New Software Flaw Could Further Delay Boeing's 737 Max - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-17/new-software-flaw-identified-in-boeing-s-grounded-737-max-jet <comment><USER2> This is more and more starting to smell a bit like this is the first time in a while when somebody is actually looking whether a plane fulfills the regulations. Just wonder if FAA & co should actually audit some other models as well with same level of scrutiny? And by all means not just Boeing.

<comment><USER3> How many new planes are designed each year that the FAA needed to abdicate this responsibility?

Aren't planes hard and basically there's only a few new major models in a year?

<comment><USER4> Two words: regulatory capture. I very much doubt that the career engineers and administrators at the FAA chose to abdicate the responsibility, but there are all sorts of ways that politicians and their appointees at the top can bring this about without an explicit policy: reducing headcount and reassigning staff, rewriting the low-level rules and guidelines, burying the staff in paperwork and meetings... Boeing can also subvert the process by disputing every point, administrative burying, and by concealing things (such as the increase in MCAS' power to change the trim after the initial version was found to be ineffective.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Will people even want to board these planes after it became clear how Boeing handled (botched) the development of this plane and how FAA insisted on keeping these planes up in the air (while stating they were perfectly safe as any other) until they absolutely couldn't (i.e. until other countries grounded it)?

I wonder what the game plan is for getting these planes back in the air for carrying passengers. A small vocal minority will make a big stink about it and it will get amplified. Regular folk that don't know or care will join and it will become a huge shitfest when the day comes.

<comment><USER6> Maybe I'm just a very clueless passenger but I admit that I never ever check what kind of plane I'm in before I board it. I have a flight booked two weeks from now and I have no idea what kind of plane it's going to be in. Aren't most people the same? And if so, is the paranoia around the MAX big enough to change people's habits in the long run?

<comment><USER7> I check every plane. They're VERY different in terms of comfort. Maybe if you fly US domestic it doesn't matter. But for international flights aircraft type makes all the difference. (see e.g. Emirates horrible 777 vs it's very comfy A380)

<comment><USER8> I check as well. However, the airline can/will change the aircraft at their discretion. Last time I didn't find out until I arrived at the gate. If you don't want to fly on the changed aircraft, I'm not sure what recourse you have at that point. Of course, ultimately you can not board, but there may be penalties.

If you had carry-on only, it might not bother them much. If you checked baggage, they need remove it, causing a delay. Although in principle, this would be "just as if" you missed the boarding call, I suspect if you tell them ahead of time (as in: "I'm not boarding this plane."), they'll try to persuade you there will be penalties. I don't know.

There must be fine-print in the contract of carriage, since the ticket ("product") purchase indicates the aircraft.

Perhaps one could verify the aircraft before check-in. If you don't receive a boarding pass, obviously there is no problem whatsoever, you just lose the flight unless you've paid top-dollar for a refundable ticket.

<comment><USER9> > However, the airline can/will change the aircraft at their discretion

That's very rare due to different seat configurations. That normally means a flight was cancelled or something else went fundamentally wrong.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> All of Boeing's self-certification rights should be scrapped. Clearly Boeing's internal safety culture isn't in a state where it can be trusted. Mistakes happen & planes fall out of the sky, but this seems like a rather pervasive culture issue.

<comment><USER7> No manufacturer should ever be allowed to self-certify.

What kind of teacher lets his kids self-grade?

<comment> o-__-o Well. The FAA in this case is not teaching Boeing how to make planes, so your comparison is not exactly a good one. Maybe an example of another regulated industry like NHTSA or OSHA?

I.e. I don't see gold mining companies performing their own MSHA audits, but I do see them building controls and processes to satisfy safety regulations

<comment><USER7> A college or undergrad university doesn't teach its students how to excel in a GRE or GMAT. And yet you won't ever get to self grade yourself on those. An external (hopefully somewhat impartial) organisation does.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> There seems to be no information on what the problem actually is. This seems a bit odd since Boeing themselves reported it and they should know all the details.

Is it related to the blank screen problem that was discussed a few days ago?

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21991087](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21991087)

Is this reporting with such limited details some kind of damage control along the lines of "we cannot wait longer and must inform the shareholders now" and "we cannot tell the public all the information because it would damage our reputation"?

With the little details we know now we can assume that it is 1) "nothing big" as in an assertion that caught an unexpected new version number and the program simply needs an one-line-patch to update the version check or 2) they detected a problem that turns out to be "unfixable with current hardware" like a weird kind of race condition where the communications can get stuck sometimes but it's hard to reproduce, doesn't happen in the lab and nobody really understands what's going on or 3) "something entirely different".

<comment><AUTHOR> > The issue involves how software on the plane checks itself to ensure it's > receiving valid data [...] when the system is initially starting up.

> software reviews have occurred in a special simulator used by engineers on > the ground.

> The problem came to light when the latest version of the software was loaded > onto an actual aircraft

My stomach hurts reading this! I get no confidence at all and I am scared more problems will be found or more accidents occur.

Just guessing... Someone at Boeing testing the new shiny software on a real airplane decided to mess with a sensor (AoA?) to simulate it being stuck or something and to make sure this would be properly handled. It did not work.

How on earth can problems like this be found this late?

<comment><USER12> I would imagine the simulators will be updated to better reflect the conditions that trigger the error on actual hardware, but it's hard to build and iterate a perfect simulation of complicated stacks like a modern jetliner.

<comment><AUTHOR> In a system like this the software organization should be super-confident that no matter what failures occur they will handle them gracefully. They should be this confident before even entering the sim.

Getting there is hard and you should be using both models you can prove correct and hands-on "vulnerability" testing. And to make it feasible you should keep your "stack" as simple as possible.

To me your comment reads like developing a system like this in a trial-and- error way until you get a pass from the sim would be OK. It is most definitely not OK.

<comment><USER12> Of course you don't start from a crude simulation, but when the sim diverges from real hardware behavior, you need to find the reason and update the sim to reflect real world.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is unfortunate.

I am amazed that along every step of the way, Boeing appears to be shooting itself in the foot.

Having worked in this industry (although not on airplane software), this seems to be a big management and cultural problem with Boeing. It was apparent in other programs and the decisions that the higher ups made.

<comment><USER14> And the regulator. Is the cultural problem due to American culture? Profit as god.

<comment><USER7> Which regulator in the US regulates still? Maybe the FDA, but even there I have doubts.

The USDA is a rubber stamping under-funded organisation as has the FAA become. Part of the culture there.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Is it me or is every single issue reported as something exceptional causing boeing to look like the biggest amateurs in the world. What will be next? Boeing migrated all the vital control systems to nodejs. Infiltrated npm packages caused unknown issues. Further delay required.

<comment><USER7> Happens when you outsource life-critical code to the lowest bidder, who doesn't even work on airplanes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I wonder what the Gantt charts would look like for redesigning the 737 MAX from scratch with new type certificate.

First revenue flight if everything goes smoothly: 2065? There's like a 20% chance Everett will be scoured to bedrock by a tsunami by then. So I can understand the reluctance to do the right thing.

<comment><USER17> Using existing Boeing Standards and Processes? (how to install a rivet. how to anodize aluminum. how to verify software. 100 years of experience written into requirements and specifications of how to build a plane)

Likely 10 years. Starting from scratch. 30 years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> It's incredible they are still pushing to fly this plane without changing the plane itself (engines etc.). This is, as most software issues, an issue of trust. After Boeing killed almost four hundred people with an airplane they knew was unsafe we're supposed to trust the latest software update? Again? That's what they said after the first crash.

This is a prime example of software (these days sometimes called artificial "intelligence" or other nonsense) running amok and the dire consequences it can have.

</comment><comment><USER19> At what point will Boeing decide to just scrap them all? Are they relying on the flying public being oblivious to what plane they're getting on? I know I wouldn't board a Max regardless.

<comment><USER20> No way government allows it to be scrapped. Worst case scenario they will be refitted for cargo duty, or 'purchased' by army/navy at a reverse discount to prop Boeing up.

<comment><USER21> > or 'purchased' by army/navy at a reverse discount to prop Boeing up.

What use would the military even have for such a plane? The only thing I can think of is ferrying personnel out to deployments, but I understand 737s are fairly short range planes and better, cheaper charter flights are probably available.

<comment><USER22> The US military has a hundred or so 737 derivatives:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737#Other_variants](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737#Other_variants)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Open source it. Just open source it all. This would restore so much faith and allow passionate researchers to improve safety.

</comment><comment><USER24> I will never fly on one of these air Yugos. I suspect there are quite a few like me.

</comment><comment><USER25> I am guessing that previously they did not take the testing nearly as seriously.

</comment><comment><USER26> For the sake of all of us I hope this plane never sees another flight.

<comment><USER27> I'll never set foot on a MAX series out of principle. Not much else one can do as a consumer other than vote with one's wallet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Why are they even bothering with the MAX?

Do they really think that people will willingly board a MAX plane again when travelling? I'm certainly not going to do that.

<comment><USER13> Because they have hundreds of new airplanes sitting on the ground, as well as a tooled up production line as well as the innumerable companies involved in the supply chain.

The 737 Max issues have been causing layoffs at supplier companies that were heavily reliant on the Max as a source of income.

<comment><USER28> Yeah but nobody is going to get on that thing. The moment someone tries to use that model again there will be headlines like "XX Airlines puts death plane back in the sky" etc.

It's a waste of money trying to get it back on track.

<comment><USER9> > Yeah but nobody is going to get on that thing

People absolutely will. Boeing is literally too big to fail and people don't care enough either. If someone can have a 50 Euro flight from Berlin to London they won't mind if it's a reintroduced 737 MAX.

<comment><USER5> We'll see about that. Why would airlines accept to operate these planes at a significant loss after the loss they incurred with this whole fiasco to begin with?

