Square Gets Approved for New York City Taxicab Pilot - <AUTHOR> http://allthingsd.com/20120301/square-gets-approved-for-new-york-city-taxicab-pilot/ <comment><USER2> Very interesting development. You can already pay by card in NYC so that functionality isn't going to be anything exciting for riders.

However, the opportunity for apps is huge- right now there's just a dumb TV terminal in the cab that plays the same horrible videos over and over. I've been working on a taxi-based app (<http://www.taxono.my/> \- I'll stop mentioning it in every post I make soon) that would go _fantastically_ into a Square-attached tablet. But I'm not sure what they'll allow and what they won't, at this point. I imagine there might be a hefty fee involved...

<comment><USER3> Sincere good luck. I was involved in developing one of the first NY cab video + credit card hardware designs in the early 00s. We actually built it into an real yellow cab that, entertainingly, I got park in my driveway and drive around during the venture (on loan from one of the largest fleet owners).

We combined 16:9 screen, ATM keys, tap-and-go card reader, and traditional card stripe swipe, into a self contained unit mounted into the safety panel.

You could mute it (of course). It played a safety PSA, then let you figuratively "change the channel" to show you up-to-date video clips per your interest -- sports, news, weather, broadway promos, etc. -- or a GPS map of the cab's location in the city. A key innovation let us update the videos on the fly in all the cabs without requiring a SD card swap or a cellular data charge.

Great backers, but project got killed in a TLC political maneuver. It's a challenging industry to try to break into and try to change. The devices you see deployed in Vegas, Chicago, and NYC, are mostly hamstrung in various ways that often cost the cabbies or annoy riders. It's disappointing to see, but if someone can muster both the tech and the political clout, it's still ripe for disruption.

Square might have that chance.

<comment><USER4> ? The system you describe is exactly what is in NYC cabs right now. Maybe you you were just ahead of your time.

<comment><USER3> What's in cabs today is about 4x as expensive, bulkier, less durable, the user has less control, and the video content doesn't get refreshed on the fly. Our business plan offered a lower processing fee, paid into a health fund for cabbies, and had other financial bonuses to fleets, cabbies, and the city.

There were about a half dozen "competing" systems (hardware and business model) at the time. A couple of the others got adopted and their progeny are what you see in cabs in NYC now. We were backed by some of the best known finance, ad, and government money, but the decision was neither technical nor based on cost to cab owners or even cost to fleets.

As I said, I hope Square can disrupt that situation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Last time I was in New York, the cab driver who gave me a lift from the airport mentioned to me the fee charged by the processing system they currently use. I don't remember the exact number he gave, but I remember it sounded very high to me. If Square charges cab drivers the same price they charge me, this could be a very good thing for NYC cabbies.

<comment><USER6> Interesting ... I was just in Vegas and noticed that the credit card cabs hit the passenger with the processing fee. I believe it was $2 or $3.

I've also noticed in general that cabbies simply don't like credit card customers.

<comment><USER7> The cabbies raised a ruckus when credits cards were introduced...however, data shows that when rides were cash only, cabbies received 10% tips. With credit cards, the average was 22%. Hard to complain about that: <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/nyregion/08taxi.html>

The Times also reported that the fact that cabs have cards - and livery cars do not - may have helped the taxi industry while hurting the private car business. <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/nyregion/25taxis.html>

<comment><USER5> Bet they get more rides, too.

I'm much more willing to catch a cab in NYC than I am in Chicago or Milwaukee, because I usually don't carry enough cash for a ride and I'm usually not in the mood to squabble with the driver. I swear, I can usually walk to my destination in the time it takes to watch a Chicago cabbie pantomime with the card reader in an effort to convince me it's broken.

<comment><USER8> If you're not too short, they usually take the cash over the card. You get a cheap ride and they don't get all pissy. I do it all the time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is useless when every cab driver that picks you up will just claim the machine is broken. This is not even just me complaining. I believe the market is going to be difficult to break due to cabbie habits.

<comment><USER2> I've lived in New York for three years and this has only happened to me once. I'm not convinced it's that huge a deal.

<comment><USER10> I've lived in New York for about a year and a half and up until this month, I was taking cabs at least twice a day. I've had them pull the broken credit card machine excuse maybe 3 or 4 times. Obviously anecdotal, but it was so infrequent as to be a complete non-issue, and with the number of cabs on the road, it never actually caused me any problems.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I wonder if they'll be using the same checkout devices as everwhere else. From what I've seen, the Square device is kind of flimsy looking and difficult to use. The device in a taxi cab needs to be able to handle a lot of abuse.

</comment><comment><USER12> Why add another layer of fees? What utility does this provide? Why must you install, register, and have to open an app for each purchase when you can just use existing, bulletproof tech?

<comment><USER13> You assume the existing system isn't laden with corruption and unrealistic fees. What's likely happened is that Square recognizes it can undercut some other (company|companies) too cozy in their operations and steal their lunch.

Otherwise, adoption and success would fare poorly - Square don't sound like they're desperate or stupid.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> The city does seem serious about this. Best to get it done before Bloomberg is out!</comment>


Ask HN : Write a Payment Gateway - <AUTHOR>

Hello: Having very less funds to give to payment gateway, I am planning to write my own payment gateway for a web application. Could you please help me to list some important steps involved in that? Thanks. <comment><USER2> You're not going to be able to write your own payment gateway. That's the short version.

The long version is that it'll be much more expensive to write your own, than it is to use an existing one. I would guess it'd cost at least tens of millions (if not HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS) to build that. What would you need? \- the actual software (not an easy undertaking) \- fraud protection on said software (takes years to develop, ask Paypal, or read their story in "Founders at Work")

On top of that, you have to get the banking industry to allow you to tap into their existing infrastructure. Unless you're a pretty well proven company, this will be a non-starter.

Throw on top of that the cost of compliance (not basic PCI, either -- you'll need top fo the line stuff going on).

Yeah, I'd say it'd cost you > $100 million AND take > 3-5 years to accomplish.

