Stack Overflow - The Software Community That Josh Heyer Built - <AUTHOR> https://georgestocker.com/2020/01/14/the-software-community-that-josh-heyer-built/ <comment><USER2> These days I almost never login to participate on Stack Exchange, however, when I saw that Shog9 had been suddenly fired I felt compelled to authenticate and add my voice to the chorus of shocked supporters.

The one ray of light in all of this is that Microsoft's Scott Hanselman replied in less than an hour inviting Shog9 to speak to him (presumably about a position at Microsoft). I have always respected Hanselman, not just for his technical and blogging skills but because he is a dad and highlights the importance of his family. I raise my coffee mug to both Heyer and Hanselman as class acts and wish them success or finding a way to work together.

The specter this raises for me on the other hand is the shabby treatment of yet an additional long time community member by Stack Exchange. While nothing has been communicated by them, I am assuming (rightly or wrongly) that Shog9 was dismissed for not following the recent edict about the use of pronouns and specifically about banning gender neutral language use. There could of course be plenty of other reasons, but this is the recent hot button issue on Stack Exchange and has already lead to the ejection and/or resignation of a dozen moderators or more.

Every time I feel like Stack Exchange has reached a new low point they seem to go out of their way to dig deeper. It makes me kind of sad.</comment>


Ask HN: Good SFBA tech meetups  - <AUTHOR>

I'm looking for maker-heavy San Francisco bay area tech meetups where the focus is more on showing/talking about hardware/software than socializing or steam-punk fire jugglers.<p>- Dorkbot SF sounds like it fits my criteria but I don't see anything on the calendar for 2013.<p>- sfnewtech advertises that it is the "place to see and be seen" which sounds like it is more about networking, also they have lots of photos of beautifully dressed people and I'm looking for groups with lots of photos of beautifully appointed robots<p>- 2600 lists something in the embarcadero area but has little to no info<p>- http://hackerspaces.org/wiki/ lists some hackerspaces that have meet-ups. I'll be going to some of these.<p>What are your recommended bay area tech meetups? Do you have any comments on your experiences with these? <comment><AUTHOR> yikes!</comment>


The NSA slide you haven't seen - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/the-nsa-slide-you-havent-seen/2013/07/10/32801426-e8e6-11e2-aa9f-c03a72e2d342_story.html <comment><USER3> Once again, I suggest everyone interested read James Bamford's book Shadow Factory.

All these revelations regarding call metadata, PRISM collection (albeit under a different codename at the time), modern fiber taps, and even more are covered.

You'll learn about how they shave fiber optic cables in order to intercept traffic and not be detected. You'll find out about the various facilities already reported, along with others like the NSA Georgia facility. You'll find out exactly where on what beach these fiber lines run in and out of. It's a very well-researched book.

You'll learn a lot more than what's been verified with these leaks.

[http://www.amazon.com/The-Shadow-Factory-Eavesdropping- Ameri...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Shadow-Factory-Eavesdropping- America/dp/0307279391/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1373476980&sr=8-1&keywords=shadow+factory)

<comment><USER4> Thanks for this! I've been looking for more to read (I just went back and re- read 1984).

... I thought one of the points of Fiber was that you couldn't tap in without disturbing the optical signal? Did I just make that up in my head?

<comment><USER5> I don't see why that would be true. This is classical signal transmitted optically, not quantum cryptography. There is no reason you couldn't splice the cable through a machine that recorded the signal and then recreated it. Or a beam splitter that removed just a small fraction of the signal; the effect would be a slight increase in transmission loss.

<comment><USER6> The prevailing theory is that they do the latter; the former would be both easy to detect (at the time of splice) and locate (via TDR).

Getting the signal out of the fiber pales in comparison, though, with the task of getting all of that data back to Maryland/Utah.

Unless they have specific cooperation of the cable owners and can tap/split the fibers at the landings, they must be spending a significant percentage of the cost of the original fiber runs (in parallel cables to return the tapped data). The mind reels.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Jimmy_Carter_(SSN-23)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Jimmy_Carter_\(SSN-23\))

<comment><USER7> I don't know much about undersea cables (although it is a fascinating subject), but I imagine there's no need to tap a cable in the middle of the ocean. If instead you tap it a couple miles offshore (even tens of miles), suddenly have a lot less undersea fiber to run. And if multiple cables come ashore at the same place, you can probably disguise it as just another fiber.

Of course, this requires a friendly country at one end of the cable, but that's probably not too big a problem.

<comment><USER8> Yes but there is a problem, other countries also have submarines/boats that protect their assets.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> After seeing this article today, I made a post on Facebook to explain to some of my friends that aren't closely following the PRISM story that this is not compatible with the statements released by Mark Zuckerberg, Marissa Mayer, and Larry Page. I'll reproduce some of my post here--I'd link directly, but my Facebook is set to 'private.'

Remember when Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook), Marissa Mayer (Yahoo!) and Larry Page (Google) all denied "directly" giving the NSA everyone's data?

They claimed that all access was done through national security letters and warrants, because the slides that had leaked at the time supported that. Turns out new slides leaked, and everyone lied!

      *snip* (I linked to the WaPo article, and the slide directly)

And for sources on the original denial (each claiming "no direct access"):

[https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10100828955847631](https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10100828955847631) (Zuckerberg/FB)

[http://yahoo.tumblr.com/post/53243441454/our-commitment- to-o...](http://yahoo.tumblr.com/post/53243441454/our-commitment-to-our-users- privacy) (Mayer/Yahoo!)

[http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/what.html](http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/what.html) (Page/Google)

<comment><USER10> They didn't lie - they just made the truth dance with help from legal advisers. I think we already knew that, but the slide just confirms that they knew exactly what they were doing.

 _EDIT: to clarify, GIVING someone access directly to a server and allowing /knowing about access to the data going in and out of a server are not technically the same thing._

When I saw the Google/Facebook responses, it was obvious that the posts had a lot in common. Both used the phrase "direct access to our servers".

When you see a phrase repeated like that, one of two things has happened. Either one copied the other's phrasing, or someone told them what to say. In either case, the legal department would definitely weigh in on a huge issue like this.

A smart lawyer would never let the company lie outright. They would advise everyone to speak the truth, but "the truth they speak may not be the truth you think you hear." No direct access to servers. Sure. They just had access to the data going in and out of the server. To someone used to reading political and legal documents, "no direct access to servers" almost screams "some form of access to something." Otherwise the denial would have been more

Zuck and Page didn't lie, but they were less than forthcoming. Myers didn't even bother addressing the claim directly.

I suspect a government lawyer fed them phrases they could use that sound like denials without actually lying.

<comment><USER9> _> When I saw the Google/Facebook responses, it was obvious that the posts had a lot in common. Both used the phrase "direct access to our servers". When you see a phrase repeated like that, one of two things has happened. Either one copied the other's phrasing, or someone told them what to say. In either case, the legal department would definitely weigh in on a huge issue like this._

I totally agree that these organizations used the phrase "direct access" intentionally, surely with legal advice. My point, however, was that at the time that these companies released their responses, the slide that actually said _direct access_ verbatim had not yet leaked. Although it's impossible to tell what actually happened, it looks to me like they decided to deny "direct access" in the hopes that there were no slides indicating that direct access did exist. After all, it's unlikely that these companies had the full slide deck (or anything other than what the media had published).

