The Logic Puzzle You Can Only Solve with Your Brightest Friend - <AUTHOR> http://nautil.us/blog/-the-logic-puzzle-you-can-only-solve-with-your-brightest-friend <comment><USER2> I think the puzzle isn't specified well enough. Critically, it doesn't say that your friend knows whether you passed or not when you're asked, and this is a central part of the proposed solution:

> First, you and your friend have to realize that each "pass" counts as a > signal.

But the spec only says

> The caretaker asks you each one at a time, once a day, and you can choose to > answer or to pass. Both of you know that you're always asked first. If you > both pass on a given day, the question [...] is posed to each of you again > the next day, and the next, and so on, until you get it right or wrong.

Also, "both of you know that you're always asked first" could have been written in a less confusing way, e.g. "both of you know who is asked first".

<comment><USER3> Not true. You're always asked first. If you had not passed, then your friend would be either freed or locked up forever (thus not asked at all).

<comment><USER2> This assumes the caretaker uses short-circuit evaluation :) It's a reasonable assumption to make, but I'd still argue the problem is under-specified.

<comment><USER4> I thought what you thought at first, but I re-read it, and it's quite clear. Especially this second sentence.

> The only way for you both to escape is for one of you to give the total > number of visible statues. Get it wrong, and neither of you ever leave.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I wonder if there's too much common knowledge here for the proposed solution to actually work.

We both know there are either 18 or 20 statues. I can see 12, so I know from the start my friend can see either 6 or 8. My friend can see 8, so she knows from the start that I can see 10 or 12. Now, when I don't give the answer, she knows I can't see 19 or 20, but she already knew that. Did she actually learn anything from the fact I didn't give the answer? She knows I can't answer already, so what does she learn?

<comment><USER5> Replying to myself, I think we can take this further.

I know she can see 6 or 8. She knows I can see 10 or 12. She knows that I know she can see 6, 8 or 10.

Given this information, we both know that the minimum number she can see that the other knows is 6. This allows us to both shortcut the process. We can both discard the first rounds that eliminate that she can see 2 or 4. The first round we need to play is the one where she can see 6.

So, in my first round, I'd give an answer if I could see 14. I don't give an answer, so she knows I don't see 14. We both already knew that, but it was the first round we could agree on, so that's where we synchronize.

After that, you just play out the rounds as in the proposed solution.

Edit: doesn't work: if she had actually seen 6 rather than 8, she'd have known I'd see 12 or 14, so she'd know I knew she would see 4 , 6 or 8. So you can't synchronize on 6 after all.

<comment><USER6> I think your idea is pretty much the same as lucraft's below: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17548391](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17548391) and fails for the same reason.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I have a solution to the puzzle in Rust:

[https://play.rust- lang.org/?gist=c56bd7d745ffcc90d59e4801e41...](https://play.rust- lang.org/?gist=c56bd7d745ffcc90d59e4801e4126ceb&version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2015)

        new_common_knowledge of A: [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18]
        new_common_knowledge of B: [2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18]
        new_common_knowledge of A: [2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16]
        new_common_knowledge of B: [4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16]
        new_common_knowledge of A: [4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14]
        new_common_knowledge of B: [6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14]
        new_common_knowledge of A: [6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12]
        new_common_knowledge of B: [8, 9, 10, 11, 12]
        A announces: 20

</comment><comment><USER8> This reminds me of one of my favorite puzzles:

"Three wise men are told to stand in a straight line, one in front of the other. A hat is put on each of their heads. They are told that each of these hats was selected from a group of five hats: two black hats and three white hats. The first man, standing at the front of the line, can't see either of the men behind him or their hats. The second man, in the middle, can see only the first man and his hat. The last man, at the rear, can see both other men and their hats.

None of the men can see the hat on his own head. They are asked to deduce its color. Some time goes by as the wise men ponder the puzzle in silence. Finally the first one, at the front of the line, makes an announcement: "My hat is white."

He is correct. How did he come to this conclusion?"

<comment><USER9> Reminds me of the joke

Three logicians walk into a pub, the bartender goes "3 pints?"

First logician goes "Maybe", second goes "Maybe", third goes "Yes!"

<comment><USER8> Haha i love it

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> It'd be funny if the puzzle was to count graves. Then you would answer 20. Either there are 20 and you're right, or there are only 18 so the caretaker digs 2 more for you and your friend, so you become right.

</comment><comment><USER11> I'm not sure I get the setup of this puzzle. He tells you at the start that the total between between you is 18 or 20. So you know from the start that your friend sees 6 or 8 and she knows that you can see 10 or 12. So neither of you 'learn' that the other person sees at least 1 / fewer than 19 on the first round - you both already knew this.

So what knowledge have you actually learned after the first round, that you can take forward into the second round?

<comment><USER12> > _So what knowledge have you actually learned after the first round?_

That your friend sees 2 or more, and your friend knows you see 18 or less. By itself, this is trivially deducable; but each day walks the limits closer to revela a fact that isn't trivial. You start the puzzle knowning that your friend can see either 6 or 8 statues, and each day you add a new fact about how many statues she can't see.

I'm more concerned that the problem as stated can be solved in 2 days: you say 18 on day one, then 20 on day two…

<comment><USER13> _" Get it wrong, and neither of you ever leave. "_

<comment><USER14> Therefore you say I see more than (y - 2) statues while he says morethan (x + 2) until you both repeat the same value.

You know you cannot lie so a simple iteration on inequalities is enough to find the right value.

This relies on your friend figuring out the linear addition scheme.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> What if two of the 12 statues are also part of the 8 statues (or vice-versa?) There'd be 18 statues, making a guess of 20 statues incorrect. I don't see how that's ruled out here.

<comment><USER6> It's not made explicit but I think there is not supposed to be any overlap between the visible statues. Otherwise I'm pretty sure the problem would become impossible.

<comment><USER16>
      > Out of your friend's window, which overlooks
      > the opposite side of the graveyard

I'd say it is pretty explicit, unless the same statues happen to be on the opposite side, which sound funny.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Very similar to the "Blue-Eyed Islanders" riddle: [https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/math/a26557/riddle-...](https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/math/a26557/riddle- of-the-week-27-blue-eyed-islanders/)

They should make it clearer in the introduction that there is no overlap between the visible statues from each side.

<comment><USER17> Funny enough, it was the exact puzzle which I read about on XKCD that allowed me to draw a conclusion for this one so quickly. The trick for these is using shared knowledge and a shared signaling mechanism to deduce overall state at a specific time period.

<comment><USER6> xkcd calls it the "hardest logic puzzle in the world".

I think this one is a lot harder: [http://olivernash.org/2009/10/31/yet- another-prisoner-puzzle...](http://olivernash.org/2009/10/31/yet-another- prisoner-puzzle/index.html)

<comment><USER18> Much better explanation by Nick Berry: [http://datagenetics.com/blog/december12014/index.html](http://datagenetics.com/blog/december12014/index.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> For those of you that are interested, there is a formal logic that can be used to reason about such problems, called Dynamic Epistemic Logic: [https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/261816/1/EUMAS2.pdf](https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/261816/1/EUMAS2.pdf) A book chapter on the topic is available here: [http://www.vub.ac.be/CLWF/SS/DELhandbookarticle.pdf](http://www.vub.ac.be/CLWF/SS/DELhandbookarticle.pdf)

Course slides and other information can be found here: [https://sites.google.com/site/thealexandrubaltagsite/teachin...](https://sites.google.com/site/thealexandrubaltagsite/teaching/dynamic- epistemic-logic-2017-2018)

It is a fascinating topic. Equipped with DEL, you can approach similar problems dealing with knowledge, belief, private and public announcements systematically.

</comment><comment><USER20> It's strange because at the beginning you know for a fact that your friend sees either 6 or 8, and your friend knows you see either 10 or 12, but the given process throws that information away.

I think it's possible to escape on Day 2 if you keep that knowledge:

A is 12, B is 8

A knows B is either 6 or 8. If 6, B knows A is either 12 or 14. If 8, B knows A is either 10 or 12.

B knows A is either 10 or 12. If 10, A knows B is either 8 or 10. If 12, A knows B is either 6 or 8.

So the common knowledge (they both know it and they both know the other knows it too) at the beginning is: A is between 10 and 14 and B is between 6 and 10.

 _Day one_ : if A saw 13 or 14 they would know it was 20, so when A passes, that signals to B that A is between 10 and 12.

Now, if B saw 9 or 10, they would know it was 20, so B must be between 6 and 8

 _Day two_ common knowledge: A between 10 and 12. B between 6 and 8.

If A saw 10 or 11 they would know it was 18, so when they pass B knows it must be 12

B knows it's 20, and wins.

... Right?

<comment><USER21> Nice try, but you actually do need to work up from nothing.

> Day one: if A saw 13 or 14 they would know it was 20, so when A passes, that > signals to B that A is between 10 and 12.

Your problem here is that if A saw 13, they would conclude that B saw 7 or 5. If A saw 14, they would conclude that B saw 4 or 6. In no case can A guess immediately.

So B can't conclude anything quite so strong from the fact that A passes on Day One.

<comment><USER22> But by knowing that the total number is even in either case and by each one knowing that their own number is even, the odd numbers can be discarded anyway, right?

<comment><USER21> Yes, I only brought up the odd-number cases because lucraft did.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I think I solved the problem backwards but I ended up with the same answer.

