The Game of Everything, Part 1: Making Civilization - <AUTHOR> https://www.filfre.net/2018/03/the-game-of-everything-part-1-making-civilization/ <comment><USER3> I got Civilization really early on before it was obvious that it was going to be popular. I love reading the thick manual, strategy guide, and advances chart.

I really enjoyed starting a civil war by capturing another civilization's capital city. There was one game where I was in the Americas and the Zulus (always crazily warlike and expansionist) had conquered the rest of the world. It looked like they were going to overwhelm me.

So I parked an aircraft carrier and a bunch of transports off of southern Africa and captured their capital city with a surprise attack by overwhelming forces. The entire Zulu empire immediately started a civil war, with half of it becoming the Egyptians. I was unaware of the civil war feature when I did so (wasn't documented in the manual), and it really improved my opinion of the game. I ended up winning because the new Egyptian civilization and the Zulu civilization were too busy fighting each other to send enough against my forces.

The technology capturing feature was great too. I was playing in the Americas one time, and I was hopelessly behind the Chinese. I had musketeers and cannons, while they had tanks. I launched a surprise attack with all the forces I could muster and captured a few of their cities, getting technologies such as the automobile by doing so. I was then able to produce tanks, and ended up modernizing myself by capturing more cities and stealing technology.

I absolutely loved that game.

<comment><USER4> I never played Civilization (got bored of video games when I was 16-17) but Civilization always intrigued me. Maybe I should give it a try. Are there modern versions of the game would the original version still be fun today?

<comment><USER5> Try Freeciv. It's inspired by the original game and it's open source too :)

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

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This game blew. my. mind. when I was a kid. The first summer we had it, I played it eight hours a day on our IBM PS/2\. When school was back in session, I wrote about it and drew maps for school projects. I dreamed about it.

<comment><USER7> Also brings back memories for me. I was never good at managing many cities, focusing on a few megacities instead and opting for large scale nuclear war :) Kinda reminds me of another game I used to play around that time, Global Effect.

Civ.exe was also the first game I customized. I was entertained to no end when I found out you could use a hex editor to change the strings. I rewrote the introductory text, and gave all the leaders new dialogue. That was also probably around when I started getting more interested in _how_ games worked, rather than just playing them...

<comment><USER8> RedEdit in the system 7 days was a godsend in my life. Hacking new sounds into Maelstrom. Changing character names in Pararena. Stumbling into learning what a sprite was.

<comment><USER9> ResEdit. A word I haven't seen in decades, still one ECC pointer hop from top- of-mind.

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

<comment><USER10> And it was a staple of Escape Velocity plugin editing too. Very fun program for a child with an old mac at that time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> >[Talking about the early strategy game _Empire_ :] But the most relevant version for our purposes was created by Walter Bright, a 20-year-old student at the California Institute of Technology, in 1977. Bright himself later ported it to microcomputers, efforts which culminated in him selling the game to a small publisher called Interstel

Bright would later be known for earning over 18000 karma on Hacker News: [https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=WalterBright](https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=WalterBright)

Among other things :)

<comment><USER12> Empire (or rather, Empire Deluxe) is still today one of my all time favorite games.

<comment><USER13> I don't have a lot of time to play videogames anymore, but I'm like you - <USER2> favorite is Master of Magic (never surpassed, in my view). Sometimes I play it on Dosbox.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I always preferred _Colonization_ with its far more detailed economic mechanisms. In Civ, I never got over the feeling that my actions actually had little impact.

Similar in SimCity: build all three types of zones, then build whatever services are in demand. There is nothing creative in those games. Intersperse commercial and residential zoning to reduce traffic? Nope. Build a school blocked in by coal power plants? Sure!

<comment><USER15> _Colonization_ is a great game from a mechanical perspective (aside from the AI bugs, which make it a slog to play today, and the _crazy_ behaviors of the game when you have Ben Franklin). I find it difficult to play today in no small part because of the level of violence done to history. _Civilization_ posits itself as almost a board game, and to me it largely strips itself of the historicity that its setting implies by turning it into overtly "gamey" stuff. Pottery implies Granary. _Colonization_ personalizes a lot...and stuff like the way that native "converts" "flock to your mission in their city" when _you attack it with artillery_ is a significant whitewashing of what anybody playing the game as an adult knows is going on.

I don't think Brian Reynolds had ill intentions by any stretch; you can, of course, be peaceful in _Col_ , and it's probably the best way to play at higher levels (France becomes really advantageous, especially stacking with the Pocahontas bonus). And the way the manual is written clearly indicates that they understood the parts of the historical record that the game leaves out. I have always assumed that there was fear from higher-ups at MicroProse that made them sanitize the game a little. But it mostly makes me wonder what a more honest game, made today, would look like.

I might or might not have half an engine written on this laptop, as it happens...at some point I'd love to sit down and talk to Reynolds about that game. Everyone asks him about Alpha Centauri, but I really want to know about _Col_!

(Also: while _Civ4Col_ is pretty lame, I think its biggest mods, _The Authentic Colonization_ and _Religion and Revolution_ , take important steps toward a more honest representation of things. They're also really, really fun in ways _Civ4Col_ was not.)

<comment><USER16> The amazing thing for me about Colonization is that it still runs on relatively recent versions of windows. Just stick the wing.dll file in your system32 directory, and run it.

<comment><USER15> Does it? I've never tried. I instead use GOG's DOS version, because I really like the DOS version's music when rendered through MIDI.

I wonder if Colonization for Windows fixes the trade route bugs though...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> For anyone who's interested in a detailed look at Sid Meier's history in the game industry from the man himself, I highly recommend this series of interviews from the Designer Notes podcast: [https://www.idlethumbs.net/designernotes/episodes/sid- meier-...](https://www.idlethumbs.net/designernotes/episodes/sid-meier-part-1) It's long (4 parts, each of are 1.5 - 2 hours), but worth it. The interviewer is Soren Johnson (one of the lead designers of Civ4) which makes for some great behind-the-scenes stories/insights.

