Ask HN: Our Kickstarter project is failing - <AUTHOR> We are Kickstarting a multi-platform game, an RPG for Android/iOS/Linux/Mac/PC. We are into our last week and we've only got 10% funding. We were conservative with our target, and our pricing seemed to be sound. Do we have any hope of getting funded at this stage, and if not, how can we do better?<p>The project page: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/joelotter/uplift-a-multi-platform-rpg <comment><USER3> There is something to be learned from reasonable Kickstarter campaigns that successfully complete their funding. First, the video. I get the feeling that a lot of the successful video pitches are professionally produced, even though they're often made to look casual. And there's _a lot_ of emphasis on the videos.

You guys put your main emphasis on making the text part informative - <USER2> too informative. I think it's no coincidence that many successful KS projects look like they're already finished. Maybe a lot of them are indeed already finished, but the rest are certainly faking it very elaborately. There's good business sense in doing that: Kickstarter has become somewhat of a pre-order platform, and people are used to ordering what they see, not what it might become after funding.

I don't mean to be overly critical towards crowd funding, but one of the big illusions "sold" by crowd funding platforms is that anyone can get their pet project funded. In reality a lot of the people (if not indeed most of them) you see doing well on Kickstarter are extremely well-connected on social media or otherwise well-known. Crowd funding is a way of leveraging that kind of clout. If you don't have that, it can be tough even getting your message in front of the right audience.

One does not simply walk into Kickstarter. Successful people put a lot of effort into looking like they are just casually letting the world know about their thing and, behold, great fame and money follows. But that's not what's actually happening behind the scenes. Crowd funding is not the big equalizer, it's just another way of leveraging marketing potential that already exists.

If you can't put a check mark on at least two of these three things I talked about (professional production, pre-existing audience, potential for runaway virality), chances are it's not going to work out.

So honestly, no I don't think you'll reach your funding goal. However, that doesn't mean it's a bad project. In fact, I would love following it over time to see what you're doing. If you feel strongly about the concept, consider doing it on the side or taking a few months off - this is the kind of project that looks like it could very well be implemented as a hobby. Use that development time to churn out videos and blog about your progress. Slowly build up that audience. By the time you're done, you'll already have customers and fans lined up.

<comment><USER4> you're especially right about the pre-existing audience. i went to a kickstarter boot camp ..and it was brought up a few times that a kickstarter campaign should be at the end of a project's marketing effort. A community or audience must be in place before day one of the campaign.

Also brought up : if a campaign fails, dont despair, put a link up before the project ends that can 3xx redirect to a new campaign ...then build momentum & audience from the failed campaign.

<comment><USER3> Sure, they could always try again. I can see how for some projects getting crowdfunding traction might be the only real prospect, so it makes sense if there are people who basically do nothing but hustle for weeks on end.

However, this doesn't strike me as that kind of project.

These guys could happily go on to make their thing and gradually show it to an incremental audience as they're building it. It's not at all clear that they actually _need_ to be successful on Kickstarter. They're makers and they'll just make something that's fun for them. It could in fact be argued they'll have more fun and freedom doing it on their own instead of subjecting themselves to that sort of external pressure in exchange for a pittance.

<comment><USER4> thats a great point - incremental build plus audience building is effectively boot strapping. probably the best approach as long as they can continue to avoid "needing" an injection of funds.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I didn't watch the video, but I read the description. How much do you think you can accomplish in 3 months? 3 months, 3 people, 8000 pounds, that's hardly living money, never mind development costs, and any costs you have to pay for kickstarter for the physical rewards, etc. I wouldn't put my money out for some people who have no track record of delivery, and there's no plan for what will be delivered for the money, or what the end product will entail, what you intend on doing with the product afterwards.

Also, anyone who stumbles across the page sees a project that is nowhere near funding, and doomed for failure. If you can, get a lend of 4 or 5k, and get your family and friends to pump the money into the kickstarter. If it's close to funding you might get enough to clear the goal, and your money back from your loan.

Also, your goal deliveries are october (for early access?) yet your funding is for 3 months? what about the other 3/4 months in between times? What sort of money are you going to spend on marketing the game when it reaches the app store? All this information should be on the kickstarter page. You've also had no updates in the month, which would be disappointing to see if I was a backer.

<comment><AUTHOR> Being students, we were modest with personal funding as we've learned how to live cheaply while working hard. Based on what we live off during term time, this amount of funding is viable for us.

A loan is a big nono, we want 100% of funding to originate from customers. We would not be Kickstarting otherwise.

So we are in university until the end of June (2.5 months), full time development would begin at the start of July, ending with release at the start of October (3 months). Early access would be some point prior to that. I hope this justifies our timescale, although it does prove that we have not been clear enough with this matter.

Thanks for your comment, lots for consideration!

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm going to be cruel here.

I'm pretty sure you've got no hope of getting funded.

You're three guys barely out of school who are talking about your huge, sprawling vision, and all you have to back it up is a handful of samey-looking coder art. You've got a buggy abandoned year-old demo. You don't feel like people who can even begin to finish a small game, much less this big dream.

If you guys want to be a game dev team, then narrow your scope. Build a name for yourselves doing smaller games, learn something about promoting yourself. Build an audience. Or work on this in your spare time, and produce a compelling, polished first chapter of the story that gets people saying "wow! I want to know how it ends!" when they play it.

When you have fans who are willing to give you a few bucks for a good, finished game of limited scope, THEN you can consider a Kickstarter. Because a lot of what makes a Kickstarter work is ACTIVATING YOUR EXISTING AUDIENCE. Sure, you get people hearing about you and your work through KS, and you get your fans promoting your work because they want the KS to succeed - but if you don't have any existing fans who trust you to deliver on your promises, all you're going to get is sympathy pledges from rich relatives.

Also? Find someone for your team who is actually training to be an artist instead of letting the comp sci major who kinda likes to draw handle all the art duties. Or have that coder who kinda likes to draw go take some serious art classes. The existing art is high school notebook doodle level, those big crude head shots of your different races really screams "amateur" to me. (As do their names. Greens, Reds, Pinks? That's screaming that your world building is superficial. Your elevator pitch is "explore a vast and beautiful galaxy with rich stories at its heart"; what you're showing is neither beautiful nor a compelling narrative base.)

I applaud you dreaming big. But you are not ready for this yet. This campaign is the first failure of many you will encounter on your way to realizing this dream of making a Cool Sci-Fi Zelda; if you stay on this path you will fail many more times. Ideally you will learn something from every failure, and the next one will be an excitingly new kind of failure; eventually you'll run out of easy ways to fail and start finding some modest success. Good luck.

<comment><USER7> Personally, I think a straight up analysis like the OP here is not particularly cruel, if it can be internalized by the team (which basically means they can listen to it and not take it personally)

Summarizing it seems to be, story is poorly defined, the retro-8-bit art doesn't work, and the lack of previous efforts does not give one confidence that these things will be fixed.

I agree that failures will help define the value of success in the future. (Experiencing overcoming that is the 'reward' for putting in the effort)

Short answer on the feedback, for the author, you are failing because you are not ready yet. This has been a good checkpoint, and you have some good ideas in this list of comments to explore.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Hmm... here is some constructive criticism in the hopes that it helps. Please note that I am making a snap judgement but that is what a lot of people do to Kickstarters, so it is probably somewhat applicable even if it is harsh.

The graphics are lack luster in my opinion, at least the screenshots are not that attractive as compared to other pixel art I have seen. They are quite simple overall. Animation of the characters when moving is really not good, it is Atari console level graphics in a lot of ways.

The camera work & lighting in the pitch video is really poor. Some of it could have been said better as well. It was obviously recorded on web cams with no color correction and no punchy editing. I think that hurts a lot as well.

</comment><comment><USER9> Overall lack of professionalism is the problem. It looks like a highschool student project. Art (not just the game-art) is sub-par (sorry!). Next time you should involve someone who knows how to assemble a professional presentation. Knowing when to call in help is the best skill you can learn.

</comment><comment><USER10> I own gameskinny.com and we cover a lot of kick starters. I will just give you my opinion straight up. Based on your pledges you did not build a community ahead of your kick starter. You have 800 pounds or so which is 10% of your goal.

This kickstarter is done. That doesn't mean you can't have a successful one again. Build a community of like minded people. Get a forum, post some info on our forums, talk to people in RPG forums. Get 500 people who would fund you for 20$ so that when you launch the next kick starter at least 100 of them do.

<comment><AUTHOR> We only started marketing after the Kickstarter page went live. From what you're saying it sounds like we need to start the promotion long before that. Thanks for your advice!

<comment><USER10> I didn't say market. I said you need to build a community. You need to find people who want a game like this but can't build it. Then get them to talk to you and you talk to them. They will help spread your idea. Until you get some like minded people you have no idea if you have a market. Once you know you do have some people (and your mom and friends dont count) kick starter will help you reach more people, but kickstarter cant be your first move.

<comment><USER11> How is building a community different from marketing?

<comment><USER10> Marketing focuses on your sales goals. Community building focuses on the community's goals. They are related but that subtlety is important.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Your reward tiers are pretty good, but the video goes for a full minute utill you get to the actual game. Lots of talking heads doesn't make the user want the game!

