Ceglia: Facebook planted a fake contract on my computer - <AUTHOR> http://www.wellsvilledaily.com/news/x1852619595/Ceglia-Facebook-planted-a-fake-contract-on-my-computer

<comment><USER2> My guess is that this case is going to boil down to how the evidence gets authenticated in court.

1\. Before trial, Ceglia's lawyer might file what's called a motion _in limine_ (meaning "at the threshhold"). The motion would be a request that the judge exclude the alleged smoking-gun contract document---which I'll call the SGC document---from being introduced into evidence at trial, that is, from being given to the jury or discussed in front of the jury.

The motion likely would argue that there had been no evidentiary showing that the SGC document was what Facebook claimed it was. Ceglia's attorney would almost certainly want to put on _evidence_ \---assuming he has any---that Facebook's attorneys planted the SGC document, as Ceglia claims. That's because the judge will almost surely dismiss Ceglia's claim about evidence- planting as being mere speculation, unless someone having first-hand knowledge were to testify to that effect, or unless there's documentary evidence to that effect. (And such documentary evidence would itself have to be authenticated; it's almost a recursion problem.)

2\. Whether or not Ceglia's lawyer put on evidence that the SGC document was planted, it would then be up to Facebook's attorneys to offer evidence supporting the proposition that yes, the SGC document is indeed what Facebook claims it is. They likely would do this through testimony about how they came to be in possession of the SGC document; this likely would include testimony from whoever examined the computer(s) where the SGC document was found.

Such evidence of authenticity wouldn't have to be iron-clad; it would only need to be enough that reasonable minds _could_ agree with Facebook on that point.

3\. The judge likely would rule before trial on Ceglia's motion _in limine_ , that is on whether the jury would be allowed to see the SGC document.

If memory serves, such evidentiary rulings by a trial judge are usually reviewed by appellate courts under a very lenient standard, namely "abuse of discretion." The theory is that trial judges have to be given some leeway to manage their cases.

I can easily imagine that the judge might punt: Instead of ruling on admissibility, the judge might have the jury decide whether the SGC document was authentic.

3\. Depending on what Ceglia said under oath in court (in a sworn affidavit or in testimony), he might be in danger of perjury charges.

</comment><comment><USER3> geez, Am I the only one that thought that this guy made an ass of himself with this "interview"?

<comment><USER4> as long as others don't start aping him, I am sure that this particular monkey will swing off into the sunset soon enough...

"on like Donkey Kong".... FFS.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Original article (posted yesterday): [http://www.zdnet.com/blog/facebook/exclusive-paul-ceglia- say...](http://www.zdnet.com/blog/facebook/exclusive-paul-ceglia-says- facebook-is-doing-the-forgery/2707)</comment>


Our Commitment to Trust & Safety - <AUTHOR> http://blog.airbnb.com/our-commitment-to-trust-and-safety <comment><USER2> So, this is a totally superficial comment, but here we go.

Brian, as part of all of this crisis stuff, I think it's time to have a new profile picture taken. One where you don't look so, how should I say... 20.

From rough calculation, I'm only a couple years older, but one thing that's stood out for me visually in all of this is that ... well, let's just say that it's one of those times where looking like the young silicon valley hotshot works against you.

Having a PR shot to pull out of the drawer that looks older, more serious and decidedly less hip would do well when people are worried.

(As for the actual content of the story: well done.)

Edit: Rational or otherwise, people read a lot from a face. Heck, it's obvious that Airbnb gets that since it's part of their trust system. Since trust is a big part of what makes Airbnb tick, I think it'd be worth the time to craft a profile shot that inspires such. This may even be an inflection point in Airbnb's history where it's transitioning from the couchsurfing-but-with-money branding to I'm-trusting-these-guys-to-keep-my-home-safe.

Edit 2: So as a bit of redux, I'm genuinely surprised that this was the most upvoted comment, since it's a minor issue relative to the good that's going down (and specifically, insurance is something that I was personally rooting for since that's what'd kept me from listing a room there prior to this whole shebang.). As for the photo, I think it's actually kind of an interestingly shot, but I don't think it's the one you want plastered all over the interwebs in a crisis scenario.

<comment><USER3> IMO the problem isn't that he looks 20, but rather that he looks pretty douchey in that photo. Looking young isn't so bad in this context, but looking like you just stepped off of the set of one of those MTV 'reality' shows is.

I'm fairly certain this is going to get me down-voted through the floor, but please at least view the picture in question prior to down-voting me for saying this.