</comment><comment><USER18> Since Jimmy Maher's essays on gaming history like this one are so consistently popular on HN, allow me to point out that he has a (criminally under- subscribed, IMHO) Patreon here:

[https://www.patreon.com/DigitalAntiquarian/](https://www.patreon.com/DigitalAntiquarian/)

</comment><comment><USER19> >"Sid had a very clear notion: he was going to make it fun. He didn't give a damn about anything else; it was going to be fun. He said, 'I have absolutely no reservation about fiddling with realism or anything, so long as I can make it more fun.'"

This reminds me of Will Wright's answer to the typical deep questions he's frequently asked about the design of SimCity:

[http://www.donhopkins.com/drupal/node/9](http://www.donhopkins.com/drupal/node/9)

>Designing User Interfaces to Simulation Games.

>On the simulation model: ...

>Some muckety-muck architecture magazine was interviewing Will Wright about SimCity, and they asked him a question something like "which ontological urban paridigm most influenced your design of the simulator, the Exo-Hamiltonian Pattern Language Movement, or the Intra-Urban Deconstructionist Sub-Culture Hypothesis?" He replied, "I just kind of optimized for game play."

<comment><USER20> It's really all about reticulating splines

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> In some ways I prefer the simplicity of Civ 1 over the current Civ 6.

For example, in Civ 6 establishing trade routes becomes really important, but it's impossible to automate. So EVERY time a trader finishes a route you must MANUALLY select which city to trade with. By endgame you're clicking through a dozen trade routes every turn.

Also, unless you decide to annihilate everyone prepare for NPCs to constantly pester you with stupid requests, like trading your capital for a resource of peaches. And then they can keep repeating the same requests. Why can't I just set my disposition to always automatically deny all incoming requests?

The waging war by religion seems incomplete too, you only have two unit types: apostles and missionaries.

I recommend 6 overall but Civ 1 doesn't overcomplicate it, it's still as great today as it was back then.

<comment><USER22> _> The waging war by religion seems incomplete too, you only have two unit types: apostles and missionaries._

There are actually four or five: missionaries (inexpensive weak offensive unit), apostles (expensive strong offensive unit with random unique bonuses), inquisitors (defensive unit), and gurus (support unit, heals adjacent units). There are also warrior monks, which only one religion may have and, despite being melee units rather than religious units, will spread their religion when defeating another unit in combat.

I'm still a little torn on the religious mechanics in 6, but it's certainly the most involved the series has ever made it, and probably strictly better than 5's implementation. Your points about AI trading are true to home, though there have been a few improvements to trade routes in patches and the recent expansion (by adding a "repeat route" button to the trader menu, and also generally by nerfing trade routes so you generally have fewer of them).

<comment><USER23> I introduced my girlfriend to Civ 6 after seeing her play a bunch of similarly-veined strategy games on her phone. She was hooked within days so we started a 'hot-seat' campaign via Steamcast and passed the controller back and forth for hours on the couch.

At some point it became clear that my path to victory was an all out religious assault, and effectively all I was doing was micromanaging my missionaries and apostles.

This got old extremely quickly in the hot seat format. I'd kill for an engaging 2 player couch-coop gameplay mode in here that didn't make us hate each other.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> _" An extremely rudimentary diplomatic model came in, with geopolitical relations boiled down to make war or make peace, demand tribute or pay tribute."_

Actually seems like a pretty accurate description of American diplomacy in 2018. "This week, I shall make peace with North Korea but demand tribute from Canada. Next week, we'll see what happens?"

</comment><comment><USER25> Here are videos of two GDC 2017 talks about Civilization that I enjoyed:

 _Classic Game Postmortem: Sid Meier 's Civilization_ (with Civilization creators Sid Meier and Bruce Shelley):

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

 _Absolutely No Pressure: Continuing a Successful Game Series with Civilization VI_ (with Civilization VI lead designer Ed Beach):

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUl_3DydD7U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUl_3DydD7U)

</comment><comment><USER26> One aspect of the original Civ I always enjoyed was when a country could sometimes split into two. It wasn't in later versions, although I haven't played some of the more recent versions. I know myself too well (Civ games are great time sink).

<comment><USER27> I can confirm that this hasn't been a feature in any of the modern versions.

<comment><USER28> This probably doesn't qualify as a modern version, but I occasionally play Civ2 (the original Win32s version, in a 32-bit Windows 7 VM) and the empire splitting happens there as well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> For those here that love Civilization as I do, I recommend checking out Stellaris from Paradox (who make some.other popular strategy games).

Imagine Civilization, but in space, and maybe crossed with the Foundation series by Asimov. It's really really good, and the new patch (2.0) makes it much more enjoyable (in true Civil fashion, where you wait for the mature DLC or big balancing summer patch to really bring the game into its stride).

<comment><USER30> I haven't tried Stellaris, but I've heard complaints that it suffers from a "don't know how well you're doing" problem, in that you can be many hours into a game before you encounter other aliens and immediately realize that you're so far behind that your eventual defeat is inevitable.

Have you encountered that problem and/or do you know if it has been addressed?

<comment><USER29> Yeah it does happen, but that's part of the fun. It's not a 'set up a game, put X hours in and win' situation.

If you do encounter that in a game just do what you'd perhaps do 'in real life': try and be friends with them and not tempt them to anihalate you until you're strong enough to defend yourself. That might mean giving them resources, or not taking stars near their borders. And obviously up your ship building capacity and start investing more resources there.

<comment><USER31> That's an important point. Stellaris is intended to not be a defined, balanced race from planet to galactic empire, but more a "biography simulator" for a space-faring civilization: you may have older siblings and they will always be older than you. An important conceptual step away from the "Empire" roots that will be much easier to grasp for those who have been exposed to other Paradox titles like CK2 (where a single paythrough might go from count to emperor and back to count again, and then make the jump to a completely different religious group where a similar story unfolds under different rules) or EU4.

But Stellaris fails to pull it off. There are a few sleeping giants which, after learning the hard way, you'll just ignore until you are ready to take them on. When you have mastered those pitfalls (and that isn't hard) you are back to the single-minded race for empire, with no interesting goals for those left behind due to some early blunder which stalled the resource throughput growth rate for a while.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Great article. My favorite part was learning a new word: grognard!

Makes me sad that I only got into the series at Civ5, which I enjoyed every bit of except for the ultra creepy 3D models of the leaders.... totally unnecessary in this kind of game. Also it's ridiculous to see Gandhi pop up and declare war on you. It was a good example of a typically superfluous feature tacked on to an otherwise decent piece of software.