Use an existing payment gateway.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the quick info. I will RTFM more on "Founders at Work".</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What are some resources on how to build a parser? - <AUTHOR> I want to learn what are the fundamental concepts (data structures + algorithms) on how to build a parser.
I don't want to build a compiler, but I'd like to parse some semi-structured NLP (i.e. bibliography data at the end of scientific papers).
I am not sure building it from scratch is optimal, but it does sound fun.
So far the only concrete resource that I have is Ch 6 of "The Awk Programming Language(1988)" mentioned here on HN a while back [0].
But since this is a personal project, id like to maybe join it with learning a functional language, such as Scala or Haskell. Also, maybe, a more modern resource would be nice, I am not sure.
Also, is there some known bibliography parser suited for programming with out there?
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13451454 <comment><USER2> "Functional Programming in Scala" has a chapter dedicated to building parsers (Chapter 9).

[https://www.manning.com/books/functional-programming-in- scal...](https://www.manning.com/books/functional-programming-in-scala)

</comment><comment><USER3> there are some parsing urls on this page:

[https://github.com/melling/ComputerLanguages/blob/master/com...](https://github.com/melling/ComputerLanguages/blob/master/compilers.org)</comment>


Cloud Girlfriend Launches As A Dating Site, Not A Virtual Girlfriend Service - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2011/04/26/cloud-girlfriend-launches-as-a-dating-site-not-a-virtual-girlfriend-service/ <comment><USER2> Were they afraid of violating FB TOS?</comment>


Should bitcoin's price be determined by users or speculators? - <AUTHOR> http://rt.com/op-edge/bitcoin-exchange-speculative-market-619/

<comment><USER2> "It's hard to say if a speculative market will ever emerge for bitcoin."

I would say it's pretty easy to say: a speculative market has already emerged. Mt.Gox is already an exchange that allows you to place orders at market price. I'm not really sure what the article is trying to say.

</comment><comment><USER3> a speculator is also (a certain type of) user.</comment>


GitHub was unavailable due to what appeared to be another DDoS attack - <AUTHOR> https://status.github.com/

<comment><USER2> I'm just curious, why do people generally DDoS attack websites? The cases that I've heard mostly about are the Anonymous groups attacking government websites because they were being unfair in certain scenarios..But why will anyone want to DDoS attack a legitimate service like GitHub, that is infact only helping out the community of Open Source (Free plans for Open source)?

Just curious because, tomorrow this could be the case for your startup or mine..

<comment><USER3> Probably criminals trying to extort money from GitHub ("Cyberextortion") or testing their bot net.

That's why it's so important that every time we visit a computer-illiterate relative that we update their browser and operating system. Only you can prevent botnets.

<comment><USER2> >That's why it's so important that every time we visit a computer-illiterate relative that we update their browser and operating system.

Wow, that's a really good thought, mate! Personally my relatives wouldn't let me touch their computers though (:cough :cough browser history :cough :cough) :D

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Yet again, another DDoS attack. This is getting ridiculous, someone has a serious vendetta against Github to keep trying to bring it down.

<comment><USER5> Or maybe some of these anti-ddos companies are looking to make some new customers. ;-)

<comment><USER6> Seems odd that you were down-voted. This has been a known tactic for unscrupulous anti-virus software vendors for more than a decade...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Just to make a very clear statement: This does nothing to my resolve to stick with GitHub. I'll just push a little later, whenever the next DDoS comes around.

<comment><USER8> Finally! I was waiting to see what your opinion on this topic was, so that I knew what my opinion should be! :P

<comment><USER7> Stop downvoting this person. I deserved that.

<comment><USER9> The downvote isn't whether the comment was warranted but rather that it didn't add value to the conversation.

<comment><USER7> Well, mine didn't contribute much either - and I didn't want to pass up a chance to make light of that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm surprised that I can't even push code. Do they use the same servers for their website and Git servers!? Or are they getting DDoSed on both fronts?

 _Update:_ I successfully pushed my code and the website seems to work now.

<comment><USER11> They likely have separate servers running on the same network. The DDoS might be saturating their network infrastructure rather than causing load on any particular servers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Isn't Cloudflare pretty much a general purpose solution for DDoS? Is there any reason not to use them if you're often a target and don't want to deal with it yourself?

<comment><USER13> Can it? I pull and push Github over ssh, which is an attack path that Cloudflare isn't built to mitigate. If it were strictly http and https, it would be a different story.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Maybe someone testing some exploits? Given the security issues popping around lately one has to wonder.

</comment><comment><USER15> I imagine the effect is amplified by people repeatedly trying to push/pull because of the failures.

</comment><comment><USER16> Has bit bucket or any other similar site seen attacks as frequent and drastic as github ?

<comment><USER8> I imagine it's just due to popularity, unless there's some evidence that Github isn't doing enough to protect against / recover from these attacks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Seems to be back up again now. Is getting a bit silly though.

</comment><comment><USER18> If this is the Chinese, they are patiently testing the limits of Github's defenses. They've done that with nearly every Google product in China, gradually beating back Google's prestige and market share.

It's insidiously clever, and an excellent attack vector. Patiently testing/preparing for worse disruption, patiently iterating mid-level frustration. Foreigners have yet to understand just how overt corruption is in China. If China, they're handshaking and smiling at Github, with harm's intent.

<comment><USER19> Are you serious? I'm Chinese and I'm like "Why would they do that?" Before we launch into the Chinese hacking rethoric, let's looks at EADS, which was being attacked from some location in China. But why did we manage to find out?

It's either that the hackers behind the attack weren't up to snuff to cover their tracks (maybe set something up outside of China?), or it's the Chinese government trying to demonstrate that they are indeed capable of digitally attacking foreign targets. And if you got any familarity with actual Chinese people, you know they won't spill their hand just to show you what they can. That'd be...very unchinese.

Yes, Chinese people aren't overt when they cut deals. But trying to disrupt a minor target (yes, it's Github, but in the scope of the entire US, it's one service, and there are several alternatives) in a Country that owes you a lot of doe...what sense would that make? Also why only Github? Why not any of the other Repository services?

Your chinese conspiracy hypothesis really doesn't hold up well, does it?