<comment><USER4> It was my impression too that the photo could be appropriate.

EDIT: I've edited my comment to make it more constructive. Brian, I think you are doing a great job with AirBNB and handling this situation. Please take these comments as constructive criticism regarding the photo (in this particular situation).

<comment><USER5> :(

<comment><USER6> Yo man: f these haters. Even the well meaning ones with their rubbernecking advice, even the fellow YC alums who don't understand that when a man has just been through hell and back that the _last_ thing he needs is more people piling on with "constructive criticism" in an open forum. A lot of people tried to kill you just now, with a few like Melinda Byerley openly admitting that this was just an opportunity to express their envy and hatred.

[http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/31/another-airbnb-victim- tells...](http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/31/another-airbnb-victim-tells-his- story-there-were-meth-pipes- everywhere/?fb_comment_id=fbc_10150268193548512_19794824_10150268212763512)

For PR reasons you need to smile, even as JimmyL critiques the sincerity of your orthodontics. Smile on the outside and ask them in a chipper tone how you can be of service, but in the end, seriously, f __* em. There's an insane amount of implementation work to do to get this 24/7 support and insurance program operational. F __* em all and just plow. Pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. And your real customers and fans will thank you for it.

<comment><USER4> Point taken. For the record, I'm a big fan of AirBNB and have used it multiple times.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Bravo. This looks like an excellent next step. Not necessarily the ultimate scalar, but it's nice to see the vector pointing in the right direction.

As was one of the many outspoken people in one of the earlier threads, I hope I speak for a lot of my fellow hn'ers when I say that we call 'em as we see 'em, for better or worse. Not necessarily in judgement, but as part of a community living through monumental changes of all kinds. Believe it or not, Brian, many of us really are on your side.

Like many other "new age" business models, I'm afraid I still don't really understand this one and it's prospects for the future. But it's safe to say you've just taken one giant step on that bumpy road to sustainability.

Two of the most important things I expect from any business is to always tell the truth and to always do the right thing. It matters less how long you take to get there than the fact that you actually do.

Looking forward to seeing how this plays out. Often being down, then up again makes you stronger than if you never went through the tough times in the first place.

<comment><USER8> Agree with you on this step... They've still got challenges ahead, but this direction seems right.

There's a pretty good (if a bit dramatic) analysis of other things that they might want to do at [http://blog.agrawals.org/2011/08/01/airbnb-ransack- response-...](http://blog.agrawals.org/2011/08/01/airbnb-ransack-response-not- enough/).

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Two things immediately pop out from this:

"Earlier this week, I wrote a blog post trying to explain the situation, but it didn't reflect my true feelings."

I'm not sure how I feel about this line (I assume it's referring to his TC post). On one hand, it's nice that he's now 'fessing up with a this-is-how-I- feel post. On the other, it's a pretty clear admission that he's had no problems in the past sending out PR spin as a blog post under his own name - so what should make the reader think this (or any future posts) are actually him, and not more spin? It seems like it's muddling the authenticity of the message a bit.

"In working with the San Francisco Police Department, we are happy to say a suspect is now in custody."

Haven't they been saying this for a while, and each time they do, it turns out that when someone tries to verify it with SFPD, the suspect isn't in custody (because they've been extradited to another community)?

As for the potential for fraud, that doesn't concern me that much. If they're doing a blanket insurance policy like this, then they're contracting it out to a legit insurance company - who will presumably have adjusters and claims people who will investigate every claim, the same as other forms of consumer insurance (like you get on your rental car).

I'm also interested in the legalities of this insurance - particularly in places where short-term rentals to strangers are illegal/contrary to bylaw/in violation of the occupant's lease. You'd think that insurance companies would have a problem selling a policy to cover the side-effects of a prohibited activity; that all Airbnb hosts would have to sign a line that certifies under penalty of perjury that they're legally allowed to host a place on Airbnb, which most can't.

If I was a landlord who had a tenant who put their place on Airbnb, and which then got trashed, I'd make the tenant fix it up (which they'd pay for, presumably, from the insurance), and probably try and sue the tenant for violating the terms of their lease. Could I then sue the insurance company as well, for helping my tenant break the conditions of their lease?

<comment><USER6> Ever hear the parable about the man in the arena?

      It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points
      out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds
      could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who
      is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and
      sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes
      up short again and again, because there is no effort
      without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great
      enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a
      worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the
      triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he
      fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his
      place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who
      knew neither victory nor defeat.