<comment><USER33> > Also it's ridiculous to see Gandhi pop up and declare war on you.

Yeah, but it's a staple of the series now. If anything, I think an installment _without_ a warmongering Gandhi would be disappointing!

[https://kotaku.com/why-gandhi-is-such-an-asshole-in- civiliza...](https://kotaku.com/why-gandhi-is-such-an-asshole-in- civilization-1653818245)

<comment><USER34> Thanks for sharing this! Quote from the article:

 _In the original Civilization, it was because of a bug. Each leader in the game had an "aggression" rating, and Gandhi - to best reflect his real-world persona - was given the lowest score possible, a 1, so low that he'd rarely if ever go out of his way to declare war on someone.

Only, there was a problem. When a player adopted democracy in Civilization, their aggression would be automatically reduced by 2. Code being code, if Gandhi went democratic his aggression wouldn't go to -1, it looped back around to the ludicrously high figure of 255, making him as aggressive as a civilization could possibly be._

<comment><USER35> It kinda sucks that nowadays that would be fixed in the next patch and forgotten about as a minor bug in the games history. There was definitely something more artistic about the old software distribution style. Once your creation was given to the world it was able to take on its own life.

<comment><USER33> I mean, from a gameplay perspective it's absolutely more reasonable for this bug to have been fixed.

That said, the best user experience does not always derive from the perfect game. What the developers have to do is compare the experience for a new user (who knows nothing of Gandhi's warmongering history in the Civilization games) to the experience of someone who is familiar with the series and might even expect such behavior.

They clearly couldn't keep the old rule in place — that Gandhi suddenly gains the highest aggression value possible is unexpected for new players. Instead, they simply made Gandhi have a slightly elevated aggression — something that new players can handle ("Oh, haha, it's funny because it's Gandhi I guess") and something that old players will recognize. It's a good middle ground. (Note that they have kept around Gandhi's elevated aggression in more recent incarnations, though they have reduced its effect somewhat.)

But, again, from a pure gameplay perspective, the bug should have been fixed.

<comment><USER15> _> Note that they have kept around Gandhi's elevated aggression in more recent incarnations, though they have reduced its effect somewhat_

Kind-of. Civ 6 makes him _sneaky and shitty_ aggressive rather than just straight-out homicidal. This matches my experiences pretty well: [https://kotaku.com/gandhi-is-still-an-asshole-in- civilizatio...](https://kotaku.com/gandhi-is-still-an-asshole-in-civilization- vi-1788710568)

<comment><USER22> In Civ 6 the Gandhi AI will actually never declare war on you, AFAIK. For the instance where a human player is controlling Gandhi and declares war, he has a unique cutscene where he lampshades the absurdity of the situation. The Gandhi AI does have an uncharacteristically large chance of "randomly" spawning with the agenda that makes him revere nuclear weapons, as a throwback to Civ 1.

<comment><USER15> I have had Civ 6 Gandhi declare war on me, but only extremely early in the game. Which suggests that, as the Kotaku article indicates, he'll only do so if he won't be warmongering.

<comment><USER36> I'm in the middle of a game of Civ VI right now. Gandhi will not stay happy with me and he keeps declaring war on me every 40 turns or so. But I just took his capital so let's see if we can get him to knock it off.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> As soon as I saw the screenshot from _Empire_ with the unit actions menu ("Fortify", "Wait", "Sentry", "Disband") I was blown away. I had no idea the idea of this combat system was that old!

</comment><comment><USER38> The only game that I can still play non-stop, 20 years later.

<comment><USER39> I was able to as well, until the iOS version didn't get updated, and is no longer playable on iOS 11.

sadly, Pirates went the same way, as well as getting removed from the App Store.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> I have to recommend Vox Populi for Civ5.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/civvoxpopuli/](https://www.reddit.com/r/civvoxpopuli/)

Community Patch Project & Community Balance Patch. Still under regular development, a lot of (if not all) base game issues are ironed out. After playing this I couldn't force myself to endure Civ6 and its many flaws.

</comment><comment><USER41> If you want this history straight from Sid Meier's mouth, Soren Johnson's excellent podcast "Designer Notes" has a 4 part interview with the man: [https://www.idlethumbs.net/designernotes/episodes/sid- meier-...](https://www.idlethumbs.net/designernotes/episodes/sid-meier-part-1) [https://www.idlethumbs.net/designernotes/episodes/sid- meier-...](https://www.idlethumbs.net/designernotes/episodes/sid-meier-part-2) [https://www.idlethumbs.net/designernotes/episodes/sid- meier-...](https://www.idlethumbs.net/designernotes/episodes/sid-meier-part-3) [https://www.idlethumbs.net/designernotes/episodes/sid- meier-...](https://www.idlethumbs.net/designernotes/episodes/sid-meier-part-4)

</comment><comment><USER42> When I was an undergrad, I had a roommate who was a metallurgy PhD student.

When I mentioned this to high school friends, too many of them asked: "Wait - so he's involved in cannon technology?"

</comment><comment><USER43> I'll chime in and say too that this game changed my life. I honestly don't even remember where I got it from. But there were days when I'd wake up around 11am, turn on my 486, start up Civ and then look outside and it was dark.

It was crazy how much play I got out of this game. While I've enjoyed the successors to various degrees none has matched the life-alterigness [tm] of the first Civ.

I sort of found Civ2 & 3 just more... tedious.

Civ4 was huge for me however. In particular a mod called Fall From Heaven 2. I probably played this 20x as much as base Civ4. At least.

Civ5 of course invented the hexagon, which people went nuts for for some reason. I played this some. Likewise I played Civ6 some.

Oh and let's not forget Alpha Centauri, which seemed a little... underdeveloped? I mean it wasn't bad. It was good in fact. It just could've used some fleshing out in the sense of sequels to expand on the concept.

<comment><USER44> Probably 50% of the CPU time executed on my 386SX was playing Civ. Good times, not good for my study habits though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> A propos, there is a longturn Freeciv game starting in two days: [http://longturn.org/game/LT43/](http://longturn.org/game/LT43/) 30+ players, one turn per day.