So, either:

(A) Larry Page and Mark Zuckerberg actually didn't know that they provided "direct" access to data.

(B) NSA actually doesn't have "direct" access as indicated by this slide, meaning that the slide is incorrect or falsified.

(C) Page and Zuckerberg lied in their statements.

I don't see a fourth option regarding direct NSA access to these companies' data.

And you're right regarding Mayer not addressing the claim directly; I was a little bit off there. Still, by saying "well, we received between 12,000 and 13,000 FISA requests," Yahoo! is implying that there isn't any sort of "backdoor" access, which no longer seems to be the case.

<comment><USER11> (D) the slide doesn't actually say 'direct access', but says 'collection directly from the servers of', which is different.

My browser pulled the comment I'm replying to right now 'directly from the servers of' HN, but I don't have 'direct access' to HN.

<comment><USER9> _> (D) the slide doesn't actually say 'direct access', but says 'collection directly from the servers of', which is different. My browser pulled the comment I'm replying to right now 'directly from the servers of' HN, but I don't have 'direct access' to HN._

The slide I'm talking about ( [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- srv/special/politics/prism-...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- srv/special/politics/prism-collection-documents/images/upstream- promo-606.jpg?v2) ) states: "collection directly from the servers of these U.S. Service Providers."

Since there's currently no way to "browse" private data on, say, my Google search history or my GMail inbox, the conclusion seems to be that they either have broad backdoor access, or a specific way of directly downloading from these companies.

In a traditional warrant situation, the data would be collected by the companies and sent to the requesting agency that provided a warrant. Police officers that request, say, HTTP access logs do not download those logs directly.

<comment><USER12> Here is this link again: [http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=204063&cid=16678583](http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=204063&cid=16678583)

However one wants to define 'directly from the servers of' or 'direct access' I think for all intents and purposes it means the same thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> It may have been published at the Post for the first time, but Guardian released this over a month ago.

[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/08/nsa-prism- server...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/08/nsa-prism-server- collection-facebook-google)

<comment><USER6> The codenames of some of the collection codenames were redacted: FAIRVIEW and BLARNEY were visible, STORMBREW and OAKSTAR were not.

What's really quite interesting is that they're typeset differently on the redacted/unredacted slides.

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- srv/special/politics/prism-...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- srv/special/politics/prism-collection-documents/images/upstream-promo-606.jpg)

[http://static.guim.co.uk/sys- images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/20...](http://static.guim.co.uk/sys- images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/6/8/1370710424658/new-prism-slide-001.jpg)

EDIT: Also, as the WaPo article points out, the map is different too...

<comment><USER14> Exactly, one or both of these slides has been edited. I doubt that someone went back to the NSA to get "the latest version" that makes me wonder who did the editing and what was their motivation? Did the guardian change the map to make it more relevant to the "global nature" of their coverage? Did someone change it for WaPo to make it seem more credible? And the redacting part, who redacted it and why? Neither slide would have been released as part of a FOIA request it seems, so why the redactions? To make it look more "confidential" ? (there have been suggestions that redactions add 'authenticity' to purported documents from governments). Frankly it raises a lot more questions than it answers.

<comment><USER15> I would guess WaPo edited the map. For the Guardian's version of slide it seems easy to guess that those are the names of secret programs use to tap fiber-optic cables in certain regions. NSA wanted 2 names of those programs to remain secret. (i have some theory why..). WaPo published the names but edited the map not to give precise locations of those programs. Just my theory ofc.

<comment><USER11> I think the OO.o/MS Office explanation is perfectly reasonable and applicable in this case. Even I suggested that was what the difference was when PRISM was first leaked, and I've not exactly been on Greenwald's side throughout all of this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> > "collection directly from the servers"

So either Snowden has incorrect slides, the slides are falsified, or everyone has been lying. Actual evidence of direct access would be better than these slides. I would like someone from Google, Facebook, et al to testify under oath that there is no direct access. Or maybe even the NSA, but we know they share inaccuracies under oath, so maybe that isn't worth so much.

<comment><USER17> They're getting the info directly from Google et al., but they don't have root on Google's servers. Google is required by law (CALEA, the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act) to provide the ability for law enforcement to get information from them. This includes - required by law - the ability both to get stored data and to make real-time intercepts of new communications. Google is paid a fee to provide these services as well.

Google et al. have fully complied with this law. The FBI manages the government-end of the CALEA tapping capabilities. The NSA makes requests to the FBI, which passes them on to Google, which flips a switch and enables the tapping of user "xyzzy123". From then on, xyzzy123's stored data and new communications get sent to the FBI through the CALEA connection, which forwards them to the NSA. CALEA also requires the service provider to provide all sorts of metadata about the user.

This IS "direct access" to Google's servers. The denials about this have been carefully worded things that all access is supported by some sort of legal process, etc. The denials are non-denial denials. Yes, GOOGLE (et al.), not the NSA, flips the final switch which sends the data. But Google is required by law to do so, so....... And once the switch is flipped, all of the data is flowing automatically to the NSA.

I hope this is clear.

<comment><USER18> Correct me if I'm wrong, but you left out the step where a judge reviews the request to make sure it's not overly broad or based on flimsy reasoning.

Aside from that I'd say it's a very clear, and it's sad that there seems to be a pervasive inference that these companies are something something beyond what our elected law makers have forced them to do. Why isn't more angst directed at the politicians responsible for this?

<comment><USER19> A judge does review the request. Whether that judge "makes sure it's not overly broad or based on flimsy reasoning" is far from clear. The judge has been hand-picked by John Roberts and only hears the government's side of the case. The FISA court has rejected 0.03 percent of the government's requests. Now, maybe that's just an indication that 99.97% of the government's requests are reasonable, but here's the problem: we have no way of knowing, because it's all secret. THAT is the problem IMHO, more than the surveillance itself.

<comment><USER20> No, a judge does not see an individual request in a 702 order. This is the entire point of the 702 and PRISM -- NSA analysts no longer have to fill out paperwork to get data from Google/Facebook/Etc, so long as they are 51% sure the target is a foreigner. There is one court order per company per year. After that, it's "direct access" \- e.g. analyst sends request directly to the company.

<comment><USER19> First I've heard of this 51% thing. If it's true (and I don't doubt it) then the situation is even worse than I thought. Do you have a reference?

<comment><USER20> Sure, it's from the Washington Post's reporting: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- srv/special/politics/prism-...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- srv/special/politics/prism-collection-documents/)

Search for 51.

<comment><USER19> I see where it says in the caption "The supervisor must endorse the analyst's "reasonable belief," defined as 51 percent confidence, that the specified target is a foreign national who is overseas at the time of collection." But that's a caption written by the Post. What I don't see is any support for that statement in the actual slide itself, nor any of the other slides on that page.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Are we agreed that the Washington Post has had access to the full set of slides all along and are choosing to dribble them out, one by one?

If so I feel that there's a certain lack of ethics involved in this. We now have a slide recommending "direct access", after weeks of denials and pointless discussion about it that would have been much clarified and bolstered if this slide had been released. On the other hand, we still don't know the _full_ context of the slides. Perhaps the next one says "But we don't have direct access yet, we are still working on that". Or perhaps it says "for direct access, get a warrant". We just don't know.