Has anyone else written about the game yet? You want it covered in other places than just Kickstarter. Are your existing fans sharing/promoting it? Have you made it easy for fans to share content about the game outside of Kickstarter? If you don't have a group of people excited about the game already and willing to promote it, your project will probably not succeed. There's nothing wrong with pulling it and retooling.

</comment><comment><USER13> I mean this in the nicest way: I'd just like to point out that before Kickstarter, pretty much your only option would have been to scrounge up the money yourselves, invest it along with your sweat, blood, tears, and time into making the game, and then release it only to find out that it doesn't resonate with your target audience. With Kickstarter, you're able to discover up front if what you're making isn't what people actually want, and save yourself the wasted effort.

There's only one bit of tangible advice I have for you - and I haven't ever run a successful Kickstarter, so take it with a grain of salt. I've worked in games, and I know that they always take way more time and effort than you expect, even with aggressive cutting/scoping. Whenever I see a game Kickstarter with a target this low, my estimation of its failure probability (even if it's overfunded!) is around 80-90%. It tells me that the people involved don't really know what they're getting into. The lowest game Kickstarter I ever backed was Radio the Universe with a target of $12k (but ended up bringing in $80k), and I fully expected it to fail.

<comment><USER14> I have run unsuccessful kickstarter campaigns, and I think think this is the least depressing way to think about it.

Kickstarter is a way to validate your business model for no money and minimal time. You've just tested your MVP, and the feedback is that it's not what your customers want.

This is pretty valuable, since hopefully by talking to the people who backed your game (and the people here who wouldn't) you'll have a much better chance of making something that is actually wanted later.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I've worked with many crowd funding campaigns (around 90) and the most successful way to make sure it happens is to send out personal emails (anywhere from 10 to 25% conversion), followed by blast emails (around 10% conversion), followed by Facebook (around 7-8%). Don't even bother with Twitter unless you have over 100K followers or have an engaged following and are going to tweet non-stop (2-3% conversion). I've tracked all this in Mixpanel, so I'm not just giving you made up numbers.

Based on your goal, you will likely need to send out hundreds or potentially a thousand personal emails to your first degree connections.

Once you reach around 40% it makes sense to ask those backers to start to band around the project and share it with their friends. After which, 2nd degree and 3rd degree connections start to back the project as well.

A great Facebook hack is to make an event with the end of the campaign and invite all of your friends.

The reality is, you can still make it happen but it takes a lot of work and you need to really want it. That or find one really big backer.

<comment><USER15> Also, don't listen to the negativity in this thread. The majority of commenters have probably have never done a crowdfunding campaign, and are not likely going to back this because they don't know you.

It's important to have a clear pitch, and easy to follow dialogue, but that isn't going to help you make this goal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Your project looks like an amateur student game. I felt bad and didn't want to say so until I reached the "Who Are We" section where it turns out that yes, sure enough, y'all are amateur students.

If you shipped this as a complete project on your own without Kickstarter then it'd be a great portfolio piece. It would definitely help you land job interviews. It's just not something that people are going to give you money for on Kickstarter. The bar is quite high these days and your project does not meet it. I'm sorry.

</comment><comment><USER17> I remember creating all sorts of games back when I was a student. I dreamed big, and created at least some games which fell far short of my dreams -- but I never imagined that I would be able to find an audience for them.

Nowadays, Kickstarter creates the _illusion_ that it is easy to become a commercial success. Put a few screenshots up, create a website and video, and _shazam_! Get rich. (Or, in your case, get enough to pay your expenses for three months.) Except... as you discovered, it doesn't actually work like that.

Unfortunately, as other commenters have explained, you don't currently have the ability to convince people that you are going to make something great. But that is _not_ to say that you can't make something great. Just to say that commercial success requires a lot more than a big vision and the talent and energy to see it through.

I urge you to give up on getting funded for now, and instead focus on finding another way to see your vision through. Even if you never get a red cent -- even if you never even convince anyone to play it for _free_ \-- _you will have created something_. Of your vision and conception, and through your own hard work.

And something pretty damn cool, at that. Won't pay your rent, but in the long run that's worth a hell of a lot more than eight thousand quid.

Good luck to you!

</comment><comment><USER18> My advice would be to plan how you'll deliver the game anyway after not getting funded. Certainly it would be nice to have £8,000 in preorders, but it looks like you'll need to continue working on it in your own time until you finish. Many games are completed this way, and you can do it too.

Have any of you developed games in the past? If not, finishing this game on your own and releasing it will be a great learning experience for all you. Your game, to be blunt, looks like a student project (and it seems that two of you are in fact students.) I don't usually fund games on Kickstarter unless they're made by teams with clear track records or are very highly polished, and there's nothing that jumps out at me from the Kickstarter page as really differentiating your game from many others.

</comment><comment><USER19> I had a quick look, and my first thought was man those screenshots look like they are from old video games. I get the difficulty of creating games that runs on a variety of platforms, and that it will take some time, but I doubt the average viewer, read the text past the screenshots. So my first advice is to photoshop or re-create some of your screens, with a disclaimer it was for illustration purposes.

</comment><comment><USER20> Check out the kickstarter for FTL. [https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/64409699/ftl-faster- tha...](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/64409699/ftl-faster-than-light)

The FTL kickstarter started off demonstrating how excited they were to build the game followed almost directly with information and footage of the core mechanics. The game looked _fun_ before even getting past the first minute of the video.

On the other hand, the presentation of your kickstarter just didn't do much for me. I got through to about 3 minutes in the video before deciding stop watching.

The main problem for me was that nothing in the presentation me made me want to love either the game or the people behind it.

You call the game an action RPG... but the footage shown during the first 3 minutes that I watched involved mostly walking around and opening a chest. I'd have much preferred to have seen some whitty dialog with an NPC or some of the core game mechanics. This would have helped immensely as nothing that I saw looked "action" or "rpg".

</comment><comment><USER21> Doesn't seem to me like the kind of project to fund via Kickstarter.

Get a demo working on other platforms and show it around. Run forums. And when there's some traction, think of the best way to fund it.

Something like this is not going to find enough of its potential target through a Kickstarter. Also, many potential customers may not be convinced with the idea if they cannot try it.

</comment><comment><USER22> Probably not imho, but as they say where I live, "Shy bairns get nowt!" I would say to me, it doesn't appeal visually, most of those similar projects I have seen succeed in their funding tend to put a lot of time and resources into making their kickstarter project look "wow!". Also I have read on various occasions that like making games, kickstarter is an evolving learning process, and you don't lose everything this time around by not getting a slice of the pie. Thankfully fresh pies seem to get baked everyday in our economic system. Once you learn to roll with the punches, and toughen up a bit (cause you ain't failing you're learning) I am sure I will have the delight of one day being entertained by one of your creations. Good luck (from a fellow homebrewer)

</comment><comment><USER23> I would actually like more games like the old Start Flight and Star Control and whatnot. I don't think I'm willing to fund something with such ugly graphics, though. It's tough for me to even pick out the characters from the backgrounds. Maybe you should hire a graphics artist?

</comment><comment><USER24> I'm a long-time retro RPG gamer. After about a ~2 min glance at the page and skipping around the video, I couldn't find a compelling reason it's better than an average RPGMaker game. I'd look for successful pixel/retro kickstarters and try to emulate what they did.

</comment><comment><USER25> What marketing have you done so far? For the kickstarter, not just the game.

And to answer the question, your weakness can be shown as a strength. Rally your team and do a big last minute pus: "This hidden gem of a game has only a week left! Help get it funded!"

<comment><AUTHOR> In terms of marketing, we compiled a huge list of review sites/subreddits/twitter profiles/email addresses/forums to promote to, trying to personalise messages as much as possible. Also plugging like crazy on Facebook.

Yeah that sounds like a good idea, we'll give one last push and see how it goes. Thanks!

<comment><USER11> If I google "Uplift Kickstarter" nothing comes up. So, I assume that your attempt at getting reviews / articles / etc.. have failed. There appears to be no web presence for this game.

Unlike others, I don't mind the retro graphics [although these are very retro and that may hurt you]. I doubt anyone has heard of the game. This is a marketing fail, so to speak.

I'll also add the folks talking in the video show no enthusiasm or energy. It is a fairly boring video.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I see a lot of people emphasizing on building a community and I agree that it helps a lot, but community alone might not be enough to get you the amount you would have preferred.

Below is an example of a flash based game with very simple graphics, which was successfully funded, mainly because of a decent sized community behind it. But, the developer still didn't get the amount he would have loved.

[https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1554254835/learn-to- fly...](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1554254835/learn-to-fly-3)

</comment><comment><USER27> Is it legal to sell your iOS promo codes that way? I am sure that is against the terms of service, and to make matters worse those people won't be able to review the game in the App Store.

</comment><comment><USER28> Each campaign only runs for a limited time.

However, the kicker if you like, you can use as much time as you need to gather the audience before running it.

At this point I see no other solution but to gather all your parents then make them feel guilty.

Bake a cake, buy some bottles of cheap wine, hand written invitation cards, then throw them an investors party.