I personally wouldn't board this plane until it had a spotless record a decade in the air even if they paid me for it. And I'm someone who loves flying so no specific phobia involved.

<comment><USER29> > _Why would airlines accept to operate these planes_

Because their other option is getting at the end of the line for an A320neo and get delivery in 6 years (or worse)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Boarded a plane last night. Looked like a 737. Breathed a sigh of relief when I saw it was an Embraer.

<comment><USER31> The rudder hard-over in '90s 737 should be fixed now, no problem :> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_rudder_issues](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_rudder_issues)

I'd call that one even more scandalous but the media didn't seem to report it much at the time.

<comment><USER32> Airplanes were much more dangerous back then, and those 3 accidents happened over a much larger number of flights (orders of magnitude larger) than the 2 Max ones.</comment></comment></comment>


How did CalPERS dig a $153B pension hole? - <AUTHOR> http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/11/13/opinion-how-did-calpers-dig-a-153-billion-pension-hole/ <comment><AUTHOR> This article is on page A7 of today's Mercury News print edition... but it is _not shown_ on their index pages[1] -- you cannot get to this article except via Search terms.

A related article[2] from a few days ago is visible, though.

[1] [http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/](http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/)

[2] [http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/11/10/borenstein-end- calpers...](http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/11/10/borenstein-end-calpers- reckless-pension-debt-repayment-plans/)</comment>


Ask HN: Best online strategy board game? - <AUTHOR> I am a huge fan of Stratego, which is similar to chess, except you do not know a pieces rank until you strike it (all pieces are identical). Unfortunately, the online game seems to be breaking more and more as the company who built it is no longer maintaining it. Any recommendations? Not looking for an online game like LoL where there is constant input and output, but one where there is time to consider what is the best move. <comment><USER2> This game is orders of magnitude more complex than Stratego and it isn't free, but Twilight Struggle is a great asymmetric two-person game that can last for weeks.

It models the Cold War. One player is the US, while the other is USSR. The main conceit is what if you could re-order the sequence of historical events, which drives the overall mechanic, which is vying for influence country by country with the assumption that the domino theory was correct.

The game is available on Steam, iOS and Android (though, you'll probably need a tablet for mobile).

This is probably the best resource for learning the game: [https://twilightstrategy.com/](https://twilightstrategy.com/)

</comment><comment><USER3> Ever play Go?

[http://www.usgo.org/go-internet](http://www.usgo.org/go-internet)

<comment><USER4> Yes, on KGS[0]. I found it to be too addictive and had to play tenuki[1].

      [0] https://gokgs.com
      [1] http://66.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lo7ry5YAUX1qkt3l6.jpg

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> If you're willing to loosen your definition of "strategy board game", games like Die2Nite, Supremacy 1914, and Neptune's Pride have a similar, turn based gameplay where you have hours to think between moves.

</comment><comment><USER6> Many classical full information board game at PlayOK[1] and free, but not so many players.

I believe there are more board game sites where you can find people to play with, like board game garena[2].

[1] [https://www.playok.com/](https://www.playok.com/) [2] [https://boardgamearena.com/](https://boardgamearena.com/)

</comment><comment><USER7> I used to play quite alot of Atwar ([https://atwar-game.com/](https://atwar- game.com/)) It's a Risk like game with nice unit mechanics and mods. Unfortunately last time I signed in (about year ago) it seemed that there wasn't that much players anymore so it was pretty hard to find a game.

</comment><comment><USER8> I recommend the Steam or mobile version of Through the Ages. [https://store.steampowered.com/app/758370/Through_the_Ages/](https://store.steampowered.com/app/758370/Through_the_Ages/)

</comment><comment><USER9> Boardgamearena.com and yucata.de have a load of free-to-play strategic board games implemented online. Caylus and Innovation are two that I've rediscovered. Also Castles of Burgundy. You can browse boardgamegeek.com to find new ones.

</comment><comment><USER10> My friend is obsessed with this game. Can take weeks to finish a game: [https://np.ironhelmet.com/#landing](https://np.ironhelmet.com/#landing)

</comment><comment><USER11> Fun for a work LAN board game

[http://jcloisterzone.com/en/](http://jcloisterzone.com/en/)

</comment><comment><USER12> Hearthstone is a great strategic online card game. A new set of cards just came out so its a great time to start it.

</comment><comment><USER13> Europa Universalis 4. Its basically Risk if risk took every steriod in the entire world.

</comment><comment><USER14> Civilization IV/V or maybe even VI is good strategy game and can be played online.

</comment><comment><USER15> lichess.org

</comment><comment><USER16> polytopia.

</comment><comment><USER17> katan.io</comment>


Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg starts reading program - <AUTHOR> http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Facebook-s-Mark-Zuckerberg-starts-reading-program-5993275.php

<comment><AUTHOR> I've been trying to read one book a week since 2013 ([http://warrenmar.wordpress.com/book-of-the- week/](http://warrenmar.wordpress.com/book-of-the-week/)). I think everyone should try it. I never read that much when I was in school, but now I really enjoy it.

<comment><USER2> I have an e-book reader on my phone and it makes all the difference. Any time I have a little extra time to kill, I can read a book instead of playing games.

I can read a book a week pretty easily like this. I forgot how much I enjoyed it.

<comment><AUTHOR> My local library lets me check out e-books too. It is very convenient.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> "It's a book that explores how the world is shifting to give individual people more power that was traditionally only held by large governments, militaries and other organizations," Zuckerberg wrote. "The trend toward giving people more power is one I believe in deeply."

Well, as coming from a billionaire that now has (potential) power over many people, I'm not surprised at his choice of book.

What's next, why China is great?

Call me cynical, but I feel like many of the books that he will choose are done so to sway groups of people to align with his political beliefs rather than just a fun read to expand your mind.

<comment><USER2> so differing opinions get down voted now? Children behind a keyboard.</comment></comment>


How To Stay Organized Like a CEO - <AUTHOR> http://westonludeke.com/2013/02/14/how-to-stay-organized-like-a-ceo/

<comment><USER2> Between running a business, going to college, and being a D1 athlete, I have a lot to do in very little time. I've developed what I think is a simple and very effective system. If I want a high level view of deadlines, I click on a calendar button in my menu bar and see a red dot on every day something is due. I hover over it for details. I can also click a tasks button on my menubar which is google tasks synced with my iPhone. When I think of something to add to it, I can just type it into my phone and see it on the list later.

To set this up:

<http://fluidapp.com/> for pinning webpages to the menubar (~$5 to buy the version that pins to the menubar). In this case, this is "<https://mail.google.com/tasks/ig>

GeeTasks app for iPhone.

Calendar app for Mac.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm a big fan of Asana! I actually just discovered it last week. Great article.

<comment><USER4> Rather vapid/no content article I thought. "Like a CEO" with no reference to why CEO's must, or do (based on the recommendations) use Google Tasks and Asana.

One would think an article based on a CEOs level of function would focus primarily on prioritization and delegation.

This article is sort-of focusing on Sales oriented roles, which barely makes reference to delegation at all.

Edit: the only organizational tips is: Google Tasks for personal, Asana for work (two work-flow task programs to stay organized?). Use Asana for projects.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey Salem, thanks for the blunt feedback! I certainly appreciate it.

I wrote this more to focus specifically on how to organize one's work. I agree that delegation is important, but I would consider delegation another topic in itself (how to delegate, whom to delegate to, what to delegate, etc.)

This isn't about delegating, but some quick tips on how to organize the work that you need to do yourself.

Yes, I use two separate programs because I have two separate uses. I need much more detail for work than I do for personal use. Of course, a reader can pick and choose what works for them. :-)</comment></comment></comment>


Google's Surprising Role as Privacy Watchdog in Europe - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/19/technology/google-europe-privacy-watchdog.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0 <comment><USER2> Title, basically: Google is a privacy watchdog in Europe.

Content, basically: Google secretly passes judgement on millions of people's right to be forgotten and does not want to talk about it. Some French organization (which does not seem to be anything government related, but it doesn't say) agrees with Google "most of the time", though, so we've got that going for us.

I fail to see how this is anywhere close to a "privacy watchdog". Speaking as a Dutchman, organizations like Privacy First or Bits of Freedom (both are Dutch) would be privacy watchdogs, not Google who passes judgement on over 500 cases a day just because they're a big player.

> "Other search companies, including Microsoft, have been given the same > authority, though their number of judgments pales by comparison."

Yeah, and their market share also pales by comparison. Big surprise.

<comment><USER3> Another organization worth mentioning is EDRi: [https://edri.org/](https://edri.org/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This article is weird. Google never asked to be regulating this, puts in place a small team to handle the load and then the journalist wonders why they don't want to answer questions about methodology: because it can only backfire. Ideally for Google they wouldn't have to deal with this anymore, that's why they are publishing reports like this the big totals:

[https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/europepri...](https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/europeprivacy/)

</comment><comment><USER5> Share same opinion as @lucb1e, that title is misleading.

Google's role is not surprising nor understood as a privacy watchdog on this context, the company is complying (better or worse) with a right provided to EU citizens.

An example of true privacy watchdog (besides the others already mentioned) would be the FSFE or Julia Reda: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Reda](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Reda)

</comment><comment><USER6> So to have something removed from Google's search engine you ask Google to remove it. How does that make Google a watchdog?

This article makes it appear as if something unusual were happening, but I don't see that at all.

If everyone goes straight to the government or to the courts for every single minor dispute, then I know already who we will all be working for pretty soon.

</comment><comment><USER7> I'm guessing the intent of the title was to mean "A privacy watchdog should be an independent, possibly public entity, so it's surprising and problematic that a large US corporation has this level of influence over decisions on privacy in Europe".

However, without reading the article content, it very much comes across as "Google is doing such surprisingly benign work that it fills the role of privacy watchdog for Europe".