I understand the motives of the WP in releasing these slides one by one. It will undoubtably be maximizing the publicity and traffic they get from it. But I am not at all sure it is serving the public interest.

<comment><USER22> On the contrary, we've caught a lot of people in a lot of lies. It's worth noting that the Guardian published this slide weeks ago, except they redacted some information. We most likely wouldn't still be talking about this if the Washington Post and Guardian played all their cards at once.

<comment><USER21> > It's worth noting that the Guardian published this slide weeks ago, except > they redacted some information

Heh, well, I guess I fell for the incorrect headline then. Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Is it possible that the CEOs are in fact telling the truth, but are unaware/ignorant that at the carrier level (before reaching the ingress points), data headed to their respective networks/server farms is being "copied"?

Does Google, Apple, Skype, etc. physically own Internet infrastructure, or are they all leased lines from carriers?

If they owned any physical "lines", and the gov was tapping into these lines, then they would be lying about the direct access claim.

But if they don't own these lines, it seems the companies can't do anything about it, and that the telcos are the villains.

Apologies in advance if I'm oversimplifying.

</comment><comment><USER24> Any speculation as to what the redaction next to "Processing" in the "PRISM Collection Data Flow" slide is?

<comment><USER25> It is next to "Protocol Exploitation," so it could be anything from "Data" to "Public Key."

What I am wondering at the moment is the "DNI" on the same slide, is this _direct neural interface_? /tinfoil

<comment><USER11> Though I can't look at the slide, DNI should stand for Director of National Intelligence.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I'm amused by BLARNEY. I presume this represents cable that runs from the US to Ireland.

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

 _Before the safeguards were installed, the kiss was performed with real risk to life and limb, as participants were grasped by the ankles and dangled bodily from the height._

I can reliably inform you that this is indeed as scary as it sounds.

<comment><USER27> Been there, done that. I've only kissed the Blarney Stone with the safeguards, but it was still pretty freaky leaning down for the kiss. Everyone should do it at least once. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but does anyone else think this prism thing was all something made up by PalTalk as a PR stunt?

<comment><USER29> It's never been published "there" before, so it's technically true.

And this is the first time I'm making this comment here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I wonder if the Guardian redactions are due to D-Notices.

</comment><comment><USER31> I don't mean to brag, but as I was writing a story about surveillance on my home computer today, the NSA director called and said, "I really love where you're going with this."

</comment><comment><USER32> Here's a much better map of the underwater cables: [http://www.submarinecablemap.com/](http://www.submarinecablemap.com/)

</comment><comment><USER5> This is truly shocking. Who in the NSA thought that this was an acceptable color combination?

</comment><comment><USER33> I feel like it will be a while before we truly know exactly what is going on.

<comment><USER34> It is likely that we will never know. I suppose "forever" counts as a while.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> If we are going to rely and trust the slide, it mentions "You Should Use Both". That might mean, they are still not using the two of them, or one of them.

</comment><comment><USER36> Not sure how that's "published here for the first time" as I had seen that slide a few weeks back... though I do not recall from where..

</comment><comment><USER37> For those with security clearances, clicking on a random HN link is risking your job and livelihood. It's easy to see a link to WikiLeaks and avoid that but when it's the WP posting it, not so much.

These articles really need to be flagged/tagged by HN and by the newspapers that publish them. I don't want to see a TS/SCI-classified document and I don't want to be seen as seeking them out.

I love the technical stories on HN (95% of what we read here) but it bothers me that I'm risking my clearance when I read this site.

<comment><USER38> Do we need a new tag? [OPENSECRET]?

Listening to Democracy Now this morning, one of the defense witnesses in the Manning trial explained that many, many of classified documented Manning is accused of leaking are also publicly available via government websites or in the media. For instance, personal details of detainees at gitmo.

I'm struggling to understand how information which is in the public domain can be classified.

<comment><USER39> AFAIK this is primarily for the purposes of avoiding the court system. Things that are classified seem to be dealt with by the rubber-stamp FISA courts instead of the actual judicial system so they can avoid being challenged in the light of day.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> My quite simple opinions on Prism etc. [https://bitly.com/14SrSXI](https://bitly.com/14SrSXI)

</comment><comment><USER41> Anyone still using \- Microsoft \- Yahoo \- Google \- Facebook \- PalTalk \- AOL \- Skype \- YouTube \- or Apple?

Yeah, I thought so.

EDIT: Seriously, downvoters: you NEED TO WAKE THE FUCK UP !

<comment><USER42> Yes, because I actually carefully choose what I do online.

<comment><USER41> Good, continue to support the surveillance state with

\- either your data

\- and/or your money.

Sincerely, your NSA

<comment><USER42> But I am not giving them useful information, nor am I paying for those services.

<comment><USER43> You're still supporting them. They do get paid, and you figure into the usage statistics and eyeballs for which they get paid. Like it or not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> I'll say it again, because I was immediately downvoted into invisibility:

You CAN NOT continue to use products and services by NSA companies like Microsoft - Yahoo - Google - Facebook - PalTalk - AOL - Skype - YouTube - <USER2> Apple and THEN turn around and BITCH AND CRY ABOUT LOSING YOUR RIGHTS AND PRIVACY.

This is completely INSANE, you NEED TO WAKE UP!

EDIT: Yeah, let the censuring begin again. You know what? When I look at the people here on HackerNews, I'm beginning to see a SOCIETY THAT ACTUALLY WANTS TO BE FUCKED - DEEPLY EVEN.

<comment><USER44> You're being down voted because your comment is entirely non-constructive.

1) Calling people _insane_ won't win you any favors.

2) "WAKE UP" is an entirely useless platitude.

3) Simply not using "NSA companies" is completely impractical. Not everyone can afford to be a recluse eccentric by ignoring the largest software providers on the planet. Never mind the fact that switching to an alternative in mass would simply produce a new "NSA company". These companies aren't at fault, our government is.

Do you have any concrete proposals? Do you have anything new to share? It doesn't seem that you do.

<comment><USER45> Avoiding Microsoft, Google, and Apple doesn't leave many smart phone options either.

<comment><USER46> There is always the Blackberry.

<comment><USER47> If they've publicly provided similar capabilities to the Indian government, it seems naive to think that list isn't longer.

[http://gadgets.ndtv.com/telecom/news/government-to-take- over...](http://gadgets.ndtv.com/telecom/news/government-to-take-over- possession-of-blackberry-interception-infrastructure-338040)

<comment><USER46> Yeah, they might join PRISM any day.

<comment><USER48> I was going to ask if the Canadian government could do anything about that, but then disillusionment set in.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Clarmond Bank: Central Banks Will Unleash an Orgy of Blood [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://clarmond.co.uk/clarmond/October_2017_Market_Comment__An_Orgy_of_Blood_files/An%20Orgy%20of%20Blood.pdf <comment><USER2>
      He placated the nationalists by championing massive deficit
      financing, via the BOJ, to pull Japan out of its economic
      morass. Japan's economy soon embarked on a period of
      economic growth with stable prices, full employment and
      humming factories, an "economic nirvana." Seven decades
      later these results were heralded a success by another
      central banker trying a similar trick - Ben Bernanke.