There must be a presentation screen with slides on it, a speech must be written about future careers and the parental influence therein.

It will be a hard sell but you wanted to learn about business.

<comment><USER29> That sounds a lot like the plot to Stepbrothers. : )

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> What have you done outside of kickstarter to promote the project?

I think that is key.

The kickstarter is just the hub of a marketing push.

Have you pointed anyone on any forums, social media or blogs to your kickstarter?

</comment><comment><USER31> You may also want to reconsider your pricing structure. At approx $5 to get the full game I do wonder why I should bother doing the Kickstarter. You didn't mention the non-Kickstarter price so I'm going to assume it will be approx the same. So I could probably just wait until the game succeeds and pick it up for about the same cost - then I don't need to worry about the game's progress or whether it fails in development.

</comment><comment><USER32> The game just isn't very compelling. I've seen better graphics in Ludum Dare Compo games, and there's already other space exploration games out there (Starbound for instance).

Just focus on finishing the game, and then sell it. Maybe try Greenlight on Steam. It almost seems as though the game was an afterthought to your pitch and campaign...

</comment><comment><USER33> Potential issue:

There is another game already with this title - [https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.Starchaser...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.Starchaser.Uplift)

I tried to find reviews and news for your game with a web search, but this is what came up.

</comment><comment><USER34> I think very few ppl can relate to this c64-style in 2014. You are making a game, so your audience is very young.

I am 30 and i only remember the SNES RPGs to have left a impression on me. I immediately thought of SOM/zelda when i read the title. ... just my 2 cent. Good luck!

</comment><comment><USER35> On Kickstarter, the project description should convince the public that you are able to deliver a fun game; unfortunately you give consistent hints of the contrary. The public knows that software projects tend to fail, run late and cost too much, and that games are often less than fun; videogames combine the two sources of uncertainty and are one of the highest risk types of Kickstarter project.

"However, about nine months ago, we decided that it would be preferable to abandon AndEngine and rewrite the game from scratch, in a graphics framework called LibGDX. This set us back quite a bit. However, we're now at the stage where the game is back to its original functionality"

On the "being able to deliver" axis, you represent yourself as slow (over 1 year for a demo might be acceptable, but 9 months for a rewrite are a lot, smelling of part-time amateur development), prone to waste time with failed experiments (and persisting despite technical problems), unrealistically ambitious and/or unfocused (Windows and Mac and Linux and and iOS and Android? When high budget companies choose between Android and iOS?). Consider what the numerous software developers and software project managers on HN are likely to think of rewriting software from scratch, regardless of your sound technical reasons.

"The game plays like a cross between A Link to the Past and Mass Effect, and takes some inspiration from Iain M. Banks' Culture novels - along with whatever else can be scraped from an imagination fired by years of reading brilliant science fiction. Gameplay focuses around Ra's ability to use magic, and the player can find many new spells as they explore the game's universe. It's not all action, though - players will come up against a variety of puzzles, ranging from mildly vexing to fiendishly tricky."

On the "fun game" axis, you have very little to show. You sure like your game, but TELLING it's fun is vastly different from SHOWING it's fun. Descriptions like this one are simply too generic to suggest how well you are meeting the stated objectives. At least for me, the inexplicably low resolution graphics are particularly troublesome: whether they are the bizarre product of strange tastes or just a cheap and ugly placeholder, the concern over their quality projects on all other aspects of the game. If an artist thinks that much smaller sprites than on the Atari 2600 are appropriate for HD screens, explaining how and why it's the best choice for your game needs to be a very important part of your message, or the public will assume the worst (you aren't giving the due attention to graphics and/or you are unable or unwilling to draw anything better).

</comment><comment><USER36> One crucial question is left unanswered: What do you need the money for? Why should I pledge now, if I could just wait with my purchase until it's finished?

</comment><comment><USER37> As students, I don't see how injecting money is going to make this faster/better unless you pay people to take your classes and exams.

</comment><comment><USER38> For Kickstarter, it's all about getting PR. That's what you should spend all your energy on.

<comment><USER39> You can try [http://prmatch.com](http://prmatch.com) for pay-for-results pr and free tools to help with your kickstarter.

Also, sign up over at AcademyOfCrowdfunding.com for the free training.

Reach out directly to me as we have a program to help reboot failed kickstarters.

You can try a couple of these tactics to see if it will help last minute:

\- email all the backers you have and ask them to increase contribution and spread the word.

\- find a few companies who might be good sponsors and call them directly and pitch them on a $10k package -- this has worked for some of my clients who had failing projects. You structure sponsorship package basically.

\- do a last minute PR push

\- create an event and the ticket price is via donation to your campaign

Again, if you don't hit 50% in week 1 or 2 (30 day campaign) you should be going into emergency mode, this is very last minute but you could still pull out a win. Go hard for the week, then do a comprehensive post-morteum, and find a pro to help you plan a reboot strategy.

Happy to give you a free session to analyze your work to date and make some suggestions.

Anthony @ 175g . Com

<comment><USER40> This comment is mostly speaking to the author of the parent post, who seems to be a founder of prmatch.com [1].

I think OP represents an underserved market -- people who have a great product idea [2] and want to crowdfund, but don't have a clue about how to do marketing. For crowdfunding, it would be very helpful if the PR folks are rewarded with a percentage [3] of the crowdfunding proceeds when the campaign is successful, rather than cash up front -- this fits the "pay-for- performance" philosophy. And it helps entrepreneurs get another form of feedback -- if no marketers are interested in your product, it may be a sign that your product is so bad it's unmarketable, or your crowdfunding goal is too high, or your reward for the marketer is too low.

Also, "creating a press wishlist" assumes the customer knows something about marketing already. This may be fine for customers who are migrating from other advertising options, but it sounds like a place where people like OP would need hand-holding. I know little about marketing myself, so if I was hiring a marketing expert, I would certainly want to get their input as to the most cost-effective places to put ads or try to get press.

I guess it comes down to whether you're trying to target (A) people who are familiar with marketing, already know what they want, and are just having trouble finding it, or (B) people who have good products but are total noobs when it comes to marketing.

I think types (A) and (B) are both big enough markets to justify your platform catering to both of them, especially if the PR freelancers have a way to distinguish between (A) and (B) type clients (some freelancers might only want to work with one type of client, and it may be a negative experience all around if they get matched to the other type). But it seems like the current website copy is targeted more toward the (A) type.

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6649911](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6649911)

[2] Judging from other comments in this thread, the OP's product idea may need some refinement.

[3] A fixed reward amount would also be possible, but a percentage reward encourages the marketer to keep working and hit stretch goals after the minimum funding goal is reached.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> This is not really helpful, but I love the music sample! Sounds great.</comment>


Optically improved mitochondrial function redeems aged human visual decline - <AUTHOR> https://academic.oup.com/biomedgerontology/article-abstract/doi/10.1093/gerona/glaa155/5863431?redirectedFrom=fulltext <comment><AUTHOR> Article: [https://newatlas.com/medical/deep-red-light-aging- retinas/](https://newatlas.com/medical/deep-red-light-aging-retinas/)

> As our bodies age we can expect different components to deteriorate in > performance, however, not all do so at the same pace. The retinas are one > example of a part that ages sooner than most, but a new study has > demonstrated how a form of deep red light therapy can help arrest this > slide. Hitting the eyeball with just the right wavelength of light has been > found to "recharge the energy system" and bring significant improvements to > vision in those over 40.</comment>


Google sorry page - <AUTHOR> http://sorry.google.com/sorry/misc/?continue=http://www.google.co.in/search%3Fsourceid%3Dchrome%26ie%3DUTF-8%26q%3Dadobe%2Bair%2Blinux

<comment><USER2> I get the regular "sorry" page when following this link. Not very interesting...</comment>


Proof-of-concept Smalltalk implemented using Factor as a host VM - <AUTHOR> http://factor-language.blogspot.com/2009/04/sup-dawg-we-heard-you-like-smalltalk-so.html

<comment><USER2> The irony of the programming language toolkit explosion is that it looks like it's more fun to write tools to write programming languages than it is to write programming languages.

Cool stuff though.

<comment><USER3> Smalltalk is easy. There is so little grammar, that implementing it is a snap.

If the toolkit explosion is making it so easy, then maybe Stallman's original GUILE proposal will finally happen. (All scripting languages running on a common platform.)

<comment><USER4> I just have to put in another plug for GUILE. I've written a sizable chunk of my day-to-day shell scripts in it and it is such a pleasant environment in which to work.

Are there translators out there, for perl, python?</comment></comment></comment>


Ubuntu 17.10 (Artful Aardvark) Release Notes - <AUTHOR> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ArtfulAardvark/ReleaseNotes <comment><USER2> Active discussion:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15506334](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15506334)

</comment><comment><USER3> * The Ubuntu Desktop now uses GNOME instead of Unity.

Maybe I'll give stock Ubuntu Desktop a try again!

<comment><USER4> I don't grok the hate for Unity... There was of course the "Hey instead of having engineers make a new windowing system why not improve an existing one" argument, but ... it's a fine window manager.