<comment><USER18> Solstice - I speak Chinese and Japanese fluently (for 25 years, and read the newspaper in either language), and have live in both countries for a total of 7 years.

China has already been caught DDOS'ing Github, during the New Years travelling period - February this year. The ostensible reason was a flaw in some "train scheduling software", at the peak travel period. That software which had a bug resided at Github. This is well documented.

I have professionally followed the China hacking phenomenon for years, and am involved in software/security - so this is not conjecture/conspiracy.

China is the worst cyber aggressor on Earth, having stolen the entire Gaia password system from Google on Christmas Day 2010, amongst many events.

The deep level of corruption in China is amongst the worst on Earth, and is unmistakeably related to the blatant, corrupt cyber attacks 攻击 on a large percentage of businesses and infrastructure worldwide.

Additionally, you do not have a monopoly on loving and defending China. I love China very much (and fight for its reputation) - one does not research and live in China for a lifetime without growing to love it.

<comment><USER19> Fair enough, those are really insightful points, and I'll check them later. I'm pretty quick to jump to defend China, because i usually find sheer ignorance, and not a well researched point behind whatever anti-chinese statements there are. "China is evil cause it takes our jobs", "Chinese eat sh*tty food, like dogs and cats", "Chinese are evil because they are all, every single peasant, covertly plotting to hack our computers, every single one of them". And when you get bombared with stuff like this all the time, your trigger finger becomes quicker. Also, no offense intended, but your choice of language made it seem like a giant conspiracy, which I would object to believing in given the lack of proof or points in your first post.

And on a site note, I'm actually really intrested why the chinese would indulge in such attacks. Economical harm to a Nation you're codependent on doesn't strike me as politically savy. What incentives are there for Chinese hackers to attack sites like Github, and the other busineses and infrastructures you mentioned (Google is obvious, so you can skip on that).</comment></comment></comment></comment>


I'm Just Now Realizing How Stupid We Are - <AUTHOR> http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/06/11/im-just-now-realizing-how-stupid-we-are.aspx <comment><USER2> Every one of those observations sounds extremely true to me.

Regarding the first one: _" changing your mind is one of the most difficult things we do"_ \-- changing our mind is almost impossible; changing other people's is down right impossible.

BUT

\- It's possible to influence people _before_ they have made up their mind.

\- It's also possible to reframe / rename / re-position a subject, so that it becomes a new category about which people don't already have an opinion. Politicians do it all the time (most people are opposed to torture, but "enhanced interrogation techniques" sound both useful and reasonable, for example). Marketers also do it, sometimes, but they should do it more.

On this last topic, this book is absolutely fantastic:

[http://www.amazon.com/Positioning-The-Battle-Your- Mind/dp/00...](http://www.amazon.com/Positioning-The-Battle-Your- Mind/dp/0071373586)

It explains why brand extension is almost always a bad idea ("Google Play", OMG!!!!), and why "7Up: the uncola" is genius.

<comment><USER3> It is possible to change peoples minds, but the trick is that you have to convince everyone around them first. Social proof is the most powerful force in the universe. It's infuriating, but the research shows us time and time again that most people simply choose the position they perceive to be most popular.

It is, incidentally, why the internet is so dangerous. It is easier now, more than ever, to surround yourself with people who confirm your beliefs ALL OF THE TIME. If we're going to make decisions socially, that's a pretty worrying state of affairs.

It is also why most meaningful change happens in generational cycles. At least that is how it seems to me.

<comment><USER2> _It is also why most meaningful change happens in generational cycles_

"People don't change their minds. They die, and are replaced by people with different opinions"

\-- Arturo Albergati, via Paul Graham ([http://www.paulgraham.com/quo.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/quo.html))

(Strangely, when one searches for that quote, the first hit is Paul Graham's page; I'd like to know where exactly this was said, but couldn't find it after a quick investigation).

<comment><USER4> That sounds similar to the Max Planck quote that "science progresses one funeral at a time".

Actually, that might be paraphrased, the quote which seems more authentic according to Google is this:

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > I've learned that there's a strong correlation between knowledge and > humility. People who spend 10 minutes on Google studying monetary policy > think they have it all figured out, while people with Ph.D.s and decades of > experience throw up their hands in frustration. The more you study > economics, the more you realize how little we know about it.

This is the problem with Congress making decisions about science, the internet, and the economy.

<comment><USER6> what decisions about science would you be referring to?

<comment><USER7> A lot of legislation cannot be approach scientifically, e.g. the right taxes rates, etc. Other legislation can be very scientific, e.g. is marijuana dangerous?

<comment><USER8> We may not be able to decide the right tax rate scientifically. But what we can do is determine very accurately the consequences of the choice. If we increase the tax rate x%, innovation will suffer y% but n less people will have to starve in the streets.

<comment><USER9> Even this is grossly overestimating the powers of current economic analysis. Many economists will give you this sort of ridiculous precision in advance, but in retrospect all they'll say is "we can't run a controlled experiment so you have to believe me that if we had done _more_ of what I recommended, the results I promised would have occurred."

<comment><USER8> Fair enough. I should have said "what we could theorethically do" rather than "what we can do".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > _I 've learned that how you reacted to past bubbles is a good indication of > how you'll act to future ones. The same people buying dot-com stocks in 1999 > were buying Miami condos in 2006 and gold in 2011._

There was a saying that emerged in the first .com boom -- "You know we're in trouble when the UPS guy is giving you Internet stock tips." Maybe we should ask the UPS guy every few months what he's excited about investing in? Canary in the coal mine, as it were...

<comment><USER11> And now they are buying bitcoin.

<comment><USER12> Without commenting on the success rate of bitcoin itself, the money being put in bitcoin is still an order of magnitude smaller than the bubbles mentioned in GP. The USP guy, more likely than not still doesn't know about bitcoin.

<comment><USER13> _> an order of magnitude smaller than the bubbles mentioned_

The thing about money and markets is it all _relative_ (%).

Whenever talking on these topics people revert to absolute($) comparisons, this is where most analysis breaks.

I am not arguing or commenting on bitcoin success, just that your mention of "order of magnitude" sounds like an absolute value.

<comment><USER12> I agree with your remark about the relative and absolute comparisons.