                                           -- Teddy Roosevelt

Great to know that the potential for fraud "doesn't concern you that much". You'll post your comment and they'll still be here with the responsibility of running the company, without the ability to airily handwave away the issue.

Great to know also that you're interested in the legalities of the insurance. I guess they should have included citations to case law in a blog post.

      > it turns out that when someone tries to verify it with
      SFPD, the suspect isn't in custody (because they've been
      extradited to another community)?

And how exactly is that under their control?

Some people are never satisfied. You appear to be one of them.

<comment><USER9> The potential for fraud doesn't concern me because Airbnb will clearly get an insurance company to run this program white-label, and they have whole departments designed to find and fight fraud. Based on the profits in the sector, it seems like they do a pretty good job of it.

As for the veracity of their line about someone being in custody with the SFPD, I stand corrected - my mistake. The last stuff that came to the top of my head was based off EJ's post on 28 July. A few searches reveal that the day after that post went up, the SFPD announced they had arrested someone.

<comment><USER10> "Airbnb will clearly get an insurance company to run this program white-label" <\-- its not known if they can get an insurance policy for such a disparate group of people at a price that allows them to run with a profit

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Giving credit where credit is due, I think Mr. Chesky and Airbnb have done a good job here. Corporations aren't intrinsically ethical (by law) but start- ups are small enough that they can (a) afford to act human and (b) be held accountable by their customers in meaningful ways. This is why people like Airbnb and why they (myself included) were disappointed in the way the situation was handled. I loved reading Mr. Chesky's response and although this clearly changes things for Airbnb as a business, they are now a company I care to see succeed.

<comment><USER12> Corporations must follow the ethical standard set by the law just as any other legal entity. Corporations actually have more stringent ethics than other legal entities such as persons. A person does not have any fiduciary duty to others unlike a corporation which is incorporated with a set of documents explaining it ethics and responsibilities to other parties (such as shareholders). As a person under the law I can act completely in my own best interest (negligence, power of attorney, and other corner cases excluded) and there is no ethical problem whereas when a corporation puts it's own interests ahead of those of its shareholders it is acting unethically.

<comment><USER11> I'm not sure we agree on the definition of "ethics".

Ethics, the way I understand the term, isn't a set of rules enforced by law. It's true that some laws are informed by our shared moral values, but in general law and ethics are independent. There is no legal punishment for acting like an asshole, but in human society you more often than not pay a price for it. There is no such onus on corporations and in fact the "business ethics" we govern our corporations by can easily be put at odds with what you and I would consider ethical behavior (see Ford Pinto [1]). As you point out, companies are responsible to their shareholders, but their stakeholders are a different (perhaps partially overlapping) set of people to which the corporation doesn't have to answer. It is in that sense that I said companies aren't intrinsically moral.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto#Allegations_and_laws...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto#Allegations_and_lawsuits)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Will this submission have it's title changed to the original post ("Our Commitment to Trust & Safety"), as was done for the original submission of EJ's blog post?

EDIT: Here's to consistency! Title has been (presumably mod-) edited.

<comment><USER14> _Will this submission have it's title changed to the original post ("Our Commitment to Trust & Safety")_

Yes, let's stick with the original title. Using original article titles is preferred according to HN guidelines.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2823020>

(Report of an exception to this principle)

<http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html>

(The actual text of the guidelines)

After edit: The submission title has been changed to match the original article title in this thread. I wonder if that will happen in the thread from last week I linked to in the link shown just above this P.S.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Well, this certainly drags AirBnb into the eBay and PayPal sized fraud prevention industry... and I wonder how this will affect the vibe of the website. Certainly, AirBnB will survive this ordeal, and gain more name recognition from this event. Hopefully it doesn't do things like kill their profit margins or harm the ease of renting through AirBnb.

<comment><USER16> Implementing a 24-hour customer service phone line for their host partners immediately puts Airbnb head-and-shoulders above eBay and PayPal in the trust and reliability department.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Anyone else think bringing on a 10 year veteran of eBay support is a bad idea. I don't know of a single case in which I heard eBay helped the end user in support.

eBay is probably on the top 5 of worst customer support experiences of any dot com.

<comment><USER18> I thought the same thing. I cannot think of a company that more flagrantly demonstrates their disdain for customers every day more than eBay.

<comment><USER19> Paypal.

<comment><USER20> Remind me, who are they owned by?