<comment><USER5> No hate. I just point put it is hard to use for old grumpy engineers like me after they broke alt-tab with no accessibility option for grumpy old engineers.

Meanwhile Gnome has done the same AFAIK.

As for why it has sometimes got a bit loud it is because it was almost perfect and instead of fixing the last glitches they decided to ruin everything (to please ux people or mac lovers or something.)

<comment><USER4> Curious what the alt-tab problem is/was? It, in accompaniment with alt- backtick does everything I'd expect...?

<comment><USER5> I can't use alt-tab alone to switch between all the things I work on.

When I have to stop in the middle of the process to switch and use a different key that is a massive failure - _in my book_.

<comment><USER4> You may not have noticed, but you don't need alt-backtick if you pause for a second or two on the icon. The window you're on then magically expands out into all the windows that comprise that app. I really didn't like it and I disabled it but if you don't like alt-backtick that'd be your savior.

So while we do differ in what we like, Unity does support both, I think!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> >Python 2 is no longer installed by default. Python 3 has been updated to 3.6.</comment>


Ask HN: Live Analytics for a Webapp? - <AUTHOR>

Howdy HN,<p>I'm looking for a live reporting analytics package for a webapp. Is chartbeat the bees knees for this or is there something better out there? <comment><USER2> As suggested in previous reply [http://www.contrast.ie/blog/the-future-of- analytics-products...](http://www.contrast.ie/blog/the-future-of-analytics- products/) has good information about different analytics systems.

But if your business growth depends on analytics then investing into home grown analytics solution would be a good strategy. Investing in a home grown analytics system not only provide flexibility in gathering any kind of analytics for your web app but also lay the ground work for home grown A/B testing and continuous deployment frameworks. But it depends on how much you want to invest and its ROI which can vary a lot based on your business.

</comment><comment><USER3> A recent post in Hacker News:

[http://www.contrast.ie/blog/the-future-of-analytics- products...](http://www.contrast.ie/blog/the-future-of-analytics-products/)

<comment><AUTHOR> This is just what I needed. Thanks, drKarl.</comment></comment>


How tech's young millionaires spend their money - <AUTHOR> http://business.financialpost.com/2013/08/05/how-techs-young-millionaires-spend-their-money/ <comment><USER2> _...Now 33, McFarland has a 3-year-old and a newborn and no longer has to think about his student loan: His company has US$17.75-million in venture capital investment. While he doesn't consider himself retire-now rich, his piece of the company affords him what he calls "breathing room" and what other people might call wealth..._

 _...Scribd took off and now has millions of dollars in funding..._

I know this has become a meme, but it's being done here much more blatantly than I've seen in other articles.

It doesn't have to be said (but I'll still say it): Venture Capital funding does not by itself mean that either A) the founders are millionaires or B) that the company is successful.

It's a vote of confidence. It's a chance to be successful. And it's exciting and can be a great step along the path of success.

But the notion that "raising VC is the goalpost of startup success" is a notion that probably does more harm than good.

<comment><USER3> >It doesn't have to be said (but I'll still say it): Venture Capital funding does not by itself mean that either A) the founders are millionaires or B) that the company is successful.

How does that work, then? I mean, if I'm managing tens of millions of dollars in someone else's money, I'm going to want some compensation for that. You can afford it.

Hell, personal financial advisers generally take 1%, right? that'd be north of $177K right there. And surely a startup founder does more work than a personal financial adviser.

I mean, I don't have insight into what founders of funded companies get paid... but I find the idea that they are worrying about student loans, well, to be pretty unlikely.

<comment><USER4> _> How does that work, then? I mean, if I'm managing tens of millions of dollars in someone else's money, I'm going to want some compensation for that._

When somebody invests in your fledgling company, it's typically not a congratulations for getting out of the starting gate. It's money that allows you to grow your business. You could have payroll, marketing, servers, office space, legal fees, etc. and depending on the business, you can burn through millions extremely quickly.

Not to say you can't pay yourself a decent salary, but you're probably not living high on the hog. If you're stashing the money in your personal bank account (and I'm sure some have), that's likely to make people very unhappy.

And, yes, a startup founder might work more than a personal financial advisor. But he also stands to gain much more for his work, if all goes well, down the line.

<comment><USER5> $17.75 million invested is probably beyond the stage of "fledgling". Perhaps "middling"? I will agree that founders' large salaries should come from profit, not investment.

Also, you have to imagine that the valuation of the company is somewhere in the neighborhood of 3-4x the amount invested, if not more depending on how recently the last round was. And as a founder it seems reasonable to assume around 10-15% equity remaining after a couple rounds, also assuming a couple other founders with similar stakes. That pegs his shares' value anywhere from $5-10 million. It may just be on paper, but you still count it in "net worth", a term readers of the Financial Post are probably most interested in. And definitely warrants, if the product is successful in its own right to any degree, feeling a bit of "breathing room".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Perhaps they don't collect luxury items as status symbols because to start, scale and sell a successful company is the ultimate status symbol of them all.

It's a silly anecdote, but long before I sold my first company, when I was just another college dropout eating from the dollar menu and paying for gas with spare change, I really, really wanted a brand new BMW M3. To say I lusted after that machine would be an understatement; to me, that sexy car epitomized success and oozed the kind of vibe I wanted to send out.

Once real success arrived, however, I was surprised to find I really didn't care any more. I ended up with a used Toyota Camry because I could drive it around the city without worrying about scratches and dents.

<comment><USER7> I have a similar experience. When I started my business, I really wanted an AM V8, but now that I can afford it, I don't care that much.

<comment><USER8> Same. Not really an exciting car to ride, unfortunately. I heard the V12 feels completely different.

I think fantasizing about cars might be more fun than owning them.

<comment><USER9> I've noticed this too. As I get closer to 'buy whatever car you want' kind of money, I dream less of the shiny new muscle and I'm getting more interested in a used Miata I can beat up on a track.

<comment><USER8> fwiw i find that "well set up for the track" means "unpleasant as a daily driver" \- i'm trying to set up a car that i can drive to the track and back. i am fast enough that i need harnesses, which aren't compatible with the regular seats, etc etc etc.

also, check this out: [http://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/cto/3985270257.html](http://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/cto/3985270257.html)

it's nice to pass people. it's more fun when you can do it with 200 less horsepower.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> at-fates-hands >>>These children of the boom 90s also aren't so into conspicuous consumption.

Except that. .

>>>Also, there's a bit of a focus on cars, but in a smart way. Merrill Lynch's Hogan says, "I had a client come in and say that he bought a Tesla car – but he had also bought shares in the company. And he told us that he made enough profit on the shares to cover the cost of the car."

So if I buy a 100K car and invest in the company, then that's smart? Otherwise, it's considered "conspicuous"?? If you drop 100K on a car, it doesn't matter how you bought it, it's still a 100K purchase on a car.

<comment><USER10> I bought a part stake in a horse, and also wagered on it. The horse won and I made my money back. It's a bit of a focus on horses, but in a smart way.

<comment><USER11> Hedging would be prudent, balancing risk and wagering on the other horses. If your horse loses, then you can limit your losses with your other winnings. If it wins then you can cover the money you put on the wagers. Over the long term that's smarter than putting everything on one pony.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> "The typical software engineer isn't dreaming of the day he can quit the rat race. They use their money instead to gain a little bit of control over what they work on and what they do."

The more money you save, the more leverage you have in avoiding work that sucks.

<comment><USER13> 100% correct. The original quote was "...gain control over what they work on and who they work with."

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I know both Trip and Josh -- I don't think this article reads well on either one. My guess is Wealthfront needed some quotes from people and they are friensd with the WealthFront team.

This whole story reads like a PR job. All the stats were just too convenient (and useless).

</comment><comment><USER15> _"The whole idea from the 80s — that you'd make some money and use that money to make more money — this current generation isn't looking at money that way," says Nash._

Yeah, I remember those crazy, reinvesting 80s. Interest, dividends, buy low sell high. WTF were we thinking??

This Nash guy has really convinced me that I should entrust my financial future under the auspices of his Wealthfront.

<comment><USER16> "I just want to say two words to you. Just two words."

"Yes, sir."

"Are you listening?"

"Yes, I am."

"Financial derivatives."

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> At least the paper millionaires of the last Silicon Valley bubble had somewhat liquid publicly traded stock.

<comment><USER10> That's one reason why this one is lasting so long: nobody is being burned in public, everyone can smile and carry on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> If only they really were spending money on intergalactic travel.

</comment><comment><USER19> It's interesting how <100% change in annual salary (50k to 100k) is the ultimate hallmark of 'doing well' across the country, when the cost of life can vary >400% from one place to another.

</comment><comment><USER10> N = 2.