However, in this case, the discussion were about the "popularity", or the "reach" of bitcoin. The underlying assumption (by me) is that absolute value would strongly correlate with the number of people knowing about bitcoin, hence the absolute number remark.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Sadly, none of this would make any sense if I had not already learned it the hard way.

<comment><USER15> I enjoyed the article but that is a good, if unintentional, criticism of the article.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is extremely insightful and applies to a lot of industries:

 _I 've learned that we can't tell the difference between luck and skill. Out of millions of investors, a few will be phenomenally successful due to luck alone, yet no one is willing to admit they are one of the lucky ones._

I recall reading this statement written in different words in a few articles and essays from PG and others.

<comment><USER16> One reasonable test is if a person consistently is "lucky", then it is more likely to be skill.

Steve Jobs, for example, made three fortunes. I suspect it is skill.

<comment><USER17> But had he not had the incredible good luck to meet Woz when he did, he would have died penniless and alone.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Mostly insightful, but this bit:

 _Those who criticize the behavior of "greedy Wall Street bankers" underestimate their tendency to do the same thing if offered an eight-figure salary._

You have to be greedy to go into Wall Street banking in the first place. Most of us deliberately didn't become bankers because we aren't motivated by greed. This makes bankers fair game for criticism.

<comment><USER19> "Most of us ... because we aren't motivated by greed"

History would indicate otherwise. Maybe most of us aren't dominated by our greed to the exclusion of all else / to sociopathic levels. But, most of us certainly are greedy. I suspect it's in our genes. Greed/hoarding (to a degree) being evolutionary strengths.

<comment><USER20> Some rudimentary consideration of what life is like in a tribe would suggest that greediness and hoarding are evolutionary weaknesses. If you take too much for yourself, others in the tribe get pissed off and get rid of you. If you have a tendency to hoard things, you're going to have a hard time managing a nomadic lifestyle that necessitates light enough loads to carry. Not to mention -- things rot, things break, things get lost, and if you've just used up all the natural resources around you, you're screwing yourself quite hard.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> "Most of what people worried about over the last five years -- inflation, rising interest rates, a double-dip recession, stagnant markets, Greece leaving the euro, a government default -- never occurred."

Why? Because the reason most people are worried is based on something that they've read which is often because of this:

"I've learned that journalists' need to write far exceeds the number of things that need to be written."

The root of all opinion is generally what people are exposed to and what is written by a third party (not even an expert) as opposed to what they have actually figured out independently on their own or heard from multiple experts (who may have differing opinions). In other words their bias doesn't come from experience or informed opinion but merely what they are read that others have written.

That's why polls are not as important as they look. Even if accurate they merely measure what people read in the paper, online, or see on the nightly news.

</comment><comment><USER22> _" I've learned that journalists' need to write far exceeds the number of things that need to be written. No writer can say to their boss, 'There's nothing important to write about today,' although it is the truth most days."_

These words should be inscribed at the top of HN's "submit" page.

<comment><USER23> This is perhaps doubly true for financial news and CNBC.

...make that most news now that I think about it. I can't remember the last time I saw an article on CNN that was actionable in my life in any way. Not sure why I bother to read the news most days, although it still feels like a useful thing to do.

<comment><USER24> I watch or read the news for "gestalt". Most individual articles are not "actionable", but the aggregate over weeks or months probably is.

Unfortunately, the article's first lesson is that you probably _won 't_ change your mind quickly enough to profit from anything you see on either CNBC or CNN.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Humans became a technological species immediately at the critical point where a few percent of us could be rational and original a small percent of the time.

That was enough for knowledge to start snowballing.

In historical terms, that happened a few moments ago and we are still at the mostly-stupid stage. Before we have a chance to evolve to be smarter, technology itself will have left us in the intelligence rear view mirror.

No species lasts forever but we should feel successful for being the origin of not just the next species, but the next order of life on Earth after DNA. Self-designed life will be as profoundly smarter than we are, as multi- cellular life became more interesting than the first microbes.

This is very inspiring to me. But if for some reason, you find it depressing that our technological "children" will soon look nothing like us, there is still time to find a way to transition your own mind into that next generation. Just be prepared to change anything about your own biology that holds you back, just like to learn you need to sacrifice any beliefs that hold you back. Prepare yourself mentally now to sacrifice your biological substrate and neural continuity for your new uber intelligence in a few decades.

</comment><comment><USER26> Thanks for the front-page love HN. I work at the Fool as a web developer. Morgan has just been sent the link to this thread. Maybe he'll chime in if there are questions.

</comment><comment><USER27>
      I've learned that we can't tell the difference between luck
      and skill. Out of millions of investors, a few will be
      phenomenally successful due to luck alone, yet no one is
      willing to admit they are one of the lucky ones.

and the same goes for CEO's.

<comment><USER28> Survivor bias is a bitch.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> >I've learned that strong political beliefs in either direction limit your ability to make rational decisions more than almost anything else.

Strong political beliefs in _any_ direction, not _either_ direction. This complaint also relies on the fictional 'rational decision about a political issue' vs. 'political decision' distinction, where your opponent is always "playing politics", but you're always simply being empirical and pragmatic.

>I've learned that people's expectations grow faster than their wealth. The country is richer than it's ever been. I don't think it's as happy as it's ever been.

Not in the median it isn't. The fact that the nation's total wealth has increased while median individual wealth has decreased is a lesson about something, but not about the bulk of people's expectations rapidly growing. What a lot of people want is what most people in the US actually had before the 80s.

<comment><AUTHOR> _> I've learned that people's expectations grow faster than their wealth. The country is richer than it's ever been. I don't think it's as happy as it's ever been.

Not in the median it isn't._

Your claim is that median wealth has in some meaningful sense decreased in the United States during my lifetime of just more than half a century. Because of various family circumstances and my own career choices, I have generally been below the United States median in income much of my working life, and have always been below the United States median in financial assets or possession of land and real property. And yet I have every reason to believe the author's claim that "The country is richer than it's ever been," and not just for the fat cats, but for me too.