I made a table of what I know vs what my friend knows. I know they have 6 or 8. If they have 6, then I have 12 or 14. If they have 8, then I have 10 or 12.

                   |   Me         Them       ||  Them         Me         |  Them         Me         |
        </comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>--
        I have     |   12       6  ..  8     ||   6       12  ..  14     |   8       10  ..  12     |
        They have  |  6, 8    12 14..10 12   || 12,14    6  8 .. 4  6    | 10,12    8 10 .. 6  8    |

The first column is what I see and what I know about my friend. The 2nd and 3rd columns are what this table looks like to my friend.

\</comment><comment>-----

My friend has 6 or 8.

4 is the first number to appear on the table so start on day 4.

Day 4: If my friend has 6, he thinks I have 12 or 14. If I have 14, then I would have notified the caretaker today because now 14 + 6 = 20. Now he knows I don't have 14. As a result, if he has 6 then he knows I have 12 and should tell the caretaker that the total number is 18.

                   |   Me         Them       ||  Them         Me         |  Them         Me         |
        </comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>--
        I have     |   12       6  ..  8     ||   6       12  ..         |   8       10  ..  12     |
        They have  |  6, 8    12   ..10 12   || 12       6  8 ..         | 10,12    8 10 .. 6  8    |

Day 5: I don't have 14, and now my friend knows that. If he has 6, he should now have alerted the caretaker the number is 18. He did not. This means he does not 6.

                   |   Me         Them       ||  Them         Me         |  Them         Me         |
        </comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>--
        I have     |   12          ..  8     ||                          |   8       10  ..  12     |
        They have  |     8         ..10 12   ||                          | 10,12    8 10 .. 6  8    |

So Day 5 I know I have 12 and he has 8.

</comment><comment><USER24> Sure, the given solution is nice. But the absolutely critical thing is that both people would think of it, eventually, which I doubt. The given solution seems to confuse quite a bit of people.

Are there other solutions?

The first "solution" I thought of was the first friend just using their "pass" as a simple signal of how many statues they have. This has the benefit of being very simple and more likely for someone to think of it themselves. Sadly it does not work because there's no way for them to signal the "end" of when to stop counting.

<comment><USER25> I thought about that too, if he passes 6 times (and I've passed 6 times) I know that he has at least 6 (and he knows I have 10 or 12), so I pass a 7th time, and he passes a 7th time too. So now I know he can't have 6 therefore he has 8.

This, however isn't the quickest way so it would probably fail if your partner is optimizing.

<comment><USER24> Hmm. I was pretty convinced that my method would work, then I got convinced it couldn't work, now I'm confused again.

A few notes: You can see 12, your friend can see 8. So your friend knows you have either 12 or 10. You know your friend has either 8 or 6.

Step 1: you pass, friend knows you have >=1. Friend passes, you know they have >=1.

Step 2: you pass, friend knows you have >=2. Friend passes, you know they have >=2.

[...]

Step 7: you pass, friend knows you have >=7. Friend passes, you know they have >=7; you have 12, so there must be 20, you win.

I'm actually pretty convinced that it would work now... anyone want to poke a hole in it?

<comment><USER26> I thought of something along those lines at first as well. However, the problem is that the answer is not logically deducible using this method as it requires both of you to agree on a counting system and an end condition. And since the puzzle states that the two of you are not able to communicate, this method would not be viable. The given solution allows you to deduce the result with only the information and actions you have readily available to you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Can it still be solved if I generalize the question like this?

      * Same setup: two prisoners A and B overlooking two distinct gardens with a constant nonnegative integer number of statues each.
      * The guard asks A and B each day if there are more than N statues total.
      * They can either guess or pass.
      * Wrong guess is a life sentence for both, game over.
      * Good guess and they are both out instantly.
      * N is a nonnegative integer.
      * N is the same each day.
      * N is the same for both A and B.
      * The question is posed each day to A first.
      * They both know all rules of this game.
      * A and B can't exchange information except indirectly by the fact that the other has passed in his turn and they get the question posed to them again.

So the same except generalizing [18 or 20?] to [more than N, in this case more than 18?].

The solution in the article doesn't seem to require the more specific question and the information derived from it ("the other guy must see either either 20 - X or 18 - X statues"), while this seems to confuse some solutions given here.

The guard asks whether there are at least N statues total. [For any integer N which in the linked case would be 19.]

</comment><comment><USER28> I think I have a solution at day 2.

At the start: A sees 12. A knows B can see 6 or 8. If 6, B knows A sees 12 or 14. If 8, B knows A sees 10 or 12. A knows B knows A sees 10 or 12 or 14.

B sees 8. B knows A can see 10 or 12. B knows if A sees 10, A would know B sees 8 or 10. B knows if A sees 12, A would know B sees 6 or 8. B knows that A knows B sees 6 or 8 or 10.

Day 1:

A passes.

B thinks, since A sees 10 or 12 he knows I see 6 or 8 or 10. If I saw 6, I would think he saw 12 or 14. A knows I see 6 or 8 or 10, so if he actually saw 14 he would know I see 6 and the answer is 20. A just passed, which means A does not see 14. B passes.

Day 2:

A thinks, B sees 6 or 8. If he saw 6 and thought I saw 12 or 14, then when I passed he would know I did not see 14. That would mean if he saw 6, I would have had to see 12 and he would have known the answer was 18. B just passed, which means B does not see 6. That means B sees 8.

The answer is 20.

</comment><comment><USER29> The answer is: 19 + 5 % -2

If he says you got it wrong, the answer is 18, then you tell him that you wrote the answer in python

If he says you got it wrong, the answer is 20, then you tell him you wrote it in javascript

Thanks modulo!

</comment><comment> duke-from-prima Please help understanding the puzzle.

Is it possible we see 18 statues together? (e.g. there is 2 common statues, so I see 10 "own" \+ 2 "common", and friend sees 6 "own" \+ 2 "common"?)

So, would that count as 18 or as 20 anyways?

<comment><USER30> No. There are no common statues.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> How do you know who starts as the "low" counter and who's the "high" counter?

<comment><USER32> You start with 12: you can infer that the most your friend can see is 8. Your friend starts with 8: they can infer that the least you can see is 10.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> I don't really understand the point of this puzzle because if he asks you 18 or 20 each time then you can escape in fewer days than the "correct" solution just by brute forcing the correct answer. There's only a maximum of 4 permutations that you and your friend can come up with.

[edit]

ahhh, I missed the "get it wrong and you die" bit. Thanks for the clarification guys.

<comment><USER27> Guessing wrong gets you locked up forever.

<comment><USER16> Buried. The captor says he is preparing graves.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Answer: 22. You're wrong so he prepares your graves bringing the count to 22.</comment>


NSA Chief: China Behind RSA Attacks - <AUTHOR> http://www.informationweek.com/news/government/security/232700341?cid=RSSfeed_IWK_News <comment><USER2> Imagine how much of a non-problem malicious hacking would be if the government hadn't started persecuting hackers back in the day. Actual secure software techniques would have been developed out of necessity, and at the very least people would take the concept of an 'air gap' seriously (like perhaps not hooking process control equipment up to the Internet!). But once again, their hubris led them to believe that man made "laws" could declare away an undesirable emergent behavior, and society went full speed ahead in deploying highly brittle systems while the threats were reassuringly out of sight.

</comment><comment><USER3> The news here isn't that China has been hacking US companies. The news is that the USA has started calling them out on it. I wonder if this signals a shift in foreign policy?

<comment><USER4> The US has been calling China out on hacking as early as 2008, but insinuating that the Chinese gov't was involved in incidents back to the mid-2000's. 2008 Source: [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jun/12/hacking- on-h...](http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jun/12/hacking-on-hill- traced-to-china/)

I think the _real_ news is that China isn't publicly denying these incidents anymore. Though, it seems like nothing has really changed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I posted the following in another thread the other day, but that thread was deleted. I think it is relevant here:

\</comment><comment>--

I worked for a company that was acquired by Lockheed. I ran IT and had already spent a few years 100% rebuilding the infrastructure of the company when I joined.

As we were assimilated I worked with IS&S and their security teams closely to ensure our security measures were up to snuff with Lockheed's requirements (we built the RFID tracking system the military used for shipping pretty much everything) In our security meetings, we were briefed on activities that were happening, what we needed to do and why.

China was constantly attacking Lockheed and all other defense contractors.

They were pretty sophisticated in how they did it; targetted spear phishing was one of their successes:

Chinese spies would attend defense contractor events - meet and seek out lockheed and other employees. Get their business cards and spoof mail from one employee to the other, referring to events that occured at the convention to get people to click on shit that would be a trojan. These trojans were rather sophisticated in that they would operate very very slowly to trickle pieces of information out. Sometimes they were very specific pieces of information.

I don't recall exactly how this was found out, but someones machine was being checked out - and in the process the trojan was found. When the chinese were alerted to the fact that the trojan had been found, they turned whatever their bot-net was up to 11 and attempted to just mass send out as much data as they could.

(All of lockheed only has (I think) 3 connections to the internet)

They cut it off and had to get rid of these trojans.

Another time, a supplier (I think it was in Taiwan, I cant recall exactly) a supplier was hacked and its machines would install stuff on any USB sticks used.

Lockheed machines were not allowed to connect to non-lockheed networks, via Wifi or any other means. So they would use USB sticks to transfer stuff.