</comment><comment><USER8> Recent related regarding Google's relationship to privacy: [http://www.businessinsider.com/google-already-mapped-tens- of...](http://www.businessinsider.com/google-already-mapped-tens-of-thousands- of-stores-for-in-store-visits-analytics-2016-4)

</comment><comment><USER9> If a public body were to rule on this volume of cases, I assume it would be overwhelmed and expensive.</comment>


Donatello, a pure CSS drawing library - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/dnewcome/Donatello

<comment><USER2> Bearing in mind that all browsers (in common use) that support border-radius and gradients, also support SVG and canvas, and that SVG and canvas let you do more, are generally more performant, and have fallbacks (SVG particularly) in older browsers, why would you use Donatello?

<comment><USER3> AFAIK, on iOS CSS (especially when using transforms) is a lot faster because it's hardware accelerated.

<comment><USER4> Only when using transforms and only when using 3D transforms (though iOS5.0 may support hardware accelerated 2D transforms as well)

<comment><USER5> You can hardware accelerate 2D transforms on iOS. You just do a -webkit- transform: translateZ(0); and it puts the element in the compositing layer.

<comment><USER4> Yes, that is a 3D transform.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This looks cool, you might be able to use move.js for the animations:

<http://visionmedia.github.com/move.js/>

</comment><comment><USER7> is it possible to have things called pure CSS actually be pure CSS. this is definitely a JavaScript library that uses CSS, nothing more

<comment><USER8> I have to admit, I was also slightly irritated when I actually checked out the repo. The title is deceptive. "Donatello, a JS drawing library" - which is what it is - would probably not rack up as many points. Interesting tool, I hope to check it out sometime, but the OP should have been a little more honest. Just call it what it is.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> This whole ninja turtles thing is going to get out of hand. I already know of at least one other Donatello library based on Raphael.js which does something different.

<https://github.com/postmodern/donatello>

You couldn't have picked a different ninja turtle?

<comment><USER10> Donatello (the person) was a renowned artist and sculptor: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donatello>

<comment><USER9> Thanks i'm aware of my Renaissance art, but the things that connected Donatello the artist to Raphael the artist is being italian and a gap of nearly 20 years, in the reverse order you would think, given that there are now two derivative libraries built on Raphael named Donatello.

The ninja turtles connection is, even if you were talking about the artists, the more likely link :P

<comment><USER11> I personally never even made the turtles connection and assumed that, since they are drawing libraries, they are surely referring to the artists.

<comment><USER12> Same, but knowtheory's point rings true now that I've stopped to think about it. (That is, the "witty" pop-culture tie-in being the more likely reason as to why two libraries that do similar things to one named after an unrelated artist got named after the same sculptor.)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Apple says new MacBook Pro keyboard won't fix sticky key issue - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-says-new-macbook-pro-keyboard-wont-fix-sticky-key-issue/ <comment><AUTHOR> When I heard about the 2018 MBP today, my initial thought was that I would consider investing the cost and time of migrating from my 2017 MBP just to have a reliable keyboard. That Apple prioritized quieting the keyboard over fixing its reliability issues seems crazy to me.

<comment><USER2> Speculation: I don't think Apple will be able to fix the keyboard in this generation of MacBooks (generation meaning body type). It's all about clearances, key travel, tolerances. The system doesn't have room for a drop in replacement that could leave room for debris. That's why they gave it a 4 year extension — because that's probably when we'll see a newer body generation with redesigned keyboard.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> It could be that they are hoping the keyboard will be more reliable, and they're just covering their bases while they wait to see how it performs in the wild.

On the other hand, if it really doesn't make a difference for reliability, I wonder if their keyboard service program will be extended to cover this model as well.

</comment><comment><USER4> "Won't fix" is the incorrect terminology to use. I'm having trouble finding a direct quote from Apple in any of these stories. My assumption is the actual statement is along the lines of "It was designed to be quieter." while omitting any reference to addressing the sticky key issue.

Saying "We designed it to fix the sticky key issue" creates liability admitting that there's a significant defect that needs to be fixed, which no corporation would ever do, especially while currently facing multiple class- action lawsuits about said issue.

So while saying it was designed to be quieter, that doesn't mean there aren't additional benefits or corrections being implemented.

</comment><comment><USER5> I think they are over-optimizing a no-issue. Nobody around me complained over my MBP2015 keyboard noise, neither about my MBP2010

<comment><USER6> What does those old models have to do with the new keyboard?

<comment><USER7> Nothing. It's just a True Apple Believer's attempt to introduce some FUD.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > Technically, Apple has admitted only that "a smaller percentage of the > keyboards in certain MacBook and MacBook Pro models" have demonstrated the > sticky key issue. If you buy one, you may likely never have that problem.

Couldn't Apple have said 'a small percentage of keyboards...'? Just what are we talking here, 10%, 25%, 49%?

<comment><USER9> Our IT is backlogged with broken keyboards and I'm waiting for. backup laptops to become available so I can send mine for replacement. We have upwards of 200 of these sorry devices. The percentage is well above 10%

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Who cares? I don't use MacBook for any real work. Just for looks.

</comment><comment><USER7> Wow! This is really bad if it's not going to get any better. I've already switched from Apple several years ago (when there was no more viable desktop "Pro" option for me), and I suspect more true "pro" users will do the same.

Maybe Apple simple doesn't care about (or need) pro users. That's fine, I guess. They want to go in other directions. It could be that 'pros' are too expensive to have as customers.</comment>


Raising Capital: Closing The Deal - <AUTHOR> http://www.slideshare.net/jbeninato/raising-capital-closing-the-deal

<comment><USER2> Joe, if you're still following this thread, thanks for sharing that presentation and for the extra information here. I have a question. Your very last point says "Board composition REALLY matters". Could you expand on that? What are some red flags to watch out for? Is a fair, founder-friendly solution possible? Is it common? What does it look like?

I ask because I have heard many nasty stories of founders thinking that they would stay in control of their company, only to find that, because of the board, this wasn't true at all. I would like to know how to make sure this doesn't happen. It seems like the issues can't all be obvious, or so many smart people wouldn't fall prey to this pattern.

<comment><USER3> Hi Gruseom, I probably won't follow after this post, but you are welcome for the share. You can always email me directly via the address on the first page of the presentation. Board composition really matters, because your board is going to make decisions about the future of the company, and their most important role (some would say only role) is to hire/fire the CEO. Many founders give up 2 board seats for a bag of peanuts, and live to regret it.

The bottom line is board composition should be proportional to ownership. If a VC buys 25% of your company, they should have 1 of 4 board seats. The day investors (or their close friends who are identified as outsiders) have more than 50% of the board seats is the day you as a founder have lost control of your future.

I think most investors are fair about board composition up front. However some bigger VCs rely up on the fact that over time, you'll need to do multiple rounds, and they know that follow-on investors are frequently afraid to go against their decisions, so in effect, they end up with multiple board seats because the other investors don't want to piss them off. I have seen this dynamic firsthand, and it is not good. I hope this helps you!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I can personally say that Joe Beninato is a great guy. He personally took time to meet with me at a Starbucks and gave some honest, valuable advice when we were looking for some funding early on with Picwing. Glad to see he's still doing that!

</comment><comment><USER5> Hi Joe, we really appreciate your time and energy at fbFund REV!

I'm curious about the distribution of meetings/term sheets for the investors you highlighted.

Also interested in the second and third order effects of introductions to investors. Who has the best recommendation/conversion in the valley? *Need to do my HW on papers, dissertations, etc. to formulate better questions but seems like we could run tests to validate some of your points with our teams...

Thank you, Enrique

Sorry would of posted earlier but failing to get my username enriqueallen back :(

<comment><USER3> Thanks, Enrique. Not sure what you mean by distribution of meetings/term sheets. If what you are saying is which VCs or angels are most likely to fund, that is a really hard question to answer. It really depends upon your plan and what you are doing, so I don't think I could say "firm X gives the most term sheets."

In terms of your other question about recommendations, I would guess that if Reid Hoffman or Marc Andreessen recommended an investment to a VC firm saying they were investing, the VCs would take notice. However, getting time from either of them is difficult. I'd recommend getting a strong, well-connected advisor, and a similarly connected lawyer, and work closely with them. I hope this helps.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Why is he so adamant about not communicating a valuation? Is it because if you don't give one, there's a chance the VC will value you higher than the valuation you would have communicated?

<comment><USER3> Hi Jack,

Great question. It's pretty complicated, but I think naming a valuation can only lead to problems. Bottom line: it's not your job as an entrepreneur to value your company. It's up to the investor to "make the offer" in most cases. Angels and VCs are professional negotiators. Most entrepreneurs are not. They see thousands of companies every year and can very quickly assess the value of your company. I have seen situations where an entrepreneur shoots himself in the foot by stating a valuation that is lower than the VC had in mind, as you suggest above. But the reality is that the "market" will value your startup. If 3 VCs want to fund it, it's probably worth more than you thought. If 0 VCs want to fund it, it's probably worth less than you thought :( I think it's best to let the investors compete and the interest level drive the valuation of the company. If asked for a valuation by a potential investor, my suggestion to entrepreneurs is to say "We'd like to raise $X. We're realistic about valuations these days, so you don't need to worry that we want $20 pre. But we're going to let the market decide the valuation." Most investors respect that response from what I have experienced over the years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> You see the list of angels, angel groups, and seed firms? They're all in the Valley. You can do your startup elsewhere and succeed, but hey, if it's possible, probably worth moving.

<comment><USER3> Hi Sachinag, thanks for your comment. The reason most (but not all) of the firms I listed are in the Valley is because this group of startups are all in Palo Alto and meeting with investors here over the next few weeks. Of course there are many great investors outside of the Valley (some like Union Square, Foundry and First Round are all based outside) but I live and work in the Valley, so most of the investors I've worked with are here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> This presentation is really well done and will save you time from having to read 5-10 other smaller posts on the subject.

