To Swedes, it's the rest of the world engaging in a reckless experiment - <AUTHOR> https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120805778/coronavirus-to-swedes-its-the-rest-of-the-world-engaging-in-a-reckless-experiment/ <comment><USER2> From my perspective here in the UK, where the health secretary is making threats to ban all outdoor exercise [1] because some people aren't following the social distancing rules, the Swedish approach sounds far better. At least in Sweden the citizens are being treated as adults, given the data and allowed to use some personal judgement.

Note that I haven't seen any claim from the UK government that the existing rules aren't sufficient as long as they're being followed - a claim which I might find hard to believe but at least would be consistent with threatening a broader ban on outdoor activity. The quote from Matt Hancock is: "If you don't want us to have to take the step to ban exercise of all forms outside of your own home, then you've got to follow the rules." As though we're all school children being told that we'll all get detention if the trouble makers in the class keep acting up.

It feels like the _purpose_ of the lockdown - to reduce transmission rate of the virus - is being forgotten and there is increasing focus on having a list of Allowed Activities and Forbidden Activities, rather than trying to make a consistent trade-off between cost (risk of transmission) vs benefit (health - including, very importantly, mental health effects of retaining or losing freedom, not to mention the more ideological desire to keep some semblance of civil liberties).

[1] [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52172035](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52172035)

<comment><USER3> > allowed to use some personal judgement

I don't think that works. It only takes 10% of defectors to create a similar catastrophic result as with 50% defectors.

Human society has enacted laws for about four millenia and enforces them with threats and violence. That works to keep those who would otherwise only act in their own interests in check. There was no group of humans at the size of Sweden's population in existence where toothless rules like "be excellent to each other" and "use your best personal judgement" were enough to be workable.

<comment><USER4> >It only takes 10% of defectors to create a similar catastrophic result as with 50% defectors.

Do you have math to back that up? Clearly R_0 would be lower in the first case than in the second. I think significantly lower due to both less infectors and less opportunities to infect.

<comment><USER3> toy model [https://youtu.be/gxAaO2rsdIs?t=724](https://youtu.be/gxAaO2rsdIs?t=724)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think it's pretty great that the Swedes are willing to sacrifice themselves for the rest of us for a science experiment. They're going to function as a "control group" for thousands of scientific papers to come.

...and I'm not being sarcastic when I say that.

<comment><USER6> There are other nations and states doing something akin to Sweden, including within the US. We shall see which states grievously misgambled.

<comment><USER7> There is no gamble here. Education.

<comment><USER6> Texas and many other states shall look to NY and CA and contrast and see, especially if aid for massive unemployment turns out to be a partisan issue. Imagine President Trump wins again. He will note that many GOP states went a different way and ask which states truly deserves his favor. It's the White House that will lead national recovery and distribution of aid, likely with zero real oversight.

Will NY and CA be left on their own? That is an interesting possibility to explore.

Jared Kushner: "The notion of the federal stockpile was it's supposed to be our stockpile," he said. "It's not supposed to be states' stockpiles that they then use."

Is that a signal for NY and their request for ventilators? How will recovery political aid look like from the same administration? Affectionate?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It seems that Sweden is about to change policy, as it said that it would should the picture change:

[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/05/sweden- prepare...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/05/sweden-prepares-to- tighten-coronavirus-measures-as-death-toll-climbs)

</comment><comment><USER4> I wonder why chicken pox party style solution is not considered.

1\. Gather application from low-risk people to be voluntarily infected. Needs to be a significant proportion of population.

2\. Schedule them to be infected and isolate until they are virus-free and immune.

3\. Immune people are released with no restrictions.

4\. Eventually herd immunity is achieved.

<comment><USER5> Robin Hanson has talked a lot about this. ([https://twitter.com/robinhanson](https://twitter.com/robinhanson))

It seems to me to be the obviously correct thing to do (at least insofar as having immediate testing of the hypothesis at large scale with volunteers) but it treads on multiple cultural taboos and will therefore never be part of the gated institutional narrative.

<comment><USER9> > _" multiple cultural taboos"_

Honestly asking, are Chicken Pox parties also considered taboo? I don't have kids, but it sounds sensible to me, and I've heard people talk about it like it's normal.

But if that's ok, I don't see where the difference would be to doing the same with the Coronavirus? It's just young adults instead of kids. Is that the crucial difference? Or is it because the lethality is considered higher? If yes, where does one draw the line then?

I'd consider myself a Utilitarian, so... everything is just a calculation of good and bad. Or, to reference pop culture, you could approach me with the same level of disgust as Androids are generally approached in Alien IV. But I truly have difficulty understanding how most people appear to tick, so pardon me, if I look at the numbers of the Coronavirus and just am generally confused as to why it's such a big fuss.

To me, this sounds like a great idea. Battling it with immunity and also paying the price of taking a few more additional losses outweigh grinding the world to a halt and attempting to contain it, at least, if you ask me. And since a vaccine will take too long (no one appears to deny that), there's no way around trying to get immunity, and once you've _" accepted"_ that, the earlier we start, the better. In fact, the later we start, the more lives are at stake and the more economic damage we'll sustain.

In light of that... such a Chicken Pox party is a legitimate method as part of the immunity-strategy.

<comment><USER5> If you google mainstream organizations about "chicken pox parties" you will see that they uniformly say they are a bad idea- Not because they care if their advice is accurate or not, but simply because "that's what you're supposed to say" if you want to be part of mainstream discourse in the US.

Insofar as anyone of authority says anything positive about them, it is only because pox parties are still a relatively obscure phenomenon and therefore mainstream institutions haven't put in the effort yet to fully tamp down on dissenting opinions.

<comment><USER9> ...there's the thing about Chicken Pox, isn't it not far more severe, and deadly, in adults?

I can remember having caught it as a kid, but if I didn't... I'd believe, I'd rather be thankful than scornful towards my parents if they had made sure I had caught it, instead of just letting things take their fateful course...

EDIT: I mean, I _am_ glad I had it as a kid. That means I don't need to worry about it now, right? Or is that a very naive way of thinking?

<comment><USER4> If you had chicken pox as a kid, you can get Shingles [1] as an adult. I actually had it, without much complications but now there's a weird scar on my face.

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

<comment><USER10> Worth noting that there _is_ a chicken pox vaccine, you have to take two injections less than a year apart.

I never had chicken pox as a child and got the vaccine as an adult due to a colleagues child being exposed to the pox and knowing that it could affect me and my colleague quite badly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I wish Sweden the best of luck. Whatever happens, at least the data being collected should prove helpful the world over.

</comment><comment><USER11> It's a dangerous experiment with human life, and while one can only say "time will tell", let's hope this doesn't turn into a plague-like catastrophe. But the pay-off - in case it works - would perhaps be Sweden's greatest contribution to humanity since the Nobel Prize.

<comment><USER9> No, it's not, it would be if the cities were still crowded and no one would be working from home, but that's not the case.

Most of us skepticals aren't arguing that we shouldn't do anything, but that we should gracefully allow citizens to adapt, and if necessary, then allow the government to adjust. This is what Sweden is doing, whereas most of the other countries were so convinced that what they were doing was right, they just outright declared it the law, not giving their citizens any chance to handle it by themselves.

And I believe this "nannying" is something that a whole fucking bunch of us, especially in the Western hemisphere, are pissed about, and we're looking and hoping for Sweden to get through this just how we believe would be correct course of action.

<comment><USER12> Hallelujah

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> 38000 tests in a country of 10 million. [1] Yeah, they have a handle on it alright. Seems pretty dumb to claim this at this point or to write this article and leave out that crucial figure. They have no fucking idea what's happening in their own country but are judging the rest of the world who is, at least, trying to learn from China and other places, if imperfectly and super late.