The chinese went after the suppliers machines as a vector to get connected with the lockheed machines. I have mentioned this stuff here on HN before, and in light of China's 50-100 year vision for where they want to be, we are basically fucked. The chinese have been securing access to all major natural resources in Africa, as well as being the manufacturing hub for EVERYTHING - while the US government is squabbling over petty short term profit efforts and securing a diminishing resource (oil).

This is not to say the US is some slouch in the cyber security space; Stuxnet and Doqu are clearly US/Israel cyber attacks that are amazing. But anyone would be a fool to not be very wary of where the online digital war is headed.

<comment><USER6> Do you have any single evidence that it's exactly from China, not just by some Chinese IP address or Chinese texts?

<comment><USER5> Personally, no. This information came to me from head of netsec at lockheed in our meetings. It was conveyed in phone conversation on the netsec con calls.

I take it at face value, though.

<comment><USER6> That's odd, because through the media and Internet forums anywhere I can only see name pointing, not strong evidence.

If you ever have time, trace back all the "China hacking" reports, they all came from non-tech sources, just authoritive accusing. Blame China is obviously the most safe and easy assumption, because Chinese people rarely care or hear foreign voices anyway.

But do you happened to know that Chinese Internet was one of the largest malware & botnet victims in the world? If you subscribe full-disclosure you can see lots of mass security issues happening in China everyday.

<comment><USER7> > That's odd

No, it isn't. The Chinese themselves are documenting the attacks. They made a documentary about it. It was a story here on HN. It's not exactly a secret.

<comment><USER6> I believe you refer to this thread

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2916613>

Yes, it's documented, but it's DoS Falun Gong servers, the same stuff like Anons with LOIC. But stealing IP from company for political or commercial motives? You need much more than DoS.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> In a large portion of these attacks, the attackers are using some form of modified SpyEye/ZeuS botnet source with a pre-loaded 0day (adobe products are the target of choice since they seem to have a vuln discovery a week). Honestly, regardless of how you slice this - with a solid Social-Engineering backend, this is a very difficult problem to deal with/defend against regardless of the securities in place.

However, I will say this: I really do think it's in a company's best interests to dabble in the blackhat security markets a bit as a bystander. You can watch the development of some VERY interesting 0days, botnets, and other such goodies from an in depth perspective. That way, you can protect your mission- critical assets from the latest and greatest vulnerability before it trickles through to vulnerability notifier services.

</comment><comment><USER9> Any idea how frequent the US hacks Chinese corporates?

<comment><USER10> Zero. I've never read allegations to the contrary. Commercial, as opposed to strategic, hacking is both outside the scope of the US govt and of limited value. Everybody (as in the people who count) knows that US corps have the best R&D, so why take the risk to steal something you don't need?

[I should add something about the degree of separation of govt and corps being a factor.]

<comment><USER11> I'll simply say that you have no clue what you're talking about and leave it at that. It's pretty preposterous to assume that because it's not in the US media, it doesn't happen.

If you want a declassified historical account, look back at the US IC programs to furnish sabotaged/backdoored electronics during the later years of the Cold War.

<comment><USER10> Can you provide a link to non-US media?

I am assuming IC == integrated circuit? Was that program targeting the USSR govt or private industry, such as may have existed? Was the backdoor designed to steal state secrets or economic secrets?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Am I correct in thinking this is a weird use of the term "intellectual property"?

<comment><USER13> It's a proper use of "intellectual property", but they're not talking about movies and books.

<comment><USER12> Intellectual property is something whose use is protected by law. (In particular, the fact that you have to break the law to obtain the information does not make it intellectual property.) These are just secrets, right?

<comment><USER14> Most things stolen in industrial espionage are either copyrighted or trade secrets, both of which fit within a formal definition of intellectual property.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Makes you wonder if/what extras all those iPhones are now packing.

</comment><comment><USER16> Isn't stealing information and eavesdropping on communications _exactly_ what the NSA does?

<comment><USER7> Exactly. Placing them in a fine position to determine who's doing it to us.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> all the quotes are out of context in that article.

i doubt they said anything to that effect.

My bet, if I could see the talk somewhere, is that he referred to the attacker as something generic (not "china") and then on another point talked about China's trouble with intellectual property as when they sell counterfeited cisco gear or use code from one US company manufacturing there on a huwaei product, etc.

and the journalist just cut, mixed, and published the bomb about china being the attackers.

of course the article may only have the worst quote choices and that's exactly what he said.</comment>


H.R. 4646 Debt Free America Act - <AUTHOR> http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-4646&tab=summary

<comment><USER2> I always wonder if bills like this one which radically alter the structure of our government are proposed in seriousness or merely as a distraction to please certain voters.

Obviously, adding a 1% tax on all financial transactions, as this bill proposes, would drastically change how our economy operates. Keeping the markets efficient and accurately priced becomes much more difficult when any trade comes with a 1% cost. Especially when the 1% is imposed whether it results in a profit or a loss. From what I see in this bill, even selling one stock to purchase another would incur a 1% fee on the first sale and a 1% fee on the purchase of the second stock.

1% may not sound like much, but as money continues to change hands the government's take grows significantly. Let $100 change hands 10 times, and you're left with $90.44 of the original money. Let $100 change hands 100 times and you're down to $36.60.

Of course this scheme would transfer money to the government to pay down our debt (in theory, if the money is used as the bill intends), but at what cost? This additional financial friction could seriously slow down the economy and disrupt efficient market pricing. Finding the proper balance of taxes, debt, and economy growth is a very, very difficult problem, and this solution is not well thought out at all. Furthermore, eliminating our national debt is not going to solve all of our problems, as many would like us to believe.

Throwing ridiculous bills like this in the mix only serves to muddy the waters. It distract us from the real problems and the potentially viable solutions. Let's make small, incremental changes within our current tax structure to fix our problems in a reasonable manner.

<comment><USER3> Forget about friction: how much money would this really bring in? Some time ago I read that Switzerland instituted a stock market transaction tax ... and their market quickly lost a very large fraction of its business. US based multi-nationals would e.g. follow all those oil services companies that have moved their headquarters outside of the country (curiously, to Switzerland (and note that this happened before the BP spill)).

Obviously there would be a mass exodus out of instruments that are taxed in this way. People and companies would game the system like mad, descend upon D.C. for exceptions for their "critical" industries, etc. etc.

And destroying or chasing out of the country a large fraction of the US financial sector---which all too many people unwisely desire---could easily result in a net loss to the government, especially when you count secondary effects like a decreased ability to raise capital and vastly less efficient capital markets.

My favorite not so quick fix is the government selling off a very large fraction of the land it owns. What's the compelling reason for it owning this much of these top ten states I just randomly found on the net:

       1. Nevada        84.5%
       2. Alaska        69.1%
       3. Utah          57.4%
       4. Oregon        53.1%
       5. Idaho         50.2%
       6. Arizona       48.1%
       7. California    45.3%
       8. Wyoming       42.3%
       9. New Mexico    41.8%
      10. Colorado      36.6%

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> "This is an idea originally floated in 2004 by a single member of Congress, Democratic Rep. Chaka Fattah of Pennsylvania. So far it has attracted little support and gone nowhere. The White House has not endorsed it."

<http://factcheck.org/2010/09/1-transaction-tax/>

<comment><USER5> I should hope that we're not all waiting with bated breath for the White House to endorse every bill that substantially alters the structure of government.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This would be like cutting out a cancer that, while killing you eventually, is presently keeping you alive.

Anyone who thinks that eliminating the national debt will fix our financial woes does not understand how our current debt-based economy, built around a central bank, works. If the national debt were retired in this way, our financial problems would become much worse than they already are.

<comment><USER7> How so?

<comment><USER6> This is Keynesian economics 101. I will not attempt to pass judgment on the wisdom of this system, but it is what it is.

In our current system, and that of almost every national economy in the world, debt = cash. That is is a vast simplification, but it boils down to this: The dollars which circulate in the economy (whether paper or electronic) are dollars which are created by various types of bank loans, treasury instruments, etc. When these obligations + interest are repaid, money is taken out of the economy that was previously in circulation. If the entire national debt were somehow repaid, then trillions of dollars will be removed from circulation. If all personal, corporate, and national debt were paid off, we would have no currency left. In fact, because principal on debt is created by said debt, but interest is not so created, it is not even possible to pay off all the debt. There is literally not enough cash in existence to do it.

This is why it is truly a crisis when the lines of credit get "clogged up", as in the present crisis. If the loans don't start flowing again, we are looking at deflation. One can argue whether deflation is good or bad, of course. As I said, it is what it is.

<comment><AUTHOR> _If the loans don't start flowing again, we are looking at deflation._

But, if the dollar tanks in worth, couldn't that cause inflation? The cost of most of our goods and services in the U.S. are based on goods and services overseas which would go up if the dollar devalued by 20% as some say it might.

<comment><USER6> There are really two kinds of deflation. Servicing a debt and paying off a debt. Paying off a debt early causes LESS money to be sucked out of the economy in the form of interest, and increases the intrinsic value of one's financial assets. This increases the value of the dollar both by decreasing its supply, and increasing its perceived value internationally. In this scenario, bank loans are continuing to be made because the financial health of the nation, in general, is good.

