Your Instagram photos aren't really yours: Someone else can sell them for $90k - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/style-blog/wp/2015/05/25/a-reminder-that-your-instagram-photos-arent-really-yours-someone-else-can-sell-them-for-90000/

<comment><USER3> Well...yes...this headline manages to be both true but a little off-point. By posting your photos on Instagram, you have definitely given a third-party (Instagram) the right to make copies and distribute your photos...yet, the photo still belongs to you, Instagram is quick to point out [1].

But the reselling of photos as described here is not particular to Instagram. It involves an artist who reappropriates them for artistic purposes (similar to parody)...he could've done this with any photo or off of any service...so this concept isn't even particular to the Internet and the digital age.

However, such examples as the OP are always good for discussion about "what is art?"...it's not so much the actual work (measured in sweat and hours) put into it, but the skill in repurposing it, and in the reputation of the artist...you have to build up quite the career of actually interesting work before you can get to the point where a rich tycoon will pay you $250K to splatter mud patterns on one of his walls. It'd be interesting to see a lawsuit come out of this...I'm guessing the artist could make a good case that the original photographers would never be able to raise $90K for their images...people only pay for it because it is work that _he_ noticed/curated/altered.

[1] [http://blog.instagram.com/post/38252135408/thank-you-and- wer...](http://blog.instagram.com/post/38252135408/thank-you-and-were- listening)

<comment><USER4> To me, it's almost the same (but not quite exactly) as someone posting code on stack overflow, and developers using and relying on that code for their job.

The idea of what part of information is owned and what is shared is a concept that fascinates and bewilders me consistently. Art has all these emotional attachments to it, this personal affect, and not many stop to think that for some people, code - even mathematics, is exactly the same.

Why is there a difference between someone who posts a solution on the internet, versus someone who teaches a course and publishes a book, versus someone who traces a drawing using a projector for art? Public and cultural education, myth, and superstition, mostly. But in quantity and quality - <USER2> determine the success or failure of any venture business; even the start of a lifelong friendship.

How do people come to the thoughts they conclude with? How do people get ideas? I guarantee you, if you lock yourself up in a little room and wall yourself off from society, you will either arrive at some derivative of absolute truth or you will go insane, possibly both.

If I post this comment, and then other people have ideas that are profitable as a result of my comment, does it matter how similar their idea to my comment appears? Do I own those ideas that result from my comment? I would say no, because that's absurd, but yet, we live in a world that has opinions that cover the entire spectrum of this dialogue, and then some.

<comment><USER5> Nah, there's a pretty big difference (mentally) between SO and Instagram.

You put your code on SO with the intention of giving it to someone else, potentially many others. That's the entire point in SO and it's pretty clear from the start that that's what you're doing there.

You put your photos on Instagram so you can _show_ them to your friends. Instagram is a storage space for _your_ photos. When someone looks at your photo, the intention is that you're _showing_ them the photo, rather than _giving_ them the photo. (Un)Fortunately, when computers are concerned, showing and giving are the same thing.

The fact that people think of showing and giving as different, but their smart devices treat them the same, results in a lot of friction. The entire DRM industry and respective legislation is concerned with aligning computer behaviour with (some) human expectations.

So yes, I agree that Instagram works the same as Stack Overflow, but that's not what people's instinctive expectation is.

<comment><USER4> While this may be instinctive to you, it is not necessarily instinctive to an artist, or someone with no socio-normal intuition.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Copyright law is strange and inconsistent. Contrast this story with this one ("red bus case"[0]):

[http://aandalawblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/red-bus-suggests- co...](http://aandalawblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/red-bus-suggests-copyright- law-is-not.html)

So at one end of the spectrum literally taking someone's photo and selling them without permission is NOT copyright infringement, and at the other end taking your own photo then altering it a certain way IS copyright infringement. Someone will have to explain that one to me...

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Island_Collections_Ltd_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Island_Collections_Ltd_v_New_English_Teas_Ltd)

<comment><USER7> Different legal systems have different approaches to the boundary between infringement and permissible usage of copyright works.

UK law - copyright infringement is generally based on the concept of substantial reproduction of the original. On the basis of the similarity between the two, there was substantial reproduction. The main issue in the Red Bus case was over proof of copying of the specific work (on the basis that the work in question had been created by numerous photographers over the years (so how can you prove the specific work of the claimant was copied?)).

US law - more flexible in the sense of avoiding infringement where the use of the work in a new light is sufficiently transformative. The linked article from the OP shows a good example in the combination of four separate shots to create a new work.

The question would be whether the Instagram reproductions are sufficiently transformative. Perhaps the reproduction of one photo on its own is not sufficiently transformative.

Another point of interest is that the person depicted in the photo may not be the owner of the copyright with a suitable cause of action (unless you're talking about selfies of course). I'm sure it would make for an interesting case!

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> It doesn't really bother me that much that someone else could sell your Instagram photos.

What bothers me is that someone else would buy them, when they're available for free on the internet.

<comment><USER9> I had the same thought. This story is about a transaction between charlatans and fools. It's a business that has a long and storied history.

Anyone could hunt down an Instagram post that spoke to them and have a very high quality large print reproduction of it for a couple orders of magnitude less than $90k. Stuff like this is at the root of my whole beef with modern art. It's much more about being clever than talent or dedication or anything else. I could spend a lifetime trying to imitate Rembrandt and never get there. I could knock this Richard Prince stunt out before lunch if I started now (it's currently 10:13 AM CST here in Kansas City).

<comment><USER10> I don't think it's quite accurate to call the participants charlatans / fools. The pieces are presented as clearly ripped off of Instagram, the last bit of the comment thread preserved along with one of the artist's. The people buying the prints know exactly what they are, it's difficult to maintain the position that they're getting ripped off.

Art's a weird world. White canvases have sold for many millions:

[http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-11-14/why- pay-15-...](http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-11-14/why- pay-15-million-for-a-white-canvas)

What you're actually buying when you purchase a piece of art is bound to be subjective, as the enjoyment of visual art is much more individual than, say, a video game. There are games that blur the lines of what makes up a game, and people still buy them, play them, and enjoy them.

Also, there's plenty of ways to enjoy a game without ever playing it. When I was a kid, I would buy strategy guides for games I never played or owned. I'll watch people playing games that I would never play myself. If someone like John Romero or Sid Meier made something like a Pac-Man clone, I might buy it.

So it's easy for me to see why someone would buy these Instagram shots. There's something about the curation and attention being given to them by the artist that makes it a more interesting experience to look at than if you just took a screenshot and saved it in a folder or printed it out. The artist isn't just producing visuals, he's also applying a more cultivated taste to 'what' he's producing. He's only got so much time to make things, what he chooses to make tells as much of a story as the skills he used to make it.

<comment><USER11> There's a tax shell-game aspect to modern art, as well. If you sell a piece of art and re-invest the proceeds into a substantially similar work of art (painting for a painting, sculpture for a sculpture, etc) you can avoid paying capital gains taxes.

Source: [http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/27/arts/design/tax-break- used...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/27/arts/design/tax-break-used-by- investors-in-flipping-art-faces-scrutiny.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I find it fascinating that trivial modifications of photos qualify as 'transformative' and thus evade copyright. So it's okay for me to download the new Taylor Swift single, add some extra reverb, and start selling copies of it? Cool.

<comment><USER13> Many things in civil law come down to who can afford to spend more on lawyers.

Richard Prince probably has a brother or a fan who's a copyright lawyer willing to work pro-bono.

<comment><USER14> I think it does come down to money too--like everything? I think if Richard Prince downloaded an image of Mickey Mouse, and did his "artistic" magic to the image, and sold prints in a gallery; his Lawyer would be very busy?

I, personally, don't give websites very many pictures. The few pictures I post are images I am giving away. Companies, Artists, and webscrapers are free to do whatever they want with the pictures I give up.

I don't give companies like Instagram any images--period. Facebook gets a picture of the back of my head, and I still use a pseudonym.

Even in high school, and college I never sat for a school picture. I don't like people taking my picture without my permission. I don't like companies whom take, and keep my picture--even for security, and identify purposes. I don't like public cams. I don't like marketing trend of taking employees picture for marketing purposes(Whole Foods, etc), or even employee of the month pictures.

What I am trying to say is I wish people were more concerned about their Images? I'll admit my my concern over the protection of my image, and the images I take borders on an obsession. I sometimes wonder if I'm missing out on opportunities in life by being so private?

I know companies will start running campaigns, and marketing ploys if Not posting becomes a trend. I can see it now, "Don't miss out on life--post more images!" "Don't miss out on networking opportunities--post more images!" "Don't miss out on love--post more images!"

People here know once image is posted it can be copied, manipulated, used without your consent, and sent around the world. The people I am close to don't quite realize once they upload in image it's essentially not their's anymore in any practical sense.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The buyers aren't spending 90k for a print of an Instagram, they're spending 90k for Richard Prince's signature on the bottom. Richard Prince could appropriate anything at this point, make a very limited edition, sign it, and mint money.