[1] [https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/smittskydd- beredskap/utb...](https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/smittskydd- beredskap/utbrott/aktuella-utbrott/covid-19/bekraftade-fall-i-sverige)

</comment><comment><USER14> Too early to say for certain, but the trajectory for Sweden so far doesn't look good, compared to neighboring countries that are more under lockdown [0]:

Current deaths per 1 million in covid-19

      Sweden:  37
      Denmark: 28
      Norway:  11

All countries have a similar 'start' date with the Denmark lagging a few days. None of the countries are recommending homemade masks, which is disturbing.

[0] [https://mackuba.eu/corona/#compare_countries](https://mackuba.eu/corona/#compare_countries) (deaths per 1 mln checked)

<comment><USER9> Well, yes. More, but shorter. That's why people are calling it a "gamble".

According to the article, ICU capacity is currently at a quarter. They could probably "afford" a higher rate, and be done with it faster.

Insisting on minimizing that number at all costs is insane. First, only if you could contain it or a vaccine becomes available, would you be actually mitigating it, else you're just shifting around a set amount of deaths over a larger timespan. Second, if you apply that logic consistently across every aspect of life, you'd have to ban cars too, they're far too dangerous and deadly. And smoking. And drinking. And the list just goes on. There are some who'd say yes to all three, but... _oh boy, you must be fun at parties._

Look at the numbers in the US. No matter how it develops or has developed (we don't know the true infection ratio of the population, which is undoubtedly higher), there's no more containing it on a global scale. Our globalized and, at least for the privileged, largely open world with open borders would cease to exist, for there would be countries that insist on containing it, thus quarantining anyone entering, and therefore killing off all non-essential travel, like e.g. tourism. So, to keep that, you need to be immune... or a vaccine has to exist. But, it's _also_ a gamble to be counting on a vaccine.

<comment><USER15> > First, only if you could contain it or a vaccine becomes available, would > you be actually mitigating it, else you're just shifting around a set amount > of deaths over a larger timespan.

This is incorrect. You're reducing the number of deaths. Think of it like this: imagine 2% of people need ICU care. 100% of those that don't get ICU care die. 100% of those that do get ICU care live. ICU care takes a week. You can have everyone need ICU care all at once: everyone beyond the number of ICU beds will die, so 2% of the population dies. Or you can spread it out so that the number of people needing care at once is below the number of ICU beds, and no one dies.

And since your second point depends on your (flawed) first, it's invalid too.

<comment><USER9> > _" This is incorrect. You're reducing the number of deaths. Think of it like > this: imagine 2% of people need ICU care. 100% of those that don't get ICU > care die."_

Quoting my earlier reply: _" According to the article, ICU capacity is currently at a quarter. They could probably "afford" a higher rate, and be done with it faster._"

I'm obviously aware of that. Now we're just arguing how high the numbers are, but we agree that they exist. You're arguing Sweden will have numbers so high, they will be overwhelmed. I believe the infected number is _significantly_ higher than measured, and we're about 1/3rds of peak, so Sweden, in my opinion, will peak at about 75% ICU capacity.

My second point still stands.

EDIT: Or, to apply _reductio ad absurdum_ to your argument, if we go all the way and attempt to minimize that number to the extreme, we could be facing a lockdown lasting years and have ICU capacity barely scratch 1% above nominal (on the contrary - it would decrease, as reduced societal activity initially incurs less deaths/ICU cases from e.g. accidents).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I feel Japan will be another interesting place to study. We've had corona spreading since late January and as recent as last weekend, a majority of people were out living life like normal.

</comment><comment><USER17> They might have change their mind

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22786409](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22786409)

</comment><comment><USER18> Live stats mentioned can be seen here: [https://www.svt.se/datajournalistik/corona-i- intensivvarden/](https://www.svt.se/datajournalistik/corona-i-intensivvarden/)

The numbers shown represent those admitted in ICU.

</comment><comment><USER19> This is somewhat similar to the European vs American (highly simplified) view on insurances.</comment>


Dandelion - Semantic Text Analytics as a service - <AUTHOR> https://dandelion.eu/ <comment><USER2> Really nicely done! I like how entities, concepts, etc. are color hilited in the original input text, and the Wikipedia links with thumb nail images shown in the results.

I have something similar that I have been working on for years as a side project: [http://kbsportal.com/](http://kbsportal.com/) I also resolve entities to DBPedia URIs.</comment>


Patent – Methods Using Nucleic Acid Signals for Revealing Biological Attributes - <AUTHOR> https://patents.google.com/patent/US20190287654A1/en <comment><USER2> Title needs to be changed -- the linked item is not a "patent" it is a "Patent Application Publication" (which can be seen by hovering the mouse cursor over the document number in the blue box, the tooltip that appears will say "Patent Application Publication").</comment>


To freemium or not to freemium - <AUTHOR> I've been battling the question of freemium for a while and want to hear people's thoughts on this model.
Our project has been freemium for a while, but we are considering making it paid for only.
The way I see it, freemium works only if the product itself has lots of inherent shareability and social network effects. Our product does not because it focuses on individuals and is a private personal platform which users use by themselves, and produces content that users do not want to share, ie it's private stuff.
We figured that going to a paid model would reduce the number of sign ups, however many would still be prepared to pay a small fee for use.
What are your experiences of freemium and would love to hear stories where it worked for you and why, and those where freemium didn't work at all. <comment><USER2> OK, one of my titles was Global Head of Freemium Channel, so here is my take:

1)I've never seen a freemium business reach above 15% paid users from total active base - if your economics cannot support this for a long time, get out right away. Most freemium business are roaches surviving on 1-5% conversions.

2) Freemium works best when:

\- User has to urgently do something now that is limited (faster=paid, free= slow, those annoying download places that make you wait 1 min for each download or sign up to download now do make money of this simple fact)

\- User finds content worth paying for in the sea of free content (NYT)

\- User has low barriers to start, but would be hard to leave (e.g. upload photos) service

\- User uses service, then gets to bill usage to others (e.g. malware software, document delivery, b2b stuff)

\- User base can easily reach limits of free service and will require more eventually (e.g. data storage)

\- User base can clearly be defined as amateur vs. professionals, and the professionals will need more features and pay (e.g. Wordpress plugins, Salesforce API apps, etc...)

\- User base will be so large the business can be sustained with advertising (what most people want to build but ends up failing all the time - cant get done properly without a miracle)

My advice is start with the paid, always. It will give you a realistic conversion result + you can always go lower/free later. If some people already want to pay you, take their money! You might want to bill first, offer the freemium solution later via email to 'grow' truly interested users that would convert at some point. Freemium 'fools' a lot of business who do NOT track everything religiously.

The freemium business is fragile like a soufle, so when everything is perfect it works but when not, its an epic fail. Proceed with caution.

</comment><comment><USER3> If your product is about sharing in small group then it's best if the freemium plan allows only public sharing so users have an incentive to pay.

Next step is to make sure that users who like sharing publicly don't sign up in the first place because they're not your target audience and public sharing can come with support headaches (think about copyright claims for example).

Does your pay-for plan already include a free trial period? Be it a week or month, it forces users to make a decision to upgrade. In my experience lots of users simply forget and reminders/ads don't work well as they can be ignored.

</comment><comment><USER4> That is the question.

Whether 'tis Nobler in the mind to suffer

The Churns and Reviews of a Freemium Launching,

Or Call-to-Action against a Sea of Funnels,

And by so closing, sell them: to die, to sleep

No more; and by a sleep, to say we end

The Startup, and the thousand Natural shocks

Free Work is heir to? 'Tis a consummation

Devoutly to be wished. To die, to sleep,

To sleep, perchance to Dream; aye, there's the rub,

For in that Startup death, what dreams may come,

When we have shuffled off this failed toil,

Must give us pause. There's the respect

That makes Calamity of unpaid-for work:

For who would bear the Whips and Scorns online,

The Harassers pr0n, the troll man's Obscenely,

The pangs of despised Launch, PayPal's delay,

The insolence of Coders, and the Spurns

That patient merit of the spammers takes,

When he himself might his Quietus make

With a Paid Signup? Who would Zuckerberg,

To grunt and sweat under an ad-free life,

But that the dread of something after death,

The undiscovered Country, from whose bourn

No Traveller returns, Puzzles the will,

And makes us rather bear those ads we have,

Than fly to others that we know not of.