I still think it's best to raise capital when they come to you. Most don't or won't have the luxury of that though.</comment>


Should You Hire a Bootcamp Graduate? - <AUTHOR> http://blog.professorbeekums.com/2016/12/should-you-hire-bootcamp-graduate.html <comment><USER2> I am a bootcamp graduate, and I was lucky enough to be hired as a junior developer. I did have a lot of companies tell me that flat out that they didn't hire bootcamp grads. I also got interviews with a lot of companies that listed job requirements as "CS Degree with 3.5 GPA". I did bomb some interviews, but overall, everyone I talked to was very encouraging. I applied at a very small company (12 people), and the CEO actually sent me an email telling me to not give up and to keep going. He himself did not have a degree and told me it would be rough, but that I could do it.

The company that finally hired me has been amazing. They understand my limited knowledge base, but that has not deterred them from assigning me tasks I had never done before. Overall, it was a rough time from first day of bootcamp to getting hired, but in the end it's totally been worth it.</comment>


PayPal hands over 1,000 IP Addresses to the FBI, look out Anonymous - <AUTHOR> http://www.tekgoblin.com/2011/07/30/paypal-hands-over-1000-ip-addresses-to-the-fbi-look-out-anonymous/

<comment><USER2> old news.</comment>


Reasons AI Is Way Overhyped - <AUTHOR> https://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2019/02/15/3-reasons-ai-is-way-overhyped/#367b316f5a6a <comment><USER2> Most AI they have tried to sell us so far, are more smarter list compare algorithms. For example, when to pickup a garbage container. Turns out, there is no real AI involved, its just a list of conditions to watch.

<comment><USER3> I agree, the other half of AI is classically trained learning. They end up using the help desk to train their algorithms.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I also worked through this field in the 1980s, and the current results far surpass earlier results. With respect, I strongly disagree with this article.

Deep learning has revolutionized NLP (BERT solves anaphora resolution, etc., etc.). China has spawned many interesting AI powered product: auto checkout systems that recognize people and what they picked up in a store. etc., etc.</comment>


Augmented Hand Series – Interactive Art by Golan Levin and Collaborators - <AUTHOR> http://www.flong.com/projects/augmented-hand-series/ <comment><AUTHOR> via [http://prostheticknowledge.tumblr.com/post/118136157276/augm...](http://prostheticknowledge.tumblr.com/post/118136157276/augmented- hand-v2-0-continuation-of-interactive) (GIFs included)</comment>


Is there a data standard,other then SVG SMIL for saving vector animations? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> As a data file format (declarative, no code to run) no, there is nothing else. SVG SMIL is the only file format for saving vector animations as data.

Here is an example SVG SMIL file with a cartoon episode with embedded audio in synch:

[https://imgh.us/LoveDota.svg](https://imgh.us/LoveDota.svg)

The animation with the audio is reproduced correctly on Chrome and Firefox.

On Safari there is no audio, but the bug is currently under review: [https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=155778](https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=155778)

(NOTE: the above animation was made with AnimateCC and exported in SVG format with the flash2svg addon).

Without SMIL you just lose the option of saving complex animations like that. SVG SMIL is the PNG of vector animations.</comment>


Data Science Interview Questions - gosha-lebowski https://twitter.com/Al_Grigor/status/1230818076578459649 <comment><AUTHOR> These questions are too theoretical, I was never asked anything like that</comment>


Y Combinator Seattle Meetup, Feb 25   - <AUTHOR> http://ycombinator.posterous.com/y-combinator-seattle-meetup Come by the RescueTime offices at StartPad.org from 6.30pm on February 25 to talk with Harj Taggar from Y Combinator and several Seattle based YC alumni. Harj was a founder of Auctomatic, acquired by Live Current Media in 2008. Tony Wright of RescueTime, Mike Miller of Cloudant, Niall Smart of Echodio and Phil Yuen, founder of TextPayMe (acquired by Amazon in 2006), will also be there. We'll be bringing in pizza and beers and hanging out all evening to talk about startups and answer any of your questions about YC.<p>This is a great opportunity for those who have applied, or are considering applying, for the next YC round to tell us more about your application in person and learn about YC from founders who have been through the process. <comment><USER2> Are there things like this in San Francisco? I kinda assumed there would be when I moved out here, but haven't heard of any yet.

<comment><USER3> We've been completely slack about this sort of thing, but now that we have Harj we're going to start.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm giving my wife a spa day this weekend so I can come to this ...

</comment><comment><USER5> Awesome! I might drive down from Vancouver just for this.

<comment><AUTHOR> hmm I might head to Vancouver afterwards for the weekend, any chance you could ping me? harj AT Ycombinator DOT com

<comment><USER6> It would be awesome if you could stop by Vancouver, there are a lot of startups here!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Was there one in the bay area?

<comment><AUTHOR> not yet, we'll be doing a few meetups in different cities over the next few weeks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> would austin, tx happen to be on your list of cities?

<comment><AUTHOR> yes, we will be doing a meetup during sxsw on Mon 15th march at submerged from 5 - 7. pg will be at that one also as he's on a sxsw panel. will send out more details soon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Definitely waiting for the Los Angeles one!

</comment><comment><USER10> Biz dev! Congrats Harj.

</comment><comment><USER11> Great idea. I'll definitely plan to stop by, sounds like a good way to get some questions answered about YC and chat with like-minded people.

</comment><comment><USER12> I will be there for sure.

</comment><comment><USER13> Sweet!</comment>


Stanford profs from DB & Machine Learning class are founding a company Coursera - <AUTHOR> https://plus.google.com/b/107809899089663019971/107809899089663019971/posts/4VuN2RsRggB

<comment><USER2> Daphne Koller was not the DB professor, she was scheduled to teach a class starting this month, but has not taught any online classes yet. The DB teacher was Jennifer Widom, who is not part of the initiative described in the article.

<comment><AUTHOR> Oops...my bad. Daphne Koller is the instructor for the upcoming Probabilistic Graphical Models class <http://www.pgm-class.org/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> All I want to know is, will Andrew Ng still teach the ML class on Stanford or only on Coursera now? I haven't taken his new ML class yet but a large part of why I want to sign up for that class in the Spring quarter is because of him.

</comment><comment><USER4> Are these companies (Coursera here, Udacity for Thrun) going to be non-profits like Khan Academy?

<comment><USER5> No, both are for-profit. This caused a bit of a stir among their fellow academics.

<comment><USER6> Seriously? At Stanford? Every professor other than Daphne (I believe) at the AI lab has worked for Google at some point and Stanford is the last place where CS profs look down upon starting companies.

<comment><USER5> Starting a company wasn't the issue. It's more that for-profit education has a bad reputation (think University of Phoenix). There was some initial concern/confusion.

<comment><USER6> How is Stanford not a for-profit institution? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I think I must just be missing some distinction.

<comment><USER7> Non-profit organizations are registered as so to the IRS in the United States:

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

<comment><USER6> So what "caused a bit of a stir" was a tax status?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is awesome.

I guess this is why the 2012 ML class is delayed; I'm wondering if it will still happen :(

<comment><USER9> Not just the ML course. I signed up for one on human computer interaction, high tech entrepreneurship and lean startup and they have all been delayed indefinitely. It's a pity as I did Sebastian Thun's AI course and it was great and I was looking forward to these others... so the consumer isn't always winning as these companies fight it out, I think they should just put the material out for free it would create many new startups!

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is an interesting space, mit has their mitx program set to launch this spring as well.

<http://mitx.mit.edu>

</comment><comment><USER11> Competition is always good for the customers, so I really like it. I also expect O'Reilly Media to push harder in this direction, it's only natural...

</comment><comment><USER12> It's surprising that they wouldn't collaborate with Sebastian Thrun (AI), who I think is also founding a company.

<comment><USER13> It's not surprising if you understand academic politics. If you go to many research presentations, you'll be amazed to see people openly deriding the presenter's work to their face. Collaboration is something valued by people who greatly depend on others. So it's normal for most people to think that collaboration is something that is desirable, and it is for the average person. If you are trying to be the world's leading expert in something that no one else understands, depending on others will be an avenue of attack for your detractors. It is far better for a very capable person to take on market forces rather than internal politics.

<comment><USER14> As a disclaimer: I don't claim to understand academic politics. Having said that, I think you need some sort of citation or at the very least a stronger argument to back up the statement that "collaboration is something valued by people who greatly depend on others". To a non-involved observer such as myself, what you're describing (in a positive tone?) just sounds petty and extremely unproductive for everyone involved, whether they're average or "very capable".

<comment><USER13> If one depends greatly on someone else to achieve things, then by definition they value collaboration. I assume we are still talking about academics because there could exist people who simply don't want to accomplish anything and therefore don't value collaboration. It's no secret either that people who are highly capable don't need collaboration except to meet societal and political expectations or to reduce their workload. Again, that follows from the definition of highly capable.

What would be a far more interesting research topic would be to measure negative reaction to any notion that some people can work better alone and any correlations those sentiments might entail.

<comment><USER14> I'm sorry for being dense, but you still haven't convinced me that "people who are highly capable don't need collaboration" is implied by the definition of "highly capable". Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Larry Page, etc. - these people are all highly capable and all collaborated to achieve their greatest successes. Are we using different definitions of "collaboration"?

Your proposed research topic would be a lot more interesting without the inherent bias you introduce by measuring only the correlations of negative reaction and ignoring any correlations to positive reaction.

<comment><USER13> There's no evidence that their success was due to collaboration and I only said they don't need to collaborate, not that they don't collaborate. On the contrary, in the Bill G and Steve J cases, the general public overwhelmingly attribute the success of their respective companies to the individual and not to their choice in co-founders.