<comment><USER20> And those two were chosen because they were clients of Wealthfront, which likely was involved in the writing of this article.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> i was expecting to see bentleys, cristal, and 100,000 usd hand bags, boring ;)

career freedom seems to be the major theme.</comment>


App Engine Boilerplate, now with HTML5 Boilerplate v2.0 - <AUTHOR> http://metachris.org/2011/08/app-engine-boilerplate-2-0-using-html5-boilerplate-v2-on-google-app-engine/

<comment><AUTHOR> Hope some people may find it useful! Here's a direct link to the repository: <https://github.com/metachris/appengine-boilerplate>

</comment><comment><USER2> Damn - I spent a bunch of time setting all this stuff up myself about a month ago. Good to know this project exists and is ready to rock for my next GAE app!</comment>


Is There a Right to Immigrate? (2010) - <AUTHOR> http://spot.colorado.edu/~huemer/immigration.htm <comment><USER2> The United States has plenty of moral responsibility to accept immigrants from countries in Central America after spending billions screwing them up with dirty secret wars in the 70s and 80s.

<comment><USER3> How does that help? Letting in a small percentage of the population while the rest still lives in terrible conditions isn't much of a solution.

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like much short of near colonization will fix these places on any reasonable timescale. Simply sending money/aid programs might alleviate a bit but an outside solution is needed to properly coordinate/manage resources.

<comment><USER4> >Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like much short of near colonization will fix these places on any reasonable timescale. Simply sending money/aid programs might alleviate a bit but an outside solution is needed to properly coordinate/manage resources.

This view is simply ignorant of history.

The US doesn't need to colonize countries to "manage resources" for them in a benevolent way. The first thing it needs to do is stop actively sabotaging them and their economies. Interestingly, "benevolent" management of resources that "primitives" mishandle has been a justification for nearly all colonization programs in the past few centuries, except perhaps what the Belgians did in the Congo.

Economic sanctions against countries in Latin America, purely for ideological and political reasons, as well as massive American agriculture subsidies, have devastating effects on their economies.

This is, of course, when they aren't straight up invaded or sabotaged by America.

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

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

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat)

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

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

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

<comment><USER3> That's great, meanwhile what's an actual solution for today? You've got hilariously corrupt governments and incompetence at every level of society. Stuff doesn't work and people are resigned to it. High performers will do their best to insulate themselves or emigrate.

Just because the US went halfway in meddling before doesn't mean that a proper setup (replacing local government with a governor) would not work. If the goal was to create a decently running society versus extracting resources there should be no problem.

At some point, you gotta admit that hey, these countries are messed up. Whatever the reason, the current situation isn't working. Just like if you stabbed someone and really injured them. The correct response isn't to say "wow I should just stop interfering with you completely" but to realise they're bleeding out and, even if they protest, get them medical care until they're healthy again.

Or, you know, pretend that their independence matters, that every country can just do fine if only they're left alone, and ignore the terrible conditions most of their population lives in.

<comment><USER4> Like I said,

> Interestingly, "benevolent" management of resources that "primitives" > mishandle has been a justification for nearly all colonization programs in > the past few centuries, except perhaps what the Belgians did in the Congo.

Even US foreign aid is distributed in a way completely subservient to US geopolitical interests. The perhaps most chilling example(and there are many examples) of this would be when the US denied food aid to Bangaldesh in '74, when the country was undergoing a massive famine(which ultimately led to the deaths of 4 million people). This wasn't just a simple denial, but an act of ransom against an impoverished, suffering people who just won their independence from a genocide-committing, US-backed Pakistan. The Americans had initially promised food aid to Bangladesh, and this aid was ready to deliver, when the Bangladeshis were told that they had to immediately cease all trade relations with Cuba to see any of it. Not only was Cuba one of the few trading partners of Bangladesh at the time, but also one of the first few countries to recognize their independence and status as a nation. By the time Bangladeshi leaders agreed to this demand, the famine was largely over and had claimed the bulk of its victims. US aid finally arrived too late to be of any use.

All of this was at the same time as when America was giving massive quantities of grain as food "aid" to South Vietnam, which was on its own a surplus food producing country. The grain given to South Vietnam was used(indeed, meant to be used) as barter in exchange for weapons from other countries. Just another instance of when American "charity" is used for American geopolitical interests rather than any meaningful form of charity.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that a nation state, especially one with the track record of the US, can be trusted to "benevolently" interfere with other countries. The only thing it will do, indeed _can_ do, given the power structures that comprise it, is act in its own best interests, which are often as not to the detriment of the host country.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Sam has stated for many years that Marvin is not allowed into his marketplace unless by written invitation. Marvin, being a citizen of his own town, can seek a marketplace in his own town, work with others to create one for himself like Sam did, or violate Sams borders knowing the consequences (as Sam has already told him what will happen). Just like standing at the bottom of the ocean will drown you, Sam has stated the consequences of violating his border. Sam detaining Marvin from Sams marketplace isn't violating Marvin's rights any more the sea denies your right to breath if you stand beneath it--Marvin is responsible for the risks he takes when the consequences are known. If Sam was Sam Jung Il, you may be shot dead. If it's uncle Sam, you can expect to be returned to your town.

Edited because I was distracted by children.

<comment><USER6> in reality, sam isn't the sole associate of "his marketplace", and sam can't form a consensus with the others there.

i flatly do not care for americans more than i care for people with other passports, and i am not willing to support any special privileges built on this notion of us being one tribe.

<comment><USER5> We are stretching the (possibly false) analogy that Sam is an individual and that Marvin is also an individual. In reality, US Sam is an evolving (or revolving) representative electorate of a lands citizens, and 'Sam' controls the town, land, infrastructure and laws which support the marketplace, including the land, towns infrastructure and laws of the buyers. Sam doesn't need to be an associate, as he owns and operates the ecosystem that makes the market exist, except for the vendors and their tents.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> There, perhaps, is the right to leave and to refuse to obey, but there is no right to be accepted in any country you wish and no right to demand anything once you left your country. There is definitely no Right to become a burden to others.

<comment><USER8> IMO there's no right to be accepted, but any country capable of supporting a person has a moral obligation to do so. Every human deserves a decent life, or at the very least an okay life.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> The author, in my view, appears to be making 2 logical fallacies (that, therefore, invalidate the argument) summarized here

"... _A prima facie rights violation is an action of a sort that normally—that is, barring any special circumstances—violates someone's rights. For example, killing a human being is a prima facie rights violation: in normal circumstances, to kill someone is to violate his rights._ ...."

Fallacy one, is that killing a person is an binary, killed or not. It is not equivalent to a country establishing suverenity over its territory, borders, and laws. And denying a right to immigrate into a particular list of first world countries, is not equivalent to killing.

Fallacy two, is that the author oversimplifies.

First it is postulated, that immigration is a right. However, it is not the case. Every right granted within a sovereign country does not necessarily extend beyond its borders. Eg 2nd amendment right in US does not extend to Russia. Same can be said about abortions right grants -- these are not applicable at 'global level'. So lack of examining significantly complex analogies, is a simplification fallacy.

Second example of oversimplification fallacy, is that there are many more variables (rights, privileges, letter of law, reasons to enforce laws, etc) than just "US government" vs "an immigrant".

<comment><USER10> The idea that all 7 billion people In the world have a right to live In the US is rediculous. Even if it were those people's right, it's virtually impossible to make that happen

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Only when one believes in "God given rights" or similar, that exist independently of man-made laws and customs.

Otherwise, what's a right is what people define as one.

Here's a related question: is the will of a collection of people A (e.g. "no immigration to our parts") more or less important than the will of other people to immigrate there?

And two PS notes, as most people will focus on the wrong aspects of the question.

P.S 1: To bypass any kind of hypocrisy charges etc, e.g. "how you A people think you ended where you are now?", we can make A's proclamation as "no further immigration to our parts" \-- this is selfish maybe, but not hypocritical.

P.S 2: Since few/no groups A have a uniform will, we can define A's will as the usual majority/plurality will, especially as expressed through their typical form of elections.

<comment><USER12> The right to determine immigration policy is a sovereign power, in the US it is granted by law to the executive branch (subject of course to many other natural and national laws.)

<comment><USER11> Sure, but we are discussing above and before those concepts now.

On a meta-level, e.g. are they justified to exist at all, and if so why, etc.

<comment><USER12> It's useful to go back to the Enlightenment to gain context about the origins of that meta-level philosophy and try to articulate what's changed and why those laws of nations are no longer valid. It could be the basis of a new Enlightenment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I would argue that if there was a universal human right to immigrate into the US, then US would collapse under all of the external pressure of so many people pouring in.

Let's say my neighbor has a nicer house than me, with an inground pool, cenral air, and a bowling alley in the basement. As much as I'd like to live there, and no matter the condition of my own house, I can't just move in because I feel like it.

<comment><USER14> Think about it this way. If New York City is so awesome (and it's pretty awesome) why doesn't everyone in America move there?

There's plenty of reasons the population of NYC isn't 300M. The reality is that people are tied to their communities for many different reasons. Language, culture, family, friends, jobs. These aren't unique to the first world. Sure many would come, but many more would stay, and these things reach equilibrium.

One thing is certain, there'd be a much bigger labor pool and a more dynamic economy, IMO.

<comment><USER15> Or it's not so awesome

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> No. A nation may place whatever restriction they like on foreigners entering. This has been a right of nations since the beginning of recorded history.

<comment><USER16> _This has been a right of nations since the beginning of recorded history._

This is an interesting claim to make.