</comment><comment><USER46> While it's a wonder in many ways, the issue with civilization, as with age of empire as it happens, is that it never have been strongly balanced. If you are a game developer and if you want to make money, I believe there is a $1B game in a balanced civilization.

The way Starcraft solved balancing a strategy game is genius. Basically, most unit have the same damage / cost ratio, but they have different orthogonal abilities. Kinda remind me the weapons of Duke3D which none was better than the other, and all useful depending on the circumstances (little known was the fact that the default gun was absolutely deadly at distance).

</comment><comment><USER47> Tangentially, this article reminded me of this great video about politics in video games : [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_tdztHiyiE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_tdztHiyiE)

Civilization is given as a great example of political views influencing a game in the win states it provides : militaristic cultural or economical domination, all very American values. That's a very imperialistic view of the world.

It has certainly changed my perception of this great game (although not as much as it did for Sim City)

</comment><comment><USER48> For those interested in learning more about simulation games and the grognards that play them, I strongly recommend "Playing at the World" by Jon Peterson. It's everything you ever wanted to know about the origins and theory of simulation games, especially D&D, but were afraid to ask.

Jimmy Maher's thoughts about "experientialist" games (linked in TFA) definitely echo Peterson. Worth a read for anyone interested in games.

</comment><comment><USER49> Tangentially, the article mentions _Global Conquest_ [1] as another "all- encompassing" strategy game that came out around the same period as Civilization.

I have good nostalgic memories of Global Conquest, and every so often wish to replay it again. It is indeed much more limited in scope than Civ, focusing on the purely military aspect, but like Civ (and _Empire_ before it) had the notion of cities producing units and forming the economic backbone of your faction.

Its twist was the random events that would come up every 5 turns, applying effects for the next 5 turns, like Battle Fatigue (units wouldn't regen) or my favorite: Solar Flares, that would make the interface glitch and sometimes ignore clicks.

I spent a great many hours playing multiplayer hotseat with Global Conquest.

I wonder if anyone's re-implemented it as a web-game since...

Edit: here's one DosBox/emscripten online playable version: [https://classicreload.com/global- conquest.html](https://classicreload.com/global-conquest.html)

[1] [http://www.mobygames.com/game/global- conquest](http://www.mobygames.com/game/global-conquest)

</comment><comment><USER50> This was a really enjoyable read. The "aimlessness" of SimCity series resonates with me, and while I loved the game, when my arcologies shot off into space I felt a certain empty sadness. Its great to see talented designers addressing this in their games.

</comment><comment><USER51> I remember spending many hours playing Civilization. I wish someone like GOG would pick it up and package it for modern systems.

</comment><comment><USER52> Related, and quite an interesting perspective: [https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2018/03/15/all-rise-and- no-...](https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2018/03/15/all-rise-and-no-fall-how- civilization-reinforces-a-dangerous-myth/)

</comment><comment><USER53> Does anyone know why the original Civilization (or CivNet) and Civilization 2 aren't avaliable to buy digitally?

</comment><comment><USER54> Had the Amiga version of Civilization - I was absolutely hooked immediately. A little later on I got into CivNet on Windows 3.1 (Trumpet Winsock and SLIP!), and eventually Civ2 (the pinnacle of the series).

I haven't really liked the latter games in the series. It just seems like something is missing :/

</comment><comment><USER55> I started playing the original Civilization (floppy disk version) back in middle school. Gradually went on to play other versions that came out later (including the Alpha Centauri version). I consider it one of the best strategy and overall enjoyable game I've ever played.

</comment><comment><USER56> The best thing about Civ, that player already has all the concepts from studying history.

<comment><USER57> You've reversed cause and effect there :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> Civilization and Orion 2 - childhood gaming life secured. I still buy, play and enjoy the sequals whenever they are released. I actually had a few good hours of Master of Orion just now this evening. <3

</comment><comment><USER59> Am I the only obsessive-compulsive weirdo who would do stuff like this? [https://imgur.com/a/ZDzzi](https://imgur.com/a/ZDzzi)

</comment><comment><USER60> Amazing history. I had no idea about the relation to Avalon Hill or the gentleman's agreement between the two CEOs. Anyone knows where can I read more about it?

</comment><comment><USER61> I thought it was based on a board game?

I like it because you run your own nation and see if you can do better.

<comment><USER62> The end of the article touches on the computer game's complicated relationship to the board game.

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> I'm thinking of trying it out for the first time. Which version is the best? I hear people don't really like the newer versions?

<comment><USER64> Definitely a tough question because of people's nostalgia for the older versions.

Civ 4 is the best version of "classic civ", so if you want a modern take on 1, 2, or 3, go with Civ 4.

Civ 5 was dramatically re-developed. Instead of a square grid (4 possible movement directions for a unit) they moved to a hex grid (6 directions!). And they removed unit stacking, so you don't have these army hoards on single tiles that can wipe out everything in their path. They changed a lot and I think it was for the better - a lot of quality of life improvements. It plays much better than 4 while still retaining the classic civ "just one more turn" feeling.

Civ 6 is too much. It's got too many features and too much user interface. It feels like a chore to play some times. The music is better in Civ 6 than 5, but nothing beats Civ 4's Baba Yetu.

<comment><USER65> The square grid actually gave eight directions of movement, but introduced the problem of diagonal and parallel moves being different distances

<comment><USER27> Yep, and I think the hexagon is thus quite superior both in logical sense and aesthetically.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


British Airways pilots ground planes in unprecedented 48-hour strike - <AUTHOR> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iag-british-airways-strike/british-airways-pilots-ground-planes-in-unprecedented-48-hour-strike-idUSKCN1VT0V7 <comment><USER2> From a summary of the issue I heard on LBC (UK radio station) a couple of days ago, this all stems from when the pilots agreed to a pay and pensions cut several years ago when BA was in financial trouble, and now that BA (and it's new parent company) is now back in profit, they want an inflation adjusted boost to put their pay and pensions back to where they should be.

<comment><USER3> Precisely this ... the problem in the UK media is this is being portrayed as "Evil high paid pilots holding the company hostage and ruining your holiday!".

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It would be really interesting to know what the actual profits are and what percentage currently goes to the pilots versus executives and operational costs etc.

Google says they reported $2 billion in profit. Say $300 million was given to 1000 pilots. That would be $300,000 each.