However, deflation can also be caused servicing loans when no further loans are being made. Interest is sucking cash out of the economy, and loans are not being made to replace it. Because much of our productivity is based upon the ability to acquire easy credit, such deflation causes a halt to productivity, which leads to a further inability to service existing loans. Default follows, with the flotsam of toxic assets in its wake. Very bad news.

In a central bank system, both forms of deflation inevitably lead to inflation. The hope of central bankers is to control the currency supply such that just enough cash is added in the form of loans to keep the system solvent. However, central planning of an economy never works, and thus we come to the latter form of inflation, which is what we were experiencing just before the bundle of bailouts from the lest several years.

In the latter form of deflation, not only is the dollar perceived as worthless, but it is further devalued by the reactionary inflation which is invariably used to "solve" the crisis. So as you can see, inevitably it is inflation that causes the cost of overseas goods and services to increase.

You have to consider why exactly it is that the cost of goods and services overseas would normally be going up:

China is holding has bought vast sums of US Dollars in order to keep their currency low in relation to the dollar. By buying lots of dollars, China exchanges dollars for Yuan. Yuans flood the market, but China locks up the dollars in the bank. Yuans are inflated. The Dollar is deflated. The Dollars still exist - but they are not in circulation. If China were to liquidate their reserves of US Dollars, this would result in massive inflation. But China can only keep this up for so long. If we flood the market with dollars faster than China can buy them relative to its own currency, this strategy will fail, and eventually China will be forced to liquidate its dollar reserves. This will have the effect of driving the price of the Yuan up, and the Dollar further down.

<comment><AUTHOR> The last part looks a little scary: "If we flood the market with dollars faster than China can buy them relative to its own currency, this strategy will fail, and eventually China will be forced to liquidate its dollar reserves. This will have the effect of driving the price of the Yuan up, and the Dollar further down."

The problem I see with this is that when the U.S. pumps more money into circulation by buying up U.S. treasury bonds, etc., it further devalues the dollar. The Chinese (and Russia, India, etc.) know this well, and are perfectly happy with this. They'll continue to watch us devalue the dollar. Later, if we try to pull anything, they'll use the money they've amassed to buy up an overwhelming military force. But obviously, they'd rather own us than fight us. Not that they are set on world domination, but when the idiot on the block keeps lowering the cost of his mansion, and you'd like to have that mansion, you'd be stupid not to let him lower the cost until you can buy it for 20% off (or more).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Is this a correct summary?

A national sales tax of 1%, no income tax, and 7 years to pay the debt?

<comment><USER9> My understanding is that this is far more than just a sales tax: it is a 1% tax on ALL financial transactions. Other proposed sales taxes to replace the income tax, such as the fair tax, generally only apply to retail sales of new consumer goods. This would go way beyond that.

Write a check to your nephew for his birthday? 1% tax.

Buy something used on eBay and pay for it on paypal? 1% tax.

Support a project on Kickstarter? 1% tax.

Get paid by your employer? They pay a 1% tax.

Sell some shares of stock A in order to buy stock B? 1% tax on the sale and another 1% tax on the purchase. This one is HUGE: consider how many such transactions occur on Wall Street each day. Such a tax alone could quite likely destroy the high-speed trading industry. I'll let smarter people decide whether that's good or bad.

Also consider that all of these cascade. For example: you buy a table and pay a 1% transaction fee. The store paid a 1% transaction fee when they bought the table from the manufacturer, a 1% transaction fee on the shippers who brought it to the store, and a 1% transaction fee on their rent, utilities, and other overhead. The manufacturer paid a 1% transaction fee on their raw materials, 1% to have those materials shipped, etc. I would imagine that this would strongly encourage vertical consolidation in order to avoid these intermediate transaction fees. Again, I'll let the economists figure out how good/bad that is.

<comment><USER10> Take the words "high-speed" out of that sentence and it will probably be more accurate.</comment></comment></comment>


We need "Crowd-Investing" kick-starter - <AUTHOR> http://manurevah.com/blah/en/blog/My-IMHO-on-Kickstarter

<comment><USER2> I think the author doesn't understand the complexity of a "Crowd-investing" scheme. It used to exist in America and many large and well know companies were built by the millions of pennies from the masses, but many more were failures. Enter the SEC.

Kick-starter ventures set reasonable expectations and reasonable risks which are palatable to average Joe.

Promising a dev-kit is reasonable in exchange for a small fee. Where as giving a guy, a complicated financial prospectus and a stack of disclosures is not.

We all buy over-priced products that turn out to be crap and are wiser for it.

The program is not broken it genius, small "contributors" making the world better by "purchasing" products from startups.</comment>


Show HN: Next-Gen Community Discussion Forum Using Reputation System Algorithms - <AUTHOR> http://www.thecaucus.net/#/about <comment><USER2> From Hello-World to Web-Launch in 2 Years

[http://www.thecaucus.net/#/content/caucus/tech_blog/107](http://www.thecaucus.net/#/content/caucus/tech_blog/107)

"Promoting/sponsoring is a great way for you to thank the content creators who have made this content possible, and to boost the visibility of inspiring discussions or comments.

Promoting costs US$1, and gives the promoted post a score-boost, thus allowing it to be seen by more people. Promoting can also be free! Everyone receives 1 promote-token every week, which allows you to promote 1 post every week for free.

Sponsoring costs US$4, of which US$3 will be sent to the poster, as a tip for their efforts. It also gives the post an even more significant score-boost, ensuring that it's seen by even more people.

To promote a post, simply click on the up-arrow for any discussion/comment, which you have already up-voted. To sponsor a post, simply click on the up- arrow again, one more time. You can also read here more details about how and why we have this system.

To make your user-experience as smooth as possible, your account will be debited as soon as you click on the promote/sponsor buttons, with no further confirmation prompts. If something has gone horribly wrong and your cat has jumped on your keyboard, just contact us and we will make things right!"

<comment><AUTHOR> Glad you liked it!

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> For anyone who's interested in Software-Engineering-Discussions, I even created [this community]([http://www.thecaucus.net/#/content/software/heap_sort](http://www.thecaucus.net/#/content/software/heap_sort)) specifically for you guys. Hope you like it!</comment>


The New York City of 2080 Will Be as Hot as Arkansas - <AUTHOR> https://www.citylab.com/environment/2019/02/climate-twin-cities-east-coast-arkansas/582637/ <comment><USER2> Canada, specifically British Columbia is looking like the next California for prime farming conditions. We need to be just a bit warmer and tiny bit longer for having long enough summers to have 2 full growing cycles. However I would like anything to reverse global warming.</comment>


The Great Slump of 1930, by John Maynard Keynes - <AUTHOR> http://www.gutenberg.ca/ebooks/keynes-slump/keynes-slump-00-h.html <comment><USER2> Two aspects of this essay by Keynes seem highly relevant today.

I. Keynes stressed the threat which the slump posed to 'the social stability of every country alike'.

'… a series of bankruptcies, defaults, and repudiations which would shake the capitalist order to its foundations … would be a fertile soil for agitation, seditions, and revolution. It is so already in many quarters of the world.'

The only place where I know this aspect of this essay of Keynes and his other writings has been discussed is in Donald Markwell's book called 'Economic Paths to War and Peace - John Maynard Keynes and International Relations' (around pages 172-173).

II. Keynes ended by stressing the necessity of the monetary authorities of the big economic powers acting together.

'…nor can any one central bank do enough acting in isolation. … the most effectibe remedy would be that the central banks of these three great creditor nations [the United States, France, and England] should join together in a bold scheme to restore confidence to the international long-term loan market; which would serve to revive enterprise and activity everywhere, and to restore prices and profits, so that in due course the wheels of the world's commerce would go round again.'

As Markwell's book also shows, this necessity of international economic action is one of the key lessons from Keynes's thinking, at least from the aftermath of the First World War on.

Does anybody else think these two points from Keynes are of the utmost importance to our current global meltdown?</comment>


Free, open source mail server solution for your favorite Linux/BSD. - <AUTHOR> http://www.iredmail.org/

<comment><USER2> This looks pretty "complete."

If all I want to do is send password reset links to addresses from my database, what's a better minimal/simple solution? Maybe use the smtp server of some account that you have at gmail or fastmail or similar?</comment>


IBM's Watson Now A Customer Service Agent, Coming To Smartphones Soon - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/sites/bruceupbin/2013/05/21/ibms-watson-now-a-customer-service-agent-coming-to-smartphones-soon/ <comment><USER2> While this will be a boon for consumers(24 hour, mostly-competent service in English), I feel bad for the coming wave of knowledge workers who will be eschewed in favor of technology like this, much like the factory workers who lost their jobs in the 90s and 2000s to either outsourcing or automation. Unfortunately for these workers, there will be next to no recourse like the somewhat limited recourse for manufacturing employees like there is today, in fields like design, automation, robotics and advanced manufacturing in general.

<comment><USER3> Knee jerk "oh no, what will the workers do?!" reactions are understandable, but in the long term society is best served by leveraging technology to get the most services for as cheaply as possible.

If this was not true, we should ditch tractors/harvesters and have everyone go back to toiling in the field all day. That'll provide tons of jobs.

Yes, in the short-term one sector "loses" jobs, but it means a service is provided more cheaply, so consumers have more money to spend elsewhere, and the jobs just move around. Society gets a net win on total output.

See Economics in One Lesson for a better/more detailed explanation.

<comment><USER4> I see such claims made, but I don't often see them backed up by a corresponding argument.