Thus Freemium does make Cowards of us all,

And thus the Native hue of PayG

Is sicklied o'er, with the pale cast of Thought,

And enterprises of great pitch and moment,

With this regard their Currents turn awry,

And lose the Call to Action. Soft you now,

The fair Dropboxia? Nymph, in my Support Mails

Be all thy sins remembered.

<comment><USER5> I read this to my team. The laughs and tears are flowing

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> There are only two big reasons to release a freemium offering. 1) To upsell free users later 2) To use free users as marketing.

I wrote an article on this last month... [http://taprun.com/articles/secret- to-freemium-pricing](http://taprun.com/articles/secret-to-freemium-pricing)

</comment><comment><USER7> Forget freemium: You're building a business!

[https://blog.ruxit.com/forget-freemium-youre-building- busine...](https://blog.ruxit.com/forget-freemium-youre-building-business/)</comment>


Shock European court decision: Websites are liable for users' comments - michel-slm http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/06/shock-european-court-decision-websites-are-liable-for-users-comments-2/

<comment> michel-slm Wow, this is potentially really chilling. Reminds me of the situation in Thailand, where bloggers have to moderate all their comments just in case a commenter insults their king.</comment>


The first two fingers controlled virtual pen drawing app for smartphones - <AUTHOR> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.qp2qp <comment><AUTHOR> Everyone draws !

give anyone a paper and a pen and good mood and you'll find his paper had been filled with lines and circles ,human faces or flowers or even cars

Drawing is a way to bring our ideas on paper, whether it was for work purpose or just for fun

the idea of qp2qp and its distinctive purpose is to make your smartphone become your paper and pen. off course There are thousands of applications for drawing on smartphones but none of them imitates the way of drawing on paper

You draw with your finger on the small screen which does not give you the potential to control your lines, the drawing point will Always be hidden under your finger and you can not control it to draw a perfect small circle... if you tried to draw the human features you'll find them scattered in a funny way.

in qp2qp You always find the virtual pen in quite halfway between the index finger and thumb, and after a short period of practice the brain automatically select the drawing point , and you can raise your fingers and begin drawing in a new point on the screen.

This was the idea of applying qp2qp and how the virtual stylus can be controlled accurately, even with the small drawing space granted by your Smartphone screen.

the virtual pen can be thoroughly well as if your phone has a special pen for drawing.

try qp2qp and draw amazing things

<comment><USER2> If the problem is that your finger hides the drawing, why would you not just make a "normal" drawing app with an offset cursor then? This seems like an odd fix for the problem.

Good luck with it though. I eagerly await the day I can have a true "digital sketchbook" in my pocket, so I'm always interested to see people come up with new ideas in this area.

<comment><AUTHOR> If it is just an offset cursor every time i start touching the screen i will not know where will the cursor be..i tried it.with the two fingers i can predict the position of the virtual pen and i have many drawings made by qp2qp You can check facebook.com/qp2qp and you can find my drawings and drawings made by the users

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> check this [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeCDVjeRMWc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeCDVjeRMWc)</comment>


Tell HN: My own version of the American dream - <AUTHOR> I have spent the last year, thinking about how I'm going to spend the rest of my life.
I started to work as a software developer in government in my country, but found that entrepreneurship is really my thing. So I quit my job and began my own startup. I learned a lot about how to start a company, but the reality hit me like a truck. Colombia is a really tough environment to be a tech entrepreneur. (Very low purchasing power, internal conflicts, the government doesn't help, etc.)
So although I have felt frustrated, I'm a big dreamer. And I'm willing to leave it all to achieve my dreams.
I wish to make it big in one of the best places in the world to be in tech: SF. (I'm in love with this city). So I studied a lot of english the past months, saved some money, and sold some things, to travel to SF and pursue my dream.
My goal in this trip is to find an opportunity to join a good startup. It would be awesome to get a internship as a developer, some short-term job (I can stay up to 6 months in U.S.), or even a remote job.
I'm have Ruby on Rails and AngularJS skills. Not an expert yet, but I have code some projects.
Just wanted to share this with you guys, because this is the board of the best entrepreneurs community in the world. If you know about some opportunity, some startup to write at, some place to visit, or some advice for me, It would be hugely appreciated.
best,
Stephen <comment><USER2> Sorry to be negative, but it will be almost impossible for you to get a job here this way, unless you are from a country that has a flexible work visa arrangement (Canada, Australia, etc). In fact, you could get banned from entering the country for 10+ years if you lie as to your intent for entering the US and you get found out. And if you tell them your intent is to find a job, you will also be denied. It's a no-win situation.

No companies can hire you, unless you already have an existing H1B. If they want to sponsor you, the earliest they could attempt is April 2016, for work in October 2016. And this is if you have a university degree to qualify you for H1B.

You could apply for graduate school, that's probably the easiest way in, and then once you get your degree, you could go on OPT, which gives you 19 months to get an H1B.

Or you could marry someone in the US, but if it's deemed fraudulent, then you would also be barred from entering the US as well.

You could join a large company that has offices where you are, and then transfer to the US on an L1 visa, which would give you a green card very quickly, and then you could quit and do whatever you want afterwards. However, there is the option that the company could take back your green card if you leave too quickly after getting your green card.

Again, sorry to be so negative, but just coming to the US and looking for a job will not work, not in this environment. You need to do it properly, but unfortunately, there is a very slim chance of actually getting a job.

<comment><USER3> As an American, if we continue to turn down would-be immigrants like this, we are shooting ourselves in the foot.

<comment><USER4> As an immigrant, I do think the American immigration system is broken (especially around H1Bs and for US university grads), but just letting anyone in isn't the solution either and would do more harm than good.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Hey, you should talk to Andres Barreto, I'll intro - email@example.com He runs a small seed fund and connects Colombian engineers with US startups. It's a great program and I've hired from it before.

Ps- ignore any discouraging comments. Fight hard and you can get what you want. Best of luck

</comment><comment><USER6> A little word of caution. You haven't mentioned your visa situation, but given that you said you can stay for 6 months I'm going to assume you are on a B2 visa.

When you arrive in the US, be ready to explain why you are NOT planning on moving here or finding a job. You aren't coming to SF to look for work, you're coming as a TOURIST and are going to see some sights, and then head home. Also, the longer you say you are going to stay in the US, the harder they will grill you. I would even suggest booking a refundable/changeable return flight a few weeks after you land, and say you are only going to stay for a few weeks. You can always "change your mind" after you get here, because they will almost always stamp you for 6 months in your passport regardless of how long you say you want to stay.

Remember: it's against the tourist visa rules to even THINK about working here or look for a job. So do not mention anything about looking for work, or wanting to live in SF, or even that one day you would like to live here. As far as they should know you love your home country and can't wait to get back there. It also helps if you own property or have dependent family in your home country (this gives you a reason preventing you from illegally immigrating). Failing this, get a letter from an employer saying that you have been granted x weeks vacation and will be expected back at work on a particular date.

If you haven't applied for the visa yet, then get your story straight, and everything above applies x10 for the visa interview.

Take it from someone who learned all this the hard way :)

Now, with that out of the way I would love to meet up when you get here. If you're interested, my email address is in my profile.

<comment><USER2> Sorry, but this is terrible advice. You should not be counseling someone to lie when they enter into the US. You literally could get them banned from entering the US for many years, or even permanently, if their lie is caught by the agents. And these agents are trained to catch liars, so if the OP uses your advice and gets caught up in his lies, he could be turned away without any hesitation.

<comment><USER6> I'm not suggesting anyone outright lie. I am simply saying that your reason for entering the US must not be to look for work, and that it helps to bring along evidence supporting the fact that it would be impossible for you to stay here anyway.

This is fairly well known in startup circles, in fact YC themselves have an internal guide for how to speak to US immigration. The important thing is to know the terms of your visa, and not say anything which could jeopardize that.