The cynicism and skepticism feels very contrived here. Seven decades of nirvana is better than the three decades of comparable nirvana American policies achieved between 1950 and 1980, and few economists criticize post- WWII-era American economic policy as being short-sighted or a one-way trip toward a dystopian future.

And of course, despite Japan's financial malaise, their quality of life is arguably on-the-whole better than in the U.S. It's hard to make direct comparisons of outcomes--let alone comparisons regarding policy efficacy--but I think it suffices to point out that Japan is hardly a failing system. In fact, some would argue that it's an outright myth, a failure to reframe expectations in the context of an advanced economy. [https://www.forbes.com/sites/eamonnfingleton/2013/02/06/paul...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/eamonnfingleton/2013/02/06/paul- krugman-says-it-again-japans-stagnation-is-a-myth)</comment>


The Agnew Analog Tube Chemical Synthesizer Is Like a Chemistry for Sounds - <AUTHOR> http://www.synthtopia.com/content/2020/03/29/the-agnew-analog-tube-chemical-synthesizer-is-like-a-chemistry-set-for-strange-sounds/ <comment><USER2> While exceedingly strange, there is an underlying idea here that may have some merit... that idea is that with the right equipment, chemical reactions (and I'm guessing chemicals that do not react, as well) could be observed, not just visually, but auditorily, by means of an amplifier which would transduce and/or amplify sounds present in the chemicals...

A weird idea, to be sure... but while weird, it seems that there might be something there with respect to a greater understanding of chemicals and chemical reactions, and perhaps chemistry and physical substances in general...

More research might be needed to know for sure...</comment>


OX (OpenPGP for XMPP): A New OpenPGP XEP - <AUTHOR> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2016-January/030755.html <comment><USER2> I think it's too late for it and this wouldn't solve that many problems:

\- public xmpp servers are shutting down one after the other

\- xmpp ties your identity to the server you register with, when there's technology to tie your identity to a cryptographic hash (you can use DHT to find people)

\- servers are not optional in xmpp, when in reality most of the time when you message people they're also online, so peer2peer would be fine there (especially for server outages like the server I used frequently had)

\- One usecase where you need servers is to save power on mobile devices. XMPP doesn't support push notification

\- end-to-end encryption is an total afterthought in xmpp

\- basic things like sending pictures, voice or videochat never work

\- xmpp is an laughably over complex standard created by a committee

\- pgp is totally unusable for normal users

<comment><USER3> Thanks for sharing. There are some good arguments here,* particularly re: servers holding your registration info and some of the downsides of requiring servers for xmpp (though it also has some advantages—it's nice to be able to message someone not online).

*though I'm always a little anti-"pgp can't be used by normal users." If the situation requires the security that PGP provides, users can frequently be made to learn. (That being said, Glenn Greenwald couldn't be bothered to set up PGP to talk to Snowden until someone got him up to speed. [0])

[0]: [https://theintercept.com/2014/10/28/smuggling-snowden- secret...](https://theintercept.com/2014/10/28/smuggling-snowden-secrets/)

<comment><USER2> > though it also has some advantages—it's nice to be able to message someone > not online

Just because you don't require servers, doesn't mean that you can't have servers optionally as a relay. Your client tell would tell the clients of your contacts to send messages to a server specified by you when they can't reach you directly. For instance the server could be run by the company behind the messaging app you're using and could send you push notifications. You could still switch the server at will without loosing your identity.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Why would someone use this rather than OTR? ([http://wiki.xmpp.org/web/OTR](http://wiki.xmpp.org/web/OTR))

<comment><AUTHOR> OTR [1], Axolotl [2] and OMEMO [3] all provide Perfect Forward Secrecy, which in turn means that you can't (or should not be able to) read your archived messages. And with OTR can't send messages to offline contacts. OpenPGP does not provide this property, which allows you to read your encrypted messages in the archive as long as you have access to your OpenPGP secret key and it allows you to send messages to offline contacts.

1: [https://otr.cypherpunks.ca/](https://otr.cypherpunks.ca/) 2: [https://github.com/WhisperSystems/Signal- Android/wiki/Protoc...](https://github.com/WhisperSystems/Signal- Android/wiki/ProtocolV2) 3: [http://conversations.im/omemo/](http://conversations.im/omemo/)

<comment><USER5> This is a bad security argument. With OTR / FS in general, you can re-encrypt the plaintext using a different local-only key after decrypting the forward- secure ciphertext. Then, the ciphertext that was sent _over the wire_ is still forward-secure, and your adversary must seize your computer in order to try to decrypt the re-encrypted non-FS ciphertext you use for logs/archiving.

There really is __no reason __to use non-FS encryption over FS encryption for ciphertext _sent over the wire_.

<comment><USER6> Yeah, what I always did was keep the logs on an encrypted file system... it's not like you're going to pcap your traffic to store your chat logs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Does anyone have experience with Matrix? [0] I haven't tried it yet but the site looks interesting.

0: [http://matrix.org/](http://matrix.org/)

<comment><USER8> Works great. Definitely check it out. (I found Matrix after trying to write an XMPP client and becoming a giggly/teary-eyed wreck trying to parse out how many incomplete extensions I would have to implement to get multi-device working. Previously: [1]) I now use matrix daily from all of my devices, mobile and desktop alike.

They're also working on an Axolotl rachet implementation: [https://matrix.org/git/olm/](https://matrix.org/git/olm/) It's not integrated yet, sadly, but I'm eagerly awaiting seeing it jump in as a first-class supported feature.

\---

[1]: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9772968](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9772968)

<comment><USER9> I'm conflicted on Axolotl. For every layer of security you add, you increase the odds of someone doing something careless (this[1] is way more common than you'd think).

Key-leak healing is an interesting function out-of-the-box, but if your priv key gets uploaded accidentally, odds are so did your DH Identity/Ratchet/Chain keys as well, effectively rendering you "fully compromised". It only offers protection in an instance where you keep your keys compartmentalized.

Is there a general consensus within the crypto community as to whether a) this is conceptually sound, and b) if there's an audited implementation? It's so so easy to mess up and have that error be overlooked (i.e. the OpenSSL debacle), which makes me want to just stick with the tried and true GPG DH/ELG setup with PKI and revocation. Definitely a real interesting project to watch and a real interesting take on perfect-forward secrecy though! Thanks for your feedback. If you see this, read my other post in this thread and e-mail me, I'd love your feedback.

[1][http://rdist.root.org/2008/02/05/tlsssl-predictable-iv- flaw/](http://rdist.root.org/2008/02/05/tlsssl-predictable-iv-flaw/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Though I understand why this is done and I'm glad there's a XEP now that's not broken like the previous one I'm not sure OpenPGP is viable.

It might work for tech savvy users but frankly I don't think most people have it in them to correctly and securely manage the lifecycle (creation, access, storage, usage) of a key.

<comment><USER3> An implementation that hides key management from the user (or abstracts it in someway—I guess you still _do_ want longterm, but revokable, key use) could be nice, but then you get closer and closer to mimicking what OTR does. That being said, hard to complain that such a thing exists as an option for those that want it (especially when those seeking it might come across the pre- existing, problematic standard).

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Wasn't XMPP already encryptet? A friend always tried to convince me to switch from IRC to XMPP because XMPP can be encrypted. Is that incorrect?