You couldn't, I couldn't, but he can.

<comment><USER16> Under your theory, assuming I was famous, could I make a copy of a movie, sign the DVD copy and sell it for $100 free and clear?

I don't think I'd get away with that, so why should he?

<comment><USER17> What if I bought the DVD, got it signed by you and sold it for $100? Replace DVD with guitars, T-Shirts etc, definitely seen that happening.

<comment><USER16> With the items there's no copyright. With the DVD there is. The studio owns the copyright to the "image" on the DVD that was copied.

I guess the big question is does what he has done to the images count as derivative works or not? I say not, since he's used the image unmodified.

I hope at $90k a sale it catches the attention of a pro bono for a nice test case. Would be interesting to see what the courts say.

<comment><USER18> I think he will be in trouble if this gets tested. Just my thoughts. I don't see how he can defend that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Add a comment to someone else's Instagram photo: not copyright infringement. Make 90K.

Sample one measure of a well known song in a hip hop tune: totally copyright infringement. Get sued for 90k.

</comment><comment><USER20> This seems like another example of a blatantly distorted copyright law protecting one class of creator while completely shafting the commoners.

</comment><comment><USER21> This just continues to prove that copyright law in the US is tailored to serve one group of people - those who already have a stake in the game.

</comment><comment><USER22> The headline is a bit like saying "Painters sells dried paint for 90k" or "Programmer sells series of characters for 90k" Technically it's accurate, but it misses the point entirely.

Richard Prince, whether you like him or not, is an artist and his medium is typically found/appropriated objects. We, as a society, have rewarded him in the past because there is something interesting in what he does. Oftentimes artists are misunderstood within their lifetimes and the scope of their interests become more apparent with time. So for now, these are super gimmicky and somewhat frustrating, but as the world changes in unexpected ways they will only take on more meaning .

</comment><comment><USER23> Now what if @doedeere sold her own 6 foot tall prints of the same image that fetched $90K? Would Richard Prince then sue her?

<comment><USER24> I highly doubt it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Since he's not getting model releases he might still be breaking privacy law.

</comment><comment><USER26> baffling and understandably shocks ppl....but all that aside, wondering what kind of quality could the prints be really ? Res of instagram photos isn't that high right? even thru the API?

</comment><comment><USER27> so if i publish a copyrighted material in my Instagram, an i or the publisher responsible? ... since they are the ones with the prospect of profit...

<comment><USER24> This would fall under the DMCA. So long as the publisher took down the material when notified it was an infringement, following their DMCA procedures.

<comment><USER28> More info: the specific DMCA provision that allows for this is called "Safe Harbor."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> So a couple different things here:

On one hand, it's funny that user "doedeere" thinks she had to give permission to the artist in order to use her picture in art. Gives off an air of entitlement if you ask me. On the other, I think it's a fair example of how little the average user is aware (read: doesn't give any attention to at all) of a free service's TOS and what is/isn't allowed, in addition the actual nature of posting stuff on the Internet. Need to educate yourselves, people (obviously not anyone browsing HN, but you know what I mean).

The fact that these pieces are selling for that much? Well, I'd say the suckers are the ones buying them. Maybe in 60 or so years they'll be considered something? Maybe not? Art's in the eye of the beholder, as it should be. If people want to wast...I mean spend that much on an enlarged screenshot, let them.

<comment><USER30> This doesn't have anything to do with Instagram's TOS though. The artist is banking on his screenshots being considered "transformative". However, what this means is kind of grey. Does adding a comment under a picture add new value [1] to that picture? There have been cases brought where the art in question had much more transformation applied to it (examples: Harry Potter encyclopedia, Obama Hope Image).

[1] [http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four- factors/#...](http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four- factors/#the_transformative_factor_the_purpose_and_character_of_your_use)</comment></comment>


Bump (YC S09) got to Mongo SV early this morning.  - <AUTHOR> http://twitpic.com/3cif73

<comment><USER2> Is it just me or does anyone else think that the logo on the back of the truck looks like goatse.cx?</comment>


Stitchless patterns mixer - <AUTHOR> http://bgpatterns.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> Once a few years I get bored and rewrite this project using new technology. Hope you'll spend next ~10 minutes crawling screen with mouse and having some fun).</comment>


Your Circles, now in Google Voice - <AUTHOR> http://googlevoiceblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/your-circles-now-in-google-voice.html

<comment><USER2> Wait, Google made an update to Google Voice? I think it's literally been at least 2 years since they made any real changes to it. Has it been resurrected?

<comment><USER3> Is it lacking any major features? I've been using it happily since the GrandCentral days and don't feel like I'm missing much of anything.

<comment><USER4> MMS.

<comment><USER5> MMS goes to email, if you have SMS to email enabled. Does not show up in GV however.

<comment><USER4> Thank you! I will enable shortly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Question: are users still limited to following 5K people on Google+?

Also, to have a person in your "creepers" circle, you necessarily need to 'follow' them on Google+. Is this not a poor design choice?

<comment><AUTHOR> To speak to the first first question, I believe the answer to be in the affirmative. To speak to your second point/question; honestly, I was thinking the same thing. Creepers circle? Why not just "un-follow"?

<comment><USER7> You can mute people who aren't in your circles.

<comment><AUTHOR> True.

>"for example, calls from your "Creepers" circle can be sent straight to Voicemail"

Maybe I just got caught up in the term used. Perhaps these are folks that for whatever reason one must interact with but like to manage communications? In my personal use a "creepers" circle would be named "co-workers" _insert humor here_.

<comment><USER8> I have a list in GV for people who frequently dial the wrong number. It plays a special VM telling them that they often dial the wrong number but to leave a message if this is correct and I will get back to them, eventually. I would probably use this for a similar setup.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> What if the same person is in both my "allow to call regularly" and my "straight to voicemail" circles?

<comment><USER10> Google will implode, of course.

Edit to add useful response: I imagine they should alert you to the conflict / prompt you to ask you if they should be removed from the one in order to be added to the other, or to cancel the action..

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> That blog may have the worst design for a Blogspot blog that I have ever seen. What were they thinking?

EDIT: I guess I'm getting downvotes for this so others must disagree. Make sure to go to the homepage (<http://googlevoiceblog.blogspot.com/>) for the full effect. For me it is almost unreadable.

<comment><USER12> I think you got downvoted b/c it was off topic</comment></comment>


Show HN: Janetsh – A new system shell - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/andrewchambers/janetsh <comment><USER2> > _A new system shell that uses the Janet[1] programming language_

Why have I never heard of Janet before? This ticks every single box so far on my Perfect Lisp Language (and possibly Perfect Language) check list, the language I've been looking for for years but couldn't find.

[1] [https://janet-lang.org](https://janet-lang.org)

<comment><USER3> Haha. I haven't heard of it either. I though that this was a toy project or something. Seems like it's real business. What don't you like about the other Lisps, like Common Lisp, for example? What boxes still remained unticked?

Janet discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19179963](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19179963)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > while also supporting the things we love about sh.

This is great! Are there any other shells like this? I like the idea of something backwards compatible with bash.

<comment><USER5> Oilsh has focused more on backwards compatibility. This approach of adding a small functional language is interesting. The author seems to have done an elegant job with the syntax. Adding this to my list of things to download and play with.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Very neat. Will give this a spin and perhaps a port for FreeBSD if interested?

<comment><AUTHOR> If you are up for it, currently it may be a tad difficult to get running, but I am certainly willing to provide assistance.

In the future I hope it will support mac/freebsd/openbsd/linux and be easy to install and use.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I have a project that uses free unparsed text with evaluated sexpressions mixed in. I understand that alot of people just dont like sexpressions...but otherwise is anyone really bothered by this style of allowing arbitrary junk at the top level?

<comment><USER8> I think it's fine, it's like you're saying that every expression is implicitly wrapped in a '()' itself, so the syntax is redundant at the top level in a shell.

Not sure I'd appreciate it outside of a shell.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, the shell implicitly adds () in janetsh, but it doesn't do it for you when you are writing scripts.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Why did they subtract one from (length all-files) in the gif?

<comment><USER5> There is a blank line from find captured in the array. I think it is to remove it from the count.

<comment><AUTHOR> That is right, I also just wanted to show you can do some basic calculation easily inline.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> you lost me on the second bracket :D

<comment><AUTHOR> lisp may be as ugly as bash, but it much more principled and composable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Does it use the flow of time as a lotion?

<comment><USER12> How's the cactus compatibility?

<comment><USER13> Wat?

<comment><USER14> I believe these are references to The Good Place[1], although I don't usually expect to see pop-culture references as top level comments on HN.

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

<comment><USER15> To be fair, it _is_ named after the character from that show. It doesn't really add much to the discussion to post references here, though.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Should we rename institutions that honour dead racists? - <AUTHOR> https://aeon.co/opinions/should-we-rename-institutions-that-honour-dead-racists <comment><USER2> That would be a great debate to have. It's a shame that those who want to change names couldn't care less about a debate.</comment>


IPhone App Design Trends - <AUTHOR> http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2009/10/09/iphone-app-design-trends/ <comment><USER2> Regarding the category #4, this is a good tutorial on how to customize list views: [http://cocoawithlove.com/2009/04/easy-custom-uitableview- dra...](http://cocoawithlove.com/2009/04/easy-custom-uitableview-drawing.html)

The kind of things that show that you went the extra mile to add polish to your app.