For one thing, we have this newfangled Internet technology that allows you and me to have a thoughtful discussion while shattering barriers of distance. Having once lived overseas when my only affordable means of communication with my homeland was postal aerograms, I count this as a HUGE increase in wealth, which is certainly enjoyed by most at-or-just-below median people in most developed countries. (I communicate with friends and relatives from a variety of countries online every day.)

So I call baloney on your assertion. But perhaps you have evidence that will convince to change my opinion. Discussing this issue thoughtfully will also make both of us richer than we used to be, so I am all ears.

AFTER EDIT: You do make a good point that political opinions can (and do) differ along more than one dimension. There are many, many different kinds of political opinions, including many that are inconsistent with other opinions held by the same person.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> For those interested in a good book about human biases and thinking, check out _Seeking Wisdom From Darwin to Munger_.

[http://www.poorcharliesalmanack.com/seeking_wisdom.php](http://www.poorcharliesalmanack.com/seeking_wisdom.php)

[http://www.amazon.com/Seeking-Wisdom-Darwin- Munger-3rd/dp/15...](http://www.amazon.com/Seeking-Wisdom-Darwin- Munger-3rd/dp/1578644283/)

</comment><comment><USER31> > I've learned that people are twice as biased as they think they are, which > is precisely why biases are dangerous.

This is a bit backwards. It's more like an inverse relationship - if you don't think you have any biases you are likely to be the most biased. It's probably a factor of 2 for those who admit a level of bias, and a much greater factor for those who don't admit bias.

<comment><USER32> Well technically, there would be no multiplicative factor for those who don't admit bias, because zero times anything would be zero. Your point is nonetheless a good one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> I don't think it's true that "The country is richer than it's ever been." According to this graph, that would be in 1999, not now. [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/Median_US...](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/Median_US_household_income.png)

<comment><USER34> I think the author is probably talking about total wealth, not median income; by that metric, we're richer than in 1999 (though it is less equally distributed), according to this graph: [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a3/Graphic.png](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a3/Graphic.png)

But whether we go with total wealth or median income, really the point here is the following sentence in the article: _I don 't think it's as happy as it's ever been._

I think the author is taking the long view here, not comparing the present to 1999 or 2009. The claim is that despite having more wealth (by either measure) in the last, say, 20 years than at any other period in our history, we aren't happier because of it. I'm inclined to agree.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> I disagree with this one: _I 've learned that Winston Churchill was right when he said, "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing -- after they've tried everything else." Congress is a basket case 99% of the time, but when things are truly at the precipice it gets things done._

The "right" thing is pretty subjective, and I would argue that if we were doing the "right" things, we could have avoided a partial government shutdown last year as Congress struggled through the debt issue. Speaks to the author's comment about short-term thinking:

 _I 've learned that short-term thinking is at the root of most of our problems, whether it's in business, politics, investing, or work._

It's not a good sign that we are allowing ourselves to reach moments of crisis in which we are forced to make the "right" decision. What if that decision comes down to defaulting on our debt and wronging the rest of the world?

<comment><USER36> > I've learned that short-term thinking is at the root of most of our problems

Greedy (aka "short-term thinking") algorithms provide optimal solutions for many (but not all (obviously)) problems.

<comment><USER37> It sounds like you've missed the point - yes the optimal solution short term might be one action, but sometimes _losing_ in the short term is more optimal in the long term. Like say, a vote for socialism reduces a companies profits but retains the humanity of government in the long term (made up example obv.).

Moreover, long term solutions encompass the solution space of short term ones - so if short term thinking is required then you can choose the short-term thinking solution that optimises for the long view outcome.

<comment><USER36> Perhaps the reference to computer science was not very clear in my previous comment [1]. "Optimal solution" means the best possible (globally) over all possible dimensions including time.

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

The point being is that even a short-term thinking may yield long-term benefits sometimes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> "I've learned that people's expectations grow faster than their wealth. The country is richer than it's ever been. I don't think it's as happy as it's ever been."

Greater than half the country did not participate in the supposed recovery. Check out the plunge over five years in the labor force, the unemployment rate among teenagers, blacks, hispanics, the use of food stamps, the use of ss disability, etc. Real wages haven't moved in 40 years. It's little wonder it's not an overly happy country, most people have not participated in the Fed's asset inflation party. The rich are richer than they've ever been, the poor are the poorest they've arguably been since the great depression. Not arguing the why's mind you, but there is a very good reason the country doesn't seem very happy.

</comment><comment><USER39> > _I 've learned that there's a strong correlation between knowledge and > humility._

It's the Dunning–Kruger effect:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect)

<comment><USER40> No, I disagree. There's a big difference between humility and lack of self- confidence.

<comment><USER39> That's just the most extreme form. As with most things, it's a gradient.

If you know that there are things you don't know, you'll probably be more humble. If you feel overwhelmed, because there doesn't seem to be an end in sight, it might affect your confidence.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Tbh, "I've learned that changing your mind is one of the most difficult things we do. It is far easier to fool yourself into believing a falsehood than admit a mistake."

That is probably the one from which many other's stem. If you only make the same mistake a couple of times before changing your mind, you are far, far better off than everyone else because I've seen people repeat the _exact same mistake_ dozens of times.

Tbh, I have too...which is probably why I generally assume I've made a mistake until someone tells me otherwise alot of the time. Well, except for a few things I feel strongly about that aren't simple binaries where everyone might have radically different end goals.

</comment><comment><USER42> I've always been a big fan of Motley Fool, particularly their podcasts, and I think it's for the same reason I like this article: their contributors seem to value honesty, to point of self-deprecation, over the desire to appear superior.

</comment><comment><USER43> /insightful

Not said often, but thanks for taking the time to submit.

> I've learned that there's a strong correlation between knowledge and > humility.

Although I think, arrogance is sometimes required to make people understand that it's the Right Thing.

</comment><comment><USER44> Actually one of the things that gives me the most hope is the fact that Godwin's law is so much less frequently invoked. I think after a couple decades of being able to vomit up the first thing on our minds, many people are learning to take a more measured approach online.

</comment><comment><USER45> I've learned that there is no reason to take everything you read as gospel.