<comment><USER14> I know this is an old thread, but I just saw your response. And... I don't quite know what to say, besides that it seems ridiculously offensive to the hundreds and hundreds of people that made Microsoft and Apple what they are.

I don't know what type of evidence you're looking for, and I don't know what it has to do with co-founders, but it seems pretty obvious to me that one person couldn't have designed every piece of Apple hardware or software or every version of Windows. That's why we invented collaboration - it gives extremely productive people a multiplier.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Just curious ... what would people be willing to pay for the courses? Especially if it meant some kind of official recognition or certificate.

</comment><comment><USER16> I don't get why they would cooperate with the dude from the ML class

<comment><USER17> You have some complaints about the ML class?

<comment><USER18> I found the course way too easy. This announcement makes me think they're going to get around this - not being part of Stanford means they don't have to worry about cannibalizing paying students. Maybe.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Delivering education is changing across the world. First, we hear about Sebastian Thrun. Now, Andrew Ng and Daphne Koller!

<comment><USER19> I don't see the funny side of downvoting comments here on HN. Pathetic!</comment></comment>


Need 1,200 rolls of toilet paper? Try the US embassy's online auction - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/shortcuts/2018/jul/30/us-embassy-online-auction-toilet-paper-rugs-vacuum-cleaners <comment><USER2> Toilet paper is shipped at a constant rate, since Trump took control, the average embassy staffer has become more full, thus the excess...</comment>


Germany Increases 'You Are All Pirates' Tax On Solid State Media By 2000% - <AUTHOR> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120601/07161319164/germany-increases-you-are-all-pirates-tax-solid-state-media-2000.shtml

<comment><USER2> While this is already 2 weeks old[1], being german this still drives me nuts. It's not only their refusal to explain why exactly they feel the need to increase these charges, it's their complete ignorance as to the actual use of these storage mediums. I really hope that Bitkom finds a way to fight back.

But the real Problem here is (as almost always when it comes to digital rights) the GEMA. They are the reason why Youtube is almost not usable in Germany (unless you are using some sort of proxying), and that's just the tip of the iceberg as far as I am concerned. Being a former musician myself, I can guarantee that any dealing with the GEMA is nothing short of a PITA. Not only for musicians, but for event managers, shop owners and so on. Their fees are ridiculously high and getting worse each year while their payout to musicians is nothing short of a joke.

Their methods resolve to scaremongering and FUD. They are right up there with the german GEZ, but don't even get me started on those guys.

[1] [http://www.heise.de/resale/meldung/ZPUe-erhoeht-Abgaben- auf-...](http://www.heise.de/resale/meldung/ZPUe-erhoeht-Abgaben-auf-USB- Sticks-und-Speicherkarten-drastisch-1583790.html) [GERMAN]

<comment><USER3> To clarify your first point: They've justified this by saying that compression algorithms have gotten better meaning people can store more on less, which is idiotic, seeing how files get a lot bigger because of higher quality. Their explanations are based on a study that isn't even available to the public. The tax is also levied on SD cards, which afaik no one ever uses for anything else than as a storage for media you produce yourself, since they are used mostly in cameras and smartphones.

<comment><USER4> I actually use SD-cards for audio files. They're small, sturdy, convenient, every modern macbook has a suitable slot and lots of car audio systems accept them. They're kind of like a usb-stick without the clunky connector and wrapping.

<comment><USER5> OK, but most people use them for their cameras, I never even heard of anyone using them on car systems, but I'll accept it is true.

Given this, why should the 99% that are taking their own photos pay a tax to support a record label organization that one of the posts above from a German says doesn't even pay out to the musicians?

<comment><USER4> Could you cite a figure for the 99% figure? Smartphones use them for data storage,... Fact is: neither you nor I know.

But anyways, the same applies to empty CDs, harddrives, DVD-Writers, ... So while I may store more audio on my SD-Cards, others store tons and tons of MP3s on their Harddrives or copy CDs - something I don't do. I still pay for that. I pay a little for what I don't use but they use and they pay a little for what they don't use, but I do. I guess such is life, it probably evens out in the end.

Sidenote: The GEMA is not a record label organizations and it does pay out. There's something horribly wrong in how they distribute the money among their members (the rich get richer, ...) and they keep roughly 20% in administrative costs, but they do pay out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> We have similar 3% in the US on blank media cds ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy#United_Sta...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy#United_States)). The Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, the same legislation that put these levies into place, also protected the rights of individuals to make non- commercial copies of copyrighted works. At least that's my read on it, though I am not a lawyer.

All of the comments here seem vehemently opposed to the levy mentioned in the article but if it came with an extension of our rights to non-commercially copy and share works then I think that it would be a very fair trade. I would even be relatively unopposed if this was applied to bandwidth usage. Technologically speaking, there's no reason that a person shouldn't be able to go online and check out almost any song, movie, book, or television show in existence. Many, many people are aware of this and with good reason feel that it should be the case. The barrier to this is in the quagmire of licensing that is exemplified by what we've seen go on with Showtime, HBO, and Netflix.

Imagine if the government would stand up and say that universal access to art, literature, and educational materials is important enough that the laws need to be changed to facilitate it. If non-commercial exchange of copyrighted materials was legalized but in exchange bandwidth was taxed and the money paid out as royalties to rights holders based on torrent activity or something of the sort. To me, that sounds like a better alternative than having a country full of criminals. I'll keep dreaming.

<comment><USER7> How could that ever be distributed fairly? How do you determine what percentage the Gaga's get versus the indy artist down the street? Given this would cannibalize sales, you wouldn't be able to use sales figures because there would be no way for a new group to get to the level of sales a Lady Gaga had.

If the government starts deciding, you make music a communistic business, which would not be good for music.

(For the record, I think the levies as they stand are wrong for the exact same reasons; you just replace the govt with groups like the RIAA.)

<comment><USER8> Are you thinking that the money would be distributed to the actual artists? What a crazy notion.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I wonder why the shops that sell these don't put a sticker on them saying something like 'two out of the seven Euro are a levy'. That for sure would raise public awareness.

</comment><comment><USER10> Gema is really nuts. I don't understand who lobbies for them, but instead of producing music that people like to buy, they rely more and more on taxes. Even back in the 70s they managed to put an extra tax on tape cassettes, because you could copy vinyl on them. Back then, this might have been the most likely usage for cassettes. But for CDs and USB sticks this is a rip-off.

There is one more nutty thing that falls into the same category. From January 2012 on, every german household has to pay for public TV, even if the household does not have a TV set. The reason is, that you can receive TV programs via internet and thus also a computer is a TV (well - ...).

So also the TV stations, by simply broadcasting their stuff for free in the internet, managed to get an extra tax. Although, there is no medium like the internet where it is easier to make users log in and let them pay exactly for what they use.

(Note: I indeed never owned a tv set. I indeed watch the daily news on my computer and I'd be happy to pay for this. But only for the news, not for the remaining crap).

<comment><USER11> The fee pays for public broadcasting, not just public TV. Public broadcasting includes TV, radio, and the internet presence of the TV and radio media. I don't have a TV, but I do listen to public radio and I use public news web sites all the time.

I think the new system is _much_ more reasonable than the previous system, which had loads of people claiming they don't own any kind of receiving device when that claim is just patently absurd for almost everybody today. This was different in the 50s or 60s where not everybody had a radio at home, much less a video device. Today it's just a system that rewards dishonesty. It also lead to an expensive byzantine bureaucracy (the GEZ) just for collecting the public broadcasting fees and snooping (in person!) after people who say that don't own a TV/radio/whatever.

What _is_ crazy is that they didn't get rid of the GEZ when they changed the system, but I assume that'll happen sometime down the road. And of course you're free to disagree with having any public broadcasting system at all, or that it should be financed differently (I agree). But the previous fee system was just broken and needed to be fixed.

<comment><USER10> I agree, the previous system was bad. It has been replaced by a system that is also bad. Even worse, this one can be attacked in court because it is obviously unfair.

This is the only situation I know, where a company distributes their product for free and then asks everybody to pay for it. This is a special situation of course, because the public broadcasting has the official task to educate and report in a neutral way. This is welcome - no doubt.

But the presence in the internet and thus on computers is no excuse to collect money from everybody. In contrary, the presence of the internet allows to measure exactly, who is using the services. In a few years from now, perhaps even today, it would be possible to do the same with the wireless receivers, like TV.

So it would be easy to charge the households who use the service. No GEZ needed any more, but a fair system that charges for usage.

<comment><USER5> Why not just get rid of the state owned propaganda channels? Why is that never an option. It's absurd to have to be subjected to state propaganda and be made to pay for it. Brainwashing should be free, no?

<comment><USER11> Getting rid of the state owned propaganda channels is not an option because they're not exactly state owned nor are they propaganda channels.

And I'm not sure why I am supposed to prefer the brainwashing provided to me free by private channels -- free as in I pay for it once with _further_ concentrated brainwashing in 3 minute segments and then once more when I pay the obligatory surcharge on everything because the money for those ads has to come from somewhere.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Finland has initial plans to move from levies specific to certain media/storage products to an annual fee. The fee would be collected as a part of TV licensing fee which is also moving from a specific "per tv-owning household" license to cover all citizens, regardless of their TV ownership or lack of it. So, in effect, the copyright institutions effectively have a way to tax people.

It will only amount to less than a handful of euros per year and generally it's more fair than the irrationally random levies (buying an external hard drive implies levy, buying an external harddrive case and a separate hard drive doesn't) but there are two problems.

First, the "tax" will undoubtedly increase every year. The copyright mafia has demonstrated their intention to adjust the levies accordingly to match an annual 10-15 million euros of income. So, now the "tax" might only be three euros. Later it will only be four euros, come on! Then only a fiver, come on, that doesn't hurt anyone! Then only ten euros, it won't make a difference... and so on.