<comment><USER3> I like that article. But I actually get designers to construct UITableViewCell in Interface Builder. It works out better than creating cells programatically and leaves the design work to actual designers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I've found that keeping an eye on iPhone UI design can help out with UI design in other areas if you find yourself in a space-constrained situation wanting more out of your controls or existing UI.

</comment><comment><USER5> Smashing Magazine does this thing that really irks me, where they pick a bunch of good examples and then one or two very mediocre ones. It leaves me wondering if I'm insane or if Smashing really is making an effort there.

<comment><USER6> The Convertbot UI makes me cry. But apparently the eye candy sells.</comment></comment>


Galaxy Nexus now on sale in Google Play - <AUTHOR> http://googlemobile.blogspot.com/2012/04/galaxy-nexus-now-on-sale-in-google-play.html <comment><USER2> When I go to the link in the article I get the famous "We're sorry, the document you requested is not available in your country." from the Play Store.

I encounter this page so often it's not even funny anymore.

Even worse, google keeps sending me emails about music albums in the Play Store and all the links in these emails show me this error.

<comment><USER3> I have the same problem. Although I fully expect to see this page (even though I click on those music e-mails every time hoping they suddenly unlocked it for us Canucks)

I get those e-mails because I signed up for Google Music via a US proxy and now have access to it but I imagine I'd need to go through a proxy every time if I wanted access to the Play Music store. Needless to say it would make me feel a little better if they'd announce some date as to when we can expect it.

<comment><USER4> Both you and the parent surely already know it's not strictly Google that is doing this - it's the lovely RIAA (and/or MPAA depending on what content).

Google could do a better job making this restriction clear and isolating it to just the content that is owned by them - leaving the rest of the store available worldwide.

But I agree with pg, we need to find a way to get rid of the RIAA and MPAA. (And their Canadian counterparts. Go Michael Geist!)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Wow. I ordered an HTC One S a few days ago but it hasn't shipped yet. It was $549- $399 is a lower enough price that it is sorely tempting. _And_ it's a Nexus device. The only issue I have is the size of the thing.

Hmm. Are there any GNexus owners our there that can tell us about the size of the device? It's the one real sticking point I have with it.

EDIT: For anyone else that's wondering, I looked up the refund policy. They pay return shipping, but you pay a 15% restocking fee- $60, pre-tax.

<comment><USER6> The Nexus name doesn't mean as much as it used to. Not all Nexus devices offer a pure Android experience - the Verizon version of Nexus will not have Google Wallet. In term of timely updates, the HTC Sensation received ICS update in March 2012 while the Sprint Nexus S 4G was not updated until early April.

So take that for what its worth. Don't be surprised if Google ends up allowing carriers and manufacturers to provide more customization with Nexus phones and be more lax with update timelines.

<comment><USER7> Of course, that is a reason to consider this unlocked, contract free phone that one is buying directly from Google.

<comment><USER8> I bought an unlocked, contract free Nexus One and still ended up with un- removable useless Amazon MP3 and Facebook and Google Play Books and Google Voice apps on my phone :(

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Here's a screenshot for those who can't access the page: <http://i.imgur.com/rR80K.jpg>

</comment><comment><USER10> And thus my paranoia about buying a new phone is justified - my 14 day "free to cancel" period with Verizon just ended, and now this is announced.

<comment><USER11> " The unlocked Galaxy Nexus requires GSM compatible service provider for voice calling. In the United States this includes AT&T and T-Mobile. Phones purchased from devices on Google Play are not compatible with Verizon or Sprint."

<comment><USER10> And thus my increased agony - I could have stayed with T-Mobile had this been announced just a bit earlier :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> <https://play.google.com/store/devices> gives "We're sorry, the document you requested is not available in your country." Ouch.

<comment><USER13> Well, there is a small disclaimer on the page that says _Currently only available in the USA._ Not that it justifies completely blocking the page.

<comment><USER8> Seriously. I can get it shipped and receive it in the U.S. but requiring me to proxy up to even view the order page is a bit much.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Here's a link using a web proxy for those outside the US: [http://www.uswebproxy.com/index.php?q=aHR0cHM6Ly9wbGF5Lmdvb2...](http://www.uswebproxy.com/index.php?q=aHR0cHM6Ly9wbGF5Lmdvb2dsZS5jb20vc3RvcmUvZGV2aWNlcy9kZXRhaWxzP2lkPWdhbGF4eV9uZXh1c19oc3Bh)

<comment><USER15> An HTTP _NOT_ S proxy, for those of you going too quickly on the sign-up page... ;)

<comment><USER16> Having an "S" wouldn't add much unless you really trust uswebproxy.com

<comment><USER14> Yep, I wouldn't sign in to my google account using that link, it was just meant to give quick access the that particular page

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I was one of the (few?) people who bought the original Nexus direct from Google and haven't regretted it. While I fully support their efforts, I would love more insight into the relationship their direct phone sales will have with their motorola division.

</comment><comment><USER18> Can anyone please comment the weight and the size (height, width, length) of the package what you get when you order it, based on this I can calculate how much would it cost to ship it from US using service like borderlinx.

</comment><comment><USER19> I bought a Galaxy Nexus for work use in January from an Australian retailer.

Just recently it started malfunctioning - it somehow thinks there is always/intermittently a USB charger attached, even when there isn't. This wrecks havoc on battery life since the screen lights up every time it thinks there is a USB charger attached. This does not seem to be a very uncommon issue. (Google "galaxy nexus always charging".)

I am moving to Sweden in less than a week, and average repair time seems to be two weeks judging from online reports from other victims.

And.. this is the kicker: Samsung doesn't offer worldwide warranty repair for their mobile devices. :/

</comment><comment><USER20> So Google Play is selling physical products too? Does that strike anyone else as weird?

It just seems like there should be some logical separation of brands/experiences there. Even if it's all running on the same backend.

<comment><USER21> Amazon doesn't make that distinction.

That said, the old name (Market) felt much more appropriate overall.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I bought one unlocked from Expansys for 600$ last month. I was really happy with the phone until today. 200$ price drop was unexpected. Event the Nexus S, which is a 2 year old phone is available for 350$ on Amazon.

</comment><comment><USER23> Ugh, you gotta be kidding me! I just bought this at Frys for full price (that's 799$)

I'm going to go see if they price match since I just bought it this weekend.

<comment><USER24> How are they charging 2 times the price? On Google Play it's 400 without any contract or commitment...

<comment><USER23> I don't know, I'm pretty bothered by this. I checked Google Play the day I purchased it and it was only available w/ a contract. That's why when I saw it at Fry's I bought it because it was unlocked. Should have waited two more days and gotten it at half price. In any case, I'm going to go complain to them about this. I believe they offer price matching.

<comment><USER24> They definitely do, I don't know if they offer price guaranteeing though. (matching is before the fact, guarantee is after). At any rate, you'll definitely be able to return it as a worst case scenario.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Is this being sold at a loss? An unlocked 16GB iPhone 4S is costs $650. If not, I'm impressed at the price point Samsung is able to achieve given the Galaxy Nexus's feature parity with the iPhone 4S. Which begs the question, why not spend an extra ~$150 per unit to really blow it out of the water, specs wise?

<comment><USER26> You can get a Nokia Lumia 710 for less than $200 unlocked without a contract in the UK.

Why the the iPhone 4S/Galaxy Nexus cost what they do I don't know...

<comment><USER27> Because the 710 is basically 2 year old hardware. It's absurd to compare it to modern flagship devices.

<comment><USER28> Even though gouranga is being downvoted for saying the same thing I'm about to, it bears repeating. Specs matter in the Android world. The faster the phone, the better your experience. This is a tradeoff of an open, general purpose mobile OS. In iOS and Windows Phone, the software is catered directly to the hardware. Faster hardware does not mean you're going to ever notice an increase in speed inside the OS.

So when people say "yes, but can it match my dual core, 1.5Ghz, whatever else flagship Android phone?", the answer is simply "it doesn't matter". That's not a cop-out, that's not a defense, that's the truth. Windows Phone and iOS are built for their hardware and always run at a constant speed. It doesn't have bleeding edge hardware, but it doesn't need it in order to run as fast as a flagship Android phone.

<comment><USER29> It sounds like you're saying MS just didn't implement any features that would take advantage of faster hardware, which is kind of sad if true.

<comment><USER28> I can't think of much more that they would need to implement that their competitors are remotely close to having. They have multitasking, they have video, games, music, GPS, HTML5, maps, HD recording, forward facing cameras, Skype, etc.

It sounds like you're saying Android has something special that needs more hardware, which isn't true. The _base system_ needs faster hardware, because it's general purpose. An Xbox can run faster than Windows on the same hardware because it's designed for just one implementation.