I also don't think OP's case is completely hopeless. There are plenty of companies which will sponsor you on a J1 visa, which will usually buy you enough time to apply for an H1B or O1. If he wants to come visit SF and meet/network with people here, then he definitely should do so.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Does it have to be the US? What about Berlin or Paris? [http://www.bamf.de/EN/Infothek/FragenAntworten/BlaueKarteEU/...](http://www.bamf.de/EN/Infothek/FragenAntworten/BlaueKarteEU/blaue- karte-eu-node.html)

In a nutshell, if you find an employer willing to hire you for a regular paid high-tech job, you will get a work visa, aka "Blue Card".

<comment><USER8> I was about the make the same comment. There are plenty of other tech centers around the world, although SF is one of the better ones. Berlin and London are also pretty good and vibrant. You may also try to look at the 2nd tier tech cities in Spanish speaking countries such as Barcelona may be another option.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> So you get a job at a decent startup that actually has viable potential (likely not), get 1% equity (likely half that, since you said you're not an expert), work super hard effectively two full time jobs hardly making ends meet, and then your startup beats all odds (likely doesn't), and gets acquired for 20 million dollars (likely less).

You've just made $200,000 before taxes. Was it worth the risk and the effort?

Correct me if I've got my assumptions wrong please. Chance to unicorn doesn't count, coz at that level of probability he might as well just keep buying the lottery.

<comment><USER10> Yep that ain't likely to work. For every success story there are 99 failures.

Get a popular cert. Work premium contract jobs (£600/day here). Screw the market hard and retire after 20 years with some reasonable cash. Sure you're not going to be Musk or Zuck rich but how much money do you really need?

Take equity if someone offers it but not in lieu of hard cash. I've made about £20k in equity pay outs which isn't a whole lot of money really.

I know no one who got anywhere working hard. It was all sly opportunistic stuff and luck.

<comment><USER11> It's practical and you'll be right 8 times out of 10. But it also assumes that the only motivation for starting a company is money.

I'm running a startup that solves a very real problem lots of people have. The money is a nice bonus, but the real thrill is being able to solve a problem.

If you have an engineering brain, you know this as well: solving a problem just feels good. Doesn't matter whether the problem is fixing a broken faucet or helping people manage car repairs better (what I'm trying to do).

So for me, the real benefit of running a startup is that you get to solve a problem you care passionately about. If you can do that at someone else's company (and get paid handsomely for it), then by all means, go ahead and do it. But if you can't find companies solving the problems you care about, then you have no option but to roll up the sleeves and solve it yourself

<comment><USER10> You're right. That's the thing though; don't expect to make any money out of doing anything you love. The phrase "labour of love" is very appropriate.

Currently I'm digging a large financial company out of a big hole full of poo that they dug and then tried to swim in and decided that they didn't like it. If I'm honest, I really don't care about that but it pays the bills. I prefer fixing and replacing bits of my friend's Macs for nothing and playing BOFH on all the kit in my house.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> One of the most valuable pieces of advice I've heard is: "Don't run from problems. Run to solutions."

Perhaps if you look a little harder, you can find a solution in Columbia?

I'd like to point out that moving to San Francisco is not a solution. You state: "I'm a big dreamer. And I'm willing to leave it all to achieve my dreams."

There's a huge difference between chasing a dream, and running a business. San Francisco is a very expensive place to live. A salary that's the envy of most of the United States won't even cover basic expenses in San Francisco. It's simply too expensive to subsidize people chasing dreams; and believe me, there are a lot of people in and around San Francisco chasing their dreams.

So, IMO, learn the difference between chasing a dream and running a tech business. Solve your problems at home before you move; or if you do move, find a place that's cheap enough to let you learn how to run a business.

There are a lot of good reasons to move to San Francisco. Wait until the city offers you a tangible reason to move there; because the best place to be a dreamer is to live at home.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your answer I would like to get a remote job in a SF company. I'm planning to visit some startups to have interviews, but I'm not sure that is going to work. Seems like most startups hire remote workers only from U.S.

Where do you think that I could begin?

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Hi Stephen,

Congratulations on your great aspirations and willingness to pursue them with hard work!

If it doesn't work out for you in California, I suggest moving to Buenos Aires. Although I am from California, I lived there for many years and it's a great city with tons of entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial spirit as well as hacker and programmer culture. In some ways, it is much more of an entrepreneurial place than anywhere in the USA, in my opinion, due to the fact that people have necessarily developed more of a DIY attitude. Best of all: Colombian immigrants/expats are much more welcome there than most other places, especially the USA. In fact, I heard that Colombians can attend and graduate from the University of Buenos Aires (which has an excellent Computer Science dept.) so you may be able to get an education there also. FYI, University of Buenos Aires is more or less FREE. If you have skills and can show that you are developing them quickly, I think getting a good job as a software developer there should also be possible. I'd checkout Globant, OmbuLabs and Inaka first. They are software consultancies with good reputations.

Good luck and keep going!

</comment><comment><USER14> I have the same story with you, I also came from a small country with has nothing special in IT, and working as a Software Engineer in the US is a paranoia dream for me. Except one thing (luckily for me), my family immigrated to the US and I have to follow them.

If you are still looking for a job in SF (or anywhere in this Bay Area), go ahead and create an impressive profile on Angel List ([https://angel.co/jobs](https://angel.co/jobs)), this is the website for startups company looking for developers, and I got my first job after 2 weeks in the US by this way (they found me on this site when I was in my home country, and ~1 month long phone calls/interviewing/testing/waiting...).

Spending your time create/contribute to some cool project on Github should help, the people here love that. It's the best way to prove yourself as a good developer.

We all have a dream to live for, and it's great to meet and sharing with people who has the same dream as I have.

Good luck to you, and welcome to the Bay Area ;)

Cheers,

Henry Tr.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks Henry, that's very friendly of you.

I think that I'll visit some startups, looking for a remote job when I arrive to SF :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Everyone is telling you that basically America is a no go. Try Canada. Vancouver and Toronto have small but growing startup scenes, lots of big companies opening offices up north as well. Canada is pretty welcoming to immigrants, as long as you're earning enough to pay the fairly high taxes.

</comment><comment><USER16> Do you necessarily need to go to the US now? Since you don't have a Visa, that is really complicated. You cannot legally work with a b2 visa, if you do that, it can jeopardize future opportunities in the US. I would not recommend this path, not now at least.

I would recommend you to get more experience in the start-up environment first, get a good resume, and then apply for a H1B in the states, if that's your ultimate goal. If you can't find start-up jobs in Colombia, have you considered moving to São Paulo, Brazil? You're a Mercosul resident so it is easier for you to get a work visa in Brazil than in the US. Brazil is currently going through a crisis, so things aren't easy, but there's still a vibrant entrepreneur market. It's not hard to find technology jobs there. It is a good place to get experience in more modern technologies and in entrepreneurship.

<comment><AUTHOR> Seems like a cool Idea. I'll explore it. Thanks

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> South American here did something similar and I can say one thing: the American dream is dead... at least for immigrants.

With unintelligent politicians and immigration policies, it's REALLY hard to start your own company. Even if you raise 1M+ still is REALLY hard to get/transfer your H1-B visa. It doesn't matter if you're the CEO. I know it seems ridiculously stupid, and it is.

In addition, things will NOT get better. People like Trump and other 'fake right-wing socialists' will continue to maintain an idiotic immigration policy and there won't 'be a way'. South Americans(even if legal) feel disdain and hatred in the disguised eyes of niceness.

I would EXTREMELY suggest you to consider certain EU countries with a more reasonable immigration policy. My experiences have been great and never did anyone looked down on me because I'm hispanic or that I speak Spanish(duh).

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your answer :) I have two options in mind right now. Some good friend, who also lives in SF, suggested me to search for an internship. It may be technically illegal for me to work there, but he told me that fortunately some startups won't care, and I could give the company the option to get paid in my country as if you were an overseas contractor.

The second option is to get a remote job in a SF startup. I'm planning to visit some startups to have interviews. But I'm not sure that I'll work. Seems like most startups hire remote workers only from U.S.