Secondly, having paid the increasing fee (see first point) it's mostly undefined what you will get in return. By paying this fee—that is involuntarily taxed from your income—I think the common attitude will soon turn into "I've paid for it already, so I can at least decide to pirate some movies to get _something back_ in return."

Neither the levies nor the annual fee aren't compensation for illegal copying, just private copying. It's just that the general public already perceives that private copying doesn't need to be compensated. For example, people don't generally take well the idea that after buying a cd they would need to pay again to make copy of it for their car player. Thus, a majority of people will inevitably attribute this forced copyright tax to an implied, unofficial license to pirate.

The legislation probably takes ten years to catch up with that. But I think it might be a good way. Personally, I would probably pay 20-30 euros annually to legally download content from PirateBay. The distribution of the collected money could be based on the popularity rank of Finnish artists and movies on PirateBay, instead of the arbitrary radio playing lists that they use currently.

The power of peer-to-peer would be worth paying for. The MAFIAA guys can handle the creation of the content, let the internet people handle the distribution. That way each party can do what they're good at.

</comment><comment><USER13> They all need to start pirating.

Their government is giving them carte blanche.

<comment><USER14> I'm from other European country but similar things happen here. I disagree with you here. We should register ourselves as content creators and get our money back in other legal ways. We should demonstrate how much those taxes are stupid.

<comment><USER15> I am also from other European country, but I believe that tax is favourable for me as an ordinary citizen and I am happy to pay it! Really, I don't joke here.

It is not "You Are All Pirates" tax - this tax allows me to legally make a copy of a work of art for my private use, even if I didn't pay for the original - it is enough that the work of art was already presented in the public [for example, song in a radio, movie in the TV or theatre, etc]. So I can legally have that stored on my HDD, if I choose so. For that, I have to pay the tax, and I am ok with that.

<comment><USER16> But I don't want to do that. I don't want to store anything broadcasted on radio or tv to disc. Why would I have to pay in that case? Make it optional, make it opt-in. Allow people to go to GEMA or equivalent and buy one year subscription if they want to use the "right to make copies of copyrighted content", but please don't force me, or anyone else to pay for it if we don't want it.

<comment><USER15> I agree - if you don't want that, it is unfair. Making it opt-in would be more fair, but probably much more difficult to enforce.

My main point was, that I personally agree with this model, and it is generally not that disadvantageous as the article and many comments here portraits it. Moreover, even the term "tax" is questionable in my opinion, because in this case you are getting rights for private copy of copyrighted content, it's not that you are paying for nothing specific [like in normal taxes].

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Sweden already have this and was lobbied and implemented by an organisation called Swedcopy like a year ago. Most swedes don't know about this extra taxation due to popular news media never really brought it up. I found out about it due to a brief article on a PC magazine.

Those affected and who complained a lot were of course businesses who sell these things. But apparently they were forced into accepting the new taxation.

As a Swede I'm directly affected by that Germany now implemented this slave tax, due to I figured I could import products from Germany instead of buying them in Sweden.

What this seems to imply is that those in power seem to plan this in the EU behind scenes. Keeping it from public as much as possible and using the you are all pirates as an excuse for the extra taxation.

</comment><comment><USER18> I can't find anything saying where the money actually goes.

One injustice of levies like this is that the money may not actually go to those who piracy is harming, but instead it lines the pockets of whoever can already afford to lobby for the fee.

In the Netherlands (IIRC) it is distributed to producers of music and film (note: not software).

</comment><comment><USER19> It's 1850%[1] but still outlandish, also they are taxing external hard drives yet not internal ones, it's a farce in every way possible.

Just wait until they figure out what dropbox is.

[1] [http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=en&tl...](http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=en&tl=de&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.heise.de%2Fresale%2Fmeldung%2FZPUe- erhoeht-Abgaben-auf-USB-Sticks-und-Speicherkarten-drastisch-1583790.html)

<comment><USER19> Fun fact: One of the shareholders of the ZPÜ is the GÜFA [1] (Collective rights management for Adult Entertainment).

Of every ZPÜ taxed media you buy 1% [2] of the video associated part of the ZPÜ-fee goes to the porn industry. This summed up to 1.9M EUR in 2005 and 4M in 2010 including some cumulative special payouts, but its safe to say that the GÜFA gets at least a million Euros a year out of that. [3] [4]

I'm O.K. with people buying porn, but that everybody subsidizes this by buying storage media has just another quality.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%9CFA>

[2] <http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/7/7586/1.html> [GERMAN]

[3] <http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/16/049/1604914.pdf> [PDF GERMAN Page 16]

[4] [https://www.bundesanzeiger.de/ebanzwww/wexsservlet?global_da...](https://www.bundesanzeiger.de/ebanzwww/wexsservlet?global_data.designmode=eb&genericsearch_param.fulltext=g%C3%BCfa&genericsearch_param.part_id=&%28page.navid%3Dto_quicksearchlist%29=Suchen) [GERMAN - Session protected - ZPÜ numbers under 4.1]

click on «Jahresabschluss zum Geschäftsjahr vom 01.01.2010 bis zum 31.12.2010» and solve the captcha, remember that the Bundesanzeiger is a by-law-open official publication in Germany, its a farce.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Richard Stallman has suggested something similar, but with the tax being on internet use rather than media, and with the money being distributed to artists in proportion to the cube root of their popularity.

[http://stallman.org/articles/internet-sharing- license.en.htm...](http://stallman.org/articles/internet-sharing- license.en.html)

It is possible to prove mathematically that a free market doesn't work with goods that that have a significant cost to create but that are infinitely copyable, without restriction, at essentially zero cost once created.

The current copyright laws address this by restricting copying. The basic idea is to intellectual property artificially behave like physical property, so that the market can work.

There are a couple of disadvantages to this approach. (1) it makes IP goods more expensive to the consumer than they "should" be, so there will be underconsumption compared to what people would consume if the price was lower. (2) people can easily cheat.

The major advantage of this approach is that it leaves the decision of what works get made up to the market.

The other major way to address the market failure, which is the one Stallman suggests, is that you do artificially make IP act like physical problem, and so go ahead and let the market make and distribute copies without restriction, and address the problem of creation by public funding.

This is arguably fair since almost everyone does consume music, movies, and other forms of art. Essentially it is treated as a public good.

The advantage of that system is that consumers end up paying close to the marginal cost for their entertainment (i.e., $0), which is the economically "correct" price. Another advantage is that it does not rely on people obeying a legal fiction.

The disadvantage is that if art is being treated as a public good is that you (1) have to decide on the source of funding, (2) the funding level, and (3) how to distribute the money.

For source of funding, the most sensible seems to be some kind of tax specifically for this, probably tied to something that at least vaguely correlates with art consumption.

I have no idea how one would go about determining the funding level.

For distribution, something based on popularity seems sensible. Note that under this approach, all copying and sharing would be completely legal so there would be no need to try to hide it, so it would be feasible to figure out popularity by sampling network traffic. In fact, since it would be in the interest of content creators to ensure accurate measurement of popularity, I suspect that there would be big official free fast download services sponsored by the content creators, with good search and recommendation features, and most people would download through those rather than use P2P.

</comment><comment><USER21> Welcome to the club, Germany. We've had this shit in Finland for ages.

<comment><USER18> Germany has had it since 1965. The news is the massive increase, not the existence of the tax.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Problem I have with this is that it is incredibly short-sighted. So we know, indefinitely, that our songs, movies and other media will exist on USB/CD/DVD discs, right? Wrong. What about when we all start using anonymous, p2p cloud storage? What about streaming pirated content to my iPhone from my Mac at home? Or any of the countless other innovations that may pop up in the future?

</comment><comment><USER23> A reliable "tell" that a source is attempting to manipulate you is when they quote any percentage greater than 80%.

<comment><USER24> Well, I think you are 81% right...... ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> terrible link bait by the techdirt junk site. flagged, see below for my explanation.

it is not a piracy tax. Germans have a right to copy stuff for their close friends. that's not piracy but a lawful right. that the fee is outrageous is another issue.

<comment><USER26> That's piracy tax. Other countries have this. It's called "fair use".

In general, and in fact I sort of believe it is also that way in Germany, not a law that allow you to copy stuff to your close friends.

It allows you to make copies for _yourself_ (backups, etc), and to view/listen to those copies or the original with your family. NOT giving or copying it to them.

Anyway, since you're letting your family view/listen, etc. they lose money on "fair use". Thus they made a tax so you pay for it.

And you know what? That's piracy tax with any name. So the site might be crap, I don't know. Germany may or may not have this tax, I don't know.

I know some countries do. France certainly do. And calling it piracy tax is insightful. Its there _because_ of the so-called piracy. It's just a way to steal money really.

<comment><USER27> In some countries (I don't know about Germany) it is not the same as 'fair use'. E.g. in The Netherlands the result of these levies is that you can _legally_ download music and movies from Usenet for personal use, without purchasing an original copy. However, you are not allowed to upload music or movies.

This was a direct translation of how the law worked before: I could not make a copy of an album for you, but you could borrow it from me, make a copy, and return the original to me.

<comment><USER28> In the US it is not against the law (yet) to download but it is a copyright violation to share.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Can you just buy from another European country and import? German customs are pretty rubbish at catching such things from my understanding. AFAIK you only get screwed on retail purchases.

<comment><USER30> _Can you just buy from another European country and import?_

Yes that's one of the fundamental reasons for setting up the European Union. A Single Market.

<comment><USER31> I really like the idea of the EU, a single market no more protectionism and other simular idotic shit. In reallity the EU is just another layer of stupid regulations and now we get protectionism and interventionsim on EU level too.