In short, troll more.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Can anyone comment on the 3G reception and the wifi reception?

I've heard varying reports on problems in these areas, but it's difficult to tell if they are carrier-related for the 3G.

Also, is the wifi any good? I found the reception on the Nexus S severely lacking.

<comment><USER31> I think most of the talk about reception issues on the GNex relate to Verizon CDMA version of the phone. I tried out a GNex on AT&T here - 4.0.4 has a bug that results in 3G connectivity issues - the recently released minor OTA update fixed that. Prior to and after the update, indoors I get 2-3 bars in my house whereas at the same place with my Atrix I get consistent 4 bars. But calls and 3G Data experience is similar on both phones. So unsure if lesser bars on the Nexus mean anything. Outdoors I traveled 700+ miles with it and had no issues with reception - mostly full bars, 1-2 bars in few areas but calls worked fine there.

WiFi - it is not worse or better than any other device in my house, which is to say it works well across considerable range without any drops.

I bought it from Amazon for $643 - but fortunately I was well within the return window so have returned it today for the $399 Google market version.

<comment><USER32> The Wifi is on par with the Nexus One for me. The only connection issues I've had were capacity/carrier based (e.g. T-Mo in San Francisco).

Lucky...I bought mine last month for $529. Not full price or bank breaking but still a bummer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Which network does this work on, for 4G?

And what are the _other_ GSM providers in the US?

<comment><AUTHOR> Tru, Simple Mobile, T-Mobile USA, Wal-Mart Family Mobile, Cincinnati Bell Wireless, Verizon, Sprint, US Cellular, Shaka Mobile, Locus Mobile, 7-Eleven Speak Out Wireless, Commnet Wireless, TerreStar, Immix, i wireless, Indigo Wireless, Airfire Mobile, Alaska Wireless, Amerilink Wireless, Cellular One of East Central Illinois, Cap Rock Cellular, Broadpoint, call4care, Cellular One, Pure Prepaid, Plateau Wireless, Asset/Vada Wireless, ASTAC, Cross Communications, Cordova Wireless, Corr Wireless, Chariton Valley Wireless, Consumer Cellular, Fuzion Mobile, GCI Wireless, Epic PCS, DTC Wireless, Earthtones, GTC Wireless, West Central Wireless, Westlink, Viaero Wireless, Union Wireless, Túyo Mobile, Simmetry, Telecom North America Mobile Inc, Mobal Freedom, Mid-Tex Cellular, KTC, Jolt Wireless, Long Lines Wireless, Pine Cellular, NEP Wireless, and XIT Communications

<comment><USER33> Sprint & Verizon are _NOT_ GSM. Are all of those others?

<comment><AUTHOR> You are incorrect. They support GSM, since their 4g rollouts. The HTC thunderbolt was the first phone on verizon whose gsm features were supported. That being said, I copied the list from ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_wireless_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_wireless_communications_service_providers)), a line wrapped on TracFone Wireless's MVNO explanation and it included those by mistake. Sorry for the misinformation.

<comment><USER34> LTE != GSM.

LTE is the official "4G" upgrade path for GSMA[1]; but LTE does not automatically give you a GSM and UMTS network to go with it (neither VZ or Sprint have deployed one). This Galaxy Nexus doesn't support LTE; so this model still isn't supported on them.

[1] The industry assoc.; not to be confused with GSM, the 2G tech they supported. Often when people say "GSM", they actually mean "GSM+UMTS(+LTE as rollouts happen)"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> If you're sensitive to Pentile screens, save yourself the trouble. I was excited about this phone but it all went out the window when I held one in my hand. The screen is, to me at least, a horror.

</comment><comment><USER36> Extremely tempted to buy this, but wondering if I should possibly just wait for the next nexus as the specs, while still nice are starting to get outdated, on an Atrix currently.

</comment><comment><USER37> Does anyone know if you buy this unlocked, can you use it on wifi without a cellular contract at all?

Basically, can you use it like an Android iPod Touch?

</comment><comment><USER38> I ordered one to replace my aging Galaxy S Captivate. At this point I'd settle for a phone that is simply 100% functional out of the box.

</comment><comment><USER39> _Nous sommes désolés, le document que vous avez demandé n'est pas disponible dans votre pays._

Thanks Google & France -.-

</comment><comment><USER40> Here's to hoping that unlocked GSM Galaxy Nexuses purchased from other vendors finally get Google Wallet, too.

</comment><comment><USER41> Very tempting but I want to wait for the SGS3 before committing to a new phone.

<comment><USER42> Cancelled my HTC One X preorder to await Samsung's announcement. I suspect the SIII, while likely remaining a fantastic device, will underwhelm given how astronomical expectations have become.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> We're sorry, the document you requested is not available in your country.

</comment><comment><USER44> Now it's pretty obvious what everyone going to Google I/O will get...

<comment><USER45> I'm not so sure about that. They didn't give away the Nexus S (or any phone for that matter) last year, and I believe the Nexus S was launched around roughly the same time as the Galaxy Nexus was, relative to the date of the conference.

If they're giving away any phone at all, I'm guessing it might be a Galaxy S III, just because that's the only major phone that I'm aware of that's launching around the same time as the conference...

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> GSM unlocked.

</comment><comment><USER47> I ordered one. Hopefully it'll get here by Friday :).

</comment><comment><USER48> Hear! Hear!

Hardware is not the cloud. They can't release new versions. google never addressed any hardware issues (3 of them) with the Nexus One they sold.

4mo and they closed the support forums.

Never a single email replied. Even via the google wallet mediation (ha!)</comment>


Why No Jobs - <AUTHOR> http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whynojobs <comment><USER2> > _"Mr. Bernanke has a lot of money, as do the other bankers on the committee > and the people who selected them. So they've decided to let millions and > millions of people be unemployed and the rest of us experience the resulting > recession rather than risk the chance that some of their money might be > worth a little less."_

Okay, I was with you until this part - that's a pretty serious claim to make without any substantiating evidence, or even something that _kind of_ looks like evidence.

This seems like a gross oversimplification of a complex problem to me, and like most other gross oversimplifications of the recession, seems to just pin the blame on "greedy bankers".

<comment><USER3> I agree. I "work for a living" (whatever that means, though in the context used here it's as opposed to being a "greedy banker"), and I can sympathize with the plight of the unemployed, but I've also made sure I had sufficient savings as a rainy day fund and am also prepared to reduce my living expenses if necessary.

I think that I have every reason to be concerned that my little nest egg might be devalued. More apropos to the community here, this could also mean a shorter runway for a bootstrapped startup; I don't see how founders would be pleased by such a move.

<comment><USER2> More relevant to the general population: when your nest egg's value is anything but safe, you are going to spend your money as soon as you get it - this has more ill effects than I can enumerate

This reminds me of my grandfather's stories during the Chinese Civil War (or shortly after the capitulation of the Nationalists anyway), where he'd get his pay and _immediately_ bike at lightning speed to the market to trade it for sustenance.

Of course, the only thing that fixed that was a complete currency reset:

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

I'm not sure if the US would really be better off with that.

<comment><USER4> The same thing happened in Argentina and the same thing _could_ happen in the U.S. Countless fiat currencies in history have experienced the same fate. The only solution I have ever seen in my research is to return to a commodity backed currency.

If there are other solutions, I don't know of them, but would like to.

<comment><USER5> Currencies backed by anything are a _terrible_ idea. Most economists now believe that deflation caused by a gold-backed currency was one of the primary causes of the Great Depression. Imagine how much worse it will be with, say, an oil-backed currency. What would 2007 have done to our economy?

Central fiat banking is the best known solution to the currency problem. This solution gets hated on by a lot of people who don't know any better, but think they do. The central requirement is that the currency-makers be independent of just about everyone, so that nobody can debase the integrity of the currency for political reasons. This angers everyone who thinks they know better than the central bank, but the anger of the average anti-establishment type is fickle and transient. It also angers the politicans, who are more dangerous-- the examples of Argentina and Taiwan given here demonstrate not the dangers of fiat currencies, but rather that any currency should be kept far, far away from politicians.

<comment><USER6> > _The central requirement is that the currency-makers be independent of just > about everyone_

Thus ignoring our entire system of checks and balances. Do you not see the danger, here?

> _This angers everyone who thinks they know better than the central bank_

AKA, every market participant.

> _but rather that any currency should be kept far, far away from > politicians._

In what sense are central bankers _not_ politicians? They are not elected, that's for sure. However, they exercise a large amount of control over our economy and very much influence official political action. In a sense, they are very much a separate executive branch of our political system.

<comment><USER5> There is no pre-existing "system of checks and balances" when it comes to banking. But let's pretend there is.

As an analogy, consider that we have managed to get on with a politically independent Supreme Court, with their least proud moment (Dred Scott) being when they decided to ignore their charter and bow to the will of the people.

I have no problem trusting independent bodies with things, so long as they are well-chosen and truly independent. History shows that this is a much better idea then trusting either the econo-politically elite or the _demos_.