They probably got something like a few thousand pounds pay increase and are feeling like it's not adding up.

I'm routing for the pilots.

<comment><USER5> British Airways Plc is a publicly traded company, so you know, a lot of this information is publicly available:

[https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/01777777/filing-h...](https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/01777777/filing- history)

Look at the account filings. Not sure if they will break down how much they pay pilots altogether, but there should be data about executive pay and employee wages and salaries.

I'm also rooting for the pilots, by the way.

<comment><USER6> I'm in favor of pilots, and flight personnel in general, being paid handsomely. The last thing the public needs is flight personnel being disgruntled about not being paid enough.

I want the peace of mind that the people making my flight happen are incredibly happy.

<comment> barry-cotter And yet revealed preference suggests that people shop for flights almost exclusively on price. If you feel like paying an extra hundred or five for happier employees that's a fine personal preference but people who act like that aren't a significant enough market segment to be worth catering to.

<comment><USER7> "Revealed preferences" need to die. That people shop on price, all other things being equal, is obvious and the driver of the economy. If all else is not equal, but people don't know it or can't meaningfully affect it, they'll still shop on price and any talk of "revealed preferences" here is nonsense.

A typical flyer is separated by _at least_ one layer of abstraction (airline, travel agency, ...) from the labor situation of the flight crew, so there's little visibility into that, and little possibility to affect things with your purchasing choice. How can I "reveal" the real ordering of my preferences if I can't pay $X extra to get a slightly safer flight, because the only other option on the market costs $10X more? At the same time, there's high trust that government organizations ensure that civilian flight is safe to the point any variation is a rounding error not worth thinking about.

<comment><USER8> A typical flyer is not concerned about the pay of pilots. He's concerned about his price to fly. Those that are concerned about pay do so regardless of whether they're flying. They do it because they root for the little guy, or they hate corporations, or they respect pilots. But the point is the two groups are different. They do overlap somewhat, but it's meaningless.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Genuine question here... why is this on HN? It has nothing to do with software, hardware or even tech of any kind!

<comment><USER10> Interesting business news are always appreciated.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Anyone know standard time working per month? I thought these major carriers had pretty cushy hours / benefts - (ie, 80 hrs / month, good flight and other benefits).

<comment><USER12> I don't know, but does it matter? If an employee group understands how much they are worth, and can get more benefits commensurate with that worth, then I applaud them.

<comment><USER13> At some point it does. If they're being underpaid, that's one issue. If they're aware that they're currently irreplaceable and able to effectively hold the company hostage, that's a different one.

<comment><USER14> I don't see much of a problem as long as the company is still making a profit. The striking workers could strike until they're receiving all the company's profit, at which point it would be as if they're receiving the actual value of their labor. Not that crazy of an idea.

<comment><USER15> This is a ridiculous statement. The "actual value" of the striking workers (pilots) labor is " _ALL_ the company's profit?" Nobody else -- mechanics, flight crew, reservations agents, IT staff, marketing, execs -- deserves a piece? What about investors -- by definition, nobody invests in a company designed to not return a profit.

<comment><USER14> Of course I don't mean that one specific subset of employees (e.g. pilots) deserve all the profits distributed to them at the expense of other employees. Ideally all the workers of a firm would be organized together, but I'm aware that this isn't the current reality of this situation.

And money used to pay back loans wouldn't be considered "profit" in any definitions I'm familiar with. If the "investment" takes some other form such that the investor expects to be paid back a lot more due to employees being paid much less than the value they're delivering, then yeah, I'm fine with the employees organizing and saying that's not going to happen.

<comment><USER15> >> I'm fine with the employees organizing and saying that's not going to happen

This is even more ridiculous. Is YComb (since we're on HN) not entitled to a positive return from the companies it helped found, just because some random group of employees claims they aren't being paid according to the "value they're delivering"?

<comment><USER14> I never used the word "entitled." I think if an investor is extracting surplus value from employees of one of their portfolio companies, the employees of that company should be free to attempt to organize to regain as much of that surplus value as they can.

<comment><USER15> You are backtracking. The initial statement you wrote said that the value of the worker's labor = ALL the company's profit. If the workers "regain" it all, there's nothing left for an investor/founder. Since this is the scenario you endorse (you've said so three times), your position is that investors and founders should not receive any return on their investment, nor any gains from establishing the company in the first place.

<comment><USER14> > The initial statement you wrote said that the value of the worker's labor = > ALL the company's profit.

I didn't say that. I said that I don't have a problem with workers organizing to ask for more compensation so long as the company is earning profit. I didn't say anyone is "entitled" to anything and I didn't even predict whether or not the efforts would work.

> If the workers "regain" it all, there's nothing left for an > investor/founder.

I addressed investors already. Money used to pay back a loan is not what I consider "profit," in the same way that money used to pay for office electricity is not what I consider "profit." Obviously companies have to pay their bills. As for founders, I assume they're functioning essentially as the manager/employer and thus are the party that is negotiating with the organized labor of their company. I'm not prescribing some amount of money they get to keep versus their employees—that's precisely what the negotiations will determine.

> Since this is the scenario you endorse (you've said so three times), your > position is that investors and founders should not receive any return on > their investment, nor any gains from establishing the company in the first > place.

I have said that zero times and have now explicitly refuted it twice, lest there be any confusion about what I am claiming.

<comment><USER15> >> until they're receiving all the company's profit, at which point it would be as if they're receiving the actual value of their labor

Your first comment clearly states that the value of labor is all the company's profit. ALL. You wrote it. "receiving ALL the company's profit" = "receiving the actual value of their labor". Which means, it's only possible for the airline to show a profit by underpaying labor, and therefore existence of profit = investors are exploiting labor for "surplus value." As long as you stand by the initial statement, everything that follows is crazy-talk, whether or not you're able to follow the logic of your own statements from a to b to c.

<comment><USER14> I didn't say that. Truly. Try to copy and paste me saying that, and you'll find that I did not say it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Pretty amazing to be on a 6 figure salary and still strike.

<comment><USER17> The fundamental unfairness of employment is that your masters skim off the top of your labor's true value and give you less than you are worth to line their pockets. The pilots are within the bounds of fairness to demand up to the full value of their labor.