</comment><comment><USER46> Great lessons, for investors, business folk, developers, and actors.

<comment><USER47> Or rather, for everyone, at least those that are not economics related. My favourite one:

"I've learned that strong political beliefs in either direction limit your ability to make rational decisions more than almost anything else."

Actually you can just leave the 'political' away and it only becomes more general truth.

<comment><USER40> Yeah, pg wrote an essay about this and it's one of my favorites.

[http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> i was not at all enlightened by this article and took most of the points as basic common sense everyone should have (but unfortunately everyone does not). the fact that the author had to come to these conclusions 'over time' means he's susceptible to being just another damn fool in the first place.

</comment><comment><USER49> "There's nothing important to write about today." Are you shitting me?

</comment><comment><USER50> "excessive pessimism" stopped reading right there. All credibility lost.

</comment><comment><USER51> If you enjoy reading and absorbing this kind of knowledge, I suggest reading Meditations by Marcus Aurelius. It's a book of personal thoughts/writings/observations that Aurelius wrote while he was emperor of Rome. It's absolutely stunning how much knowledge from back then is still applicable in the modern world.

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

<comment><USER47> +1 for bringing this up. Might have been on HN before, but it cannot be stressed enough what a great mind he was. Especially his striving for 'good' in his writings is leaves a bitter taste in my mouth everytime I read it because I _know_ I'm still far from being good. Well, something that can make you think like that is superb.</comment></comment>


Power, secrecy and cypherpunks: how Jacob Appelbaum ripped Tor apart - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/11/jacob-appelbaum-tor-project-sexual-assault-allegations <comment><USER2> Except that Tor isn't apart--we're doing great, although perhaps there are one or two former members who hope we can't survive without them ;)</comment>


Azalead Ends Cold Calls by Telling You Which Company Visited Your Site - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2014/10/06/azalead-ends-cold-calls-by-telling-you-which-company-visited-your-site/

<comment><USER2> Eloqua was doing this... 10 years ago?</comment>


Linux-insides: Introduction to system calls - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/0xAX/linux-insides/blob/master/SysCall/syscall-1.md

<comment> vezzy-fnord See also LWN's "Anatomy of a system call": [https://lwn.net/Articles/604287/](https://lwn.net/Articles/604287/)

</comment><comment><USER2> Are you planning to put out a Kindle version of this when it's done? I'd pay for it.

<comment><USER3> You can already download the MOBI from the book's GitBook page: [https://www.gitbook.com/book/0xax/linux- insides/details](https://www.gitbook.com/book/0xax/linux-insides/details) :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Another introductory resource: [https://sysdig.com/fascinating-world-linux- system-calls/](https://sysdig.com/fascinating-world-linux-system-calls/)</comment>


Dijit Goes After Personalized TV Discovery With The Launch Of NextGuide iPad App - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2012/09/07/dijit-nextguide/

<comment><USER2> Thanks for the link - CEO of Dijit here - happy to answer any questions anyone might have, or any good feedback!!!

<comment><USER3> congrats on the launch Jeremy! Just downloaded and will run it through the paces over the next couple days. Looks great so far tho!

Couple minor things. Vertical scrolling is kinda weird. Can only scroll vertically if scrolling is stopped. Also, tried to search for a show and it timed out.

Cheers, kg

<comment><USER2> re vertical scrolling - yeah, it's a really tough thing to get it right, we're still tweaking!

re search - what were you looking for?

<comment><USER3> just tried a couple searches. one was for "breaking bad". Took a while then timed out

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Very cool and best of luck Jeremy. Especially love the DVR button.

</comment><comment><USER5> The app looks great, Good luck Jeremy!

<comment><USER2> thanks!!

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Hell yes!</comment>


[video] Unidirectional Data Flow in Swift - Ben-G https://realm.io/news/benji-encz-unidirectional-data-flow-swift/ <comment><AUTHOR> Have you considered using NSCoding to persist state?

<comment> Ben-G Yes! Though it would require the state to be an Objective-C class instead of a struct. We're currently trying not to rely on Obj-C at all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER2> How would you pass parameters to the next view controller on the flow?

<comment><USER3> I think you wouldn't; instead, you change the state twice: once the "model" state, once the navigation state.

The first will incorporate the changes of the current view controller and make it accessible to whoever is interested -- and then the next view controller will show the current "model" state which in fact includes everything that was changed already.

<comment> Ben-G That is correct! However, we are also working on making it possible to pass data as part of the routing process (that will be implemented in ReSwiftRouter) as that is necessary for recursive routes.

<comment><USER2> I think passing data will be required in some cases in order to solve the dependencies of the next view controller on the flow. Otherwise the store will have to solve these dependencies of all View Controllers which I think it's not ideal.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Cuba's "Internet" is a thumb drive that moves by bus - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/backchannel/the-only-internet-most-cubans-know-fits-in-a-pocket-and-moves-by-bus-c96b7e82f7aa <comment><USER3> Here's where I put on my old-man hat. You youngsters reading this might be flabbergasted, but this is how things worked in the olden-days, before the Internet.

An example, there use to be this guy names Fred Fish who would compile Amiga freeware onto floppies and trade them at Amiga user group meetings. I believe he lived in Idaho. Where he got the freeware was anybody's guess. But through a thin network of people trading software, the Fish disks (as they became known) spread far and wide. I didn't have an Amiga, but one of my friends did, and he had probably 30 Fish disks, which composed _most_ of the library of software he used (there were about 1000 of these disks).

Generally, they weren't transmitted by BBS, nobody had internet. These were literally n-th generation copies of the original disks Fred Fish first put together on _his_ computer and gave out at _his_ local group and to _his_ friends. People from around the world ended up with Fish disks, which are usually reverently numbered according to the release packages that Fred put together.

People used to organize "copy parties" where we'd all haul our huge computers, tower-CRT monitor, sometimes speakers, over to somebody's house and we'd spend all night copying floppies and sharing software and .mod files and whatever else. Showing off games and drinking and smoking and doing all other kinds of crazy things. Fish disks were common sights at these parties and everybody wanted to fill out their collection or get the latest one...which may have percolated thousands of miles and over oceans -- by _hand_ to get to this party.

