness of the universe using the CMB and Type 1a super novae is super interesting (especially for someone technically minded), and definitely worth checking out!

</comment><comment><USER8> [http://hyperphysics.phy- astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Astro/fried.html#...](http://hyperphysics.phy- astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Astro/fried.html#c2)

> What's important is that this variable increases in value over time, meaning > it must have been smaller in the past.

No? The point of the variable is to (basically, meaning it's so tightly correlated it might as well mean it can...) describe expansion rate of the universe. It must have been larger in the past given a big-bang origin model is used.

</comment><comment><USER9> A bit of a tangent, but I'll try to make it relevant to the topic.

My third-year Cosmology course was the single most confusing and hand-wavey course I've ever taken during my Physics degree. It seemed to be mostly a grab-bag of "clever insights" (the cosmological constant being "wrong", but then later turning out to be "right" being the most flagrant). Maybe I just had a bad lecturer, but at the time I was working in an astrophysics research group, and I asked a few of the post-docs about cosmology and they didn't have any convincing answers either (to be fair, our research topic was asteroseismology not cosmology). It just felt as though there was a lot less rigor in cosmology than in other sciences that I was more familiar with. They definitely had some evidence for the theories presented, but most of the actual derivations felt deliberately vague and confusing.

All of that being said, it feels like the author has some axe to grind and is herself engaging in unscientific dogma. Even I can tell that some of her comments on cosmology (the point about the curvature density parameter specifically) are not quite right, and I'm a little confused about her tirade on "parameters close to 1" \-- not to mention that she just shrugs it off with "I have no idea" rather than following up.

The points she made about choosing parameters are very odd, bordering on incorrect, as she appears to be trying to claim that unless you have a theory to derive initial parameters then the initial parameters are useless. But that's ridiculous, it's like saying (using her analogy) you need to have a theory for the position and speed of a particular arrow in order for Newton's laws to be correct. Fitting a model to data, by searching for an optimum parameter, is an _incredibly_ common practice and is one of the most common ways of doing data science. However, saying that you need to know the probability distribution of some parameter is definitely true.

It also appears that the author's views were challenged by another astrophysicist in her previous blog post, and she doesn't address this at all (in fact, she doubles down).

<comment><USER10> Nah, I don't think she has an axe to grind, except maybe to chop down bad arguments in general.

Anyway, her argument about 1 in that particular case is afaiu simply that it's rather preposterous to assume a specific (essentially impossible to know) iv. and then massage the theory around it until the results fit the observations.

In data science it would be like determining the model parameters by gut feeling, and then start searching for some kind of model with those parameters that actually fit the data. Almost exactly the opposite of how an parameter search/optimization is usually done. I tend to start with some model and see what parameters that fit instead of randomly deciding one parameter is 1 and then go look for a model that might fit my data with that arbitrarily fixed parameter.

I'm no astrophysicist, or anything even remotely close to the authors competence, so I'll refrain from commenting on those points, but I really see no reason to critique her arguments in general because somebody pointed out some possible weakness of one a sub argument. Rather the opposite, if you would only have one counter comment on a physics related blog, then you are probably correct, nobody has read it yet, or the comment function is broken.

<comment><USER9> Her tirade about omega=+1 is odd because she talks about how it's incredibly anti-science, but doesn't even try to explain what the opposing view is (going so far as to say that she hasn't the foggiest). The first question I would want to know when evaluating the claim that omega=+1 is bad science is to hear the argument _for_ it.

From my brief touches with cosmology, omega=+1 comes from measurements that the universe appears to have a flat topology (both from the size of structure in the CMBR and from a variety of other measurements). The flatness problem effectively is a fine-tuning problem that states if omega has slight deviations from +1 (of the order 1e-62) then the universe of today would not be able to sustain galaxies or other large structures. The measurement of _today's_ omega (omega_0) is also very close to +1 (which is what forces the initial condition limit). From that, it was concluded that if we accept the model of an accelerating universe, then the initial condition must be close to +1. Inflation is the proposed physical solution to explain why that is the case. To use the Newton analogy, you are backtracking the path of an arrow to find where it was fired from. To be clear, I personally don't like how hand- wavey cosmology is as a science, but pretending as though modern cosmologists just came up with a random "cult-like" belief that omega=1 is just ludicrous. [The author calls omega 'k'. While omega and k are related (k is the curvature, and can be used to deduce the critical density -- which omega is a fraction of) I'm not sure if that's quite right. But I'm speaking as a senior undergrad here, I might've missed something.]

As for the "possible weakness of a sub-argument", you can go to the reddit discussion of this particular post (others have linked it here) and see for yourself. It's quite a bit more than a "possible weakness of a sub-argument". Effectively the analysis is on her entire thesis (that the Bullet-cluster can be explained with modified gravity perfectly fine). The rest of the complains about modern cosmology are sub-arguments to justify why modified gravity should be considered.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I don't tend to believe people who say that everyone working in a particular field are crazy and stupid. Wrong maybe. Whole fields are wrong all the time. But not because they're all crazy and stupid.

<comment><USER12> Then be comforted that the argument here is not actually about the science, but rather about its interpretation or about the philosophical assumptions underlying the interpretation.

Dr. Hossenfelder is not arguing against the mathematical theory of inflation, or about its observational evidence. It's about whether there is any metaphysical problem if a certain parameter turns out to be much smaller than one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I thought the flattening of spacetime has more to do with the negative pressure exerted by dark energy?

</comment><comment><USER14> I confess that, looking at the headline, I have no idea whether this article is about economics or cosmology. I'm trying to decide which I'm hoping for.

<comment><USER15> Is flatness a problem in economics? I've never heard of such a thing.

<comment><USER16> Inflation

<comment><USER15> What?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> ... _Those who I personally speak with pretty quickly agree that what I say is correct._ ...

and then they back away slowly, trying to escape and find someone else to talk to?

<comment><USER18> Would you please not do this here?

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> the problem with these subjects its so far over my head its hard to know if what he is saying is reasonable, but interesting read</comment>


The Blogosphere Pays Off More Than Ever - <AUTHOR> http://wwd.com/media-news/media-features/chiara-ferragni-fashion-bloggers-money-make-income-millionaire-kristina-bazan-kylie-jenner-10306124/ <comment><USER2> Almost tautologically true: "One could question whether the amounts bloggers are being paid is money well spent, but brands are seeing a definite return on investment from the relationship — otherwise they wouldn't keep spending."</comment>


Ask HN: Are "expensive" Masters a scam? - <AUTHOR> Hi guys,
Long time lurker but this is my first post.
I am a recent law graduate from the Netherlands (I did my Bachelor + Masters there). I have a Bachelor of Law and LL.M. in Corporate law. I paid about $2000 a year in tuition fees to get my bachelor + masters.
I see a lot of people around me doing expensive "law" or "business" masters after their degrees. (example: LSE, Columbia Law School, Imperial College, ...). When I checked the tuition fees it is minimum $30,000 a year up to $90,000, and that does not account living expenses.
What is the reason for enrolling in such expensive degrees? What is the payoff? How can people possibly spend 100k$ on their education where it is practically almost free in good European public universities? Are law firms / Big 4 only hiring you because you went to a top school and showed you could spend big bucks?
I want to be an entrepreneur myself (I launched a business during my studies and still work on it today, providing me full-time income) but I do wonder what the goals are of my friends who secured top spots as Lawyers or Investment bankers.
Thanks for your insights fellow HN'ers :) <comment><USER2> That's interesting post, wonder why you didn't get comments. I don't know much about law but it does seem that where you went to school does impact your chances of where you can get hired.</comment>