Im happy that Im not in the EU (Switzerland) but I belive only getting the good stuff from the EU (open borders ...) will get harder and harder with the EU becomming more like a country.

<comment><USER32> And the great thing is that your country, being entirely surrounded by EU countries, has no choice but to implement all those "stupid regulations" as well as it won't be able to do business with its neighbours otherwise.

<comment><USER31> Not sure why this is a great thing.

Yes it has to do that to some regard but it can not be forced to and we still hold democratic control over the most importend of these things. Joining the EU would be spitting on the democratic system that Switzerland has built up over the last 200+ years.

<comment><USER33> "Great thing" is sarcasm.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> This is a not-so-subtle way of saying "we own culture" by the elites who 'finance' the 'entertainment of the masses'.

Anyone who can get their bony fingers so far deeply entrenched into the fleshy government/tax-/levy bureaucracy and demand "fruitful payoff" in the form of public taxation is probably working for the Mob, not the Artists, and not content Creators, in general.

Entertainment industry, ruled by the Mob? Big surprise.

</comment><comment><USER5> ARGGGGGGGG. As someone who doesn't pirate, I really resent having to pay money to media companies just because they feel entitled to it.

I remember years ago there was a tax on cassette tapes, so every tape we made and of our own band we had to pay Michael Jackson and Madonna for the privilege. Completely absurd and infuriating.

</comment><comment><USER35> Why dont they also put taxes on bags, after all one could carry alot of usb sticks or cds with it...

</comment><comment><USER36> What concerns me, beyond the broken system we have, in Germany taxes are here to stay. So when this comes through it WILL stay like forever. And not even a world war will get rid of it, we have taxes that survived two of them and we still pay them...

</comment><comment><USER37> Great, since I then pre-paid my fine, I can use my memory stick to pirate to my heart's content.

In fact, since I already paid for it, I will _want_ to use it for pirating, otherwise I paid this money for nothing.

<comment><USER38> It's not payment for pirating. The title (and article) is misleading. This is for _legal_ music you are assumed to put there. It's basically the same payment (to the same organization) as radios, concert organizers, and so on have to pay. Royalty fee. It's still stupid though as sellers of the music have to pay as well, so it is double "taxed" (at best).

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> The real problem IMHO is not how high the charges are, but how the money is distributed back to content creators. Ask a German musician or writer how much they get back from the system. Often, the answer is "zilch".

</comment><comment><USER40> France has a similarly ridiculous high tax on blank media. The tax level was mostly reasonable when a blank CD used to cost 1 euro, but nowadays, it's a large part of the price. Moronic.

</comment><comment><USER41> Meh, I guess I'm fine with it, they probably just updated it to reflect higher capacities of flash storage. I believe in Italy we have something of the order of 10 cents per CD, so a little more than 10 times that for something that can be rewritten and has a 100 the capacity doesn't seem like a 2000% hike (terrible choice of units if you ask me, they could have said 20 times more).

I'd be willing to pay even more than that if some of it went to public financing of cultural projects that have little commercial viability, such as art films, public space art, preservation of traditional music…

<comment><USER42> Who is stopping you from financing cultural projects now? Why force me to do the same?

<comment><USER41> Usual libertarian argument. Then you go on by saying the same of scientific research, healthcare, education…

The reason I believe public funding is a superior option is that the process that decides what is worthy of being financed is democratic (as in one vote per person), while the libertarian argument of everyone does charity with their disposable income is plutocratic (as in one vote per dollar).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> I wonder when we'll see the first copyright lawsuit go down in flames because the defendent claims to have compensated the copyright owner through this tax :-)

</comment><comment><USER44> So instead of adapting to music streaming, the German music industry has developed a new business plan: demand compensation from the government for "lost profits" due to piracy.

What is "lost profits" anyway? Is that like "jobs saved"?

I hope the RIAA isn't paying attention.

<comment><USER45> The RIAA is paying attention, but this would never fly in the Land of the Free: it's a "social market economy" approach.

Personally, I'm thorn: if this would mean the MAFIAA boys drop their guns forever, I'd be almost happy to have it. Unfortunately, they'd never do that, they'd just keep gunning _on top_ of collecting their racket money.

<comment><USER46> We already have a tax like this in the U.S. on blank CDs and cassettes, passed in 1992. Despite the rhetoric, the U.S. is not really against "social market" type policies in general. If I'm being cynical, my take is that socialism is only unpopular when it might help anyone poor. :)

<comment><USER45> blank CDs are one thing, SSD memory quite another.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> It's very remarkable to see how that totally absurd law violating all principles of justice is accepted by governments both in developed countries such as the USA and Germany, and not so developed such as Russia. Does it mean that governments around the world are equally ignorant and unprincipled, regardless of a country's wealth, culture or democratic freedom?

</comment><comment><USER48> EDIT: I was wrong.

 _Your diatribes would be much more effective if they either had a bit more research behind them or did not succumb to poe's law._ \- saulrh

Good critique, thanks.

\- <http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poes_Law>

<comment><USER49> German native speaker here.

Sadly the basic facts of the article are correct.

There is a levy on different media and also on machines capable of copying content (yes, there is a levy on computers in Germany). The height of the levy is negotiated with the producers of the product, represented by Bitcom, and the respective "Verwertungsgesellschaft" which in this case is the ZPÜ.

The "Verwertungsgesellschaft" negotiating the levy for (paper) copying machines would be the VG-Wort.

Negotiations for USB-Sticks failed, so the ZPÜ made a unilateral move and simply set the new levy to said price.

Bitcom states in the original article (on heise.de), that one part of the underlying law has not been properly respected, namely §54a, Absatz 4 which stated that the levy has to have a sane relation to the price of the media.

They are expecting a lengthy lawsuit with the adverse effect that the producers of sticks have to set aside some money for the case of losing. In addition to that they expect the european market to become skewed since there is no such levy in switzerland and other neighbouring countries where consumers can easily order sticks.

<comment><USER49> Personal comment:

Most of the people in Germany don't seem to be aware of the situation, simply not knowing that there is such a levy. Most of them also don't even know that they are allowed to make private copies (aka Privatkopie), and fall for the 'U r all pirates' propaganda of the content industry.

Friends are often astonished when they joke about pirating while we swap music and when I subsequently tell them, that what we are doing is absolutely legal.

Those tech savy of us who are aware about the situation are massively annoyed. Basically because THEY are taking our money as compensation for the Privatkopie while spreading propaganda that copying is illegal. WITH THE MONEY WE GAVE THEM.

Head of the ministry of justice, Mrs Leutheuser-Schnarrenberger, recently made a move and suggested a reform of the Urheberrecht and copyright in Germany ([http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Justizministerin- fuer...](http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Justizministerin-fuer-mehr- Nutzerfreiheiten-im-Urheberrecht-1588232.html))

While she is member of the dreaded neoliberal FDP, she is actually one of the very few politicians acting in favour of the developing information society. For example she is taking a stance against the EU data retention laws (Vorratsdatenspeicherung).

PS: whishing the term "Privatkopie" would become part of the english spoken world just like "Zeitgeist", "Gestalt" or "Kindergarten".

<comment><USER50> Good luck with all that, in the UK, 'format shifting' (i.e. ripping a CD to mp3 to put it on your phone) is still a criminal offence, copyright act has not been changed despite undertakings from both recent governments.

I'm quite interested in what happens in Germany with second hand computers. Many computers end up in recycling or landfill when they could be used for some further time. Do the small computer shops/people on ebay still have to pay a levy? Is the levy a percentage of the asking price or a flat fee like the original article points out is the case for media?

<comment><USER49> AFAIK the levy on computers is only for the first retail, not on subsequent second hand sales. It is a fixed rate for a category of products.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Failed WebOS experiment cost HP $3.3 Billion - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2011/11/21/hps-failed-webos-experiment-cost-them-3-3-billion-but-whats-next/

<comment><USER2> Most people I know, have at least one person they met professionally who was a 'dud' at one company and a 'star' at a different company. The difference was how the company utilized their skills and empowered their environment.

I find products have a similar sort of way about them, sometimes a product that is a 'dud' in one company, the same idea is a runaway success in another. Perhaps the most cogent example of this would be the TabletPC vs the iPad. (I could have as easily picked the Palm Pilot and the Newton Messagepad) product concepts, product execution, and the ecosystem into which they are born all have a huge impact on the success or failure of the result.

HP has a vision problem, I know its the 'what if' company but it does. I've got a few hundred of their servers in a data center that need a BIOS update, one of their suggestions? Use the 'Easy update' program on a DVD they would send me. Seriously? Too many products at HP don't know what they want to be (other than successful and cool, which is never something you make, they are side effects of your execution)

At the end of the day WebOS and the Touchpad, were doomed by corporate host they found themselves in. Not a lot of people remember how incensed Microsoft was that people figured out how to hack the Kinect, they threatened to sue people, now they brag about all the cool things people are doing with it. That was an example of something that just barely escaped death at the hands of its acquirer.

I'm sure HP wishes they had their $3.3B back, but I bet they would spend it all again if they could figure out how to re-enable the company to execute on new concepts.

</comment><comment><USER3> Microsoft loses $1Bil a quarter on Bing. Failure is only when they stop marketing.</comment>


Unemployed Programmer Kept Sneaking Into Apple to Finish the Job - <AUTHOR> http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/132066

<comment><USER2> Link to the actual programmer's account of the story: <http://www.nucalc.com/Story/>

and a Google Tech Talk video of Avitzur telling his story: [http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7497796873809571567...](http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7497796873809571567#)

</comment><comment><USER3> 1\. Dig up old stories from slashdot.

2\. Write a blog post summarizing them.

3\. Post to HN / Reddit.

4\. PROFIT.

Smart business plan.

<comment><USER4> For what it's worth, I appreciated reading this story. Just because it may be old hat to HN and/or ./ veterans doesn't necessarily mean that it's not a reasonable contribution.