The movie "Hackers" is a terrible movie from a technical standpoint, but it really nails the feel of this culture. Competitive and cooperative, doing something a _little_ bit wrong, mostly at night. Viruses in those days were designed to spread in this kind of environment of social sharing, embedding themselves in weird spots on floppy disks and taking up just hundreds of bytes.

Modems started to kill lots of it off, and widespread Internet killed off the rest. But it was an amazing time.

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

<comment><USER4> I remember typing in programs from magazines and printouts we'd get from friends.

My "computing" teacher in Junior High School used to get floppies and tapes sent to him from some friends in American universities, so we got to play around with the source code for some games on the Commodore PET. I still remember cutting notches in our 5.25" floppies to make them double sided.

We had acoustic couplers but living in rural Nova Scotia we couldn't afford the long-distance charges and none of us were ever good enough to be phreakers.

Good times.

<comment><USER5> I remember the only problem with cutting the notch to make the disc double sided was it turned the other way when upside down and the dust collected by the fabric hair brush unloaded all the dust back onto the disc :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > What should the US do about Cuban connectivity?

Um, nothing? I don't mean this from a sense of "who cares?" but more from a sense of "let Cubans figure out what works for them". If they ask for help, provide it. But don't go interfering unnecessarily where interference is not particularly asked for.

I suspect that the world would be a much different place if we'd followed that dictum in the first place.

<comment><USER7> _If they ask for help, provide it. But don 't go interfering unnecessarily where interference is not particularly asked for._

Except the US still has a number of trade embargoes in place with Cuba, so while they could ask for help it's possible the people they ask would be legally bound to say no. Lifting decades old sanctions that hurt both Cuba and the US (in hundreds of millions of dollars in lost export trade) would be something the US could, and should, do.

A trade embargo with a country on grounds of it being ideologically different falls under "interfering unnecessarily" in my opinion.

<comment><USER8> > A trade embargo with a country on grounds of it being ideologically > different falls under "interfering unnecessarily" in my opinion.

That sort of hand waving does a disservice to history. Initially the embargo was enacted because Cuba nationalized industries without providing fair compensation (a).

It's true that the embargoes have been more ideological since then, but the ideology is that fairly basic human rights (life, liberty, free speech) should be respected (b).

All that being said, the Castros are pretty entrenched. Maybe healthier interaction with Cuba would promote human rights faster. But you don't have to make straw man assertions to make that point.

a) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_Cuba)

b) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Cuba#Political...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Cuba#Political_executions)

<comment><USER9> The nationalisations that caused the first trade embargo followed hostile moves from the Eisenhower administration by e.g. reducing trade quotas and through the refusal of an American owned refinery to sell to the Cuban government. The rest of the nationalisation followed as a retaliation against the that trade embargo.

Basically Eisenhower shot himself in the foot by first rebuffing early advances by Castro that sent Castro head first into the arms of the Soviets, and then it just got worse from that.

It had nothing to do with ideology on either side, but with money and power.

<comment><USER10> America was shocked by the nationalizations in Mexico in the decades before, so it's unsurprising that this was considered bad form. Embargo was always the escalation of choice then.

I believe Castro was also pretty Marxist well before 1959. That would have constrained what any politician in the US could have done.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It's been a while now since "El Paquete" became the main distribution channel of online content in Cuba, a lot has been written about this before.

A less known aspect of this topic is the net neutrality issues that this kind of distribution imply. At the end of the day, all the content come from this mighty anonymous source that download and distribute the content for a profit, presumably a huge profit. This source is god, he or she has the last word of what get in and what is left out.

So, since the beginning of "El Paquete" my website revolico.com went in. Revolico content (classifieds ads) is like a basic need in a market with almost 100% goverment control over the retail space (price fixing, availability, etc.), but about a month ago our content was left out, with a note that said that it would no longer be available because it has been used to for the purposes of "personal and political defamation against the country and its citizens.", I was like WTF, is this the goverment infiltrating "El Paquete"? is a nasty move of our competitors? Who knows, the problem is that one guy has the power to decide what is ditribute it and what is not. This is not good by any mean.

Two weeks after revolico came back to "El Paquete", everything points that the customers were asking for it, so the producers were forced to include it again.

"El Paquete" is one of the best things that is happen in Cuba digital space right now, but a not centralized version is mandatory to make it less vulnerable to goverment control or other kind of arbitrariness.

More on this:

[http://cubanotes.com/is-the-cuban-government-censoring-el- pa...](http://cubanotes.com/is-the-cuban-government-censoring-el-paquete-the- answer-would-seem-to-be-yes/)

[http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/23/cuba-offline- in...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/23/cuba-offline-internet- weekly-packet-external-hard-drives)

<comment><USER12> Where is revolico hosted? What are your analytics like in a country with so little internet penetration? Does being in El Paquete mean that people are seeing ads that are now weeks or even months old?

<comment><USER11> The app is hosted in a typical cloud computing environment. The traffic from Cuba is 4M page views monthly. El Paquete gets updated every week so the people are seeing ads active the week before. We sell premium listing, our clients ask us for the right timing so its ads gets into El Paquete in the firsts positions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> > She did make that movie, she called it "Offline," and she handed me a copy. > It's like El Packete, going in the other direction, and this time with > meaningful content: I brought it back with me to the U.S. I hope you will > watch it today.

Links to [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlPiG- pDvGA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlPiG-pDvGA) which of course is blocked in Germany because

> Unfortunately, this video is not available in your country because it could > contain music from UMG, for which we could not agree on conditions of use > with GEMA.

Gate-keepers here, gate-keepers there. Youtube is a proprietary service that (can) arbitrarily disable access to whatever you shove into it. Please always remember that. If you want to spread your creations without other people controlling them, consider P2P or hosting them yourself.