<comment><USER15> I am not taking sides in this dispute, I am sure the pilots do have some valid grievances. However "the full value of their labor" cannot be realized without a) planes to fly, b) a system for taking reservations, assigning people to seats, and collecting revenue, c) a maintenance staff to keep the planes functioning and safe, d) flight scheduling, purchasing/leasing gates at hundreds of airports (many international), financing fuel purchases, and much, much more.

Obviously, flying planes is a valuable skill. But without the enormous support system that the airline itself provides, pilots would have little opportunity to realize that value.

<comment><USER18> > Obviously, flying planes is a valuable skill. But without the enormous > support system that the airline itself provides, pilots would have little > opportunity to realize that value.

Then you're over-identifying what the value of their labor is. If what they need to do requires the support of others, don't factor the input of others into "the full value of their labor".

I.e. if the total value of the airline is X, and the value the pilots provides is P, and the value that all the other employees provide is N, where N + P = X, then the full value of the pilots labor is still P, not X. So I take it to mean they're wanting to get 100% of P.

<comment><USER15> >> N + P = X

It's much more complicated than that. One of the beautiful things about business, or any cooperative effort, is that the sum of the group/company is worth more than the sum of value of individual effort. 2+2=5, if you will.

The problem, when it comes to human nature, is that once the total value is determined (market cap, annual profit, ROI, etc), individuals tend to over- estimate the value of their individual contribution.

It is not just airlines. Uber drivers say they provide the rides, there would be no service without their effort. Uber says nobody was paying you to drive before we launched our platform. Both are correct. Foxconn employees say we're building all these damn iPhones, no other facility or workers can produce at this volume. Apple says if we didn't design and market such a popular product you'd have nothing to build. Again, both are correct. A film director says, look, the movie I made grossed $400 million -- and the studio replies, which you could have never made without the $100 million budget we risked, up front.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Calling All Math Geeks and Puzzle Lovers - <AUTHOR> I just released a new game called REquate for both iOS and Android.  I describe it as the math addicted love child of Tetris, Sudoku and a crossword puzzle.
The game is simple, just rearrange the blocks by dragging and rotating them so that they all form valid equations.
It's perfect for all ages and skill levels.  Easy puzzles are a great way to occupy a few spare seconds and keep your mind sharp at the same time.  Challenge yourself a bit with the harder puzzles.  If you're really up for a real challenge try to solve the "Migraine" level puzzles, they'll make your brain hurt so good.
A new free puzzle is added everyday and new puzzle packs are released once or twice a month.
Check it out and let me know what you think.
App Store: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/requate-math-addicted-love/id1031089368?ls=1&mt=8
Google Play: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.blakgeek.games.requate <comment><USER2> Links to make your life easier

App Store: [https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/requate-math-addicted- love/i...](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/requate-math-addicted- love/id1031089368?ls=1&mt=8)

Google Play: [https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.blakgeek.g...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.blakgeek.games.requate)

</comment><comment><USER3> My kids like it ... a fun way to solve math problems.

</comment><comment><USER2> Pretty slick. What's the stack behind it?

<comment><AUTHOR> Cordova and bit of other goodness. I'll write up a blog post on it and link to it.

<comment><USER2> BTW there may be an issue with the background music...kinda crackles. There is a barely audible, high pitch noise, when I mute it through the app.

Running iOS9 on iPhone 6.</comment></comment></comment>


Most Wasabi Is Fake [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/video/index/585172/wasabi-fake/ <comment><USER2> In high-end Japanese restaurants, you can often get real wasabi (it'll be listed at the bottom of the menu). My experience with it has been that it's usually coarser, more watery, and less pungent than the "standard" wasabi. I do not prefer it; whatever combination of horseradish and mustard restaurants default to is, I think, the better product.

If I was eating wasabi on its own and trying to, I don't know, appreciate varietals of it, I'd think differently. But for the most part I eat the little blobs of wasabi as a palate cleanser and never explicitly add it to my dishes, which I assume the cook already seasoned the way they wanted me to eat it.

<comment><USER3> Wow. That's amazing to me (and also that so many responders agree). I love wasabi! It has a clean, sweet, chlorophyll taste to it. However, there are a few caveats.

Real wasabi needs to be mashed, not grated. If you cut the cell walls it doesn't produce the flavour properly. You need to break the cell walls. That's why you use a shark skin "grater" (and it's important to press hard and "grate" in a circular motion because you are really pulping it against the shark skin).

Secondly, the flavour of wasabi changes dramatically from the time it is "grated" and over the next 30 minutes. It is very hot immediately after you grate it and gets progressively less hot over time. After about 30 minutes it is practically tasteless. It's super important to time the "grating" with the dish. At my favourite izakaya, the master's son (who does the fish) "grates" the wasabi first, puts it on the plate, then cuts the fish, plates it and then gives you the dish. This way the wasabi has reached it's peak flavour when you receive the dish. You've got about 5-10 minutes to eat it until it goes horrible.

Finally, the flavour varies considerably by season. I find winter wasabi to be much sweeter than summer wasabi.

Now, at the risk of being slightly dismissive (which I don't intend to be), I buy fresh wasabi from time to time and prepare it for myself. The result is exactly as you describe and I have to say that my efforts are largely not worth it. I even live in Shizuoka so I have access to good wasabi! The problem is that preparing wasabi requires the correct tools, the correct technique and practice -- none of which I have. I wonder if it is possible that the examples you tried were possibly not the best...

<comment><USER4> > I find winter wasabi to be much sweeter than summer wasabi

This is a normal response in many plants. They accumulate sugars in cells in cold months. Sugar acts then as antifreeze protecting the cell's integrity.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> So is most truffle oil. Canned reindeer meat in the Nordic countries can be up to 40% pork. Budget-brand soy sauce might actually be "soy sauce powder" mixed with water, as opposed to something straightforwardly brewed. If you travel the developing world, you may find that what is sold as chocolate actually has no cacao in it. Lots and lots of disappointments out there in the food world. I find reading labels carefully and doing research online revelatory.

<comment><USER6> Another one is Kobe beef. Real Kobe beef is from the city of Kobe in Japan and is only served in a handful of resturaunts in the US (I think 1 in NYC and a few in LV). So next time you see Kobe beef on the menu- you know it's most likely a lie.