For a _portion_ of society (restricting scope to the U.S.), things have gotten better. For another, very significant portion of society, they have not.

For society overall...? Well, the freedom I had as a child to play outside unsupervised is largely gone. Education is increasingly again a crapshoot of which school you get to / are forced to attend and in that vein and from an economical perspective, who your parents are.

Police are increasingly viewed as "the opposition" and "their own team".

A _lot_ of people wonder how the hell they're ever going to retire.

A lot of sick people are simply staying sick.

So, "efficiency" is "improving" society? For whom? And if that benefit is not being spread around to some degree, are you simply going to build walls to keep the misery out of your community? Or are you actually going to consent to live within its midst?

I favor helping the people around me and throughout this country (living in the U.S., that is of particular although not exclusive interest to me) because I want to be able to enjoy the community and the country I live in. To enjoy walking down the street, and to not have to worry overly whether or not I should or can safely talk to this person or that.

"Efficiency" on its own is not enough. "Trickle down", also in this regard, does not appear to be an assured method of distributing the positive results.

I'll add that people have a finite work lifespan and finite opportunity to accrue assets including and particularly through investment returns.

"Temporary" displacements can disrupt individual lives to an extent where they never recover. And this is happening to _many_ people, families, and communities, these days.

Also, building into new roles often requires considerable assets including but not only available time.

I think some -- many -- of the people making simplistic arguments that "the workforce will adjust" -- and thereupon simply washing their hands of the matter -- have never had to dig themselves out of a significantly deep and challenging hole.

Even personal illness and injury may not compare, when one has considerable resources and support at their disposal. Poverty is not an individual, often limited term challenge to overcome. It is a relentless, draining trap that can create a desert of resources.

Some people do overcome it. But I don't think that's an excuse to just toss them into it, assuming that they'll somehow come out all right on the other end.

\--

P.S. I'll add that I did not vote the parent down. Rather, I think this is a conversation we need to and are going to have to have. The alternative as I see it is violence and oppression -- things I would rather avoid.

Also, I do _not_ begrudge the "rest of the world" a rising standard of living. But I do oppose the hollowing out of our own society that current policies and practices have promoted. (And, per some arguments, perhaps also limitations on those other societies. Distortions including political and socio-economic. Brain drain. Etc.)

As members of a society, I think we have responsibility for that society as a whole. And we've been shirking our duty.

In my case, I also find that is to my -- and, I think, our mutual -- detriment.

<comment><USER3> Well, your reply echos a lot of Occupy sentiment, but I'll side step that, and just say:

> I think some -- many -- of the people making simplistic arguments that "the > workforce will adjust" -- and thereupon simply washing their hands of the > matter

1) Saying we shouldn't actively avoid technology improvements (which was my point, because it really does pay off in the long run), doesn't mean we can't help those adversely affected in the short run--it just means we should help them directly, vs. trying to indirectly "help" them, and hurt the majority of us, by ignoring technological progress (which is what politicians/commentators, like the comment I was replying to, frequently propose).

2) I believe we (society/tax payers) already do this, what with unemployment/etc. I'm not going to assert it's all roses and puppies, but it's much more than displaced workers would have traditionally got.

<comment><USER4> Ok, looking at my condensed reply in lieu of working further on my initial draft, I see that I'm still not making a good, coherent argument, myself.

So, I'll revise by thanking you for your reply and saying that I do take your points.

I'm not in favor of avoiding technological development. I do tend to disapprove of large controlling interests that work to inhibit or control its deployment to their exclusive benefit. I think part of the problem in the U.S. is that such activity aided in the disenfranchisement of many who are now struggling here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Poor Watson, fame really must have taken its toll. From Jeopardy winner to Help Desk agent, I can only assume a life of drugs and alcohol led to this.

<comment><USER6> Heh well, small beginnings lead to replacing staff lawyers and some doctor functions. Dr Watson, Esquire

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Big Mistake!

After a couple of weeks at the Helldesk he will inevitably turn against humanity!

Judgement Day is near!

</comment><comment><USER8> This article reminded my of the game Singularity (<http://www.emhsoft.com/singularity/>). We are in the menial tasks stage of the game.

</comment><comment><USER9> Does anyone has a video or a link showing in details the work of watson in medical diagnostic ? I've always read about that kind of stuff happening, but never a real case study or anything concrete (such as : doctor thought it could be that type of cancer, but watson thought of something else because of this and this...)

</comment><comment><USER10> Watson seemed so impressive on Jeopardy. I don't understand why they work on making it into a general search engine. It would be much better than google.

Or even a restricted search engine that can read all of the papers on a given topic and then answer questions from those papers.

<comment><USER11> My guess: Watson doesn't scale. The required resources to answer a given question is reasonable for a "question-every-minute" format like Jeopardy, but not something like thousands of questions a second.

<comment><USER12> It runs on a 20-80 teraflop computer and is not amendable to GPGPU acceleration. Perhaps that's why it doesn't scale.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I don't think it will work. Watson roughly works this way (of course it's much more sophisticated than that):

1- Identify the type of entity of the answer (does the question start with "who" ? or "when" ? etc.

2- Gather as many facts and blobs related to the question from Wikipedia, etc.

3- Intersect these facts with the entity type, and answer.

I don't believe you can provide useful customer service with that. 90% of the times, customers complain about something wrong with their account, like Paypal holding a payment. They don't need or expect fact-based answers like the ones Watson knows how to answer.

<comment><USER14> Watson doesn't deal in "blobs" of information. It has a semantic structure that holds all its data. When you ask for a piece of data, it understands the context of your question and the connections among all the parts of your query.

<comment><USER13> So, do you think it will help Watson be a good customer service agent ?

PS. Each time I read that a computer "understands" human language, I have a good laugh.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> On a side note: the question they feature in the article, holy crap is tuition getting beyond ridiculous in the US. I thought Canada was getting more than high enough</comment>


Calif borrows $40M a day to pay unemployment - <AUTHOR> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/11/07/state/n100503S24.DTL

<comment><USER2> guess who shoulda legalized it..</comment>


Style Guide For Online Hypertext by Tim Berners-Lee - <AUTHOR> http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/All.html

<comment><AUTHOR> There's two items that should be followed much more often:

Always use heading levels in order, with one heading level 1 at the top of the document, and if necessary several level 2 headings, and then if necessary several level 3 headings under each level 2 heading. If you don't like the way heading level 2 is formatted, fix it on your client, don't just skip to heading level 3. -- <http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/All.html>

Don't refer in your text to facets of particular browsers. Asking someone to "click here" won't make sense without a mouse, just as asking someone to "select a link by number" will betray the fact that you were using the line mode browser. Just leave a link. The instructions get boring as the user will normally know how to select a link. -- <http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/All.html></comment>


Are you building an empire, sparking a powder keg, or starting a movement? - <AUTHOR> http://www.gabrielweinberg.com/blog/2010/02/are-you-building-an-empire-sparking-a-powder-keg-or-starting-a-movement.html <comment><USER2> How does an empire conquer that first city? Do they too start as movements until they've dominated one area?

<comment><USER3> Try not to stretch the metaphor like a thong on a hippopotamus.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Most certainly a movement this time around. And it is such a relief. I've tried building empire before and I've had quite a few powder kegs. I mistakenly assumed that one could build an empire by triggering a series of powder kegs. The failure to ignite overnight was a major demotivator. It wasn't that the product was wrong, it's that my expectations were wrong.

My current project has already been enough of a struggle that I don't expect any amount of overnight success. Also it's in such a niche market that I don't expect it to go viral. This leaves the good old method of selling one widget to one customer at a time. If I don't sell anything today, it's a bad day. But if I sell two tomorrow, I can make up for today. Lack of exponential growth is no longer a concern and that is a significant amount of relief to me.

</comment><comment><USER5> Or are you building a simple, well-designed product that has some excited customers ready to pay you money for said product? Do people always forget how viable this avenue is?

</comment><comment><USER6> Previous submition: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1145218>

</comment><comment><USER7> I prefer jwz's approach: "Are you going to help people get laid or get paid?" If neither, don't do it.

</comment><comment><USER8> I love vivid metaphors as much as the next girl, but I can't stand false dichotomies.

Nowhere in this (vivid and useful) empire/keg/movement theory is there room for scrappy businesses that start small, profit, and grow large.

You know - the type of business that "business" used to mean.

Almost without exception, businesses that are "empires" today had humble beginnings. They started with one product, or a handful, or a single location, and profited, and invested, and branched out, and grew. From IBM to McDonald's, from Trader Joe's to Apple Computer, Inc.

Amazon is a rare bird.

And as I teach my students: if you want to be rich, don't try to learn from lottery winners, or people who were born into wealth, or people who happened to be "discovered" or make the exact right connection at the exact right time. Study people who were in similar circumstances as you are now, and figure out how THEY made it happen.

Amazon is not a posterchild for a model. They are a posterchild for overcoming a model.