<comment><USER12> XMPP does not inherently support end-to-end encryption. He was probably referring to the transport security, from client to server. This is achieved by securing the connection with SSL/TLS. Most often, IRC does not even support that, although some IRC networks also allow clients to connect with SSL/TLS.

This transport security from your client to the server only secures the first hop. It does not prevent eavesdropping on server-to-server connections, or on the connection of the receiving user if they do not also use SSL/TLS.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What would you look for a new social network? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> What is any social network for? Making connections with people you would like to make connections with. Of course that could be purely social (i.e, my actual friends) or people who have shared interests, whether professional or recreational, or even local or regional interests.

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting. Would you want anonymity?</comment></comment>


Tell HN: Babylonian Twins, a game I made in Iraq in 1993, a top 20 iPhone game - <AUTHOR>

17 years on floppy disks and hard drives in MC68000 assembly code and .anim and .iff formats. The twin princes of Babylon are now on the iPhone and iPad in HD and they are on the top 20 puzzle game list after just one day of the release. Check them out:
http://www.babyloniantwins.com
http://toucharcade.com/2010/04/09/babylonian-twins-finally-arrives-for-iphone-and-ipad/
http://www.pocketgamer.co.uk/r/iPhone/Babylonian+Twins/news.asp?c=19848 <comment><USER2> That's a great story, and it's awesome that you're planning an Amiga release. It's funny how some of the (great) old platforms refuse to die. I bought a C64 a few months back for making chiptunes, and I was able to buy hardware for connecting it to a PC via USB, an SD card "hard drive" that can be installed internally in the standard C64 case, and a MIDI cartridge with applications. All newly manufactured, and supported by active developers.</comment>


Why so many jobs are crappy - <AUTHOR> http://heteconomist.com/why-so-many-jobs-are-crappy/ <comment><USER5> I didn't like this article. Felt the author gave no thought to what work has been throughout human history: dull, physically demanding, etc.

He says work is meant to be interesting engaging and meaningful... It would be great if that were true... But that is written nowhere. Work is simply things that need to be completed that someone else is willing to pay for. Any other definition is you projecting your ideals onto what the task really is.

So to answer the question: why are so many jobs crappy? Because that is the way things have always been.

If you enjoy your work (like I do), count yourself lucky.

<comment><USER6> People who read Hacker News are naturally biased about what work is or should be. If everyone did work that was interesting, engaging, and meaningful, society couldn't function. There are plenty of jobs that are neither interesting nor engaging but are necessary. How many garbage men or laundromat employees really enjoy and are stimulated by their work?

<comment><USER7> _How many garbage men or laundromat employees really enjoy and are stimulated by their work?_

I think you can live two kinds of life. One where your job is your passion, and takes over your life. A lot of startup folk are in this bracket. I'd argue that if you aren't, then you shouldn't be doing a startup.

On the other side, people work to earn the money they need to pursue the interests outside of work. I really don't think there's anything wrong with that, and it annoys me when people in communities like HN get snobby about it. The garbage worker is even getting a physical workout every shift- meanwhile, the rest of us slowly get less fit sat at a desk, and end up sacrificing our free time to go to the gym.

<comment><USER8> One thing I liked about my time as "dog-collar labor" is that all my co- workers had interesting non-work pursuits, and there was no penalty for leaving work behind to engage in them. None of us mistook our stints as cashiers, food servers, or book store clerks for our passions, nor did our employers.

There was refreshing frankness that the whole thing was just business, nothing personal: no, we weren't enticed with company-paid meals, but we also weren't required to work limitless overtime.

<comment><USER9> > _no, we weren't enticed with company-paid meals, but we also weren't > required to work limitless overtime._

I.e exchange your little precious time in this world for some token BS "handout", that's pre-calculated in your pay expenses anyway.

<comment><USER10> I prefer company meals since it _saves_ my time. I don't have to go out and get food or bring my own. This is assuming the food is good and healthy, which it happens to be.

<comment><USER11> Being served lunch at the office is certainly convenient, and _takes_ less time, but I wouldn't say it _saves_ me time.

We have catered lunches 2-3 times per week. On those days, I will usually take about 30 minutes for lunch, and get right back to work. On other days, I'll take 45-90 minutes for lunch, and I'll get to take a walk, go outside, possibly see some of my non-work friends, and have different food.

The bottom line is that I'm going to leave the office at the end of the day at roughly the same time, regardless of the length of my lunch. That's almost certainly not the case for everyone, but, as a data point, it is for me. Lunch at the office only "saves" me time to get more work done that day. Don't get my wrong: I love my job, but I also love being outside and seeing friends too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > _Why so many jobs are crappy_

Because there is no labor movement.

Jobs were even crappier back in the day: arbitrary work times with no overtime (16 hours were not uncommon), child labour accepted, no holidays, fired for whatever reason, blacks and women worked effectively under different laws, so work safety measures, bizarre employer demands, etc.

In american a lot of those were fixed after long struggles by the workers and the (glorious) american labor movement.

Nowadays a lot of the unions are BS (and viewed as suspect from the left and "lazy" from the right), and one of the reasons is that they do not represent enough of the workers anymore (in some fields, there is zero participation even).

Those are now too apolitical, apathetic, and indoctrinated to "each one for himself" to join them and shake them up to function properly.

<comment><USER12> I don't know which country are you in, but in the US the unions is nowhere near apolitical and apathetic. The unions such as NEA and SEIU are among the most prolific political donors and most powerful lobbies, and routinely engage in both local and national politics, and any politician who wants to take on them takes huge risk. See e.g.: <http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list_stfed.php?order=A>

>>>> blacks and women worked effectively under different laws,

You know that many labor measures - like minimal wages, etc. - were taken - with wide support of unions - to exclude blacks from labor markets, and at the time were openly acknowledged as such? See e.g.: [http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2013/03/06/ma...](http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2013/03/06/mandated- wages-and-discrimination-n1525477)

<comment><USER13> > You know that many labor measures - like minimal wages, etc. - were taken - > with wide support of unions - to exclude blacks from labor markets, and at > the time were openly acknowledged as such?

This is one of those infamous libertarian myths formulated from taking a few past statements to represent a consensus of the time; that somehow black labor should have been cheaper than white labor if the free market was considered alone. This racist crap doesn't belong on Hackernews.

<comment><USER14> I think you are missing his logic: It doesn't matter what the nonstandard group can _produce_ , it matters what the bosses _think_ they can produce. If I think someone is worth $4/h, I won't pay them more, even if I am wrong.

<comment><USER13> There are two problems here.

First, the myth is widely pushed by groups with certain ideologies without much grounding in real history. They take a couple of quotes from way back when and make a sweeping generalization. But when we go back through unbiased sources, the argument falls apart; the minimum wage was mostly well intentioned.

Second, that poorly educated blacks were somehow inferior to poorly educated whites is extremely racist in itself. The argument then should NEVER be "the minimum wage hurts blacks", it should rather be "racism hurts blacks". No would here would argue with that.

<comment><USER12> Racism hurts blacks. Minimum wage hurts blacks too, among other low-skilled workers. If you think blacks are absent among low-skilled workers - well, it must be nice living on your planet, welcome to Earth.

>>>> the minimum wage was mostly well intentioned.

How you then explain the quotes about "colored labor"? Ah, yes, I know - <USER2> never said that, despite the sources, evil libertarians invented that. Maybe on your planet they didn't indeed.