<comment><USER6> > _I have no problem trusting independent bodies with things, so long as they > are well-chosen and truly independent._

Right, and a well-chosen king rules better than a representative democracy. The problem is, how do we choose a king well? Likewise, how do we guarantee the Fed is well chosen and _truly_ independent? I submit that we can't.

> _History shows that this is a much better idea then trusting either the > econo-politically elite or the demos._

Care to elaborate?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The article makes wrong conclusions.

Money doesn't run the economy. Confidence does. Economy is and has always been a confidence game.

If people in the baby-sitting co-op are confident to find / earn more scrips in the future, they will spend their scrip today - even if its their last remaining scrip. But if they have no confidence of earning a scrip in the future, they will save it.

But if everyone starts saving the scrip, exchange doesn't happen. And economy suffers. And because the economy suffers, people save more scrips. And it creates a downward spiral loop.

On the other hand - if everyone gets over-confident and starts spending scrips they don't have, we see a bubble and then a bubble-burst. Which leads to some very bad consequences too.

So the trick has always been: make sure the people remain confident about the future. But that they don't become over-confident.

</comment><comment><USER8> Keeping inflation under control isn't just something done to protect "wealthy bankers". The stability of the financial system as a whole is predicated upon the fact that money that I earn today will be worth something tomorrow.

<comment><USER9> _The stability of the financial system as a whole is predicated upon the fact that money that I earn today will be worth something tomorrow._

The main purpose of currency is not the eternal accumulation of wealth. It is for liquidity: making bartering easier. If you want long-term stability, you can invest in gold or bonds.

The reason why the US has planned inflation is to maintain liquidity when productivity rises or currency becomes horded. Economists such as Bernanke have learned from the Great Depression that rising deflation with the same productivity results in spiraling unemployment:

 _...a town full of shoe factories that closed during the Depression, leaving the community so poor that its children went barefoot. "I kept asking, Why didn't they just open the factories and make the kids shoes?"_

The reason is because companies know that consumers do not have money to spend so they fire people to preserve their appreciating currency. By doing nothing, these companies gain wealth while children walk without shoes.

From a purely capitalist view, these companies have the right to do so. But would you really still hold that belief if all the farms shut down in this manner?

<comment><USER8> I'm advocating keeping inflation under control, not deflation. These are two entirely different things.

<comment><USER9> If you don't inflate the currency to a certain level when productivity increases due to technology or population growth (such as right now), it may result in a deflationary spiral.

As Aaron said, it is a personal opinion of how much inflation you prefer.

Do you prefer a relatively high inflation because you want to be employed? Or do you want a relatively low one so your assets appreciate or keep their value?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is basically the same article Aaron wrote early last year:

<http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/depressions>

The difference is that now he says it's all because Ben Bernanke wants to, um, profit on his dollar-denominated holdings. Which is sort of like claiming that the CEO of Exxon really believes in global warming, but he wants his next beach vacation to be .1 degrees warmer.

</comment><comment><USER11> The problem I have is his basic premise is flawed. He's using the dropping of the Gold Standard as proof that pumping money into the economy will create new jobs. But if you look at unemployment after 1933 (<http://bit.ly/9k4xVu>) you see it did dip but then started to rise again. Because eventually printing that money devalued the dollar.

See the inflation charts here: <http://bit.ly/aA5MXb>

So Roosevelt's plan failed (and it did fail) because the dollar's value dropped. So while more money was getting pumped in to the economy that was being negated by the assets of U.S. companies dropping in value. That drop caused business owners to stop hiring again.

My understanding of the Obama administration's basic plan is to pump money into the economy while trying to control inflation. That way companies will get the benefit of the Government's money without having their own assets devalued (and Ideally that will cause them to start hiring again)

<comment><USER9> It is also flawed for you to conclude that dropping the gold standard was the reason behind the unemployment. There were many things happening that could also have contributed to it.

Here is a more complete graph of unemployment during the Great Depression where you will notice the unemployment levels never reaching the peak, and dropping back down with Roosevelt enacting even more policies and spending bills.

[http://www.inewscatcher.com/timages/50154f373744ae8603a61449...](http://www.inewscatcher.com/timages/50154f373744ae8603a614495378049c.jpg)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> ...and this is why programmers should just program, vs. spreading some unsupported gutty-feely conjeture of an economic problem way too complex. Crap... anybody feels they can write about economy after misreading a couple lousy quotes from a guy who actively proposes inflation to any bleeping crisis around the globe.

<comment><USER13> Are you saying that grease monkeys should be rarely seen, never heard, should stick to their crap and let real specialist to handle the money? After all they do so well.

<comment><USER14> Would you like to see a code check-in by Paul Krugman?

There's nothing wrong with expanding your horizons (I'm an armchair economist as well) but trying to write critically on a subject you don't really have the background to do so on is counterproductive.

<comment><USER13> > Would you like to see a code check-in by Paul Krugman? I'd gladly welcomed > code check-in from 8 year old if it nailed the problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The anecdote about the babysitters and the lesson he's explaining is lifted directly from Krugman's _Depression Economics_.

He mentions Krugman briefly later, in support of his argument, but doesn't properly cite the material in question or mention the fact that Krugman is in fact the one making the argument...

</comment><comment><USER16> I wish there was more than that baby-sitting co-op to support those ideas. One story doesn't make a proof. Krugman brings it up all the time - so the hopes of the nation apparently rest on a single baby-sitting co-op.

It's been too long since I thought about it, but back then I felt there were some aspects missing from the story. Must think about it again, but overall, it is a very limited experiment, hardly the same as a full economy.

Also, doesn't the co-op story show that people can also create their own money? If lack of money was the problem, why don't they just exchange services and products (I mow your lawn and you clean my car)? Money is just a tool to make exchanges more efficient, but it's not that without money they become impossible.

Of course, it is always appealing to blame everything on some rich elite.

<comment><USER17> > I wish there was more than that baby-sitting co-op to support those ideas

There are people who dedicate their careers to studying this stuff... and they have better examples. That's just a simplified example used to communicate the idea.

> why don't they just exchange services and products

What money makes possible is more complex exchanges. Say, I make a web site for some guy, who gives a book to some other guy, who gives some steaks to another guy, who gives some pasta sauce to another guy, who gives some milk to me.

Without money, complex interactions necessary for a modern economy wouldn't be possible.

> Of course, it is always appealing to blame everything on some rich elite.

Actual economists generally don't do that. I wish if people wanted to post economics articles, they'd 1) do so on reddit, but if they really can't contain themselves, that at least they'd 2) post actual papers by real economists (and not just their opinion pieces) or something more than politicized handwaving.

<comment><USER16> "There are people who dedicate their careers to studying this stuff... and they have better examples."

Yeah, but last I heard, not all of them agree with Keynes. Also, please point to some examples. I have heard Krugman repeat that baby-co-op several times now. You'd think he'd provide some other examples occasionally if they are so abundant.

I know that money is a very useful tool, but it still seems to me that if only money was the problem, people could find workarounds. They could create their own money, if the state did not provide enough. The baby co-op did just that, it seems.

It just takes a little more than one baby co-op to convince me that availability of money is the only factor that makes an economy work.

It is however a very appealing theory to governments, because it justifies them printing more money. And as we see, it appeals to conspiracy theoreticians, too.

My own view (without academic seal of approval) is that efficiency is the main factor that determines our well-being.

<comment><USER17> > My own view (without academic seal of approval) is that efficiency is the > main factor that determines our well-being.

Well, "productivity" for efficiency, but yes, you're essentially correct. I wasn't trying to defend Aaron's post, and indeed, economists do differ, widely, on various things. It's a relatively recent field, one where there are lots of messy human factors, and of course it's difficult to do many experiments.

I'd rather not see it here, though, as it usually rapidly devolves into essentially political discussions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I know I only see a small part of a whole and I lack full perspective on things, but from where I'm standing the biggest challenge of _every_ funded/profitable company I know is hiring good people fast enough. All the good people I know (even in non-tech fields, including finance and real estate) are employed. Even most pretty marginal people I know are employed (at salaries they aren't happy with, but certainly nothing unbearable). Perhaps the people that are losing jobs weren't that good at them to begin with?

I realize that not everyone can be super-professional at what they do, and that's fine. But in my social circle (which includes all kinds of people from no skills/no education immigrants to highly specialized professionals in a variety of locations throughout the U.S.), nobody is _really_ struggling. So what gives?

<comment><USER19> That's actually a common effect of a recession. People with halfway decent jobs are much more likely to stay put, because they don't want to take the risk of switching to a new company and having it fail soon after.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I was having a discussion with my friend today on related topics and I couldn't figure out the answer to this question: where does the demand for talent in the finance industry come from? On a basic level, banks exist to facilitate loans. Someone with money gives it to the bank. The bank loans it out to someone who pays it back plus interest over a period of time. At the end, the bank and the original investor get some return on his/her money. The hardest part about this chain on events is picking people who wont default on their loans.