<comment><USER19> Post-merger, there were some really nice reviews of culture clashes; one I recall was simply stated as "Ebay believes people are fundamentally good, Paypal believes they are fundamentally scammers."

Credible, given their histories, I'd say!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> "for loss or damage due to vandalism or theft caused by an Airbnb guest up to $50,000"

As others have mentioned no exact details have been listed anywhere.

For the vandalism they will most certainly require that obviously a police report be filed. Notice that "damage" is not covered though. Only vandalism.

Theft is trickier. The actual policy might say that they will pay if your homeowners/renters policy doesn't pay. Or there may be deductibles. And once again they will require a police report to document the theft.

Typically the problem with any insurance in this situation is proving that something is actually stolen as opposed to just missing.

I think that without seeing the actual coverage you can't really draw any conclusions.

By the way if you rent your apartment you should always have renters insurance anyway. It isn't that expensive and it would cover damage (less a deductible) even if you had a party and a friend damaged something - in other words a simple accident. Or if the tub overflowed by accident and damaged the carpeting.

</comment><comment><USER22> I've been critical of AirBnB in the past, but I liked the tone of Chesky's post. If only they had done this on June 29, instead a month later. But: it's never too late.

I hope this is the penultimate word in this saga (EJ's would be the last word; and I'm hoping, after this, her blog would be positive and upbeat).

The lesson to be learnt is: if you're in a consumer-facing business, and a black swan event happens, don't worry about valuations, etc. but worry about the customer who's affected. Fix the root cause, and the outcome will fix itself.

</comment><comment><USER23> It will be obvious over the coming months whether they follow through with protecting their customers. More than a few people will be looking to get credit for exposing subsequent failures.

For myself, my expectations are not positive. While definitely an improvement over past communications I'm not buying the "mom" and "grandfather" routine. Specifically:

 _Earlier this week, I wrote a blog post trying to explain the situation, but it didn't reflect my true feelings._ Then what was the driving influence for the post?

 _In the last few days we have had a crash course in crisis management._ The original incident occurred over a month ago. Apparently that wasn't a crisis. If not, then what was it?

</comment><comment><USER24> Seems like a pretty good response to the situation, especially the host insurance, 24-hour customer service, and improved guest verification.

For Brian Chesky's sake I hope the SFPD actually have a suspect in custody this time.

<comment><USER5> [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi- bin/blogs/techchron/detail?entry_i...](http://www.sfgate.com/cgi- bin/blogs/techchron/detail?entry_id=94288)

<comment><USER24> Great news, thanks for the link. From the article:

On 06/28/11 the SFPD through investigative leads conducted a search of a premise in Belmont, CA. Two people were detained, but released pending further investigation. The search yielded some of the items that were taken in the theft.

Later on that night through investigative leads, SFPD officers made an arrest of Faith Clifton, female, white, 19 years of age of San Francisco. Faith was booked into San Francisco County Jail that night on possession of stolen property, methamphetamine, fraud charges and outstanding warrant out of Milpitas, CA.

SFPD has been in contact with the victim and have been in contact with the website company, who has provided as much information as possible in this matter.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> It's amazing that someone would admit that they f __*ed up with such humility. I hope people are as quick to appreciate AirBnB as they were to criticise them.

</comment><comment><USER26> I wonder if this will be killed like <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2834066> ...

<comment><USER27> Those articles were killed because they essentially added nothing new to a tired plethora of similar or same articles.

<comment><USER28> The point of that article was more that this had hit CNN than any new information about the event itself. Pretty meta, but not unreasonable.

<comment><USER26> Worth noting that my original title said just that ("Airbnb horror" story hits CNN) - and that this was corrected by a mod or automated process within a minute of posting... but not instantly.

And from <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2834426> I hear that EJ's story was also retitled to be less enticing.

Sounds like some nice double-standard going on here, considering this one maintains its title. I'm sure it will be blamed on "the gremlins in the automated system"... funny how they seem to favour YC startups in the middle of a big funding round.

<comment><USER29> Even if it is because they favored YC startups - so what? This message board is run by the founder of YC and isn't meant for posting sensational articles whenever one of their companies gets caught in the spotlight.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Is it just me or do they say they'll be covering losses after August 15th, and before August 1, but not August 1 through 15?

<comment><USER31> It looks like it's the _report_ that has to be by August 1, i.e. they'll only cover past damage that has already been reported, before this announcement. Probably to cap their otherwise potentially unlimited liability for people "discovering" past damage after this policy was announced, while still expeditiously resolving any currently-open complaints. Then, starting August 15, they'll have a normal, forward-looking insurance program in place.