For most of recorded history, borders were usually uncontrolled except in time of war/threat, and barriers to migration were at least as likely to be imposed at origin as at destination -- people capable of doing labor were an asset, and if they could get away from their current ruler/owner, another ruler would often be happy to take them. European monarchs, for example, would happily poach each others' dissatisfied subjects and even offer them land and religious toleration.

And in those times, the rights being exercised over movement were rights of _rulers_ , not rights of _nations_. The idea of a "nation" as a thing capable of having rights didn't really exist until the 17th century, and was nebulous for some time after.

<comment><USER12> I agree with all of that. Whether or not we are in a time of war/threat seems to be at the heart of the current immigration debate.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> > _1\. Individuals have a prima facie right to immigrate (that is, a right not > to be prevented from immigrating). This is because: a. Individuals have a > prima facie right to be free from harmful coercion. b. Immigration > restrictions are harmful and coercive. 2\. The prima facie right to > immigrate is not overridden. In particular: a. It is not overridden because > of immigrants' effects on the labor market. b. It is not overridden because > of the fiscal burden of providing social services to immigrants. c. It is > not overridden because of the state's special obligations to its citizens in > general, nor its special obligations to its poorest citizens. d. It is not > overridden because of the threat immigrants pose to the nation's culture. > 3\. Therefore, immigration restrictions are wrongful rights-violations._

The paper makes absolutely no sense as it is.

First of all, there are no "prima facie" rights. Even the declaration of human rights is about declaring and enforcing man made rights, not prima facie rights that everyone automatically has in nature. Animals in nature have no rights (not in the sense that we can do anything to them: in the sense that there are no rights between them: one animal can do anything it likes to another, if it has the power to do so).

But, even accepting the notion, the conclusions are not coherent with the whole idea.

Immigration presupposes nations (the places where you immigrate to).

First, because else it's just movement (e.g. from California to Texas), not immigration.

And second, because what prospective immigrants want is to exchange one nations prospects (stability, economy, government, laws, jobs, culture, opportunities) for another's. If there were two different countries with the exact same prospects in all those areas, immigration between them would not make any sense (except in changing landscape, e.g. from snow to sunshine -- but that's seldom the reason people leave their country, friends and families for).

But "free boundless immigration as a fundamental right" means no nations, just a huge global state. What would there be to constitute a nation (with separate laws, government, economy, etc) if anybody can come in and leave at anytime for greener pastures?

</comment><comment><USER17> Why do people get away with pretending that rights come from the sky?

<comment><USER18> To treat them any other way is to call into question the foundations of progressive/enlightened ideology. Movements, ideologies, and factions all must have a point of departure, and this point is predicated on assumptions. Liberal Western thought wanted equality but needed to remove god (as equality under a godhead was undesirable). Enlightenment thinkers felt free to say and do as they wished, so they formalized the feeling into an argument of the universality of rights. Whether they are god given or inherent, they must exist for the rest of the progressive framework to maintain its structure.

The question i find interesting is, "how long will people like me get away with believing that rights come from rifles?"

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> There are many minor inconsistencies in this otherwise interesting and accessible piece, but I think a fundamental one is that the citizens of a country are not valued the same as foreign citizens. It could be argued one of the purposes of the state itself is to put its citizens above all else. So it stands to reason that one can conceive of letting foreigners suffer economic privation rather than cut local salaries 1%; or spy on foreigners freely but require court orders for locals, etc.

</comment><comment><USER6> the most fundamental form of democracy is voting with your feet, and the passport regime has destroyed that.

nationality is segregation.

<comment><USER20> No, nationality is property rights.

Voting with your feet was not significant before passports as the masses were too poor to move (which is why nobody had passport systems to begin with).

<comment><USER21> I hadn't though of nationality as property rights, but it makes a ton of sense. Thank you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> It is a highly philosophical question. Therefore, the answer to it will always depend on, well, one's philosophy.

For example, if you see your country as your home, then ask yourself: is there a _right_ to immigrate into your home?

If, on the other hand, you see the planet we live on as something that people have a natural right to roam at will, then the borders between countries would seem illegitimate, and one should be free to settle in any country, given the means, ability to provide for themselves, and the will to abide by the local laws and customs.

</comment><comment><USER23> >I then examine the most popular justifications offered for restricting immigration, finding that none of them offers a credible rationale for claiming either that such restriction does not violate rights or that the rights violation is justified.

This is completely backwards. He should be in the position to prove that restrictions _do_ violate rights, not that none of the ones he addresses _don 't_ violate rights.

With the goalposts shifted so far, I see this as pseudo-intellectual bloviation.

</comment><comment><USER4> An argument for immigration based on ethics seems to be interesting to discuss in theory, but is so far removed from the major ethical concerns regarding US behavior that it seems like a joke to argue for libertarian immigration policy reform on this basis.

Active invasion, murder, genocide and sabotage are ethical concerns that immediately out-shadow ethical considerations of immigration. It's a bit like complaining about animal rights in DPRK.

</comment><comment><USER24> The only legitimate authority is that which it is granted by the people over which it is exercised. Thus, a democracy is only legitimate to the extent that people choose to participate in it. By restricting migration, you effectively eliminate people's choice (at least at the national level), and what you end up with is subjugation in a pretty package.

<comment><USER11> This doesn't make any sense.

"A democracy is only legitimate to the extent that people choose to participate in it" is correct, but only applies to the people within the bounds of the democratic state -- those upon which the effects of the democratic decisions will be applied to. Not to arbitrarily anyone.

So refusing the vote to blacks or women etc, within a state is undemocratic, refusing the entry to the state (and thus the vote) to those outside is another thing altogether.

Let's conduct a thought experiment. Given totally free entry and vote to the USA, what's to stop, say, 400 million devout muslims from migrating there, and voting at the very first elections they can vote in, for islamic law (or gradually introducing it)? That's, after all, the will of the (new) 400+350 million strong people.

You could substitute muslims for any other group. Or you could do the reverse experiment, migrating 100 millions americans to a muslim country of, say, 50-70 million people, and having the vote to change the laws and customs to americanized preferences of living.

It's only because a lot of people in the US think that how the US lives and operates is some kind of universal law or ultimate preference of mankind (forgetting that there are two fractions even in the us itself) that they cannot see the possibility of such experiments/distortions.

Meanwhile, people in places like Lebanon, that had these things painfully happen to them, are much more aware of the diversity of what people will.

<comment><USER3> This is what I never see addressed, and it certainly must be helping the "right wing" groups because it seems so obvious.

Given a choice, the majority of the world would choose to move to Europe or North America. I'd bet if you polled, say, Guatemala, and offered everyone free residency and resettlement in the US, you'd have acceptance numbers over 80% at least. And a lot of the people choosing to stay would be those that are well off.

So what's the actual plan to deal with resettling a couple billion people (with significantly different values and standards)? And if we can magically provide a safe and wonderful country for them in tier 1 countries, why can't we do the same in their country of origin?

Or more directly, what's allowing tier 1 countries the ability to absorb so many people?

<comment><USER24> In my travels in third world countries, I've observed that the people are often tremendously proud of their national identity, and strongly connected with their culture. Emigrating is not a step people take lightly. Of course, if you take someone who's sick and starving and offer them a free lunch and medical care they're going to jump at the opportunity, but I am willing to bet that if in most cases they would prefer to get those things in the context of their own country rather than having to relocate.

It is worth noting that the trend in migration from Mexico to the USA has actually reversed lately.

<comment><USER25>
      It is worth noting that the trend in migration from Mexico to the USA has actually reversed lately.

No, it hasn't.

The only study that even _claimed_ that misinterpreted the two studies that produced the raw numbers.

The inbound figures counted only working-age adults. It ignored _all_ children and infants, including the huge number of unaccompanied infants.

The outbound figures counted _everybody_ , including children and infants.

There was a net _increase_ overall.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> My question: do I have a right to immigrate to your house?

</comment><comment><USER26> Is there a right for a person to move into my house?

Conversely, is there a right for me to invite people to move into my house? Is it even "my" house in the first place?

</comment><comment><USER27> First, let's start with the fact that "rights" are a human construct, and have only been allowed insomuch as there's no conflict with society or governments. My belief is that immigration SHOULD be unlimited in an ideal world, but given the current state of the world, should be very limited.

The main problem is that immigration creates definite winners and losers. Even if you believe in the "right" of someone to move to a place that has more economic opportunity, what happens to the social dynamic and economy in the place they immigrate, and more importantly, from where they emigrate? Once upon a time people talked about "brain drain", but it seems we've either forgotten about it, or just don't care anymore, content to impose a second round of colonisation on the developing world.

The fact is, excessive immigration steals the brightest minds from developing countries and prevents their further development. It's great for the west (notwithstanding social effects); we get a never-ending source of labour that's willing to work for less than the indigenous population in the same field (salary arbitrage), while being able to draw from a pool of skilled workers far larger than our actual population.

So then this leads to the problem: it's great for the west, so our governments push migration. It prevents development of developing nations, keeping their living standards low. So what's the end game? I personally want to believe in a Utopian future where Accra could be every bit as developed as say, New York or Paris. Where migration isn't an economic issue. However if we continue as we have, migration will only cause more nations to become like Somalia, Libya, Syria; we steal all their human capital and, impoverished with no capacity to develop, they radicalise, we kill them with drones, and we're essentially living in a completely stratified world.