But clearly the demand for talent in banking is much higher than that. These people get paid extraordinary amounts of money. So where is that demand coming from? What service is being provided by banks that warrants the compensation?

<comment> barry-cotter Investment Banking has sky high salaries, not banking in general. That's mostly Mergers & Acquisitions, IPOs and Trading. The reason trading is so lucrative is obvious, if someone can make lots of money for you, they can do it for anybody so you haver tyo pay them lots to do it for you.

For M&A and IPOs it's also relatively simple; the differences in the amount of money you get can relatively easily be 20% _or more_ depending on who's representing you. These are complicated transactions, you need a lot of expertise to do them, and you need a sales team in place to sell it, and an organisation capable of doing the research to drum up the deals. When you're dealing with huge amounts of money anyway and the top guys are vastly better than the mid market they'll be able to demand $BIGNUM because they're judges to be worth it.

<comment><USER21> It's also because the stakes are so high. Suppose the #1 guy is only 2% better than the #2 guy.

2% of $100 million is a lot. If you need to pay the #1 guy an extra $100,000/year to keep him, it's well worth it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> An interesting atlantic article on a similar topic:

[http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/04/my- infla...](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/04/my-inflation- nightmare/7995)

This writer also comes to the conclusion that inflation might be the way out.

</comment><comment><USER23> I thought this was an excellent explanation, but I really don't appreciate the impeachment of the Fed. The author starts with a very nice explanation, but then goes to an extreme simplification of the complex process of balancing inflationary pressure with the rest of the economy. It's certainly fair to criticize the Fed, but to present their objectives as one-sided where inflation is always good is as equally foolish as the people calling for the gold standard again.

Frankly the Fed is probably only doing their job if everyone is angry at them. Which seems to be the case, so I tend to think they're probably making a decent trade-off at this point, as hard as it is for both sides to stomach.

</comment><comment><USER24> In Aaron's very first example with scrip, people would just start babysitting for _half_ a piece. "Not enough dollars" you say?

<comment><USER25> Came here to say that. The fact that the script was called "1 hr slots" distorts the mental exercise, and deceitfully leads the reader to a logical outcome that would not be the case.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> See <http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/7037.aspx> for a rebuttal of the baby sitting co-op story.

<comment><USER27> Their attempts to reconcile their love of the gold standard with their kvetching about price fixing are hilarious.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> If what he says is true, then the U.S. can print lots of money, pay off the national debt, and create jobs.

Sounds like a win win.

Probably it isn't though.

<comment><USER29> Right, that would destroy the value of the property people have already earned and somehow managed to keep. That would be wrong.

If you want jobs, let people accumulate capital and invest it how they like.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> This just dances around the edges of the key point: the gap between rich and poor. It's not that there isn't ENOUGH money, it's WHERE the money is. Of course printing new money, and redistributing actual physical units of money are kind of similar things to do (they both equate to wealth redistribution), so while I agree with a lot of what Aaron says, he's only CLOSE to the issue at hand, not actually hitting it on the head.

If you want a TLDR version of the economic crisis, like Aaron attempts here, you really want to just look at the increasing divide between rich and poor in the country (aka the unbalanced distribution of resources = unbalanced distribution of power = system susceptible to corruption, greed etc = incentives lined up to benefit small portions of society not large = economic failure.)

<comment><USER31> I can't believe I'm reading this here of all places.

<http://www.paulgraham.com/gap.html>

<comment><USER30> I'm not talking about bankers or CEOs being paid a lot of money and whether or not it's too much. The argument there isn't about whether or not their actions generate wealth/value, it's just about how much. A basketball player doesn't take wealth away from anyone, he just prevents others from earning it in his spot.

What greatly exacerbated the economic crisis were decisions made for small amounts of people wall street that impacted large amounts of people everywhere. Many of these decisions were corrupt (ie they did more than prevent others from making wealth, they actually took it out of their pockets), but even in the times when they could be simply considered "competitive," the ability to make such decisions that impact such large portions of the population should be limited greatly. This is a systemic problem, not a person problem.

The quick response to that one is that you need a system of incentives that get people to work hard enough, and part of that system is having positions like that where people can make decisions like that. I disagree, and actually take something like the NBA as an example: basketball players accumulate great deals of wealth (monetary and otherwise), enough so to keep people training at the peak of their abilities. Yet I can't remember the last time someone accused Michael Jordan of destroying jobs or the economy...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> It seems like there is a lot of contradiction in how the Fed/Gov are trying to restore the Banking system. On the one side they are telling banks to keep more cash in reserve. (This is a worldwide phenomena). On the other side they are asking them to ease credit a complete contradiction to keeping more reserve. At the moment, banks are building up stock with cheap money from the Fed (at least that what I think they are doing) and credit should ease once they do so (as I believe it is doing currently). Inflation in this scheme would not be a factor because the money is being soaked up by banks as reserve.

At least this is what I'm getting from all the CNBC/Bloomberg watching ;p

<comment><USER33> Given credit isn't the only thing that affects the reserve amount. For example, the bank buying securities themselves.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> "It all worked great for a while, until one day they found they had too few pieces of scrip. Every couple had only a couple hours left and, having so little, they didn't want to waste it."

Wait... where did the old pieces of scrip go?

<comment><USER2> Mr. and Mrs. Jones from down the street were saving them all in the hopes of getting rid of the kids for good?

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> This would have been an amazing read if the author had included something more than a few quotes. Charts and Graphs and Statistics and Links Full of Research. I don't have the time to check up on this information myself (hence reading the article), but if the author had backed up all of his _crazy_ theories with tangible evidence- this article would have been amazing.

So to answer your question, Mr. Author, I will listen to you when you back up what you say with something tangible I can hold onto.

</comment><comment><USER36> What substantiative actions are being taken by the reserve? To me it appears they are gunning for inflation with the low rates.

If I have $billions then I can invest my money in a way that hedges against inflation. Conversely if I make $20k/year I can't insist that my employer pay me in a fixed number of long oil positions. So it's not true that inflation always hurts the bourgeoisie and helps the proletariat.

It is true that inflation hurts a lender and helps a debtor. If inflation is at 10% and your mortgage at 6% then you're effectively making a 4% return on debt. Conversely the bank is losing money because the money repaid is worth so much less than the money lent. _Bonus points for anyone that figures out why the banks aren't lending_

As for Bernanke/cronies motivations; the federal government would like inflation to be as high as possible without risking collapse. So if "money for their masters" was the Fed's goal they will keep gunning for sustainable inflation. Bernanke/cronies can hedge against it, and the largest debtor in the world would prefer to pay a low interest rate.

<comment><USER37> _Conversely the bank is losing money because the money repaid is worth so much less than the money lent. Bonus points for anyone that figures out why the banks aren't lending_

Except that the bank isn't really lending its own money. It lends its depositors' money, amplified through fractional reserve banking. They can also borrow from the Fed, making their own bundle on inflation, as a debtor.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> For one thing, he completely ignores the fact that the US economy doesn't exist in a vacuum. Inflation can have a big affect on exchange rates, importers and exporters, the attitude of people like China to all the USD debt they own, etc etc.

</comment><comment><USER13> I think there is some good insights in this. As I see it:

FED + Banks is a system of issuing money. As economy grows it needs more money. FED decides how much money is needed and banks determine who needs it and gives it to them (getting healthy profit if they were right).

Banks found a way to circumvent FED limits on making money. They made much more money then the FED intending them to make. That money was pushed mostly to real estate market driving prices of houses up so they became completely disassociated with their real value that they may present to anyone. It was kind of spotlight hyperinflation. Each dollar was worth lower and lower fraction of average home. Money was seeping to the rest of the economy but since due to technical advancements real value of economy was growing probably faster then FED expected that inflation was not noticeable in other markets.

When credit is paid back the money that was created when credit was given is destroyed. When situation is stable and credits are paid back at predictable rate then banks just give new credit in place of old ones if they are needed and allowed by FED and everything goes just fine.

But when credit defaults money all borrowed money not paid back yet is also destroyed. If huge quantity of credit default at once huge quantity of money is destroyed. What is more it's money that belongs to bank is seriously crippled by this. Not only he didn't earned interest rate but also he has less money to give new credits and create more money to profit out of. Defaulting on massive scale is something that current system of issuing money is not protected against.

I'm not entirely sure what happens if bank needs to destroy more money for defaulting credits than it has. Bank obviously goes broke but is the rest of the money still destroyed or not?

Since a lot of money was destroyed there is possibility that there is too little money now. As far as I know there really are no good ways to estimate how much money is needed (FED and equivalents in other countries do it by more or less educated guess). Maybe issuing more money could help, maybe that is not needed. It's not that obvious as post author has stated but it may be worth a try.

Also grudge about wealthy is not very polite but it might be true that they fear inflation more then they should because of their wealth.

Disclaimer: By 'creating money' I don't mean literally printing it, just borrowing many times over the money that bank has (or borrowed). By destroying money I don't mean burning it but just owing people who deposited money in the bank and not having cash to give them back their money.