<comment><USER13> > If you think blacks are absent among low-skilled workers

I said given two poorly educated workers, one white, one black. Any big delta in their treatment is due to racism, not the minimum wage.

> How you then explain the quotes about "colored labor"? Ah, yes, I know - > they never said that, despite the sources, evil libertarians invented that.

You cherry picked your sources and then made a broad generalization. Libertarians aren't racist, they are just dishonest for using racism to further their own ends: to make the minimum wage sound like a racist plot when there is no real evidence for that.

<comment><USER12> >>>> I said given two poorly educated workers, one white, one black. Any big delta in their treatment is due to racism, not the minimum wage.

Big delta in treating two specific workers can be due to anything, not excluding racism of course. But we weren't discussing specific people, we were discussing the fact that the unions contributed a lot to the fact that blacks effectively worked under "different laws" then whites, back at 19th and early 20th century. It is a fact, and your claim that it is a "libertarian myth" is false, and if you ask any historians knowledgeable in the subject, they will tell you that the same as I am.

>>>> to make the minimum wage sound like a racist plot when there is no real evidence for that.

I don't know what you call "real evidence". There are quotes from prominent labor officials. There are history books. There are articles by historians who research the question. I gave you a number of links, you can find more by simple google reseqrch on labor relations and African Americans. If you willing to deny the facts because your ideology says something you now support can not have bad roots - well, I can not help you with your willful ignorance, I can only feel sorry for you. You still know what the truth is, even if you can't admit it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Most jobs are selling your time in exchange for money. If your time is mostly fungible compared to someone else's time (ie. most low-skill labor), then I'd say all the algebraic equations expressed in the OP are true. He is essentially modeling supply/demand curves of typical scenarios involving "human capital."

In the past, the value of human capital -- the amount you got paid for selling your time for money -- used to be more lucrative. At one point nearly half of Americans were in a labor union, which artificially constrained the supply of human capital so it would be worth more. Conversely, our previous industrial revolutions required a great deal of human capital (building factories, sewers, etc), generating lots of demand that would keep the value of human capital high. Due to political and technological changes, this is basically no longer the case.

If you're a software engineer, then none of these models apply to you because you are _high-skill_ labor (also sometimes called "talent.") You're paid for your time, but your productivity can be orders of magnitude higher than your pay. In the OP's "expendability of labor" graph, the "sweet spot" is enormous. In my nearly ten years as a software engineer, I've seen colleagues laid off/fired for all sorts of reasons, but _none of them_ were due to, "well we did the math, and we decided your production is not worth your salary." I've seen layoffs where the executives _literally admitted_ they would make less revenue/profits due to the lost productivity of the laid off workers not offsetting the savings in salary, but they had to hit a certain "profit percentage" or some other absurd reason that justified the layoffs.

In any event -- I've thought a lot about the macro-society impact of this new model of economy, if we're truly destined for a world where human capital is just not that valuable. My interest in politics and healthcare has largely been based on this -- what should we consider "subsistence living," and what happens if we reach an inflection point where most jobs paying for human capital are below it?

It's possible, of course, that this will all be moot, and our next industrial revolution will have a huge demand for locally-based human capital (e.g. a "renewable energy industrial revolution scenario," where there is a huge demand for laborers that can install solar panels on houses, or something), and the median income for Americans will increase. Or it's possible for a more gradual shift to happen (e.g. the graying of the baby boomers causes a gradual increase in demand for local caretakers of the elderly). But I'm not sure it's a good idea to just assume that will happen.

<comment><USER16> > where there is a huge demand for laborers that can install solar panels on > houses, or something

Here's the kicker - any new industry, at any point in the future, that pops up demanding labor, is much more likely to invest (since they are investing anyway - it is new industry and new markets) in automating the labor out of the equation from the start. Industries are only slow in that transition today because they have established infrastructure around the usage of meat bags on two legs as units of work, but for anything brand new (like semiconductor plants, or the Tesla auto factory) even in the short term it makes more sense to automated the expletive out of any physical work because I'd imagine in even just a year at minimum wage it would pay for itself factoring in the fact you have to build everything up from scratch.

So the solar panel installer in 10 years would _probably_ be a self-driving fork lift truck that carries a bed of industry-standard packed and oriented solar panels, where the vehicle has GPS and will drive to all customer homes and install the panels automatically, with only the need for an electrician to come wire them into the houses electric.

But that is short term. You can easily replace the electrician with some hand held spider robot that will use the blueprints for the house and sensors to find and rewire the electrical into the panel. In a hundred years, you aren't installing new panels, because every new house is factory made (by automated assembly) with the panels preinstalled, and they all have interchangeable parts quality electric systems that dumb non-sensing robots can rewire because they are standardized if necessary.

It is _glorious_ that we are eliminating the need for human capital to make things happen. We are removing people from so many equations you would otherwise be wasting someones time on. We may have some bumps in the road and some dark ages of depravity and extremely concentrated ownership of the means of production and all that, but a thousand years out (assuming we haven't destroyed ourselves yet) any human still alive (albeit with a nebulous definition of human if we start gene splicing and installing cybernetics pervasively) will almost certainly have no need to "labor" at all, because the machines and infrastructure built up over a thousand years will provide for them.

<comment><USER15> _We may have some bumps in the road and some dark ages of depravity and extremely concentrated ownership of the means of production and all that_

Well, this is what I'm personally concerned about. I agree with everything you just said. But what is the politically optimal way to cross over that inflection point? Or to rephrase: what kind of rules should we have in government/society so that the transition doesn't effectively cause a revolution and end up derailed? Should we consider an education system oriented around high-skill labor? Should our system of taxation and assistance account for this new concentration of capital? And can you do this without impeding the very technological/economic growth you're accounting for? Too much taxation may stymie private sector advancement, too little taxation may cause an elective or literal revolution, and the wrong adjustments can easily introduce moral hazards (e.g. nobody working at all before our technology is advanced enough to require zero human capital).

<comment><USER17> I think adding a living wage _and_ removing the minimum wage is the way you get though this bump. If you make human labor cheap enough someone is always going to want to have their lawns mowed by people or whatever. Assuming they can afford to do so. Basically, people with minimal skills end up working not for food, but to have toy's etc. The trick is finding a number where people can have a little disposable income, but working 20+ hours a week even at 3$ an hour gives them several times as much fun money.

I suspect in the US we could do that now with around a flat 40% tax without deductions. Note: Living wage would need to be a national number ~12 to 15k and not what it takes to get by in NYC or whatever.

PS: What makes the numbers work out is you also get rid of social security, unemployment insurance, food stamps, and the lower tax brakes as well as all other tax breaks. Also, people making the average income are revenue neutral in this scheme as they get back the same amount of money as there paying into it minus whatever overhead is involved in running the program.

<comment><USER18> This idea was evaluated by comunism in eastern europe. Most people do not have enough drive to fight beyond minimum. If you additionally give them political power they will be able to bring outlayers down efectively.

<comment><USER16> Eastern Europe was about state control of the market, though. Getting a government stipend for living expenses doesn't mean you take control of everything.