</comment><comment><USER9> A point about vitamins vs painkillers. It's kind of ironic that we use this analogy because vitamins actually help prevent disease (well, some), while painkillers are just treating the symptom and not the root cause.</comment>


Sbt-shackle: generate scala bindings to C libraries using project panama - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/markehammons/sbt-shackle <comment><AUTHOR> This sbt plugin makes use of openJDK's project panama's jextract tool and foreign api to generate scala friendly bindings to C libraries. This is my first prototype, a test version that is able to bind to wlroots for my skylight project. I plan on making a library to simplify usage of the foreign API in panama and adding dotty specific features to the scala bindings to try to make scala <-> C interop as painless as possible.</comment>


Need advice on business relationship - <AUTHOR>

Here is the background. I have been working with a friend on a web based service for a little over a year now. He basically had a generic idea one night at the bar and over the course of the past year I have hashed out the business model and coded the application. We discussed eventual ownership and had agreed on the terms before we started. I have just learned, however, that he has incorporated the business as an LLC in his name only. After reading the business charter and other information regarding incorporation of a business, it seems that he "owns" the voting shares of the company and is planning on delegating voting or non-voting shares to me. From what I understand, it would have been more appropriate to be listed as a contributing member in the LLC charter. I was hoping someone in the community might have experience in this process. I am considering voicing my concern about this series of events but I would like to be better informed before that happens. <comment><USER2> If I were you, I'd take this as a very strong warning sign that maybe this isn't the person you want to go into business with.

However, you may have an exit. What makes the company his company? Just having a registered company doesn't automatically give him control of the code and business. Who registered the URL (assuming you have one) who's been paying for the server? Are there any other direct connections you have to the business?

Did you get anything in writting about the terms you had agreed to?

Have you approached your friend about your concerns? Before flying off the handle, make sure that he truly is trying to change the terms. Hopefully it is all just a misunderstanding, but be aware that from here on, you'll likely have to protect yourself.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the info. The code is currently hosted on my server so I have that going for me. There is currently nothing in writing which has lead to the predicament I am currently in. I am hoping that he is open to negotiation because, as far as I see it, it would be more detrimental for him to lose the business knowledge that I have gained from coding the app. Unfortunately, it looks like the only way that I am truly going to be safe is obtain an attorney which I was hoping to avoid. Thanks again for the reply.</comment></comment>


The High Court rules that Parliament must vote to trigger the Brexit process - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21709589-high-court-rules-parliament-must-vote-trigger-brexit-process-taking-back-control <comment><USER2> As a non-Brit, it seems to me that it's high time for Queen Elizabeth to ride in on a white horse and start swinging a sword around the halls of her corrupt government.

<comment><AUTHOR> As citizen of another EU country it would be embarrassing and dangerous to have politicians that would not carry on the will of their people so in plain sight. It could prompt my ones to do the same. At least now they do their best to convince us they are doing what we voted them to do.</comment></comment>


(Dr. Gordon) Freeman's Mind 32 - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gv1EPEK2k-0

<comment><USER2> It's been four months since the last one. Does anyone know if it will be regular again.</comment>


Apple's Pricing Decoys - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/sep2010/tc2010091_060916.htm <comment><USER2> There's so much wrong with this statement I don't even know where to start: "By staging a series of perceived technology innovations and then adding price decoys, reference prices, obscurity, and bundling, Apple makes us willing to pay more to do the same stuff we did 30 years ago."

Really Ben Kunz? In 1980 I could have a live video chat with my mother? Make movies with a device that fits in my pocket? Access sample chapters to thousands of newly published books without leaving my home? Yeah, I didn't think so. But I suppose he thinks I've been duped just like all the other sheeple out there...

</comment><comment><USER3> He talks about the iPhone as though it costs $199 and doesn't have a service contract associated with it. Of course, the real cost is more like $599+. Makes for a bad comparison, and kind of defeats his argument.

<comment><USER4> Apple spells the iPhone outright in Australia (and other markets). It's $859AUD for the 16GB which is about $780USD.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> _"The popular iPod Touch media player has been revamped at three price points, $229, $299, and $399—all costing more than the iPhone, which does everything the Touch can plus make phone calls. What gives?"_

What gives is that some people, parents with kids being the prime category, want to buy an iPhone for their kids without the phone calling and the $2400 2-year commitment. Was that really that hard to figure out?</comment>


Hostile TX Bathroom Bill Forces Tech Conference Organizers to Look Beyond Austin - <AUTHOR> https://thenewstack.io/new-texas-bathroom-bill-tech-promising-exit/ <comment></comment>


I Am Alex St. John's Daughter, and He Is Wrong About Women in Tech - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@milistjohn/i-am-alex-st-john-s-daughter-and-he-is-wrong-about-women-in-tech-4728545e7c0e#.miz0024yn <comment><USER2> This whole saga has been uncomfortable from the beginning--and now I'm cringing harder ever than ever. Not because I disagree with much of what Amilia has written, but just because it's painful to be, in some way, a witness to the rift that this piece makes evident.

In any case, Amilia is right to highlight this quote:

> Why do young white males tend to be the ones who pick up computers, teach > themselves to code, start businesses in their basements with their friends > and get rich? It's an obvious opportunity to everybody isn't it? If you are > a different race, gender, or religion… what's your excuse? I know of very > very few successful bootstrapped tech companies founded by women or blacks.

This, folks, is a racial (and gender) pathology claim. Unless we interpret Alex as inquiring about the social circumstances that prevent women and 'blacks' from seizing these 'opportunities' (and I don't see how that's a plausible interpretation here), then what Alex is suggesting is that there is something wrong with women and black people, a physiological symptom of their gender or race, that prevents them from seeing or taking these opportunities when presented with them. I find that, if you pay attention, you also see this way of thinking at work behind the scenes in more reasonable-sounding claims about racial and gender politics. Sometimes its overt, but more often its buried in points about, e.g., the corroded norms of "black communities."

<comment><USER3> >Why do young white males tend to be the ones who pick up computers, teach themselves to code, start businesses in their basements with their friends and get rich? It's an obvious opportunity to everybody isn't it? If you are a different race, gender, or religion… what's your excuse? I know of very very few successful bootstrapped tech companies founded by women or blacks.

I've always wondered if the answer to this was due to the culture and class demographics. The Current crop of tech leaders came from the era where middle class boys were bought computers by their parents as it was seen as a thing for boys to be into and not girls (I think this stereotype is still prevalent but far less powerful now). Computers just were not affordable to working class folks back then. Considering the poverty most minorities families faced then and still do now, it's sadly the case that they couldn't afford computers.

I expect (and hope) that in the next 10 years we'll see the distribution of tech leaders become naturally more diverse. Not because of any activist drive but simply because these kids are much more likely to have access to the tools they were denied in the past.

<comment><USER4> > _I 've always wondered if the answer to this was due to the culture and > class demographics._

You could probably make a well supported case for why this is true for minorities, but what makes the entire hypothesis shaky is if it was a cultural and class issue, what does that say about middle/upper class white women?

Now let's assume that these women were discriminated/discouraged out of tech. How are we sure that in 10 years those same forces won't do the same to minorities?

I don't have a solution, but I don't think the computer penetration problem sufficiently answers the question.

<comment><USER5> Perhaps gaming has something to do with this? Leaving aside whether there is something 'male' about gaming and the specific games that are most common, I recall that in my youth gaming was a 'guy thing'. I can imagine that frequently interacting with a computer in the form of gaming easily leads to becoming a programmer or tech worker.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Here's what she's rebelling against: [http://www.alexstjohn.com/WP/download/Recruiting%20Giants.pd...](http://www.alexstjohn.com/WP/download/Recruiting%20Giants.pdf)

        RULE 1:  You don't recruit and retain male engineers
        you recruit and retain Wives and Girlfriends

        *   If the wife or GF is unhappy the engineer is gone
        *   If the relationship breaks down the engineer is gone
        *   The paycheck goes to HER
        *   Why does SHE want her husband or BF to work for you?

<comment><USER7> Is this one of those true things we all agree not to talk about? Because I sure don't see anything wrong with it: if a guy's wife is unhappy with his job, then he'll get a new one.

<comment><USER8> The problem here is not that an unhappy spouse will cause the employee to leave, but rather that the author makes the assumption that the employee will be male, and that the male will have a female SO.

<comment><USER6> EXACTLY. So many people on this thread have not even noticed that women are not considered as candidates!

<comment><USER9> Because it says explicitly:

> RULE 1: You don't recruit and retain _male_ engineers you recruit and retain > Wives and Girlfriends"

Reading is fundamental

<comment><USER10> The implication being that you don't recruit or retain female engineers at all.

<comment><USER11> No the implication is that that's not how you manage female engineers, it's just how you manage male engineers.

He says later that female engineers will go get promoted into non-engineering roles soon enough anyway. The implication there is you don't need to worry about retaining them as engineers as they won't stay that way.

BTW this isn't an endorsement of either his views or his approach. I mean the general thrust of the presentation could be renamed "ways to stiff your staff".

There are bits of it that ring true e.g. the different motivations between newbies, lifers and the rest. The majority though is clearly intended to be provocative.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I guess I haven't been paying attention to the latest from a man who would give toddlers a run for their money in the tantrum department (well, other than telling Wild Tangent to leave me alone). Why he's getting the time of day, I have no idea. Sure, he did something something DirectX twenty years ago at Microsoft, but if he's done anything of note since other than run his mouth, I must have missed it.

If anything he has to say upsets you, ask yourself "why?" Because he's a brilliant game dev ala Carmack? Because everyone wants to work for Wild Tangent? Because of those lovely AAA titles Wild Tangent cranks out one after another? The answer to all is "no". So why do you care? Hell, his own offspring doesn't want anything to do with him. You can't stop VentureBeat and TechCrunch from writing it, but you don't have to read it.