What do you think about this? Could it work?

Thanks again!

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Well Stephen ... it's ironic (to me) that you view SV (and more generally the US) as your technological Mecca when I've been considering where I might live if my government continues to engage in practices I can't endorse. The great thing about "software eating the world" is that you can make if from anywhere. I'd recommend you develop your on-line presence and start networking (virtually is fine) with those you wish to emulate.

Either way - Good luck!

</comment><comment><USER19> But SF is already overfull with techies talking about how to make the world better why swerving away homeless people lying on streets. Why do you think joining the crowd and making real estate prices even higher is the best application of your abilities?

</comment><comment><USER20> You have done a lot, so congrats. Now you should refocus to make your dream really happen imho: have a look at countries near home (Argentina, Canada?) and try to climb the ladder from a friendlier environment instead of risking wreckage in a pond that basically does not need (saturated with techies) and does not want (severe visa issues) you yet. Good luck!

</comment><comment><USER14> OK, forget about the visa things. It's another story. Many people here give an advice that just find a company in the US that has office in our hometown, or do a remote work with US companies. For me, I did it. And now I'm working in the US. There are many huge different. The most important thing is the developer's culture, since developers here in the SV keep asking something like: "What's that company building?", the developers in outsourcing countries just ask: "How many (outsource) projects does this company having?" Just a simple thing like that enough to see the big different about the environment. That's why I think we should choose SV instead of remote work.

</comment><comment><USER21> Come as a tourist. You do not need to be physically in SF to run your business. In many countries (not all) you can continue to work for your startup or clients outside the country. In fact, you should have an existing startup established in your country.

Startups and self employment are truly a great way to open doors and attract others. I recommend everyone start one at least on the side. Traveling is good for networking. Think of it that way!

</comment><comment><USER22> I don't understand why you'd need to relocate to work for a startup. I can see how it would be really exciting, for sure!

But...can't you do the same work remotely from your home country. From a place that doesn't cost $4,000/mo in rent?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your answer.

I would really like to get a remote job in a SF company. I'm planning to visit some startups to have interviews, but I'm not sure that I'll work. Seems like most startups hire remote workers only from U.S.

Where do you think that I could begin to search?

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I think your best bet is to build a highly valuable skill-set that makes it worthwhile for companies in the US to go through the trouble of getting you a Visa. You need to differentiate yourself from talent they can find domestically without the visa hassle.

In the interim, look at joining startups in other countries where you can build that highly valuable skill-set. This is self-promotion, but check out our startup, engageSPARK, where we use highly valued skills (GoLang, Docker, Microservices, AWS, Thrift, Django, etc) and based in Philippines. And, at the same time, help build a startup with American founders that is working on poverty alleviation. :)

</comment><comment><USER24> Not at all sure of the legality of this, so if someone else can comment that would be good. If your are coming to US, I would recommend you try to find a remote working job at startups,and then go back. The visa situation being what it is, as others have suggested, doesn't really leave you with that many options. Also it is arguable whether being physically present in SF would help that much to offset the cost of coming and staying there for whatever time required.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your answer akshat!

That's what I'm planning to do, but I'm not sure that I'll work. Seems like most startups hire remote workers only from U.S. Where do you think that I could begin to search?

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Even if you cannot easily get a visa to work here (as some of the comments mention), you could still write apps for the US market, I guess.

<comment><USER26> Interesting strategy idea: Work remotely for a SFO company for months/years at a time, then visit SFO as a tourist between jobs. There are also other interesting places to visit in the USA while between jobs or contracts.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Connect with US companies that have dev teams in Colombia and be careful with shady headhunters.

</comment><comment><USER28> The American dream is a lie bought on credit. Just an FYI...

</comment><comment><USER29> I have similar story. Cheers.</comment>


Higgs boson results from LHC 'get even stronger' - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19076355

<comment><AUTHOR> Nice to see that true science in action and in that I mean they have not gone `we reched sigma 5 all done now`.

</comment><comment><USER2> If anyone from the LHC and related teams reads HN.

Thank you and congratulations. It's always inspirational to see people dedicate their whole lives to advancing humanity without any thought to financial gain.</comment>


Ask HN: Willing to trade one video feedback for one startup tshirt? - <AUTHOR>

1. Take out your iPhone or video recorder
2. Tell us one thing you love about Poutsch or one thing you want us to change (https://poutsch.com)
3. Send the video to firstname.lastname@example.com
4. Receive your Poutsch t-Shirt (looks like http://blog.poutsch.com/2013/01/06/win-a-poutsch-t-shirt/) <comment><USER2> Why iPhone, are other phones not good enough?</comment>


Ask HN: Do you use more than one programming language? - <AUTHOR>

Would like to find out if it is common nowadays to use more than one programming language. I mean using the language professionally for work or projects, not just knowing how to use. <comment><USER2> Not only do I use multiple languages professionally, I don't know some of them.

</comment><comment><USER3> My day job is Java and Bash with assorted UNIX utils.

One major side-project is C++ and Lua. The other is Python(GAE), Django, JavaScript and Awk.

The only problem is constantly switching Python and JavaScript code over several hours. I can't count how may times I get something as simple as an if statement syntax wrong.

</comment><comment><USER4> I've always had a favourite general-purpose language for personal projects. This has been Haskell for several years now. Yet, I regularly find myself writing things in other languages. I use Ruby at work. I did C++ on a previous job, LISP even before that. I've written side projects in C.

And I'm constantly looking forward to the next opportunity for broadening my horizon, basically looking for a good excuse to learn and apply a new language. But I'm also a person with a distinct thing for languages and their design.

Then again, like somebody else has already stated, learning a new language gets easier every time. I think everybody should learn a few.

</comment><comment><USER5> If you include Javascript, it's very common.

Beyond that, I've pretty well stuck with one language in production work for about five years. But that's only because I've mostly done modest-scale web app development, which really only requires one backend language. If you stick to web apps, you can go a long way with a single backend language.

But my current startup is about 50% web app and 50% Linux app. So we're finding more and more need for C.

</comment><comment><USER6> Well, I use one language primarily at work, that being Java. For my startup project, I use Groovy almost exclusively. But, particularly on the startup project, I can easily see the situation where different parts may be written in different languages. I could see trying Scala for some backend services, as it has a reputation for dealing with concurrency well. Erlang could be a possibility in the future as well, for similar reasons. I also won't rule out dropping into C or C++ for performance reasons if the situation arises. And since there's a heavy element of statistical analysis / machine learning / data mining in some of this, I may be incorporating R and or Clojure (for Incanter) at some point as well.

Also, if you count SQL as a language, then I routinely use SQL (and/or HQL) for data access.

And as somebody pointed out in another reply... if you include Javascript, then yes, definitely.

</comment><comment><USER7> I work on an ML compiler for my day job, which means a lot of ML but also quite a bit of C for runtime and basis library stuff. That of course doesn't include M4 (blech!), bash scripts, LaTeX, etc.

<comment><USER8> Serious question that probably says more about my lack of knowledge than anything else: What does ML give you that you can't get from Haskell?

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Am I the only hardware engineer here? SystemVerilog gets no respect :).

<comment><USER10> Hey! We need good hardware otherwise where is all that software going to run? Keep up the good work!

<comment><USER9> Thanks. Incidentally, I just wanted to say that I almost always use Python for scripting and design automation stuff. I wrote about it here:

[http://svffap.blogspot.com/2008/09/why-python-for- hardware.h...](http://svffap.blogspot.com/2008/09/why-python-for- hardware.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I use multiple languages in my day job. For the majority of tasks, I use Ada (with some low-level C and Assembly thrown in). For recent support tasks, I have used Python for scripting purposes and Visual Basic for creating macro- based spreadsheets.

Depending on your definition of programming language, I also regularly use LabVIEW to interface with test equipment and MATLAB for simulation and analysis.