</comment><comment><USER39> Wondering what % of Americans invest their money via stock markets?

</comment><comment><USER40> Great Post!

He's on to vital fundamentals.

It's helpful to look at civilizations as products of 'social energy'... countless decisions by individuals and groups. (A decision is an idea + an action).

Money and credit are very imperfect technologies for the storage and allocation of this 'social energy' with an inherent bias in favor of any with the power to create it.

So, since this 'creator' bias is inevitable the solution has to lie in democratizing (with important checks and balances) the process. This inherent bias also makes the Fed's claim of independence ridiculous on its face and is a core problem with the monopoly of central banking. (This doesn't suggest its elimination, only elimination of its monopoly).

After all… who has the right to create and than allocate YOUR 'social energy' without your input?

That's worse than taxation without representation… that's potentially multi- generational enslavement without having an ounce of input into that allocation of your life's energy.

The thought process that rationalizes it for the 'credit creator' and those most closely benefitting is tied to a problem of scaling biological altruism but that's a separate essay.

I believe this inherent bias may suggest that more than one type of credit creation may be desirable. For example local currencies geared to local products and services to function alongside one or more global currencies… in an attempt to overcome a 'proximity' bias which goes along with a social bias.

This approach can encourage asset-based-community-development and economic and financial resiliency while preserving the advantages of global trade and markets as well.

Again, I'm not an economist but it seems to me these are ideas worth investigating.

A brief post on some of this here:

On Social Energy, Enterprise & Expanding the Technology of Money

[http://culturalengineer.blogspot.com/2010/01/on-social- energ...](http://culturalengineer.blogspot.com/2010/01/on-social-energy- enterprise-expanding.html)

I also believe the Individually-controlled / Commons-dedicated Account facilitating the microtransaction in Commons focussed activities (politics and charity) is an essential piece of this puzzle.

Opinion and influence are also aspects of 'social energy' which money powerfully conveys(though we might wish it weren't so). Current money technology inhibits the free flow and networking of this energy which distorts opinion markets.

And, in fact, tends to further entrench the problem.

</comment><comment><USER41> Youtube: "Quants: The Alchemists of Wall Street."</comment>


Haskell in Production: Riskbook - <AUTHOR> https://serokell.io/blog/haskell-in-industry-riskbook <comment><USER2> "If I hadn't measured, I probably would have forgotten that Yesod does indeed make quite heavy use of Template Haskell to generate code. The core of our application is still only a humble ~17,000 lines across 182 files — not counting some external libraries we maintain — but if you were to dump the splices generated by Template Haskell we would be looking at approximately 160,000 LOC."

I like to think of a programming language like a lever:

"Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world." \- Archimedes

</comment><comment><USER3> > [Our product] essentially involves enabling reinsurance brokers to create > risk programmes and then market them to underwriters, all within our online > platform. A risk programme has a fairly complex life cycle, and we model and > digitalise all of the steps that professionals in the industry would > traditionally have done on paper, which is of course far less efficient and > far more expensive.

Sounds like an ideal use-case: complex, well-defined rules and procedures that must be modeled in a fool-proof way. I think the issue for most people who dream about using Haskell at work is that their use-case doesn't have these kinds of needs, and so the tradeoffs (hiring difficulty, third-party API support, etc.) just don't make sense.

<comment><USER4> Yes, it does look like an ideal use case.

I really really love Haskell, but I wonder if it's a rational decision to use it in comparison to an eager ML (OCaml, F# or SML). Much simpler languages. The amount of language extensions plus laziness make the learning curve of Haskell quite steep!

Still, I love this. Keep up the good work.

I think that during the 2020s we will see a lot of efforts to move software errors to compile time with fancier type systems (dependent, linear, etc). I'm betting on a slightly different approach than Haskell, which I think is too complex and will never fit all use cases. I think the best approach is to have a great language to quickly build DSLs and formal verification methods (ranging from lightweight like property-based testing or type systems to heavyweight like abstract interpretation or theorem proving). So, essentially Racket (Lisp) + lots of formal techniques in a nice package.

<comment><USER5> in the 2020s, I hope we can get learn out to make complex type systems simple to use!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Languages like Haskell, OCaml, Rust are a perfect fit for financial industry. I would not trust my money to the Python runtime errors. It's always good to see more and more companies who realize benefits of them.

<comment><USER7> Are there known real-world examples of miscalculations (as opposed to crash or something like "None" printed) that would be prevented by Haskell but not Python 3?

(Why "3"? Because the one thing that has bitten me is the old division operator. They were right to kill it with fire. The new "/", just like Haskell's one, always gives floats, which is good for estimates and _consistently and obviously_ bad for money.)

<comment><USER8> > The new "/", just like Haskell's one, always gives floats, which is good for > estimates and consistently and obviously bad for money.

Doesn't Haskell's operate on the Fractional type class? Which includes Rational. Or some money type you wrote yourself.

<comment><USER7> Yes. I wrongly remembered (and even checked the out-of-the-box output of ":i Fractional"!) that it doesn't include Rational, but only different flavours of floats. The original point stands: Python's Fraction defines arithmetical operators in the same sane way, and the bespoke money type is about as free as in Haskell to define them in whatever way seems useful, like throwing exceptions on adding dollars to euros.

(And also throwing exceptions on adding dollars to generic ints — that one would be a compile-time error in Haskell, which is of course a good thing. Is this not only a good thing but a critical one in financial context?)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> For people using Haskell at work, how did it happen? I'm wanting to use it at work but there is a lot of pushback and I am encouraged to use languages like Go and Python.

<comment><USER10> I was in the senior leadership team of a company a while back (I was brought on to build a software team from scratch). I worked with the other execs to ask the question "what culture do you want in your software development team; what will be compatible with the rest of the company culture?"

Some of the options we discussed...

\- Is your plan to sell the company in a year or two? Then you will probably write a lot of throwaway code, and speed of development of basic stuff is most important. If you want this, I'll hire you a team of Python or NodeJS or Ruby programmers.

\- Is your plan to have software that supports your company over the long term, but the goal of the software itself is more around cost savings? Is the software development team going to be a cost centre? If so, you will end up with a revolving door of programmers coming in for short periods of time to work on it? If you want this, I will hire a team of Java or Go or C# programmers.

\- Do you want to build very technically complicated software as a differentiation strategy? Then you will be looking at a team of very smart software developers who love their craft with a passion that will be a bit foreign to non-technical staff. If you want this, I'll hire a team of Haskell / Lisp / Ocaml / F# programmers.

At the time, the rest of the leadership team wanted the last option, so that's the software team we built. As far as I remember it worked quite well, I remember that there was only one significant bug that made it into production.</comment></comment>


MIT Creates The One Video Game You'll Be Thrilled To See Your Kid Get Hooked On - <AUTHOR> http://www.fastcompany.com/1748531/mit-science-game <comment><USER2> I practically _grew up_ on edutainment when I was ~4-8 years old. My first computer games were Math Blaster, Gizmos&Gadgets, Treasure Mountain, Oregon Trail, Number Munchers, Outnumbered!, and Operation Neptune.

And even beyond the Super Solvers series, there were dozens of others like these, from the game I used to learn to type, to Carmen Sandiego. And beyond the outright edutainment games, most of the rest of my childhood was spent playing Simcity 2000, Age of Empires, and other similar games of the era. I even learned to "use the Internet" by playing Yahooligans' Cybersurfari. (Holy crap, does anyone remember THAT?! Practically lost to history at this point!)

I strongly suspect a good portion of my "intelligence" was actually acquired by exercising my brain in these ways when I very young, rather than due to school or genetics.

I also suspect that there's a whole generation of kids -- born around the same time during the heyday of edutainment (~1988-92) -- who had a similar experience.

<comment><USER3> I think that Civilization is a large part of the reason I'm a scientist today.

What's the winning strategy in Civilization? Science! As much of it as you can! Everything else in society exists only in order to create the resources which scientists consume (or to defend your borders to enable your scientists to work unmolested by Aztecs and Zulus). Yep, everyone else in society is doing a thankless, pointless job, quickly forgotten as soon as they die, but the contributions of scientists live on forever, slowly advancing society down the tech tree. Is there any better feeling than making a new discovery? Hells no! Each discovery lets you make new and better stuff, as well as putting you forever closer and closer to blasting off to Alpha Centauri. Cities and fields and wonders of the world can burn and almost inevitably do, but nothing can ever take away your scientific knowledge.

Suffice it to say that too much Civilization in my formative years may have crystallized these sorts of values in my impressionable mind. I _still_ see the world as divided into "scientists" and "support staff".

<comment><USER4> I want to work at your company.

<comment><USER3> I currently have openings in the catapult and elephant divisions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> There are quite a few games I wouldn't mind seeing my kid get hooked on.

If raising a chess champion is a good thing, I can't imagine that raising a starcraft champion is a bad thing.

<comment><USER6> Chess is overrated. It has an aura of prestige that doesn't have anything to do with the game's merits.