<comment><USER32> _they'll only cover past damage that has already been reported_

I thought they said it was the first time it happened?

Anyway, better late than never.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> though he humbly suggests the opposite, this is a great example of how to deal with a crisis

<comment><USER34> I think it's fantastic that they're implementing this, but it's still rather depressing that it took a month of time and a weekend of bad PR to get them to do it in the first place.

<comment><USER33> the fact that AirBNB has managed to implement an international insurance/guarantee program in as little as a month is a heroic feat.

<comment><USER34> To be fair, they've _said they'll implement it_ , not that _it's implemented already_. The truth of this will be shown when someone who isn't EJ and isn't riding on the crest of a wave of internet pitchforks tries to collect.

<comment><USER33> it's going into effect in 15 days. that's pretty good.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> "Like Airbnb, the world works on the idea that people are good, and we're in this together."

Seriously? I usually just roll my eyes when I hear this sort of feel good, warm-fuzzy cheerleading. But seriously, wake up! The reason they're in this mess is because they lacked preparation for the reality that people have an incredible capacity for bad. This is a false premise on which to rent out your most private, personal space.

</comment><comment><USER36> _and why you should always uphold your values and trust your instincts_

Just out of curiosity, why didn't you?

</comment><comment><USER37> Its seems that, based on the positive media reaction to this, AirBnB has done everything right from the start:

Everyone is piling on them for screwing up the initial reaction to EJ, by not going far enough in offering to help her. But AirBnB didn't do much to help Troy (from the TechCrunch post) 2 months ago, and that story didn't blow up in to a PR disaster. They simply gave him a few free nights and he was happy.

So, it is impossible to tell if any given customer support issue is a potential "PR-nightmare". If AirBnB had over-reacted and offered Troy thousands of dollars (as was being suggested for EJ), they would have lost out - because Troy was happy with just a few free nights in AirBnB credit. How were they supposed to know that EJ (1) wouldn't be happy with what Troy received (2) Would make a scathing blog post and (3) That blog post would go viral. They couldn't have.

So, if you are a wagering person, it seems like the best course of action is to do exactly what AirBnB did: offering minimal support and grow until something really bad happens. Then come out swinging with a big apology and a big offer of support and restitution.

Since it seems like the media and public are willing to forgive AirBnB (judging by the reaction to today's announcement), this course seems like it may have been optimal compared to over-helping people like Troy.

Put another way: PR distasters are recoverable if you say you are sorry and ask forgiveness. Being too careful upfront and limiting your growth curve is not forgivable.

<comment><USER38> "may have been optimal"

I follow your reasoning, but this approach is optimized for Airbnb alone. The trick is to find an approach that maximizes both Airbnb's business goals and the happiness of the customers.

<comment><USER37> True. I should have prefaced with "from a business standpoint".

<comment><USER38> I would word it "from a self-interested standpoint", which is hopefully different than "from a business standpoint". I prefer to live in a world where businesses aren't laser-focused on just their own interests.

Ideally, a CEO would try to align all of the goals of the parties relating to the business so that the dynamic is synergistic, not win-lose.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Well done. The 50k guarantee and the 24 hour customer service are great features that needed to be there before, but at least they have them now. I wonder though if there's a bigger problem with how Airbnb views customers. EJ and the other guy shouldn't have faced such coldness from Airbnb. It just shows something is wrong. I hope that this "crisis" will help awake Airbnb to take customer service more seriously. Rather than hiring someone from Ebay, they should hire someone from Zappos to head their customer service. Actually, the whole leadership team from Airbnb should take a trip to Zappos and get some training.

</comment><comment><USER40> I wonder how they're now going to prevent fraud.

<comment><USER41> I wonder too.. They are proposing a worldwide guarantee, how could they verify each claim?..By partnerships with insurance companies all over the world?

<comment><USER42> Presumably by not paying out except in the case of a successful police investigation.

<comment><USER41> Yes this kind of thing is hardly sustainable, I think it may just be a smart PR move and they'll hugely downsize it or cancel it in the next months, after the storm has passed.

<comment><USER43> What? Why is this hard to sustain? This is a non sequitor reply.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> No mention of a deductible in the 50k coverage. Is that an oversight or are they actually going to cover minor damages like a broken plate.

</comment><comment><USER45> Awesome response and the right thing to do for everyone's sake.