</comment><comment><USER12> I use Python for work, for my startup, and for my personal projects. In the same capacity I use JavaScript when doing web development. I even use VB6 for legacy code upkeep at the day job. I like to use C++ for certain projects and I've had to pick up Java for Hadoop's MapReduce (which I use for my startup).

It's always good to use the right tool for the job.

</comment><comment><USER13> On a daily basis I frequently get my hands into any of the following: emacs lisp, java, ant, drools, python, jython, sql, jsp, make, clojure, javascript, xslt, velocity, hibernate hbm, hql, bash, antlr, freemarker, scala, html, css, confluence markup, xpath, regular expressions, and countless APIs all of which are themselves little languages.

</comment><comment><USER14> At work, projects we get at work are very varied. Mostly web stuff (PHP, Javascript), but I try to squeeze in Python when I can. Some mobile stuff which usually means iPhone (Objective-C). I have a Java background so I end up on Java projects that come in which is a fair amount because the corporate world like Java.

</comment><comment><USER15> At the moment I use only C and the various language of the GNU build system. But in the past I used C++ or a personal project and before that I did some smaller projects in Ruby, PHP, Python, Javascript and HTML (with CSS).

</comment><comment><USER16> I'd imagine it's pretty common, especially if you consider CSS, HTML and Javascript different languages. Personally, I use PL/X, and z/Assembly daily, with REXX thrown in every now and then.

</comment><comment><USER17> For my day job I primarily program in ada95. My startups are generally using Python (Django), some javascript, C and occasionally writing wrappers in various languages for API access.

</comment><comment><USER10> It's pretty hard not to. I prefer Python. But need lots of JavaScript (both browser and server (NodeJS)). Lisp for some stuff and still a fair bit of plain ol' C.

</comment><comment><USER18> I use PHP on a daily basis for my work but I also program in Python and I am starting Java.

I believe that if you know how to program then you can effectively use any language. You will only need to know the little quirks that each language has.

I will repeat what coderdude wrote: It's always good to use the right tool for the job.</comment>


Beginning Android Game Development with LibGDX - <AUTHOR> https://ubuverse.com/beginning-android-game-development-with-libgdx/ <comment><USER2> When I was tinkering with an idea for a game a couple years back, I went with LibGDX for my first attempt at a proof-of-concept. It seemed like it hit a real sweet spot: something feature-rich that supported deploying on lots of different platforms, while still having a workflow that felt recognizably like _programming_ instead of the more visual, scene-oriented approach of engines like Unity. (Which I've never been able to grok, despite multiple attempts.) My Java was pretty rusty, but Java's so common that I could tell myself that the time spent getting back up to speed was an investment that could pay dividends in some other context, even if the game idea went nowhere. So off I went.

Unfortunately, it didn't take long for me to discover that ( _in my opinion_ ) LibGDX suffers from the most common defect of Java-based systems, namely a disheartening amount of verbosity and ceremony you have to master before you get to the part where you're actually _doing_ anything. It all felt very ponderous and heavyweight. Maybe there's no way to avoid that and still get all the nice features it offers, or maybe it only feels that way if you're simultaneously learning modern Java, I dunno. But after a fair bit of wheel- spinning I eventually gave up.

I ended up going with Lua-based LÖVE ([https://love2d.org/](https://love2d.org/)) instead, which while much less powerful was also much less daunting to get started with. I was able to reach productivity with LÖVE faster than with LibGDX despite never having written (or indeed _read_ ) a line of Lua in my life, which says something about the relative barriers to entry.

<comment><AUTHOR> I have experience in Android development, but not game development, and I was looking for something, as you said, less visual than Unity to get started in game development. So far, the learning curve has been gentle. Maybe libGDX shows limitations for more complex games, but it seems to me like a great framework to introduce game development to beginners, especially if they are already familiar with Java.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Libgdx was one of the first game library frameworks I used when I first got into gamedev. And even now years later. There are things that Libgdx did quite well that I miss. Even in unity and ue4.

Id highly recommend using and playing with it. I'm not active now but there used to be a great community. And some decently popular games and other tools built with it.

</comment><comment><USER4> While on topic on Android game engines: are there any without additional .so libs? I'd like to make a simple 2d board game where high FPS doesn't matter.

<comment><USER5> For a simple 2d board game, why use a Game Engine at all -- opposed to just using ImageViews inside a FrameLayout?</comment></comment>


Guy trading at home caused the flash crash of 2010 - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-04-21/guy-trading-at-home-caused-the-flash-crash <comment><USER2> My (limited) understanding is that almost all high frequency hedge funds employ this tactic of placing and cancelling limit orders. Not sure why this guy is being prosecuted.

> We investigate the trading of one hundred Nasdaq-listed stocks on INET, a > limit order book. In contrast to the usual view, we find that over one-third > of nonmarketable limit orders are cancelled within two seconds [0]

When so many participants and breaking the law and the law seems to be applied somewhat subjectively, then it is ripe for corruption and political targetting. Kind of like how political dissidents get arrested for 'tax evasion' in Russia

To be fair, this study was performed in 2007 and spoofing became explicitly illegal under Dodd Frank passed in 2010.

I mentioned this in a comment in an earlier reply, but I think some skepticism around market participants is healthy. If market participants assume that there is no fraud or that fraud will be prosecuted by central authorities, they will be more easily defrauded.

Edit: Looks like the number of unfilled orders is over 90%

> New data from the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) show that only > 3.2% of the orders placed in the stock market in the second quarter of 2013 > actually went through. [1]

[0] [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=994369](http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=994369) [1] [http://qz.com/133695/96-8-of-trades-placed-in-the-us- stock-m...](http://qz.com/133695/96-8-of-trades-placed-in-the-us-stock-market- are-cancelled/)

<comment><USER3> You are right that most place and cancel orders rapidly, but that isn't necessarily spoofing, which requires some intentionality. For example, Nasdaq even has an order type that auto-adjusts itself such that it will never execute, but it was mainly created to help market-makers dodge quoting requirements, not to enable spoofing.

In symbols where they are a registered market-maker, market-makers are supposed to be obligated to make a market in the symbol. In exchange they get several regulatory benefits, like being able to naked short a stock (sell it without even locating/borrowing the shares).

In practice most automated market-makers used to just put out bogus quotes they never expected to fill at $0.1/$1000000.0 bid/ask. The SEC tried to regulate this and say you had to really be making a market and put your quotes within X% of the current bid/ask. Market-makers started automatically cancelling and replacing at exactly X% away, but that was too much for them. So they had Nasdaq create an order type that automatically cancels itself and replaces it X% away from the bid/ask anytime the NBBO changes.

What they are doing in that example is completely wrong, but not analogous to what the guy in this article was allegedly doing (this guy put his quotes near the money to make fake interest, market-makers put theirs as far away from the money as possible to be fake market-makers and get regulatory benefits like naked shorting in exchange, their orders don't appear like real buy/sell interest in the same way this guy's allegedly did).

\---

The author of the article tries to distance algorithmic-HFT from this guy operated, to cleanse its name, but come one:

        Sarao may have been a spoofer, but he doesn't seem to
        have been doing the sort of high-speed algorithmic
        trading that usually qualifies as "HFT." He himself
        claimed to be "'an old school point and click prop
        trader' who had 'always been good with reflexes and
        doing things quick,'" and the "Layering Algorithm"
        that he used was a customized version of "a program
        that allowed non-programmers to engage in automated
        trading using spreadsheet commands and functions." He
        was also the sole owner and employee of his trading
        firm, which he "operated from his residence." In style
        and substance he is not all that different from other
        spoofers we have known and loved, who did their high
        speed trading by just punching keys really fast.

In style and point-and-click background maybe he wasn't a goliath HFT operation, but in substance, spreadsheet automated trading at faster than human speeds, he definitely was.

\--

If the charges hold up, they will have been able to convict this guy because of evidence of intentionality (the emails to his FCM). But with trading strategies now starting to delve into modern deep-learning techniques, we're probably going to start seeing algorithms learn to spoof from a blank slate. The only way to tell if one of these algorithms is really intending to buy or sell or is spoofing would be to reverse engineer something rather inscrutable... And is it the author's intentionality or the algorithm's we're really concerned with? Likely we'll end up holding things to some gamable metrics that will do about as good a job as the market-maker quoting requirements do in assuring market-maker algorithms are providing liquidity.