<comment><USER7> I think that the prestige associated with chess is appropriate. It's quite a difficult to play and there really is no entertainment value to the game outside of the gameplay itself. Why would you say that its prestige has nothing to do with the game's merits?

<comment><USER3> It's a fine game, but it's still just a game. The comparison to Starcraft makes it clear.

I'm all for filling in your spare time by playing games, but if it's _all you're doing_ in life then that seems pretty sad.

Especially true if chess playing ability really _is_ an indicator of general intelligence. All those grandmasters could be doing amazing things for the human race, but nope, their brains are filled with queens and rooks.

<comment><USER8> > _All those grandmasters could be doing amazing things for the human race_

I'm not so sure chess masters would necessarily be good at other things like say physics as they would have to have a passion in that to even become remotely viable for race saving. Grandmasters likely have been playing and practicing and have been absolutely absorbed in chess for many years in order to achieve their status, but I don't know if it would be as easy for someone who thinks chess to become absorbed in something like medicine or aeronautics or other such things.

Edit: if you have a subscription to the new yorker this was a pretty good article on what a single grandmaster is like [http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/03/21/110321fa_fact_...](http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/03/21/110321fa_fact_max?currentPage=all) [PAYWALL]

<comment><USER9> They'd likely be equally good at things that also require large-scale, long- term thinking about complex zero-sum competitive resource optimization problems. Like, for example, war strategy. I don't know if it generalizes beyond that, though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Wouldn't load for me but

[http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/vanished- smithsonian-0415...](http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/vanished- smithsonian-0415.html) is straight from the horses mouth, and

<https://vanished.mit.edu/user/register> is the game itself.

</comment><comment><USER11> Traditional classroom education is too boring. This is not limited to school, but also in colleges unless you have that rare teacher who can make the class interesting. Great to see MIT researchers taking the problem head-on.

<comment><USER12> This RSA video shows some reasons why the current education systems (not only US') has the problems it has: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U>

<comment><USER13> Some great thinking on that video!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I think you mean this: <http://www.khanacademy.org/exercisedashboard>

Shame it requires you to login with a Google or Facebook account though. Is there any reason they can't allow email-free logins if you only want to do exercises?

<comment><USER10> I actually signed my lad up for Google so he could go on there. You have to be 13 for FB, it is rather limiting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> "What event occurred between our time and theirs that led to the loss of civilization's historical records?"

A: The internet.

<comment><USER16> Ironically true to a point. In the time between Google and Google Books, a citation pulled from a book or an old newspaper always lost the argument to a citation from Bob's Biased Blog. If information was not on the Internet, it was automatically suspect. That is not how I would choose to judge facts, but I always lost that argument too.

Also, as college students found the Internet faster to research than finding and reading physical books, much information entombed in books was not being considered by the younger generation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Tangential to the subject, I recently attended a presentation on educational video games by Keith Devlin of Stanford's H-STAR program. The main point that I came away with was that too many "educational" games break the immersive experience of a video game. An example Devlin gave was of an arithmetic game where a math equation was drawn onto a monster, and the player is expected to solve the equation before the monster clubs him. As soon as the player sees the math equation on the monster's belly, he is no longer playing a video game; he is doing a math problem.

A couple of counter-examples might be Civilization and Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego, where the educational aspects are so well integrated into the game that one might not consider it an educational game unless it were advertised as such.

Most games are educational in a way: they teach you something about their in- game universe, and the player has to recognize and learn patterns to win the game. The trick is to make a game where the patterns teach the players what you want them to learn without breaking the immersive experience that makes players want to continue playing a video game.

MIT's Vanished looks like it is doing well if it has produced 4,000 forum posts from 5,000 users (actually, the count is up to 37,500; you don't need an account to see the forum, although the comments are still hidden). The description makes it sound like the Portal 2 marketing campaign, with puzzles to solve in different media, rather than a video game.

<comment><USER17> Nicely put. I'm convinced that you could make, say, an educational chemistry game where the point was to actually solve problems with chemistry. A bit like SpaceChem plot-wise, but with nucleophilic substitution and balancing redox reactions instead of computer programming-esque puzzles.

You could basically take homework problems, dress them up with fancy interactive, informative graphics, and stick them in a "tycoon" game where you're manufacturing and selling chemicals. With some side work analyzing environmental pollutants, cleaning up accidents, reverse-engineering your competitors' products with spectroscopy, that sort of thing. I'd play that.

<comment><USER18> _I'm convinced that you could make, say, an educational chemistry game where the point was to actually solve problems with chemistry._

See what you think about this. I know the developer.

<http://bitwixt.com/jsite/></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Recurring tweets for Dynamic Content - <AUTHOR> https://flutter.social Hi all,<p>Flutter makes it possible to tweet out, on a recurring schedule, any dynamic content on the web. On a previous project, I wanted to automatically tweet out the oil price on a recurring schedule. Yes, I could have built a one-off solution for this but I thought it might be cool to make it a generic reusable tool. I think it has some potential as a type of growth hacking / social media automation tool but would like to see what everyone else thinks. <comment><AUTHOR> Hi all,

Flutter makes it possible to tweet out, on a recurring schedule, any dynamic content on the web. On a previous project, I wanted to automatically tweet out the oil price on a recurring schedule. Yes, I could have built a one-off solution for this but I thought it might be cool to make it a generic reusable tool. I think it has some potential as a type of growth hacking / social media automation tool but would like to see what everyone else thinks.</comment>


Principles of Distributed Computing - <AUTHOR> http://dcg.ethz.ch/lectures/podc_allstars/ <comment><AUTHOR> The whole book is available for download here: [http://dcg.ethz.ch/lectures/podc_allstars/lecture/podc.pdf](http://dcg.ethz.ch/lectures/podc_allstars/lecture/podc.pdf)

Has anyone followed the course or read the book? I was actually reading "Distributed Systems - Concepts and Design (Third Edition)" and thought it felt a bit outdated and not enough focused for my taste (there are whole chapters on networking and operating systems for example). Then I found this course/book which seems a lot more in depth and modern but I haven't had time to read it yet and couldn't find any reviews.

<comment><USER2> Would you recommend this for someone who is just beginning with the basics of Distributed Computing and does not have a CS background? If not, any recommendations? :)

I'm very much interested in distributed computing and was recently reading up about things like the Raft consensus algorithm.

<comment><USER3> Elements of Distributed by Computing by Vijay Garg is great: [http://www.amazon.com/Elements-Distributed-Computing- Vijay-G...](http://www.amazon.com/Elements-Distributed-Computing-Vijay- Garg/dp/0471036005)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm actually rather curious to know how HN people use resources like this. Do you set aside a few hours a week and do a self-course on the content? Do you skim it and smile and node? Do you bookmark it and never get around to reading it? Something else...?

<comment><USER5> We download the book. If the pdf is in parts, we will use pdftk etc to join it into one document. We will then move it to a relevant spot in a well organized folder hierarchy, renaming it for consistency if necessary. Then we never open it again.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Shameless plug: If you're interested in more such university courses on systems that make their lectures, assignments available checkout [https://github.com/prakhar1989/awesome- courses#systems](https://github.com/prakhar1989/awesome-courses#systems)

</comment><comment><USER7> I am curious why Jini gets no mention in a book on distributed computing.

Jini was not commercially successful, but some of the concepts were quite interesting: mobile code, downloadable client proxies, leasing, look-up by interface, etc.

"The end of protocols" is a short but good read:

[http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~keith/classes/ubicomplexity/pdfs/i...](http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~keith/classes/ubicomplexity/pdfs/infra/waldo- end-of-proto.pdf)

<comment><USER8> It was never popular and has been a dead technology for over a decade. (I can only go by mentions in publications. For all I know it has millions of deployments in some gadget or another. I suspect not.)

<comment><USER9> Not entirely true; many of the concepts from Linda (Jini/Javaspaces) are around in the form of KV stores.

<comment><USER8> Could you elaborate on that? I'm pretty sure you mean something more sophisticated than a key-value store, which is about as old and dead simple a concept as we have.

<comment><USER9> No, I mean, tuple spaces were always quite simple as well as a simplification, and the use of KV stores in many distributed computing tasks continued that trend under another less soiled name.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Shameless plug...

"The Practice of Cloud Computing" is a more balanced approach.

"Unsatisfied with books that cover either design or operations in isolation, the authors created this authoritative reference centered around a comprehensive approach." (quote from the back cover)

Ladies and gentlemen, I present exhibit A: the ToC of "Principles of Distributed Computing". All design. No operations.

[http://the-cloud-book.com](http://the-cloud-book.com)

<comment><USER11> Seconding this recommendation, and not just because I suspect YesThatTom2 is Mr. Limoncelli. It might look at first like it just goes over the basics (what a load balancer is, what config management is, etc.), but it covers a huge amount of material in very accessible terminology and does a lot to clear up best practices that might not be obvious at first. Just bought a copy for a new junior member of our team who is terrified by all this new stuff; I'm totally confident he'll be able to get through the book and feel much better about things.</comment></comment>