</comment><comment><USER46> I'm impressed. This goes beyond what was reasonable to expect, and goes a long way toward resolving the issue.

It's interesting that 1-15 August is now the only uncovered period. They should also let everyone cancel all reservations during that window without penalty, if they'd like.

<comment><USER47> I think the phrasing makes it look like the 1st to 15th August period is uncovered, but it actually is covered. See: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2834589>

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> They look to ebay for guidance on customer support. Everything is beginning to make sense now!

</comment><comment><USER49> I thought the post started well with the "we screwed up" tone. It sounded personal and felt sincere. However, along the way it shifted 180 degrees to a very cold business-centric approach.

Nonetheless, I think Airbnb is finally starting to have a clue on how to properly handle this crisis.

But what intrigued me the most in this whole thing was Michael Arrington's position on TechCrunch. He set this thing on fire, giving it a very aggressive kind of coverage. I wonder: will he now invest on Airbnb, as they're now supposedly going through another funding round? And if so, how much less will he have to pay for the same equity compared to 1 month ago? I'd like a little disclosure on that...

</comment><comment><USER50> "Terms will apply to the program and may vary (e.g. by country)."

What are the T&C's I can't find them?

<comment><USER9> They should be interesting to read, since the current statment - "personal property will be covered for loss or damage due to vandalism or theft caused by an Airbnb guest" - offers a whole lot of wiggle-room.

For example, what about non-personal property? If I live in a rental apartment, put it on Airbnb, it gets trashed, and my landlord says I have to fix it up...will the policy cover that? It's damage, but it's not damage to the personal property of the person connected to Airbnb.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> Extrapolating but I bet that language "$50,000 Airbnb Guarantee" allows them (airbnb) to buy "claims" insurance thus subverting the inherent issues around offering renters insurance to their market.

Brilliant move!

<comment><USER52> Why would they offer renter's insurance? It's just a few days at a time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> A $50,000 guarantee seems a bit low. Condos in OK neighborhoods here in Chicago start at around 200K so theoretically a lot more than 50K in damage could be done.

<comment><USER54> As a home owner and someone who has used airbnb, trust me, $50k will more than cover everything in pretty much every place airbnb rents out.

Just because someplace costs $200k doesn't mean it costs $200k to rebuild from the ground up (a lot is in property, structure, etc...). Realistically, you'd really have to try hard to do $50k+ damage to a typical airbnb property without the cops being called as it is happening.

<comment><USER55> "Just because someplace costs $200k doesn't mean it costs $200k to rebuild from the ground up "

In Dallas (where I live), a structure usually costs much more to tear down and rebuild new than it is currently worth. For example, you might get a mortgage on a $250,000 10yo house here yet your insurance will be for $375,000 for that reason.

<comment><USER54> True. I was just thinking of typical airbnb apartment rentals, where the property owner only owns the "walls-in" portion of the unit.

<comment><USER56> Yet a renter will still be held responsible by the owners of the building if anything outside of their possessions is destroyed.

<comment><USER18> Only if they are negligent or worse. Landlords carry insurance on the structure. Tenants are responsible for contents of their apartment.

Hopefully if you rent and use Airbnb, you have a renter's insurance policy with high liability limits.

<comment><USER57> I'm not saying they are, but I'm sure if the structure was destroyed by a sub- letter there is a good chance the landlord's insurer _would_ allege the tenant was negligent.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> This is an excellent start. Great way to come out and clearly state "We screwed-up earlier but are now doing the right thing".

Please consider adding 2 requirements: 1) Any renter should provide an actual photo 2) Valid Credit card that will have a hold of x dollars till the rental completes These might cut down on the Tweaker type incidents.

</comment><comment><USER59> Glad they did this, though I expect it to be quite thorny in practice.

For example, what about cases where they can positively identify the renter who was responsible?

That's bound to be the vast majority of incidents.

Are they going to pay out in those cases?

Or leave it to the owner to pursue in court themselves?

This is a good solid step, but it's only one piece of a comprehensive policy.

</comment><comment><USER60> Well done. I'm sure it's been a difficult learning process, but this was most definitely the kind of humble, unconditional apology, followed by a set of hard action items that I wish more businesses followed.

It tales big people to acknowledge a screw up, apologize for it, and work hard to make it right.

</comment><comment><USER61> This certainly increases your professionalism in the eyes of the users, but I'm amazed by how quickly companies can implement things of this scale. I can't wait for the day when I can open my own 24 hour hotline :)

Good on ya mate.