Anyhow, this worst case scenario probably won't happen because realistically, no single country can take in all the economic migrants of the world, but we do need to realise that when it comes to immigration, there are definite losers. Immigration is basically colonialism round 2. But it continues because, to the immigrants, it's an optimal personal decision to immigrate. For the host nation, they're accumulating human capital. The nation they're leaving loses.

And I'll finish with a quote from Thabo Mbeki, past president of South Africa, which I shamelessly ripped from a relevant Wikipedia page:

 _" In our world in which the generation of new knowledge and its application to change the human condition is the engine which moves human society further away from barbarism, do we not have need to recall Africa's hundreds of thousands of intellectuals back from their places of emigration in Western Europe and North America, to rejoin those who remain still within our shores!

I dream of the day when these, the African mathematicians and computer specialists in Washington and New York, the African physicists, engineers, doctors, business managers and economists, will return from London and Manchester and Paris and Brussels to add to the African pool of brain power, to enquire into and find solutions to Africa's problems and challenges, to open the African door to the world of knowledge, to elevate Africa's place within the universe of research the information of new knowledge, education and information."_

And a page that touches on the issue of human capital flight: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_capital_flight](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_capital_flight)

</comment><comment><USER28> The author: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Huemer](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Huemer)

Seems like a very nice argument when isolated away from reality. Reality of mass immigration from Muslim countries into the UK has been a lot more people in the UK support Sharia law and want to ban homosexuality.

[https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british- musl...](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims- strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law)

I like libertarians, but there are some feedback loops that prevent me from universally embracing libertarianism.

Also, the author describes this right to immigrate from the context of "normal" immigrants. What is normal and who gets to define it? Seems like a fluid definition that evolves as a function of past immigration. For example, parts of Sharia law might fit in OK (usury, for example) with Western values, so maybe we let that slide for a bit. Then, after a few decades and more norming of other aspects, all these other social values become part of a voting block and get pushed into action. I don't see great examples of government in the middle East, so why would I want to normalize those social values and evolve my government to suit?

I don't consider myself anti-Islam (just anti fundamentalists, including Judeo-Christian sects) and I know a ton of secular Muslims with my values (most don't want open door immigration either!).

In thirty years of traveling to Europe to visit family, I just don't look at how they've managed immigration with a lot of enthusiasm. Nor do I want to replicate those policies here.

<comment><USER29> That poll only surveyed areas where at least a fifth of the population was Muslim. From my experience growing up as an Orthodox Jew, areas with a higher concentration of an ethnicity also tend to harbour the more extreme views. Whether that's because extremists tend to only want to hang out together or because hanging out with only your own kind makes you more extreme is irrelevant - that poll isn't an accurate reflection Of British Muslim views or any of the British Muslims I work with.

[http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_570badf0e4b0fa55639d65a9](http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_570badf0e4b0fa55639d65a9)

But also consider this:

a) Immigrants tend to adopt the mainstream culture over time b) By stopping people from immigrating, you're just keeping homophobia away from you, you're not preventing it existing. A gay child Of Muslim parents is better off in the UK than Pakistan even if his parents are going to continue to be homophobic. I'm not a fan OF NIMBYism.

<comment><USER28> NIMBYism is rationalism. It is irrational to think you can/should have policies in your system to serve people from a separate system. It presumes that you can establish a metric for right and wrong that applies to others, which is really just jingoism.

Edit: wrt your 'A', there is a massive amount of things not said about how immigrants take on the values of their new country. Cato has published a few papers on that and it is always in the context of large aggregate stats dominated by immigrants from similar cultures (some might disagree, but Mexico is VERY similar to the US; Syria not so much)

<comment><USER30> Economics is rationalism. Literally.

And economics has no concern about the well-being of any social group.

If another social group creates more wealth than yours do via immigration, guess what? Your social group dies.

If a bunch of marauding dark-skinned anti-gay Muslims practicing Sharia law creates more wealth than sweet, huggable white libertarians with flowers in their hands, guess who's going to dominate?

There's no faking it in economics. Adapt or die.

And white nationalists are going to learn the hard way that immigrants are what creates wealth in this country, since they work hard and have a lower crime rate than natives.

<comment><USER28> White nationalism doesn't exist. This is just a label invented to explain why the Democrats have lost influence among middle-class America in places like Wisconsin, Indiana, Iowa...

The left, however, is a real thing. When I worked with Obama's people, I worked with people that identified as "anarcho-socialists" that openly discussed entitlement expansion as a means to break the system. I could not invent the crap I heard these people say.

<comment><USER30> I agree that white nationalism exists, especially with white-nationalists like Bannon in control of our government. They are truly a dangerous group that doesn't represent America's multi-cultural values.

We have to make sure that white-nationalism is purged from this country, and an open-borders society is probably the best way to fight-off white- nationalism.

We need to make sure a Sharia-law supporting Muslim is able to freely immigrate into this country and sit freely and peacefully alongside a Brazilian transgendered activist on our subways.

That is the multiculturalism that we Americans want.

<comment><USER28> You do a lot of virtue signaling in your commentary and presume to speak for "the masses". It is... amusing.

I get that you have an opinion and it is fairly orthogonal to mine. Your opinion doesn't offend me or make me feel threatened, but the presumption that you speak for anyone beyond yourself is awkward.

I want to understand your side, but your presentation is pitting you against good taste... I feel like I'm talking to that guy at the gym who went off his bipolar meds.

Tone down the preaching of universal truth, perhaps?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> The State is illegitimate. It is up to the rightful landowners to allow whoever they want on their premises.

<comment><USER11> First, if the state is illegitimate, then there are no landowners.

You are a landowner only in as much as the state guarantees your right to the land, or (the only other alternative) as much as you can protect and enforce your rights to your land.

So, without a state, some big bullies with access to better guns will have you for breakfast.

Besides, who gave you this "right" to the land in the first place? Only a series of contracts, and before it all, stealing it from the Native Americans, who got there first (in as much as we can recognize "getting there first" as a legitimate right to a piece of land).

Second, even if it "is up to the rightful landowners to allow whoever they want on their premises", that doesn't extend to outside their premises.

So, either those immigrants you accepted in would have to live only on your premises, or you have to negotiate with the other landowners to have the immigrants be able to walk around their land, define some common areas which no one has exclusive rights to, etc. And this collective agreement, which you'll also need some way to enforce it, is exactly a primitive form of govermnet as well.

<comment><USER32> > You are a landowner only in as much as the state guarantees your right to > the land, or (the only other alternative) as much as you can protect and > enforce your rights to your land.

You think you are so clever to come up with this argument that you imagine will end the discussion, isn't it?

In the following passages you recognize that it is difficult to know who is the "right" owner of something, but before you were saying that the State de facto owns everything. So what is it?

<comment><USER11> > _You think you are so clever to come up with this argument that you imagine > will end the discussion, isn 't it?_

No, I just think the argument I responded to was obviously half-thought, to put it mildly.

Mine is not particularly clever, not very original. It's just a statement of fact.

> _In the following passages you recognize that it is difficult to know who is > the "right" owner of something, but before you were saying that the State de > facto owns everything. So what is it?_

I fail to see the contradiction. Confused much?

The fact that, as I acknowledged, it's difficult to know who is the "right" owner of something, e.g. some land, it's totally orthogonal to my other point.

I didn't say the State enforces the "right" ownership. Just that it enforces the existing ownership rights -- whether they are "right" (ultimately justified) or not. It's a fact that the State has the power to, and does, enforce the property rights currently in existence in the US. That's a statement of fact.

Second, I never said that "the State de facto owns everything" (although they could). Just that they de facto enforce all property rights. Anyone claiming to own a piece of land in the US, must pass through the state procedures to prove so -- else it is not considered theirs, and is taken away from them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Utopian fantasies aside, borders are what maintain our standard of living.

<comment><USER14> Is that true of the US/Canada border? I ask because it seems to work fine inside continental Europe to have open borders. Even opening up the eastern bloc hasn't had devastating consequences and instead leads more to normalization/improvements in underdeveloped areas.

<comment><USER33> Is that actually true though? I don't think I can just pack up my bags as a US citizen tomorrow and move to the EU.

<comment><USER14> Sorry for the confusion I mean movement within the EU as an EU national, and in turn, I was referring to the hypothetical open border between the US and Canada for their own nationals.

<comment><USER33> Right, and if you can't see how the assertion is true, then you don't understand basic economics -- specifically, the concept of paucity.

Downvote my post all you want, but Malthus didn't have a downwards facing arrow next to his.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


How the "Be." battery-free toothbrush faked a demonstration video - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfheHKaRF10 <comment><USER2> I'd love to crawl inside the vendor's brain for a few minutes, get some questions answered. Like, did you think no one would notice? No? You vastly underestimate the cumulative free time available on the Internet. Regardless, why actively lie? Buying time, or you know there's no way this will ever work, so you're just figuring out your exit? And lastly, though I am no physicist or mechanical engineer, but some quick napkin math says there's no way to make two twists of a human hand turn into 2 minutes of tooth brushing. Are you incapable of the most basic up-front research and design, or did you intend to be dishonest from the start?