<comment><USER4> It seems like the real fix would be to have a cancellation fee. If an order is canceled within 60 seconds, penalize the trader .1% of the total amount of the order. That would make all this gamesmanship unprofitable, and the order book would actually be a collection of people wanting to buy and sell shares.

It seems very wrong to me to make an activity feasible, and allow it to be profitable, but then arbitrarily drop the hammer of criminal penalties when a trader crosses some murky line.

<comment><USER5> There already is. If you add liquidity you get a bit of a bonus, if you remove it (cancel your limit order), you are charged a small amount.

Why are people so fixated on the order book? The real information is the spot price and how fresh is that information (and the volume), the order book is a fantasy anyhow. There are people willing to buy stuff at pennies always, and sell at thousands. How does that help you? What if they cancel? It shouldn't matter if someone does it closer to the spot price, or closer to the best bid- offer.

If you want to buy, look at the price, decide how much you think it's worth, put in a limit order at that price. Go to bed. If you want to sell, basically do the same. If you want to live on trading, then smarten up.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Could someone point out where what this guy did was illegal? The guy simply outsmarted the algo traders by acting like he was going to push his chips in, than yanked them back. How exactly is that illegal? And if it is illegal why is the FCM allowing it? Even more so, how is it legal for people to see what he MIGHT do?

This feels like a whole lot of sour grapes by the big boys. They're pissed because someone figured out their weakness.

<comment><USER7> There's a technical answer, but more simply, you answered your own question: you can't push your chips in and then yank them back.

Try that at a poker table - yes, you'll "outsmart" the other players by being able to see their reaction. You'll also instantly break the integrity of the game, because you're not outsmarting them, you're breaking the rules that allow the game/market to actually function.

For a market to function properly that integrity that an order on the books is in good faith is vital. Of course, it's up to the SEC to enforce that.

<comment><USER8> I think he was making the point that if something is permitted by the "rules of the game", then by definition, it cannot be a violation of the rules. And in the case of financial transactions APIs, the rules should exist as application logic. So if you're not supposed to place and immediately cancel an order, it should simply not be possible.

I could certainly believe that if it was one of the large HFTs doing this, they would have had the necessary wheel-grease to not get in trouble...

<comment><USER9> Placing and immediately canceling an order is fine and allowed (though doing that too much is penalized for other reasons).

Spoofing is pulling them out in a coordinated fashion before they can be put at risk with no intention of them ever trading.

The problem is that an api that prevented that would also prevent legitimate cancels that would have side effects that could be bad (ie making it riskier to make markets and therefore increase the bid/ask spread).

Spoofing is about intention. Intention cannot be determined by algorithm (yet).

Also to your point about a big HFT not being subject to this. Allston trading is a large HFT market maker that is currently in arbitration over spoofing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Well I sure am glad we found a scapegoat that doesn't require us to rethink HFT in any way. /s

</comment><comment><USER11> As the article points out - this guy stopped his "spoofing" strategy and the market crash accelerated. This bit of info - coupled with the fact that it took this long to find him makes me think that this guy is only a small part of what happened that day.

<comment><USER12> Perhaps covering up more major players or corporations or even potential underlying fundamental flaws?

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> The E-mini S&P futures market is _incredibly_ illiquid, which is why one guy can game it this way. Look at the current volume on the June 15th contract: [http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=ESM15.CME+Interactive#sym...](http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=ESM15.CME+Interactive#symbol=ESM15.CME;range=5d)

It's _343_! That's zero to a good approximation.

So this guy found a low-volume market that he could game with large sell orders above the current price that he would cancel (automatically, eventually) so he had a low (but crucially: non-zero) risk of actually having to sell at that price. Others would see the large sell volume and sell themselves, driving the price down. He would buy at the lower price, stop placing sell orders and watch the price bounce back up, absent his manipulation.

This is likely illegal in the letter of the law as written in 2010, and fair enough. Illiquid markets are easily subject to this kind of thing and if you want people to invest in them maybe you need to police them against it. Whatever.

But to call this "the cause" of the flash crash is like saying my neighbour's love of fireworks is "the cause" of my house burning down _after I deliberately poured gasoline all over it_. Sure, maybe my neighbour should have been more careful, but they had a reasonable expectation that my house would be ordinarily fire-proof, and behaved accordingly.

And of course this guy dominated the market when it was falling rapidly: his algorithm would have a field day in such an event, placing and cancelling multiple sell orders as fast as it could all the way down. So to cite that as some kind of evidence is to put effect before cause.

The only way this could have "caused" the flash crash is if a whole lot of _large_ trading algorithms were using E-mini S&P futures as a a major input, and doing that--using such an illiquid, easily-manipulated market to drive large orders--that is criminal. Or should be.

<comment><USER14> Dude the front month S&P e-mini is one of the most liquid products on the planet. You are looking at a crappy chart. Look here: [http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/equity-index/us- index/e-mini...](http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/equity-index/us-index/e-mini- sandp500_quotes_volume_voi.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> This is a joke, they found the poor guy who was not big enough to have friends at the cftc. There is nothing wrong with flash crash and rally, that is just volatility, you just use the right leverage.

<comment><USER16> The great depression was 'just' volatility if you look at a long enough timeline.

Flash crashes are scary for lots of reasons.

<comment><USER17> But they're also opportunities to own parts of a company much more cheaply than normal.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> There are two possibilities here: this guy has been set up as the patsy to take the fall for this or, more terrifying, our markets are so brittle and levered that a guy at home with no juice can wipe out a trillion in notional value from his home.

I pray that the former is the more likely scenario as the latter is simply too awful to contemplate.

<comment><USER19> The latter is somewhat true, and probably unavoidable at this point. "The cat is out of the bag", so to speak--markets can't just go back. The problem is that the incentives are so wildly disproportionate. If a really smart guy works for the SEC or some surveillance body, he might $200k a year. That same really smart guy might make $200 MILLION trading. It has to be awfully damned unlikely to not choose the latter. And in reality, you're probably pulling $100k somehow or another while you wait.

With respect to the idea that this guy is the culprit, that's literally laugh- out-loud funny. It's possible he was spoofing, etc., even with decent size. But the clearing firm (Hi, MF!) controls the throttles on those pipes. But there is what is called "sponsored direct access" in these markets, and that basically means the clearer wants your business enough you can just hook up directly so you can go really fast, and they (the clearer) will just pretend that they're looking at your stuff.

<comment><USER20> 200$ millions trading by themselves, without external investors? Very, very unlikely.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Old gripe of mine. I hate this phrase:

 _investors saw nearly $1 trillion of value erased from U.S. stocks in just minutes._

No. They did not. A stock's value is not "what some other dude is payed for it yesterday"; its value is whatever money _you_ get when _you_ sell it (plus, God forbid, whatever dividends it pays -- quaint idea, I know).

</comment><comment><USER22> It's worth pointing out that this kind of behavior gets people in trouble on a fairly regular basis, what is new is that the DOJ is starting to bring criminal complaints.

It's long been the case that the SEC, or in this case the CFTC, will fine and temporarily/permanently ban you from trading for this kind of behavior, look at [http://www.cftc.gov/LawRegulation/Enforcement/EnforcementAct...](http://www.cftc.gov/LawRegulation/Enforcement/EnforcementActions/)

</comment><comment><USER23> Oh No! We should BAN guys trading from home! Only licensed professionals, employed by the big banks, should ever be given such responsibility!

</comment><comment><USER24> It seems most likely that another algorithm was looking at the full book and reacted to his spoofing order with it's own orders (that were actually executed) and which accelerated the price downward. This would have tripped algos looking at momentum and other stop loss orders in rapid succession.

This is why it's dangerous to have algos run on the full book, especially without some logic to remove outliers.