<comment><USER2> You can get A5 wagyu all over the place in the US. The "tell" that you're looking at fake "kobe beef" is when you could take the dish and swap "kobe" for "angus" and the dish would still make sense; so, for instance, a "kobe burger" always going to be silly and shady, and nobody would ever buy "certified angus nigiri".

<comment><USER7> I'd add that if you don't like ultra-rare beer then it's kind of a waste. I'm not a fan of anything that isn't medium, and by that temp a lot of the fine marbling is effectively lost. In short, when I finally had some real A5 I realized it was totally wasted on me. If you liked carpaccio though, it would probably be amazing. I think too often people attach value judgements to grades or things, to wine and the like, when the truth is thst individual taste is highly variable. If you like a sensibly priced bottle of wine, rejoice, it's a good wine for you. If you're someone who skews to the high priced bottles then that's going to be rough on the wallet, but again that's your taste.

The biggest mistake we make with food and drink is to "want the best" instead of wanting the best _for us_. There is subsitute for trying lots of different types of food and drink and choosing what you like the taste of most, not what's most applauded by experts or in vogue.

<comment><USER2> There's a chapter in "The Man Who Ate Everything" (which is excellent) about "Kobe", and you could sum it up as: it's a good product that is not simply a "better version" of other steaks, and if not prepared specially (as in, in dishes designed for A5 beef), it's pretty much a waste.

<comment><USER7> In my limited experience that's a perfect way of putting it. I might have to read that book too, it seems interesting.

<comment><USER2> Highest possible recommendation. It is one of the great food books.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I can get a chunk of wasabi for about $6 at my local greengrocer in Tokyo. Unless you plan on eating a lot of sashimi at home within the next few days, though, it's not practical since it goes bad much faster than the tube stuff.

The taste is substantially better than the fake stuff, but it doesn't really matter if you're eating at a cheap place that doesn't properly prepare the nigiri rice.

<comment><USER9> Local asian grocery store was selling chunks of wasabi for ~$60 here in Boston, as of yesterday. Pricing was like $120/lb.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Horseradish is a very nice vegetable anyways. I would eat it with sushi, I just wish people had the honesty not to put coloring in it and call it something it's not.

</comment><comment><USER11> There are a dozen tubed wasabi products in Japan that are categorized by its quality. 100% native wasabi produced in Japan, imported wasabi, 50% wasabi and horseradish mixture, and so on.

But I found the degree of snobbery people show on HN (especially for Japanese products) amusing.

<comment><USER12> I agree with the last sentiment, but it's by no means just HN. It's prevalent anywhere on the internet, and to a lesser extent, in real conversation.

Is there a name for the specific phenomenon of speaking highly of something solely because it's semi rare or exclusive, especially in the area you're in? Is it a subtle form of bragging?

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Never thought I'd get "the feels" watching a video about wasabi. But I really salute the initiative of making such a nicely done video to showcase a dying(?) local artisanal practice. I think young people would find a lot more interest in such professions if it was showcased like that!

<comment><USER14> I remember taking tests in middle/high school to try to match students to suggested career paths, but they were just job titles in a book, and maybe also descriptions. They never showed the work environment. Nobody ever had a clue where these people would work, or what it would look like, or what their day-to-day tasks would be. At best they had scales like "abstract thinking" or "work with your hands".

I might have been interested in following my dad's line of work (EE), had I had any clue what it involved. In hindsight, he seemed to have a much nicer office than any I've worked in. Unfortunately, even if I'd wanted to, the company shut down that division 20 years ago, and then spun off that whole sector of the business.

That's how it is with technology: easy come, easy go. We may never have a "9th generation" software engineer, short of the point where everyone in the world is a software engineer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Some people are growing it in Oregon:

[http://www.thewasabistore.com/the-farm](http://www.thewasabistore.com/the- farm)

I recall reading about a past attempt in Oregon that failed, a while back. Apparently it's not easy.

<comment><USER16> I don't know what you mean by "attempting to grow it" and comparing them with a "past attempt that failed, too."

I'm a happy customer of The Wasabi Store: their wasabi is the real deal and it is delicious.

<comment><USER15> I edited it to clarify. It's difficult, apparently.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> After many years of peak wasabi use (i.e. highest saturation possible) at Japanese restaurants in the US, I had a chance to eat sushi while on a trip to Shanghai.

I don't know if Chinese wasabi is more real or not, but quickly learned it had at least 10x more sinus-cleaning power than US wasabi.

That was also the first place where I had 'not possible to be any fresher' sushi - orders were placed at the fish tanks on the first floor, restaurant was upstairs.

<comment><USER18> > That was also the first place where I had 'not possible to be any fresher' > sushi - orders were placed at the fish tanks on the first floor, restaurant > was upstairs.

While I won't question your description of the freshness, I would point out that that set up would also work as a hack to _suggest_ freshness regardless of where the ingredients that actually go into your food are sourced.

<comment><USER19> Supremely fresh seafood is drastically cheaper and more accessible in Shanghai than in anywhere in the US. You can hop over to any local grocer / wet market and find a half dozen varieties of live shrimp, eel, fish, etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I love the fresh real wasabi from The Wasabi Store in Oregon. A good place to start is their gift pack which includes a wasabi grater and brush:

[http://www.thewasabistore.com/shop/gift-pack-wasabi-box- culi...](http://www.thewasabistore.com/shop/gift-pack-wasabi-box-culinary)

They are nice people who grow delicious wasabi! (No affiliation, just a happy customer.)

</comment><comment><USER20> Keep in mind, food tastes different in different regions. When I first arrived in the states, I had no idea what to do with ketchup or mustard or foods in the microwave bags. Back home (Europe) we grew everything ourselves in the garden and there was no need for processing the food or spices. In the states the food no longer is grown for taste, but for quantity. Looking at the video I appreciate the garden foods, the flavor and uniqueness. You must have an acquired taste for that kind of food/spice to really appreciate it and enjoy it.

</comment><comment><USER21> I'm ok with the fact that it's not real wasabi but how is this legal? Isn't this blatant false advertising?

(Sorry if they address this in the video but tl;dw)

<comment> GuB-42 Fake wasabi actually contains a tiny amount of real wasabi. Sometimes as low as 0.1%.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I thought everyone knew this. Alton Brown talked about it on Good Eats years ago.