<comment><USER13> He's a particularly bad exponent of what people feel are actually very widely held ideas in the tech community (ie: young > old, work long hours don't complain, etc).

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> > Dad, if you use my face in an offensive slideshow again I beg you to please > at least throw me a bone and put in a more flattering picture. As a self > absorbed millennial I have provided the internet with a profusion of selfies > in a rainbow of sepia tones. Please choose any of those.

He picked an unflattering photo of his daughter and used it as a visual example of a "woman in tech" without her permission? What on earth?

</comment><comment><USER15> > Worst of all, many women enter into CS majors only to find that they are > already hopelessly behind as they discover that their male counterparts > already know the material from tinkering in their childhoods.

My college experience was quite different. I never tinkered with computers or electronics during my childhood, and I had no problems getting up to speed. In fact, I'd say most of my peers at the community college I went to had zero programming experience. The instructors didn't assume any prior knowledge, either.

<comment><USER16> She didn't say "all women", she said "many women." I attend the University of Texas at Austin. I started out as a CS major, still am, but no longer want to work in the field. One of the reasons was the fact that although I'd taken AP CS courses in high school, I still felt looked down upon because I'd first been exposed to and developed an interest in CS "late". This attitude came from my peers, the companies that attended our career fairs, and even from my first exposure to the online tech press/blogosphere- I remember reading an essay by Paul Graham wherein he essentially implied that if a woman hasn't started coding by 13 all hope is lost for her. The only people I didn't get that impression from were (most of) my instructors, but that wasn't really enough, especially in the 500+ person intro classes I was in at the time.

Incidentally, like many women in CS, I was encouraged to look for role models among other women in my department and in the broader tech world. Dear other technical college women, if you're reading this: Don't. In my personal experience, successful women in the field are much, much more likely to have had parents who were programmers and to have started earlier. All the women who were pointed out to me as role models had this background. It was only when I started looking to the successful men in my program that I started to find people who had first learned to code in their sophomore years and decided to stay. I have my own theories as to why that imbalance exists, but the simple truth is, I could have learned a lot more about how to "catch up" from those men than the women I was pushed towards.

<comment><USER15> > I still felt looked down upon because I'd first been exposed to and > developed an interest in CS "late".

Come on, there are assholes everywhere who use this tactic to make themselves feel superior or to get rid of potential competition, men and women alike. This is not exclusive to CS. A lot of people are worried that they put so much time into something and that someone 'fresh' could make them look bad by picking it up quicker. It makes it that much more satisfying when you beat them.

<comment><USER16> If it was just a small minority of men in my program, I would have agreed with you, but this attitude seemed also prevalent- and I could be wrong about this- in companies and the larger tech world.

One thing I noticed in particular, was that a hell of a lot of "diversity initiatives" (stuff like code camps, scholarships to diversity conferences, etc) set up by companies like Square and Google and nonprofits like Grace Hopper gave their opportunities mostly to minorities who were already very successful, with internships in prestigious companies. If even the programs explicitly meant to increase the percentage of women/minorities in the industry go largely to very experienced people, I thought at the time, then there's really no hope for me at that point.

In any case, none of this is what led to me deciding I didn't want a tech career, it was just a contributing factor. I probably could have pushed through it, but I realized I didn't like tech enough to do so- I liked coding well enough, but I didn't like or value the work most tech companies were doing.

<comment><USER17> I have to agree that there are a lot of bad programming jobs out there, but there are some really good ones, too--many times in places that aren't obvious. I'm speaking only from my own experience here, but I'm currently working at a big-name company and they pay well but the work is boring as hell and the culture is not to my liking. I've worked at smaller/no-name companies and had a vastly better experience--more diverse work, more opportunities to develop new skills, and a much friendlier culture as well.

If you have any interest in staying in the field--and I hope you do--don't limit your view of potential jobs to just the high-profile companies. Talk to some of the smaller shops around, you might really like what you find.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The article has a quote from: [http://venturebeat.com/2016/04/16/game- developers-must-avoid...](http://venturebeat.com/2016/04/16/game-developers- must-avoid-the-wage-slave-attitude/)

> " _I can't begin to imagine how sheltered the lives of modern technology > employees must be to think that any amount of hours they spend pushing a > mouse around for a paycheck is really demanding strenuous work_ "

I cannot speak for developers in Silicon Valley or other places, but I suspect the feeling of disgust when hearing such things is similar. The problem is that solving design, engineering, computer science and math problems every day can be stressful and exhausting. Do that for more than 8 hours per day and maybe also multitask between projects everyday, in an environment that has toxic management and it's a recipe for burnout, burnout being that deep sense of tiredness, emptiness and helplessness, being nothing less than depression out of which some people never recover.

Now I'm sure that this is way better than digging for blood diamonds to feed your family, as Mr. Alex St. John is saying. But I can't believe that somebody born into privilege can even think to suggest that such jobs aren't so bad compared to African slavery.

<comment><USER9> If everybody else's lived experience matters, then take into account that this guy grew up in a log cabin in Alaska. I didn't grow up that far off the grid, but doing anything on a computer is a damned sight easier than working all day swinging a chainsaw or turning wrenches on heavy equipment. Pays way better too, and I haven't smashed a finger, lacerated anything, or taken a bath in hydraulic fluid since I became a desk jockey.

<comment><USER19> Perhaps if we were to restrict this discussion to the physical aspects of the job, then yes. That is a very narrow view, however.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I remember interviewing for an engineering gig at WildTangent at a time when my latest gig in the valley paid $120K plus 0.5% of the startup.

WildTangent offered me $35K, less than I had made as a post-doc before leaving for industry.

#$%& you Alex...

<comment><USER21> yeah, i'm searching, digging deep for sympathy for someone naive enough to accept a 35k offer in a 100k+ environment, and i'm failing.

the stress, the hours, the burnout, it's not for passion, it's for MONEY. you can go work on your passions in absolute leisure on a beach in southeast asia and never worry about money, but for the kids out there reading this, don't be tricked into thinking developing throwaway shitbox games for some asshole ex- microsoft millionaire is your passion.

35k is a very different kind of 'fuck you' money.

<comment><USER20> What? You think I accepted that offer? No no no, Instead, I went to a post-IPO company while the stock was down from the dotcom crash and did just fine when it recovered.

In-between, Craig Venter offered me $45k, so glad I have standards. Everyone should have standards, no?

Edit: +1 for "35K is a very different kind of @#$% you money."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I more-or-less said the same thing on Reddit: GOOD FOR HER! If every asshole who had influence or power had such a strong and confident daughter calling them out on their bullshit, this world would be a MUCH better place.

<comment><USER23> The most surprising fact to me was that she is just 22. Rebelling against parents isn't uncommon at a young age, but writing a full-blown public takedown is uncommon at...any age.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Dupe; discussion here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11542664](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11542664)

<comment><USER25> Why is this post hidden from the front page? It was there moments ago.

<comment><USER25> I came across this:

> _(2015-10-16) The people behind the scenes at Hacker News now hand pick > stories they want on the front page. It 's not a user-generated voting- > controlled news site. But it pretends to be one and tries to look like one. > It's deeply dishonest._ [http://www.curi.us/1612-anti-israel-bias-at-hacker- > news](http://www.curi.us/1612-anti-israel-bias-at-hacker-news) / > [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10402465](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10402465)

This is outrageous, and I will find a way to create a front-page list that is "unadulterated".

<comment><USER26> There's really no pretense that votes are the only factor in ranking stories.

Here's the moderator commenting about the many factors:

[https://hn.algolia.com/?query=by:dang%20rank&sort=byPopulari...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=by:dang%20rank&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=comment)

(not all the results are applicable, enough are)

<comment><USER25> > There's really no pretense that votes are the only factor in ranking > stories.

True, however the HN front page has always given me the _impression_ that votes matter the most, and that the front-page is largely reflective of the interests of the HN demographics. The question I'd ask is: why is there no explicit indication (written in the footer, perhaps) of the front-page being vetted by a handful of moderators?

A subtle form of pretense is not speaking of the truth.

<comment><USER27> [http://news.ycombinator.com/active](http://news.ycombinator.com/active) seems to be pretty unadulterated, although it goes by comments not votes. Controversial topics that get flagged as flamewars and drop off the front page (they hit 40 comments before 40 votes iirc) stay on the first page of /active as long as they're still... active.

Also, HN is pretty open about being more heavily moderated than other parts of the net, it's far from secret. And while I don't necessarily share the view that moderation of discussion is a GoodThing™, I find it acceptable since no one is trying to pretend that it's not happening.

<comment><USER25> [http://news.ycombinator.com/active](http://news.ycombinator.com/active) is quite interesting and this particular thread is standing at position #6 over there!

> HN is pretty open about being more heavily moderated than other parts of the > net [...] I find it acceptable since no one is trying to pretend that it's > not happening.

A subtle form of pretence is to not explicitly state the fact. Why is there no explicit indication (written in the footer, perhaps) of the front-page being vetted by a handful of moderators? Why is the 'active' page kept hidden (it is not in the navbar)? Why all this secrecy?

<comment><USER27> The active page (along with a couple others) are shown on [https://news.ycombinator.com/lists](https://news.ycombinator.com/lists) (the 'Lists' link in the footer). There's a few more odd pages like newpoll that aren't linked to in any obvious place.