</comment><comment><USER62> So, AirBnb did the right thing (which they would have to implement sooner or later anyway) and got tons of free publicity in process. Not bad after all :) Congrats, Brian, and good luck to your venture!

</comment><comment><USER63> Now THAT is a good response. I wonder if it'll be abused though.

</comment><comment><USER64> I think this is a great response to what happened.

I hope EJ's third blog post is more positive.

=]

</comment><comment><USER65> The author of the blog post has a creepy picture at the top of the post. I would change that to something less scary...

</comment><comment><USER66> Brian, I am deeply impressed, that is a brave and decent step which leaves all happy competitors far beyond (the competitors should try harder now, techcrunch is not going to help their marketing).

You are a great CEO and deserve to direct a Billion Dollar company, no doubt.

I just can't wait for my trip to the USA to use AirBNB accommodation (as an HN reader I have decided long ago that in the next trip to US I will not stay in hotels but book with AirBNB)

</comment><comment><USER67> For once TechCrunch was able to facilitate a good cause.

There's a hefty chance that AirBnB wouldn't had responded like this if Arrington hadn't been on their back. It's only once TC started to report them rigorously, they started to _understand_ how lame their previous communication been.

Now all Arrington has to bin CatherinaFake-like posts and we have our old TC back on track.

</comment><comment><USER68> would have been nice if you actually linked to EJs blog.

other than that sounds like you are doing the right thing.

</comment><comment><USER69> Good response. Though a bit late and seems reactive, far better than never.

I guess we have all learned lessons from this.

</comment><comment><USER70> They've certainly got on track with this (although the photo struck me too as hitting the wrong chord). But stepping back to look at the opportunity airbnb presents as a business, I'm not so sure there are security measures that could be satisfying to enough people to make this a massive company – assuming that their core business continues to involve people renting their primary residence. In engaging in any activity, people approach it with an unconscious calculus that is something like: the perceived benefits vs. the perceived financial, emotional, physical, etc. risks less any offsetting measures to mitigate these risks. Of course, for any activity, the math comes out differently for different people and often has less to do with actual risks than perceived risks and fears. Thus, fear of flying is fairly common despite low risk of harm – mainly because a bad result is so horrifying and likely lethal and the fact that not being in the drivers' seat stokes our fear. Conversely, driving is probably by far the most dangerous thing we do and the risks are often underappreciated, but the benefits are not just huge – it's almost a mandatory activity. Plus, being the driver can give us a (false) sense that we can avoid risk and while we can vividly picture going down in flames in a plane, we can easily not appreciate that driving into a wall at just 30mph is like jumping off a three story building in terms of impact against the dashboard. Because of the nationalization of the media and access to the internet, I now hear about child abductions that I would never have heard of in the '50's. Thus, my perceived risk of that happening to my kids has grown (almost certainly way out of proportion to the actual risk) and so I don't/won't do things that my parents did to me such as booting me out into the neighborhood to play on my own at a young age. Applying this construct to Airbnb's present model, I don't think I see a billion dollar company here. I would think that the benefit is not huge when weighed against the negatives and risks. Sure, I might make a few hundred dollars or get a cheap place to stay, but as space provider I'm asking myself: will they steal something? Trash the place? Do I want a stranger using my toilet? Will they clean that toilet after they use it? Do I want to clean that toilet after they've used it because I don't trust that they did? Where exactly is my backup toothbrush in relation to them when they're using my toilet? Did they copy my key to burglarize me later when they're long forgotten me as a model airbnb tenant? As tenant, I'm wondering: how clean is this place? Are there hidden cameras watching me as I change, etc.? The list goes on and on and note that few of these have to do with monetary losses, and some of them are negatives that could exist with perfectly nice tenants/landlords. So with this model I see relatively low reward with a kind of vivid and extensive set of potential negatives ranging from toilet hygiene to what EJ experienced to worse. Plus, the perceived likelihood of some of the dramatically bad outcomes goes way up with each EJ story that comes out and amplifies potential users' concerns even if the likelihood, like crashing on a commercial flight, is actually very low. Certainly, they've proven that there is a subset of people who like the risk/reward math for using airbnb, but I personally don't see the huge growth potential and valuation that their capital raises would imply (again, assuming no major shifts in their business model).

</comment><comment><USER71> So they're turning into an insurance company? Will they have auditors?

</comment><comment><USER72> Instead it should be: Our Commitment to Rape and Thievery.