</comment><comment><USER25> Thank goodness for Matt Levine. I read three other articles on this earlier today that didn't even raise the questions that he answered.

<comment><USER26> He is like the John Stuart of Fin reporting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I have an solution for you - instead of in real time trade in rounds every minute or ten or even only once an hour. Now everyone has some time to think about his decisions. And the real world doesn't change much within a couple of minutes so no need to worry that you can not react to events in a timely manner.

<comment><USER28> problem with this soln can be seen in exchanges' auction sessions: sessions of several minutes/hours during which orders only net at the end. with visible orderbook this does not avoid the problem of spoofing or eliminate the value of speed. with invisible orderbook there is still benefit in placing trades right at the last moment before the netting because you continue to accrue micromkt information from continuously trading markets and economic info from the real world throughout the netting session. and if you want to make all exchanges in all locations of the world net at the same exact moment, this is a Hard Problem.

<comment><USER27> But with an invisible order book you face the trade-off between submitting your orders early an get priority over later orders and submitting late to incorporate the latest information.

<comment><USER28> in netting phases the queue is almost entirely price based and not time based.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I can't help but think, "if it's really that easy to crash the market, how come terrorists aren't doing it on a regular basis?" Seems way easier, safer, and more effective than shooting people or blowing them up.

<comment><USER30> You can't die in a blaze of glory (possibly) on the world stage from behind a computer screen.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> One guy in his pajamas caused a market crash? How many of these events will it take to cause a fundamental rethink of the financialization of our economy? Where are the supposed benefits to justify finance gobbling up more than a third of corporate profits [0]? When will we finally see a financial trading tax [1] that ends High frequency trading (HFT) for good?

[0] [http://angrybearblog.com/2012/01/where-has-all-money-gone- pa...](http://angrybearblog.com/2012/01/where-has-all-money-gone-part-ii.html) [1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_transaction_tax#Unite...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_transaction_tax#United_States_financial_transaction_tax)

</comment><comment><USER32> I'm sure it was a collection of Sarao's that did this, rather than Sarao alone. He probably just stood out and was easiest to prosecute. Hopefully more prosecutions are coming.

</comment><comment> T-zex HN Mods, why this discussion was dropped two pages down?

<comment><USER9> Not a mod but I believe that there is an "HFT penalty". And probably rightly so. The discussions around HFT are notorious for not being very productive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> so the system was the culprit</comment>


U.S. To Ban Laptops in All Cabins of Flights from Europe - <AUTHOR> http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/05/10/u-s-to-ban-laptops-in-all-cabins-of-flights-from-europe <comment><USER2> This is a non-story, at least so far, but you have to read well into the text to find that out.

Title: "U.S. to Ban Laptops"

Subtitle: "Homeland Security has decided"

Body: "No final decisions have been made"

<comment><USER3> There's unnamed sources inside DHS that told the Daily Beast that the official decision is going to be made Thursday.

The official statement is short enough that they wouldn't technically be lying if they then came out Thursday with a laptop ban.

I guess we'll find out tomorrow.

<comment><USER2> One of the clearest litmus tests for HN-offtopicness is "is this an announcement of an announcement". The present case is like that, only weaker.

We can turn that around and put it positively: patience till a thing actually happens is good for story quality.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Well that is me completely putting a blacklist on any travel to the US for work or pleasure. This is just going to far.

Its a shame, I really love going to America for tech events, but there is no way I am going check my laptop into luggage.

</comment><comment><USER5> This is absolutely going to decrease travel to the US.

\- More people will need to buy hard-shell cases. Would you want to trust your over-the-should bag to the ravages of the bag-handling machines? I certainly wouldn't...

\- Would you want to risk having your laptop stolen/lost/damaged by checking it?

This would be a complete _nightmare_ for business travelers.

<comment><USER6> Business travellers with stateside offices will probably be told to leave their data on the intranet and their laptop at home, they'll get a loaner in the US. There's a market here for someone to start a rental laptop business (just like rental cars at airports), but any intelligent business would never allow their employees to touch such a laptop..

<comment><USER7> I've actually been interested in affordable laptop rentals for a while but haven't found anything worthwhile, mostly lease to own. Has anyone encountered this done well yet?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > And Patrick Ky, a European safety regulator, told Reuters that his agency > wants airlines to avoid placing all the electronic devices in checked > baggage being in the same container in the cargo hold.

How on earth are they are going to handle the logistics of that?

</comment><comment><USER9> The express train of irrationality that is this administration has finally & thoroughly plowed indiscriminately through partisans of all stripes.

<comment><USER10> "Finally" seems a bit optimistic. This kind of wolf-crying and security theatre has been the norm for a while in the states.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> So many things that don't make sense. Why not flights leaving the U.S. to Europe? Why not flights to and from Asia, South America, etc...?

Maybe they're saving those other bans for when they need to distract us from other news stories again.

</comment><comment><USER12> Honestly, I wonder when we'll start seriously considering and investing in alternative ways of travel. Blimps, boats, whatever. At some point the amount of regulation will be too much.

</comment><comment><USER13> Hey, maybe this can save the dying tablet market?

</comment><comment><USER14> Not just no, but hell no.

</comment><comment><USER15> 33 incidents in what, 5-10 million flights?

<comment><USER3> incidents of accidental fire, which can be put out if it happens in the cabin, but can't if they're in the cargo hold

I guess the theory is that a laptop bomb in the cargo hold is less likely to be near a structurally important part of the plane, whereas if you have a laptop bomb in the cabin with you, you can shove it right up against a window...

<comment><USER15> if twenty people use laptops to get 3 hours of work done on a flight, at $100/hour that's $6B in lost work every million flights.

Sounds like a lot to pay to slightly reduce the risk of a plane being blown up. And increase the chance of a cargo hold fire much more significantly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Aren't many/most IEDs utilizing cell phones? Where's the rationale in banning a laptop if you can make one out of something even smaller and more ubiquitous? Hell, I bet you could stuff plenty of explosive material into one of the more expensive Otterbox cases.</comment>


The Diversity Trap - <AUTHOR> https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/the-diversity-trap-jilani <comment><USER2> As a conservative I stumbled upon the formulation "The radical left are a bunch of bullies" pretty much on my own. Just yesterday I discovered that Jordan Peterson has been using the term. It fits perfectly.

But I keep saying to myself, "Surely mainstream America has not completely jettisoned common sense." But as Denise Young Smith found out, things really are as bad we fear.

The one thing I still ask myself: Are people (like whoever it is who fired Young Smith) really brainwashed to the extent that it seems that they are? Or is it just the case that they know how the radical left is going to respond so they know they must act or risk an even bigger conflagration?

Finally, why hasn't this been flagged? The lefties on Hacker News flag for much lesser offenses...</comment>


Ask HN: Why are humanity's large systems failing? - <AUTHOR> Whether you're talking about the crash of '08, the inaction on global warming, antibiotic resistance, or the Syrian refugee crisis, it appears pretty plain to me that while humanity has many skills setting up large,sustaining human systems/organizations is not one of them.
I know this is isn't strictly IT related, but as an IT person systems of all kinds fascinate me and we build these software systems for use by humans so I always felt that understand people goes hand-in-hand with building good software/hardware systems.
Anyways, thoughts anyone? <comment><USER2> Read the Collapse of Complex Societies by Joseph Tainter. It is the Bible on this topic.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks a lot for recommending this. I've been thinking a lot about this subject.

<comment><USER2> I was just talking about this subject a couple of days ago.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12535146](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12535146)

Actually a lot of my posts are related to this subject in some way.

Are you aware that contrary to popular perception, many of Silicon Valley's most influential people believe we are in a stagnation since the early 70s?

This is called the Technological Stagnation Hypothesis. The essence is that outside of computation there has been a reduction in technological progress.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I think it's a big stretch to say that large systems are failing. We're still in the longest stretch of human advancement ever -- before the Renaissance, society would go into a "dark age" from time to time.

Unnecessary death, disease, and war are also at a low point for human history.

Just because there are existential threats doesn't mean the systems are failing.</comment>