<comment><USER23> Same here. I've been reading about this since the early 90s, at least

Also, if it's a mildly expensive steak in your local Japanese restaurant, it's neither Kobe nor Wagyu, as people have been pointing out since the 80s.

Maybe we _should_ have a Hacker Olds for stuff like this and the random Wikipedia articles.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Kind of awesome that you can get it in SFBA (Berkeley) at Tokyo Fish Market for $80/pound (which is expensive, but you don't use _that much_.

Grown in Half Moon Bay. Other US growing locations are Oregon and Washington State.

</comment><comment><USER25> I am no farmer. Hell, I'm not even a "Gentleman Farmer" however some years ago I saw a video of couple growing wasabi and it struck me as a interesting and fulfilling occupation.

Of course I don't live in Japan, or for that matter where I have access to that sort of steady flowing clean water. But still...

</comment><comment><USER26> I had fresh real wasabi at a new york restaurant. To prove it was real, they would grate it right of the root over your plate, the way they do with expensive truffles. It was indeed very good. And yes it does hit your nose first.

</comment><comment><USER27> the other day I noticed fresh wasabi root sold in a grocery store for roughly $40-$50

<comment><USER14> Per pound? That seems cheap. I've seen it at Uwajimaya, late on a Sunday night, for US$99.99/lb. The man stocking it told me, "Get some now, while you can! The restaurants will buy it all up and it'll be gone by morning."

<comment><USER27> Yep that's the stuff I saw. This was maybe 8 ounces.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> This is true. I lived near a wasabi field for a time and the farmer used to give me a few roots once in awhile. If you grate it yourself it's green but not _that_ green.

</comment><comment><USER29> you can buy freeze dried wasabi powder at whole foods for $10 that is real. just mix a bit with water. it's good.

</comment><comment><USER30> At what point does fake become the real thing? Do people really aspire to more than they are getting? At some point _pure_ becomes obnoxious.

<comment><USER31> Just a truth-in-labelling thing. Not obnoxious; its consumer protection.

<comment><USER30> If consumers like the fake wasabi and most consumers have only had fake wasabi then it's not really protecting the consumer.

<comment><USER31> Sure it is; those that know the difference. Just call it something else. Like horseradish for instance. Which is what it is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Most sushi places don't prepare nigiri properly in my experience. Each piece of nigiri should have wasabi between the rice and seafood and a small amount of sauce on top, intended to be eaten fish-side-down. (SF probably has the most places that do it correctly outside NYC and LA)

You're welcome to eat it however you like, but the ginger is generally speaking the palate cleanser while wasabi is historically both flavor enhancer and an antibacterial agent.

<comment><USER33> I always like the sushi, ginger, and soy sauce/wasabi mixture all in the same bite. Maybe I am weird, but I love that combination of flavors all at once.

<comment><USER2> You're definitely not expected to eat the ginger along with the nigiri (sometimes menus will point this out) but, I mean, if you like the way it tastes, go for it. :)

The only thing I think we have to agree on is that people who mix wasabi in with their soy sauce are evil.</comment></comment></comment>


.yu domain expires today (30/Sept/2009) - <AUTHOR> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.yu

<comment><USER2> I like the fact that in Montenegro, they're changing from .yu to .me. Cute.

<comment><USER3> Did nobody consider making it .fyu (Former Yugoslavia)?

<comment><USER4> I'm not sure why that would be better. If they are going to go about changing it, they might as well use the codes for the present countries.

<comment><USER5> Being ironic or not getting the joke?

<comment><USER4> Not getting the joke I guess.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> What happened to URIs shouldn't change ?

<http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI>

It seems to me that all your efforts at maintaining a URI over the years are in vain when your TLD can be shut down.

This is a very good argument to not invest a single sou into whatever the local TLD is in a politically unstable region of the world.

I'm also quite surprised that the TLD actually can be shut down, why not simply close new registrations and keep it alive as long as there are websites ending on .yu ?

<comment><USER7> According to the article: _A two-year transition period started in 2007 that allowed all existing .yu names to be transferred either to .rs (for Serbia) or to .me (for Montenegro)._

That sounds like a reasonable transition period and an effective migration strategy for all of the .yu domains to me. I suppose the standard investing advice applies to choosing TLDs also - diversify your portfolio.

<comment><USER6> If you've spent a decade building up a website and the links to it and you depend on these to bring you your business then that's a bit of a problem.

According to google there are currently still about 21,000,000 references to page on .yu in their databases alone.

Imagine getting a letter from the .com tld registry that you've got two years to move all your content over, does it still seem like enough ? Or do other factors come in to play, such as the availability of your old domain names in new places and so on ?

I see domain names as 'given names', your website has mindshare and web presence based on that name, if you're paid up and you had it you should be able to continue.

Otherwise all this does is tremendously devalue localized domain names.

After all, the land underlying the old .yu domain is still there, if people want to hold on to their names I really don't see any good reason why that should be taken away from them.

<comment><USER8> Seems to me the Right Thing would be to have someone pass x.yu URIs to x.me. No broken links, no effort for those who've forgotten/lost control/died/&c.

<comment><USER6> And no squatters that got wind of the change before you and registered the .me or .rs domains that people had as .yu before.

<comment><USER9> I believe the holders of the .yu URLs had a right of first refusal for the new TLDs, so it wasn't possible for squatters to move in on existing names.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> ".su", the TLD assigned to the Soviet Union, is still in use and has no expiration in sight. It seems a bit strange that .yu is being phased out so rapidly.

<comment><USER11> Russia has succession rights to USSR, while SFRY was dissolved without successor.

<comment><USER12> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_and_the_United_Nations>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I wonder what will happen to .tv when Tuvalu submerges into the ocean...

<comment><USER6> Beardyman has a lecture on that, see Youtube.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> By the way, anyone catch Gaddafi's UN speech last week? I was thinking about all these .ly URLs...

</comment><comment><USER15> Seems like there are still quite a number of .yu sites in operation. Are these going to stop resolving?

<http://www.google.com/search?q=yu+site%3Ayu>

</comment><comment><USER16> <http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3A*.yu> still shows "about 191,000" pages indexed. Maybe they didn't get the memo?</comment>