However, I assume you are inferring that the OP made this contribution specifically to boost his/her karma points - a practice I do not support either.

<comment><USER5> Read the original, linked at the top. This version lacks the insight into the process and the thrill of the hack.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> You know you have a good company when people sneak in to do more work after they're not being paid anymore

<comment><USER7> You know you have a bad company when you fire people who would sneak in to do more work after they're not being paid anymore

<comment><USER8> But he wasn't fired. His project was cancelled so Apple offered him to work on something else and he declined.

I don't get why the manager would want to throw him out though. A capable employee working for free sounds like every managers dream.

<comment><USER9> A facilities manager was the one who wanted to throw him out. They've got a very different mindset. Software & hardware managers actively aided his cause.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Some people would have open-sourced the code and then there would be no need to sneak into Apple headquarters and lurk in the bathrooms waiting for facilities people to leave. But I guess in 1994 it might not be as natural as it is now. I wish more companies would open-source their "not quite worked out" projects instead of just burying them.

<comment><USER11> Good point.

Would it be preinstalled on 20 million computers, though?

Also, it seems like they needed to work at Apple because:

\- They needed access to an unreleased computer (hardware). \- They needed feedback from other Apple employers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Here's This American Life telling the story (very, very entertaining): [http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio- archives/episode/284/s...](http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio- archives/episode/284/should-i-stay-or-should-i-go?act=2)

</comment><comment><USER13> A link for downloading the Graphing Calculator program <http://www.pacifict.com/FreeStuff.html>

<comment><USER14> That is the viewer. It does not allow you to input the functions to plot. Fun, but not half as much as the real tool.

Max OS X has Grapher (in Applications/Utilities). That likely is a descendant of this tool.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Would this even be possible nowadays? As soon as your badge gets disabled typically any access you have to systems gets disabled as well.

<comment><USER16> From a few weeks ago.

 _Eric Simons spent two cash-strapped months living inside AOL's headquarters while trying to build his start-up. He explains how he played outside of the rules._

[http://www.inc.com/john-mcdermott/eric-simons-interview- youn...](http://www.inc.com/john-mcdermott/eric-simons-interview-young- entrepreneur-squatted-at-aol.html)

<comment><USER17> I don't think that example is equivalent. The ex-AOL guy was working on his own stuff and was basically squatting on AOL property. It's not clear he was accessing AOL computer systems and resources and making changes to or contributing to AOL projects. Basically, place to sleep, munch, shower and perhaps free wi-fi.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> There's something to think about comparing this story to the entrepreneur who sneaked into AOL:

[http://news.cnet.com/8301-32973_3-57440513-296/meet-the- tire...](http://news.cnet.com/8301-32973_3-57440513-296/meet-the-tireless- entrepreneur-who-squatted-at-aol)</comment>


Police officers found not guilty in (video taped) death of Kelly Thomas - <AUTHOR> http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-0114-kelly-thomas-verdict-20140114,0,6482344.story#axzz2qOW2k8q0

<comment><USER2> This stuck out to me:

"Police officers have the privilege, the right to use force to overcome resistance," said Ira Salzman, a defense attorney who often represents police officers. "When you have the law allowing use of force, that is a tremendous protection."

Everything that has come out about this case is stranger than the one before.

</comment><comment><USER3> More outrage farming without supplying all facts and context. I will give the benefit of the doubt to the jury and save my rage for a cause I am certain is just.

<comment><USER4> What do you need beyond the nearly-complete video and full audio of the entire beating?

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I sincerely hope karma is real, and comes back to haunt these "officers" for the rest of their pathetic lives. Rare, unusually painful, completely uncurable forms of cancer for each of them would be perfect.

<comment><USER6> Why is it that on Internet forums, such as Facebook and Reddit, and the knee- jerk reaction of many people is name-calling and statements judging the value of a person's life.

Have you met any of the people involved or any of their family members? Do you have evidence to support your statement that they are "pathetic" and deserving of "uncurable forms of cancer"?

We should all remember that we are all imperfect human beings. You can judge the actions of a human being to be or not to be "right" or "wrong", but it's not appropriate to judge the person themselves, especially when you've never even met them.

<comment><USER4> "See these fists? They're getting ready to fuck you up."

-Officer Manuel Ramos, before sadistically beating unarmed, homeless, schizophrenic man Kelly Thomas into a coma that would eventually lead to his death, all while Thomas apologized and begged for mercy

<comment><USER6> _You can judge the actions of a human being to be or not to be "right" or "wrong", but it's not appropriate to judge the person themselves_

Sure the action was wrong. What he did was wrong. But to claim that his "soul" (for lack of a better term) is worth less than yours is not a judgment you should be making.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Angry iPhone X users say nothing happens on the screen when the phone rings - <AUTHOR> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5293085/Apple-iPhone-X-users-claim-answer-phone-calls.html <comment><USER2> Right wing hate tabloid tries to lure visitors by publishing claims about popular phone to gain extra clicks.</comment>


Ask HN: Anyone looking for remote entry level web developers from Guatemala? - <AUTHOR>

I am starting a full-time web development bootcamp in Guatemala for low-income students.
Anyone interested in hiring them as interns when they finish the program? They all have good English skills.
The curriculum is the following:
HTML, CSS, JavaScript, Jquery, Meteor, MongoDB, Ruby on Rails, PostgreSQL, TDD(Rails) and REST-like APIs in Ruby. <comment><USER2> You might have better luck with this on HN if you made an informative web page about the project and posted it as a story. It sounds like you're doing something pretty unusual.

On the other hand, there are very many coding bootcamps and HN readers have become pretty cynical about their code-quick approach. How well HN receives your story would probably depend on how substantive it is, so if you want to do this, you should really go into depth. We'd be happy to give you some advice about a draft post if you have one; just email firstname.lastname@example.com if you're interested.

Good luck!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the great tip. I will email you when I have the draft post ready!</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Benefits of Being Disagreeable in Business? - <AUTHOR> Im naturally an agreeable person, team player, easy to get along with, friendly, collaborative and rarely rock the boat.
Lately I've changed jobs and for various reasons I'm finding myself having to be more disagreeable. To stop being flooded with work, to stop bad decisions being made and so on. It's quite tough for me as it isn't my natural mode.
However, I've started to notice benefits of being more disagreeable. People are more prepared when they bring work, I get more respect, and listened to more.
Has anyone had a similar experience? Is being tougher/disagreeable/assertive a benefit in your business compared to being easy going? Being my 'nice' self has served me well so far, but my experiment in disagreeableness is showing some positive results.
Would love to get your thoughts. <comment><USER2> It's not being disagreeable itself that's bringing those benefits, it's the unpopular but necessary decisions that are getting made by being willing to stick your neck out and piss people off.

In many situations the _popular_ decision is not always the _right_ one. People frequently approve of decisions that bring them personal benefits or ego gratification at the expense of the group, or that seem beneficial now but have hidden downsides that they don't know about, or that bring short-term gain but long-term pain. Saying no to these decisions isn't going to be popular, but it's necessary for the long-term health of the team.

Rational employees can see this, and can see the consequences of always giving in to what the more vocal team members want, and so they quietly hold leaders who make the right choice rather than the easy choice in higher esteem. It builds trust with the team to show that you understand the difference and won't let a need for approval cloud your judgment.

The idea that being disagreeable itself is an advantage in business is sometimes known as the Steve Jobs Fallacy, i.e. "Steve Jobs was an asshole and he was successful, therefore I'm going to be an asshole too and I'll be successful." This fallacy ignores that Steve Jobs was an asshole _in pursuit of something greater_ , that a lot of his tirades and emotional manipulation were tactics to draw peoples' best work out of them and build really great products that consumers love. The key part there is "build really great products that consumers love" \- if you can do that without being an asshole, you'll be even _more_ successful than Steve Jobs, but that's the high-order bit. (Arguably, some of Steve Jobs's verbal abuse was gratuitous, and the same product goals could've been achieved with less emotional pain.)

<comment><AUTHOR> This is a really well thought out response, thank you. You've given me some good things to think about. Especially popular vs right decision.

I've found it's in my nature not to piss people off, I've always been quite adverse to confrontation (although there is a limit). I'm realising now that it can be a necessary tool to use, at the right time and for the right reasons. And practice is making it easier.

*Edit - Spelling</comment></comment>


Show HN: XOR.ai – hiring in tech via cross-platform messaging - <AUTHOR> https://xor.ai/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hey, everybody

We've built XOR.ai - data-driven chatbot recruitment assistant for several messaging platforms - Slack, Messenger and Telegram, to make recruitment in tech easier and more personal.

We've been running our free private beta for 5 weeks now, and so far delivered quality candidates to over 70% of all IT vacancies that were sent to us (over 150). Some of those candidates were already hired.

We'd like the people from community, whoever's hiring or is interested in job openings to try XOR out for free. We'd only need your feedback on UX and quality of the service. Installation buttons are on our web-site [https://xor.ai/](https://xor.ai/)

Also we're here to answer question. Thanks!

</comment><comment><USER2> Hey, Aida, how long does it usually take to hire senior scala dev in Seattle with your bot?

<comment><AUTHOR> It'll take from 1 to 5 business days before you'll get first candidates in general</comment></comment>


Accountability of AI Under the Law: The Role of Explanation - <AUTHOR> https://cyber.harvard.edu/publications/2017/11/AIExplanation <comment><USER2> I have a service for text analytics (tagtog.net). We have worked for example with patent lawyers to search older patents that could be relevant for litigations. These users need to have a perfect description of how we came up with results, as in a detailed list of keywords or synonyms used. I could assume the same level of accountability is needed for many other fields, most importantly medicine. We somehow need to turn our black boxes into white boxes.</comment>