What it _does_ mean is that jobs like waiting and cleaning that are currently easily replaced by automation, but are not due to the artificial need to maintain the wasting of hours to get food. I don't think the traditional restaurant industry would survive such a transition, for example, because it is much more economical to have a local food generator that knows all the recipes and can ship freshly prepared meals via automated vehicle to consumers than to have them go to a restaurant, get served, get waited on, get cooked for by kitchen chefs (who are usually doing something between heating up frozen food to following an instruction sheet from corporate) when we can eliminate all that work for most of us, and anyone who cares enough to get the waited experience can _pay_ a real wage for it, because labor demand is more reasonable in such a circumstance - people would only work for you if you gave reasonable value for their time, not just because they need to eat and our progressively greater per-worker output and ability to eliminate human capital in many endeavors all together makes most labor unnecessary.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Many jobs are crappy because companies want guarantees. They would rather have peace of mind that things are moving at a known rate compared to any risk of uncertainty.

The jobs are not necessarily crappy because companies are interested in keeping wages down. Companies are more interested in boosting profits compared to keeping wages down.

The humorous part is so many jobs continue to remain crappy even when you make a boss look good by generating orders of magnitude more value than he bargained for when hiring you.

Even if you explained to the boss how you could generate such value at the time of hire, they still wouldn't be able to assimilate it's possible. They don't see how one can generate such much value, even when you present plans on how it can be done.

It's as if the boss is trying hard not to let you generate more value than expected.

</comment><comment><USER20> _> Work, being a core part of life, is meant to be interesting, engaging, and meaningful. Otherwise, why are we wasting our time on this planet?_

A little early for April Fools'. Let's try this again.

 _> Work, being a core part of life, is meant to get things done. If your work is useful to other people, you will be able to enjoy life on this planet for a long time._

<comment><USER21> Not really. The work must be enjoyable for self before it help others. And that won't happen unless we know our interests.

E.g. Everyone at the restaurant admires good service; but not every waitress enjoys her job; those who do, keep their own as well as others' interests.

<comment><USER22> > The work must be enjoyable for self before it help others.

The garbage man who doesn't enjoy carrying your trash away still helps you get rid of your trash. The truck driver who doesn't enjoy driving still gets your food to the store...

Sure there are a lot of jobs that people can do better if they enjoy them, but that's certainly not all of them.

Getting to have a job you enjoy is a luxury that most people in the world don't have.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> The problem with the theory around mid-range-λ-jobs is that people with a non- zero t can compete for jobs as well - for example, they may have increased their skill level through training, volunteer work, formal education, or there could be a flood of skilled workers following layoffs at a competitor. A skilled employee is therefore potentially competing both against 'green' replacements and skilled replacements.

At times when there is a surplus of skilled employees, the market price for skilled employees will tend towards the marginal cost of living for skilled employees, which is roughly the same as the costs of new employees, and so new employees would be prevented from gaining experience on the job (they could offer to work for less than their cost of living in the hope of a future payoff from their skills, but even that won't necessarily make sense to the employer, because the employer has costs per employee beyond just wages and employee benefits, and it might still be cheaper to hire fewer skilled employees at a higher price than to incur more per-employee costs hiring more unskilled employees at a lower rate). On the job learning therefore becomes less relevant, and new employees are forced to overcome the activation costs through other means, or try a different industry. If there is no credible alternative to on the job learning, this might cause a dynamic effect where the attrition of skilled employees combined with an absence of trained new employees raises the skilled employee price towards the utility to the employer, and makes it cost-effective to take on new employees again.

</comment><comment><USER24> Looter mentality, bosses and jobs just exist? Be grateful for the opportunity to have your efforts compounded by the contributions of others. If you were alone on an island, what would you have to show for your work at the end of a day? A meal? Temporary shelter? Even the lowest wage jobs offer us security, health, and a life much easier than our ancestors. Don't like what a job can offer you create one? Think you're worth more? Be your own boss, if you succeed then you'll create jobs and you can be the change you want to see. What has happened to our generation that everyone thinks they have something coming to them and are slighted by those who succeed? Want your fair share, then take it.

<comment><USER23> Unfortunately, many resources are finite; for example, there is a finite amount of land, and in many places, society has for quite some time been about extracting more value from the same resources, rather than being a case of the resources being there but with insufficient labour to exploit them.

Many people in urban environments cannot afford their own island of land to produce food on; they don't own the enough means of production to support themselves even if they supply the labour themselves, so they are obligated to work for someone who has the capital already (the 'gatekeepers') on whatever oppressive terms they offer to obtain the minimum needed to survive. As a result, the next generation of gatekeepers hold an even greater proportion of the wealth.

Economic problems arise when the gatekeepers no longer need everyone to supply everyone with everything they need and want - now those who aren't gatekeepers find that they cannot get a job, and they don't have the capital to create a job.

Some will try to 'gate jump' - e.g. take a revolutionary idea that is highly profitable, bootstrap it on a shoestring, and become a gatekeeper themselves. However, this is not a scalable model for the whole population, since it relies on luck and there is intense competition among potential gatejumpers and between gatejumpers and enterprises run by existing gatekeepers (who have the resources to crush gatejumpers if they become a threat).

Ultimately, I think the only solution will be some form of income redistribution scheme; perhaps it would work best if the government made it a condition of the income redistribution scheme that beneficiaries work on creating and discovering things, such as science, art, public interest software, civil engineering projects and so on (essentially creating a larger government sector that produces things that don't have a commercial model but benefit society at large, employing the surplus people that are not needed to produce what is needed commercially).

<comment><USER24> "income redistribution scheme" Ones views on this tends to be religious, as I am certain your perspective could not be swayed by any logic, nor can mine.

Do you live in America like me? Redistribution schemes move power from producers to bureaucrats, who are notoriously bad with it. This has been tried repeatedly with the same results every time.

There are two kinds of people, people who happen, and people who things happen to. I choose to be the former.

We are not limited by finite resources, we are resources.

<comment><USER25> >There are two kinds of people, people who happen, and people who things happen to. I choose to be the former.

We are all both. Nobody gets to "choose" to be one or the other.

<comment><USER24> True, but you can choose which defines you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> > Or maybe it's just because it feels good [to dump you at the drop of a hat]

Stopped reading. Wtf is this?

<comment><USER12> Same here. And I wonder with such adversarial approach to (work) relationships why his (work) relationships look bad? Try it in any other relationship - <USER3> building a friendship or romantic relationship on the premise that the other party wants to exploit you and then dump you at the first opportunity - <USER4> see how well it works out. Even if the job is not something you dreamt of - and that happens in life - the adversarial approach is more likely to make it suck than otherwise. There are bad relationships, there are abusive relationships - but no reason to approach to any (work) relationship from the start expecting it to be the sucky one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> ... and that's why programmers change employers every two years.

</comment><comment><USER28> The math is kind of fun, but the conclusions in this article rely on a rather irrationally 'rational' view of how people behave, as well as far too much zero-sum reasoning. Clearly, the respect you feel from your boss has no impact on your productivity, and thus he wishes to reduce your wages to just above the point where you'd quit?

Bosses are people too! If you ask any "boss" if they want the best for the people working for them, the vast majority will say that they do. A useful theory of how others make decisions needs to not completely discount non-"rational" factors like emotion, fairness, and morals.

<comment><USER29> Yes, let's note that this blogpost had the "humor" tag. While there's truth to it, he seems to poke fun at economists' pseudoscientific use of mathematical models.