<comment><USER14> I use a VPN that tunnels through Sweden and I just got the GEMA "error message", but I don't even live in Germany (so information leak should not be the case). After changing the VPN exit node to another country, it worked. "Gate-Keepers" can be a problem, but hosting videos on your own can be quite expensive, so I'd recommend to use several distribution ways/different hosters.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Venezuela here, there is 2 daily flights from venezuela to cuba, everyone that travels there goes with around 200 flash drives, sd cars, etc. The airlines (cubana and conviasa) doesnt care about what u take to cuba, ive seen ppl taking up to 3 fridges as their baggage

<comment><USER15> Oh, forgot to say they also take pirates dvd vcd etc, with everything, software, books, movies, music, piracy regulation in venezuela doesnt exist and cuba ppl is untochable due to venezuela and cuba friendship so is kinda smuggling paradise.

<comment><USER16> > piracy regulation in venezuela doesnt exist

Is that literally true like in Iran, or is it simply not enforced? Venezuela signed the Berne convention.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> "Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway."

— Andrew S. Tanenbaum, Computer Networks (1989)

<comment><USER17> More importantly, never underestimate the invisibility of one station wagon full of tapes among thousands that aren't.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Things worked for me like this while growing as a kid in Burgas, Bulgaria, up until I graduated in 1994.

There was a guy that used to carry a big back of disks - Apple ][, but mostly PC, where he would let people copy off things he got, but often he charged - for example I had to pay something like $1 for Mission Impossible back then (the Apple ][ and the PC game - can't remember which one I've got).

Open source wasn't really in my mind then, and It was a really good awesome moment when I saw that there are sources for a compression program (zip/unzip). Until then we've had PKWARE Arc, PKWARE Zip, LHA, LZH - <USER2> everything that was coming was only DOS binaries (no source).

And then one day he got this disk with these sources, and for some reason he let me borrow the disk and copy it.

</comment><comment><USER19> To be clear here, it's not a single thumb drive (as the title implies) but a network of thumb drives distributed through an ad-hoc parcel service. Frankly, it doesn't sound that different than the old shareware and disc-based multimedia subscription services that used to exist in the US in the early-to- mid-90s (such as LAUNCH and SoftDisk). The biggest difference I can see is that (a) it's largely pirated content and (b) there's seems to be some user generated content as well.

</comment><comment><USER20> Is "El Packete" the real name of the thing or is the journalist constantly misspelling "El Paquete" though the article?

<comment><USER21> It is El Paquete: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Paquete_Semanal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Paquete_Semanal)

The pervasive misspelling concerned me. If the basic details are wrong, what chance is there of the _actual_ cultural details being right? It seems like the author does not speak fluent Spanish, which makes it difficult to trust their understanding of how el paquete actually travels.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> In 1987 public TV in communist Czechoslovakia distributed programs for 8 bit computers. TV presenter always said "switch on the magnetophones...", followed by 5 minutes of modem beeps :-)

</comment><comment><USER23> Quote from OA

 _" El Packete is a very slow high-capacity Internet access connection; someone (no one knows who) loads up those drives with online glitz and gets them to Cuban shores..."_

On the off-chance anyone relevant in Miami is reading this: The Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum distributes 8GB to 10Gb of Creative Commons licensed classical music, mostly chamber. Might be useful to fill the odd corner of the media over (say) a month or two of releases. Or just put The Concert podcast on each release...

[http://www.gardnermuseum.org/music/listen/music_library?filt...](http://www.gardnermuseum.org/music/listen/music_library?filter=composer)

...older more classically minded citizens might appreciate the gesture.

</comment><comment><USER24> What happened to those wireless-plus-wheels approaches from about 10 years ago?

[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6506193.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6506193.stm)

Low-cost Communication for Rural Internet Kiosks Using Mechanical Backhaul: [http://people.csail.mit.edu/matei/papers/2006/mobicom_kiosks...](http://people.csail.mit.edu/matei/papers/2006/mobicom_kiosks.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER25> It's spelled paquete.

An interesting sideline to this is the question of who or what produces this product. There's a compelling argument that the government might be behind it, or at the very least have some hand in its production and distribution.

[http://cubanotes.com/who-or-what-is-behind-cubas-peculiar- ve...](http://cubanotes.com/who-or-what-is-behind-cubas-peculiar-version-of- netflix/)

</comment><comment><USER26> Cuba's mystery fiber-optic Internet cable stirs to life [http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/22/us-cuba- internet-i...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/22/us-cuba-internet- idUSBRE90L13020130122)

They have the pipe but the state controls it.

<comment><USER27> Was gonna say, just get Venezuela to pay for an underwater cable. Guess they did already, but only for select few.. at least they don't need to buffer their youtube videos :D

Was there for a couple of months 10 years ago touring with a band. Great trip and wonderful people, but I doubt the government are gonna allow unrestricted access to information via the internet if the state newspapers/radio is anything to go by.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> This is sad. Hopefully satellite providers like O3B ([http://www.o3bnetworks.com/customers/](http://www.o3bnetworks.com/customers/)) make a dent in this market. It seems O3B exists primarily to satisfy connectivity needs for places just like Cuba.

</comment><comment><USER29> Similar article from last month:

[http://kernelmag.dailydot.com/issue-sections/headline- story/...](http://kernelmag.dailydot.com/issue-sections/headline- story/13117/tech-cuba-reforms/)

</comment><comment><USER30> This is how piracy worked in Hungary during the nineties. Maybe at first it was floppy disks that I can't remember but I remember 120MB QIC tapes (floppy interface, crazy slow) then DAT tapes then hard drives. Weekly delivery from Austria.

</comment><comment><USER31> Now that's a fault tolerant distributed network. IP is jealous in some ways. Can you email with El Paquete?

I also wonder if content is higher quality or at least more carefully curated than on the always connected internet.

</comment><comment><USER32> Looks like a evolution of RFC 1149 : [https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1149.txt](https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1149.txt)

</comment><comment><USER33> Probably safer at least.

</comment><comment><USER34> but they have healthcare that is better than the US amirite?

</comment><comment><USER35> Ironically, this Cuban 'internet' is more secure and surveillance-free than the real one.

<comment><USER11> Not really, unfortunately: [http://cubanotes.com/is-the-cuban-government- censoring-el-pa...](http://cubanotes.com/is-the-cuban-government-censoring-el- paquete-the-answer-would-seem-to-be-yes/)</comment></comment>