I mean, seriously, there is a mindset there that is so foreign to mine that I can't even comprehend what it might look like.

<comment><USER3> This is Theranos 2.0.

<comment><USER4> You are giving them a bit too much credit...nobody's put 'Be.' on the front of Forbes, yet. This is just another small time, start up scam. Theranos was a virtuoso performance of fraud

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I enjoy watching thunderfoot's debunking videos on similar 'fake' tech, like the self-filling water bottle campaign, solar effin roadways, and of course hyperloop.

<comment> scott-smith_us I only know about thunderfoot's hyperloop debunking video, but it was so full of incorrect assumptions and half-truths that he lost all credibility with me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'd be surprised if the engineers working on this project approved the release of this video, even as a fake for the working product. Anyone who has worked with electric motors can hear the device losing power and then getting a 'second wind' multiple times. I replayed the video the first time I saw it myself thinking that doesn't sound right.</comment>


Finding A Job You'll Love: Recruiters - <AUTHOR> http://www.martincmartin.com/blog/?p=119

<comment><USER2> "When you first talk to a recruiter, describe what you liked and didn't like about past jobs. Then ask them for career advice: what sort of job do you think I'd enjoy?"

Very much an idealist's view of the standard average Recruiter - The last time i spoke to a recruiter was well over 4 years ago and she would have been totally confused and have no clue what to say if i had asked her such a question.

This is in London, mind you, Boston might very well be different ( though i have my doubts ).

<comment><USER3> I have known ones who get confused about career questions like the one the author posed and a few who actually know where I'm coming from. I work with the latter.

All recruiters need to think about the customer, which is the employers who pay commission for connecting them with talent. Those who survive in the industry excel at making that connection with the employer. They learn the fine art of kissing up to executives and hiring managers while performing the bureaucratic gymnastics required by HR. That's important, but those who really understand the needs of talent can add more value by bringing better hires to employers and foster deeper relationships. Sadly, many recruiters are too short-sighted to see that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I've tried working with recruiters in the past. They have never found me a job that was better than the ones I found on my own.

Am I unusual in this?

<comment><USER5> During my last job search (this past summer), I was contacted by several recruiters. I had phone interviews with several, and an in-person interview with one. I found them to be unhelpful and a waste of time at best, and demeaning and condescending at worst. They treated me like fodder, and were obsessed with keyword and "years of experience with X" matching.

In my entire programming career so far, I have always been hired by principals who valued my intelligence and problem-solving ability over my experience with particular languages or frameworks (e.g. I always get hired to do something I've never exactly done before -- though not intentionally).

I plan to never work with a recruiter again, since their approach is completely orthogonal to mine. I suppose the author's point about higher- level/management positions might be worth considering, so I might reconsider my position on recruiters if/when I cross that career bridge.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I've found 2 recruiters who seem to be good; one enabled an interview while the other never did obtain me an interview. On the bad side; I've had recruiters try to intimidate me to acquire information, contact me at work despite my limiting information to prevent this and best of all 'we need your resume in a specific format before we can help you.' Not to mention my favorite, this job promises this and when you interview you find out that it doesn't.

A good recruiter will have contacts that can help you but it probably helps you more to develop the marketing skills yourself. Know how to format your resume to obtain the interview along with writing a good cover letter. Develop your professional contacts.

Several friends, a.k.a. professional colleagues, and I have concluded that very rarely will recruiters add value to the job search process for the candidate but they do help HR folks who have no idea how to find people.

</comment><comment><USER7> Some points in this article could use elaboration:

\- If you have already contacted a company (even just blind-sent your resume to their HR department and gotten no response), the recruiter generally will not be able to get a commission on your behalf, and will not use their contacts to get you in there

\- Recruiters' pay is usually contingent on you staying at the job for 3-6 months. This encourages recruiters to get you jobs doing work you have already proven yourself able to do. Whereas many tech job searchers are looking for a new stretch job with greater responsibilities. This is a fundamental incompatibility in goals you'll have to deal with.</comment>


EL Wire Made at Home - The Currency of Burning Man - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RKBGxJJmwg <comment><AUTHOR> materials:

<http://sites.google.com/site/elen4193/kits/el></comment>


Show HN: I made a web app for making or remixing animated GIF's - <AUTHOR> http://giflr.com

<comment><AUTHOR> It stemmed from the lack of decent GIF editors that I could find around the web, this thing works on both your desktop and your mobile, and was made to be sexy, swift and straightforward.

Let me know what you think!

<comment><USER2> You could add a few starting gifs to lower the barrier to entry, I don't have any gifs lying around my computer so I didn't try the tool.

Nice design otherwise, looks cool!

<comment><AUTHOR> Good point, I'll try and look into that!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Nice. You could add a 'add via url' or add a shortcut to [http://imgur.com/r/gifs](http://imgur.com/r/gifs). (I don't know how many people actually save gif's on their PC). Also: Adding text is hidden behind one grey button. It plays such a big role with gif's, I feel it deserves a bigger place in the UI.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a good point, I've held back on marketing the app before the text feature was ready since I felt it played such a big role indeed, I probably should make the button easier to spot.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Small thing but took me quite a long time to find the "cook me that gif" button on a desktop. Would have expected the Add Images, Edit and Preview and Share Gif status items to all be clickable or look less like buttons.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for pointing that out! The cook button should be pretty loud, so I'll look into how I can make sure it's not missed.

<comment><USER5> I made this, [http://giflr.com/gif/774b5d](http://giflr.com/gif/774b5d), in maybe 1 minute (can you tell!).

I agree with sleepychu. The interface was largely intuitive and laid out. The text at the top looks like a tab based interface and I too tried to click to go back to the edit step. Even having definitely seen the "cook" button (hot pink! yay!). Personally I'd buttonize (!) those texts top-center and add "cook" before share. You should probably consider changing it from "cook" to something more obvious - make, finish?

When I look right and left I see other elements of the interface off-screen, but again clicking here does nothing; seems like these should be active areas that move to the relevant "tabs".

It looks like you're probably going to add user accounts as a premium option? Seems like a possible monetisation. There's a company that turn gifs in to hologram gifts I think, might be a good tie-in, or they might license your editor.

When reddit get hold of this your server is going to explode with memes. I'd take a cue out of imgurs book and roll with that - add a top listing, hot now, etc. in form of thumbnails; consider allowing comments.

Lastly, I assumed that the giflr link would both share my gif and give a prominent remix option, but it didn't seem to do the later, I could clearly just start a new gif and insert the old one but that seems a bit clunky.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks a bunch for the feedback!

I know the state indicators up top (Add, Edit, Share) have caused some confusion when I've tested the app. Making them interactive is definitely an option I could look into.

"Cook" was meant as an informal description of what happens to the set of frames once that big button is clicked, abstracting that somewhat instead of making it the one big action might be an idea, especially as the app matures, the editing is going to mean more than the cooking.

I'm already thinking about how (or whether) to surface cooked GIF's, I want this to be able to be used as a platform for easy GIF sharing, where every GIF doesn't necessarily end up in the hands of the internet just because it lives on a server.

The remix option has struck me before as well, that might make Giflr able to tie into other services, make it like a general way to remix a GIF. I'll think on that one and see what I come up with!

<comment><USER5> Happy to feedback some more if you like. Contact info in profile.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Very nice! If there was a feature that allowed you to add text/objects to a range of frames as opposed to having to do it for each individual one, then I'd use this quite often!

<comment><AUTHOR> There is! Or rather, right now, you can add an object to a single frame or to all frames, there's a menu just below the tool buttons letting you do that. I might add a "custom" option there as we'll, so that the user can specify an exact range of frames to apply the object to.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> very nice app! I love your implementation because its dead simple and straight to the point. Good job.

</comment><comment><USER8> it would be great if it could also encode in webm and mp4</comment>


The Truth About Pork and How America Feeds Itself - Kilo-byte http://www.businessweek.com/printer/articles/171710-the-truth-about-pork-and-how-america-feeds-itself

<comment><AUTHOR> If anyone want some, I have a few slices of myself to sell.</comment>


Researchers find new, ultra-low-level method of hacking CPUs - <AUTHOR> http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/166580-researchers-find-new-ultra-low-level-method-of-hacking-cpus-and-theres-no-way-to-detect-it

<comment><USER2> _" and there's no way to detect it"_

I can see how the type of modification described in the article would not be visually detectable, but wouldn't the bias in the rng be trivially detectable by generating a large quantity of random numbers and testing their distribution?</comment>


The Ultimate Retaliation: Pranking My Roommate with Targeted Facebook Ads - <AUTHOR> http://ghostinfluence.com/the-ultimate-retaliation-pranking-my-roommate-with-targeted-facebook-ads/ <comment><USER2> This has been posted a few times before if you want to see what people though of it back then. I think the original is from 2013 or 2014.

</comment><comment><USER3> I am stealing this idea. So good.</comment>