That said, there's endless case studies throughout history where bosses bleed people down to minimum subsistance, and even below that. And their subordinates may fight back and win things like 40 hour workweeks. (Consider, what is a boss? An order-giver whose commands you obey the whole day. Some understandably call this wage slavery. The morality of bosses turns out to be pretty flexible, depending on how much of a fight they encounter.)

Of course, some privileged people do well despite being subordinates. In those cases, their managers use a lighter touch because they're trusted to act in their boss's interests, even when arguing against the boss in technical matters. (The main function of professional codes, explained in Jeff Schmidt's "Disciplined Minds". <http://disciplinedminds.com>)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I believe there are two types of workers. One who clearly knows what they enjoy doing and they seek their career in the same; others who never understand what their true interests are. The second type end up spending their lives doing the so called 'crappy' jobs; majority of human being falls under this category.

<comment><USER30> well do you really think people always have the choice ? do you really think everybody can afford a good education ? your message is really arrogant.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Management consultants.

</comment><comment><USER32> That's not why.

Bosses aren't trying to fuck you over. If they're aligned with the company, they're trying to maximize A - B, where A is what you contribute, and B is what you cost.

For most of the industrial era, it's been considered easier to reduce B than to increase A. Why? Many reasons, but the fundamental one is that most of the work was concave, which is what OP describes when he has cost per unit approaching asymptote m, which is equivalent to performance approaching 1/m from below, with more learning.

He's focusing on concave, commodity work and he's right about that stuff. Machines are also taking over the commodity work, leaving only the convex for humans. See: [http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/03/14/gervais- macle...](http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/03/14/gervais- macleod-9-convexity/)

With convex labor, the managerial assumption that A is at a maximum falls flat, because no one even knows what that "maximum" might be. With concave work, management could assume that A was near its maximum value and occasionally fire a slacker.

What this means is that, for convex work, A-maximizing is a worthier goal... but almost no one has figured out how to manage that kind of work. [ETA: a more cynical view is that someone else gets a bonus/credit for reducing B, but the worker himself gets all credit for improving A.]

</comment><comment><USER33> _Work, being a core part of life, is meant to be interesting, engaging, and meaningful._

Actually it's meant to more or less enable us to fill our stomachs and to help to provide for our kids. "Work" started quite a while ago, millions of years before iPhones, nice cars, paid vacation and houses. We might go back to basics one day too. Maybe a solar storm, volcano explosion or asteroid might just wipe the last 100 or so years away.

 _Otherwise, why are we wasting our time on this planet?_ Why is dog or an antelope?

<comment> guard-of-terra "Work" means you do things for hire, do not own the result of your efforts but instead you are taken care of.

This is a relatively new thing, few thousand years but not millions by any means.

<comment><USER33> I think we're splitting hairs. if I plant tomatoes on my backyard for myself, and "work" there for a few hours a week, what is it?

<comment> guard-of-terra You can't be fired, you own the output, there is no workplace competition, your neither your boss tries to make you more efficient not you can bargain your salary.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> remember when HN was for people who had good jobs? because it was full of good people?

<comment><USER35> Remember when HN was for people who didn't correlate having a good job with being a good person?

<comment><USER34> good as in technically competent, not good as in morally good / emotionally valued (i would have thought that was obvious from the context - not sure if you're so dumb you really can't understand, or just desperately trying to find a way to be offended).

why would you stay at a crappy job if you're (technically) good enough to move elsewhere? this kind of complaining, about stereotypically bad bosses that treat programmers as commodities is, predominantly, either exaggerated fiction or the problems of commodity programmers. back in the day, commodity programmers didn't read hn - or at least, they didn't comment.

it reminds me of the dilbert cartoon where someone is complaining that their boss micro-manages them all day. and dilbert asks if they've tried doing their job so well that the manager doesn't need to.

this thread is an archetypical example of the crap that is overwhelming hn these days.

<comment><USER35> "Good people" is more likely to mean "people who are morally good" than "people who are good at what they do" even in this context. Sorry for misunderstanding your comment. I've seen the association of moral goodness to technical competence before and thought your comment meant that.

>Why would you stay at a crappy job if you're (technically) good enough to move elsewhere?

People are complicated. They have complex motives, are influenced by irrational thoughts and have a tendency to prefer known evils to unknown evils. I'm not saying this is the right course of action, but this is a good opportunity to start a Ask HN thread (or blog post) about the attitude of commodity programmers.

I don't like when people complain about their jobs. I don't agree with the article. But a snarky comment in response to a long article (even if it's factually wrong, or draws the wrong conclusions from the facts) won't make HN better. I don't mean to discount your contribution to HN, but you can spend your time on HN complaining bitterly about the new regulars, or you can try to understand the problem more deeply and help HN in the process. Misguided elitism isn't helpful and only heightens the Dunning–Kruger effect in a community.

Sturgeon's Law still stands—90% of everything is crap, and 90% of workers in any field are mediocre at best. Do you really want to spend your next years on HN complaining about the mediocre newbies? The thing that makes HN good is the HN users' ability to write well-thought refutations of any argument presented. HN doesn't have only good arguments and subjects, but people do a good job pointing out flaws and making helpful suggestions to what gets posted here.

Instead of tilting at the mill of crappy articles on HN, we should point out what's wrong about them.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


U.S. government's blacklisting of Bitcoin addresses is just getting started - <AUTHOR> https://decrypt.co/8672/us-government-blacklisting-bitcoin-addresses-just-getting-started <comment><USER2> Um, am I missing something or can't they just generate another address(es) and side step this blockade?

</comment><comment><USER3> its easy to launder coins. this is more about the optics if being able to say they 'did something'</comment>


Google Voice Gives Out Free Business Cards, Makes Switching #s Less Irritating - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/07/23/google-voice-gives-out-free-business-cards-makes-switching-numbers-slightly-less-incredibly-irritating/ <comment><USER2> The link to the free cards doesn't even work now.

</comment><comment><USER3> Nice gesture, but as of earlier today the server with the card creation software was so slow as to be unusable.</comment>


3 simple ways retirees can control their credit-card debt - <AUTHOR> http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/15/3-simple-ways-retirees-can-control-their-credit-card-debt.html <comment><AUTHOR> This is what jumped out at me from the article:

> _A retiree 's credit-card debt on average is more than double the maximum > monthly Social Security payment._

That's...troubling...</comment>


iOS Engineers - <AUTHOR> So I noticed so many non-engineer types (with 0 experience) are becoming iOS engineers in three months. What are your thoughts on that? <comment><USER2> Free market, it's great! Anyone can become a developer and come out with bugs, there will certainly come up more jobs in IT with that. Because the product will grow and they'll need better technology to handle all those requests, address security issues, etc.</comment>


AngelList on the rise in Boston - <AUTHOR> http://bostinnovation.com/2011/07/29/angellist-is-starting-to-heat-up-the-boston-startup-scene/

<comment><USER2> Not too cool how Nivi compares Boston to Estonia (I mean, really, isn't that a bit childish?) but appreciated the article overall.

<comment><USER3> I didn't read it that way at all. He was asked what geographical areas are seeing a bunch of activity and he mentioned Estonia. I didn't see any comparisons between Boston and Estonia in there.</comment></comment>