I don't really see any of it as secrecy, as that implies actively and intentionally hiding, to me it seems more like not going out of the way to show/tell people. The Guidelines and FAQs go into it a bit IIRC, and dang has written comments on it as well. I'd describe it more as unintuitive than secretive. It seems like the same reasoning behind keeping HN minimalistic and not webapp 2.0 bloatware. It might chase some people away but it also keeps an eternal september at bay.

Also the front page is not vetted by moderators (if it was they'd be doing a terrible job as dupes and blatant linkbait are common), but there's code in place to mitigate flamewars and such. If you want to see what stories and comments are actually getting killed (by users, not the mods) you can enable showdead in your profile, which imo should be enabled by default but I can understand why it's not.

Generally if you see a story drop off the front page quickly, it's getting comments a lot quicker than it's getting votes. I do think mods will occasionally remove the penalty for this on stories that triggered the flamewar protection without there being a flamewar. Additionally some domains and topics are penalized, and there seem to be filtered words that will auto kill your comment. Try leaving a comment with (Im sorry, gotta avoid it somehow) m@$tur b@t3 in it. But again that's all automated, just unintuitive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> The slide about "real engineers" is priceless. Real engineers don't care about money? They want a "mission"? Ha! Good luck hiring engineers in ad-tech, finance, etc. What's the mission? Showing more annoying ads to users? Yeah!

I guess I'm not a real engineer, cause I care about money. I sell a skill, provide a service, this service has value, pay me.

Now, TBH, a few good advice in this presentation, but often weirdly worded. Making sure the spouse/family is happy is a good advice, but doesn't have to be presented as "the wife/girlfriend".

<comment><USER29> The entire presentation is essentially a list of "how I think we can get good developers and underpaid them". I don't really care if he invented gaming itself, fuck this guy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Obviously, the entire slide deck is terrible, but, a personal thought about the "The NOT male engineers" slide...

Some people might think "Well, it's a terrible thing to say like that, that women should get the more social jobs, but society/culture/genetics/hormones -- perhaps a grain of truth, right? Women are just social!" You might even think it's a good thing to promote them, or make them the "communicators" or put them in architect positions.

I just want to say that these are the good intentions that made my first few years of out of college job experience absolutely awful, which makes this slide especially upsetting to me. I was an engineering major with a strong CS background, but also a 6' tall, beautiful, outgoing, well-spoken woman. Obviously, I'd be perfect working with clients, or acting as a liaison between developers and designers, or as a technical sales engineer, right!?

So, I was "let go" twice, the first time, just 5 months after graduating, and then again a year later. I missed meetings, told clients their ideas were bad, was a terrible diplomat, didn't prepare very nice-looking reports, complained about using MS Office, constantly forgot to log billable hours, spent too much time writing code... I hated it, I was terrible at it, and yet I _kept_ drifting towards these types of jobs! It was what recruiters showed me, what college counselors showed me, what everyone said I should do, and what _I_ thought I should do!

It took me way too long (to my credit, I was young) to realize that I'm much much happier "just" writing code, and working on a project that I can really take the time to get into. If I'm going to do "collaboration" I'd rather do it with other engineers that share a common(ish) technical background, where we all bounce ideas off of each other and have similar goals for the product or feature. And I'm so much happier not having to worry about what I'm wearing to work every day, or if I need to prepare for a customer meeting in the morning!

So, even if you think that it might be true that women are more social on average (whatever your own personal reasoning is, doesn't matter) PLEASE don't automatically try to lead women into roles like this, or assume that she'll be great at bridging gaps between clients/developers/designers/god-knows-what (because she's a LADY! Amirite!?). Some are, some aren't. Some men are, some aren't. But using these social/cross-discipline positions as kneejerk suggestions for a woman to "move up", or "do something more interesting" may be doing more harm than good to her career if she takes the advice.

</comment><comment><USER31> Alex St John glorifies the benefits of slavery and Microsoft's imperialistic dominance of game developers in his own words [1], describing his infamous Toga Party / Roman Orgy / Slave Auction he threw in the Spartan Stadium at the 1996 Computer Game Developer Conference:

>"Sex, violence and debauchery were all hallmarks of a great Roman "orgy" and I wanted to come as close to capturing that experience as I could get away with."

>"The slave auction was also a special occasion. The Roman guards were rounding up the losers from the gladiatorial events and anybody who was offending a "senator" or Cleopatra and throwing them in the slave pit. Once a sufficient number of slaves had been collected from the party, Gillian returned to the stage to auction them to the audience for the gold they had won in the games. Gillian could set any base price she wanted for a "specimen", if the audience wouldn't pay the price the slave would be "thrown to the lions". We had configured a "pit" full of foam to one side of the stage and directly in front of the first caged lion. A failed slave would be marched to the edge of the pit at spear point and pushed in by the praetorian guard where they would fall into box full of foam below the audiences line of sight. Then a huge video clip of lions tearing up a wildebeest and roaring would be played on the big screens on either side of the stage accompanied by the sounds of screaming. Down in the foam pit we had a collection of fake bloody body parts that somebody would toss up in the air during the lion feeding. Of course the "victim" was then allowed to sneak out the back and return to the party."

[1] [http://www.alexstjohn.com/WP/2013/03/06/bunnygate- pt-2/](http://www.alexstjohn.com/WP/2013/03/06/bunnygate-pt-2/)

</comment><comment><USER32> I hope that if I turn into what can best be described as a self righteous asshole, my children will be smart and capable enough to call me on it, hard and fast.

There are so many incredibly insulting and poorly thought out half-truths in the original presentation referenced that I'm shocked it was given in the context of a professional environment.

</comment><comment><USER33> It's always fun to pile on, but what I got out of ASJ's post was "love your job for whatever hours you are there."

Negativity begets negativity, but thinking positive and thinking big is just as contagious.

<comment><USER24> The tone of it was more like: love your job for whatever hours you are there, even if it's 80 hours a week, and if you don't love it, you're not a real engineer, you're in the mediocre majority, and you don't deserve to be there anyway.

<comment><USER33> I didn't get that. I guess perception is everything.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> This is ridiculous, she lost me at:

{Dad, if you use my face in an offensive slideshow again I beg you to please at least throw me a bone and put in a more flattering picture. As a self absorbed millennial I have provided the internet with a profusion of selfies in a rainbow of sepia tones. Please choose any of those.}

This is some sort of weird public spat between a father and a daughter, it's not newsworthy or even constructive.

<comment><USER35> I'm not sure if I clicked upvote or downvote, sorry. Using HN on a small screen right now. I meant to upvote.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Seems like the big thing everyone is missing: you can hate Alex all you want, but he's not making conjectures. He's giving his advice based on successful experience in reality. I'll take his word - as politically incorrect as it is - over 1000 people making arguments off what is 'right'.

If you're running a business and Alex's tactics give you even a 10% edge - take them.

<comment><USER37> I thought his posts on the subject were a mix of pragmatism and satire? A "this is how the world works, you've got this, here's what you'll face".

Was it not meant to be satirical? Was he genuinely advocating squeezing what you can out of people until they burn out and then tossing them aside?

I guess from the tone I thought he was trying to poke fun at the POV he was espousing? But the only thing I know about him was that he went around evangelizing DirectX at Microsoft Developer conference a long time ago so I could've completely misread.

<comment><USER38> Does this[0] look like satire?

[0] [https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CgP- xKKUkAIxXph.jpg:large](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CgP-xKKUkAIxXph.jpg:large)

<comment><USER36> It actually does look like satire because it's so over the top. Are we sure it's not some kind of inside joke?

If this is how he actually does treat employees in a serious fashion then I take back everything nice I said about him. You can create a high performance culture while not being inhuman. I still stand by harsh tactics being important in business, but harsh tactics end where someone's health and well- being begin.

<comment><USER38> His website [0] seems to be having database connectivity issues at the moment, but Google's cache caught it[1].

[0] [http://www.alexstjohn.com/WP/2016/04/17/wage- slaves/#comment...](http://www.alexstjohn.com/WP/2016/04/17/wage- slaves/#comment-4045) [1] [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:rCVIzSi...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:rCVIzSi52RgJ:www.alexstjohn.com/WP/2016/04/17/wage- slaves/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us#comment-4045)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The $200T Gold Rush That Has Reshaped Private Banking - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-11-24/the-200-trillion-gold-rush-that-has-reshaped-private-banking <comment><USER2> Wealth begats more wealth, and this trend accelerates when unchecked. Many of the themes of this article reminded me of data from Capitol in the 21st Century by Thomas Piketty.

edit: formatting</comment>


Show HN: Clippi.io lets you collect your visual inspiration from any video - <AUTHOR> https://clippi.io/ <comment> real-hacker Great tool. How does it work? I mean how does the script know the exact position the video player is currently playing?

</comment><comment><USER2> Wow this is very clean and well designed!

Does it work for all the sites? I have always wanted to save reference footage but couldn't find a useful tool.

</comment><comment><USER3> hmmm...It's like Pinterest for videos

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm planning to add screenshots, texts, images and screen recording to make it the ultimate visual productivity tool

<comment><USER4> Great idea, and an amazing product! But is this really classified as a productivity tool? ... Well maybe a tool can be productive, without being a business tool ...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Dude you are 19???!!!

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, I've been coding since 12 and have been building products since 15.</comment></comment>