</comment><comment><USER73> moral hazard

</comment><comment><USER74> I'm guessing a call from certain interested investors put Brian on the right course as he mangled this over the past few weeks. A good lesson for us all going forward on what to put in place first.

</comment><comment><USER75> I bet the vandalizer feels pretty smug about himself right now.

<comment><USER76> Say what? Not sure where you're going with that. You think this whole incident was just to provoke AirBnB into responding?

<comment><USER75> I'm just saying that somebody that immature is probably happy with himself that he caused such a big mess.</comment></comment></comment>


Eventlet: a networking library written in Python - <AUTHOR> http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Eventlet

<comment><USER2> Anyone used this before? Is it easy to get it to work in a simple application? Thanks.</comment>


What is the best android emulator for mac os? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> If you have (an extremely)good internet connection, appetize.io beats all emulators. we do over 100 builds a day on appetize.io and the whole team can see the same emulation with near to no startup/installation time for the emulator.

If appetize.io could be run locally or on our servers it would be a delight!

<comment><USER3> Both Genymotion and Appetize are freemium. :D

[https://www.genymotion.com/features/](https://www.genymotion.com/features/) (local AS plugin, Win/Lin/Mac)

[https://appetize.io/docs](https://appetize.io/docs) (hosted, live gui, 100 minutes free per month)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I vote for genymotion. The performance is amazing, and very useful features that are actually easy to use (location mocking, camera mocking, etc.)

The default android emulator always ran kinda slow for me. There are some performance hacks online, but why bother!

</comment><comment><USER5> The one that ships with Android Studio is pretty rock solid, ensure you're using x86 Android images and you'll have a close-to-native Android experience.

</comment><comment><USER6> Genymotion is great as well! Only caveat is needing to side load Google Play Apps and Services.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks!</comment></comment>


Uber CEO linked to escort bar visit that resulted in an HR complaint - <AUTHOR> https://www.engadget.com/2017/03/25/uber-ceo-kalanick-self-driving-car-crash/ <comment><USER2> may be i didn't get it correctly, why is it exactly a 'scandal' ... going to a escort bar with employees? or then leaving early?? I don't get the scandalous part in there?? out of all this fiasco, I have figured, Uber does have serious HR issues, but i don't appreciate the vendetta campaign that apparently is specifically targeted at defamation of the company, than actually doing anything about it... I am an Asian, even so, a Pakistani, so I clearly don't have a dog in this fight... I am inclined to believe this all began, after Travis joined Trump ... may be I could be wrong? Having said that, I don't want to undermine the legitimate concerns and complaints of the female staff.

<comment><USER3> Do you need it spelt out for you? Karaoke today, a kiss next time, maybe even a frenchy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I still don't understand escort or strop clubs. I mean why? Is it the food? If I want to see a half naked woman missing teeth with a meth habit I'll go to Walmart.

</comment><comment><USER3> > four other men in the group picked out their favorites from a group of > numbered women and proceeded downstairs to sing karaoke.

OMFG!!!!

<comment><USER5> 20 years ago, I was in Hong Kong and Macau. The first time I saw this, was my first reaction as well. To my Chinese colleague, it was no big deal.

I thought it interesting how western culture and eastern culture were so different and what was acceptable. I lived in the Far East for 6 months. Very interesting times.

<comment><USER6> What's interesting to me is the differences in cultures within the US. I live in Missouri, and I actually thought the "OMFG" post above was a joke because what the CEO did was so tame. It's tacky, sure, but not rage-inducing. I take it from the reactions on this site, though, that it would be unacceptable on the coastal regions.

Edit: to those downvoting, could you please explain why? I'm honestly clueless as to why you're downvoting me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> What even is an "escort-karaoke bar?" Karaoke and prostitution don't seem like a remotely believeable mix.

Whatever the case, it seems creepy, I am glad to have deleted my Uber account.

<comment><USER8> It's actually a _very_ common things in Japan at least, for men and women. Not just karaoke either, men and women pay younger, attractive people to pour them drinks, pay attention to them, laugh at their jokes, etc.

Not defending Uber's CEO of course, but this is like learning that Jeffry Dahmer occasionally drove slightly over the limit.

<comment><USER7> I'm glad to have learned about this now so that if I find myself in an Asian country with colleagues at a "karaoke" joint, I'll be able to suppress my "WTF" face when a mama-san brings in a line of numbered girls.

<comment><USER8> It can be even more awkward... at that kind of establishment often they'll either cater to Japanese people only, or tourists only (you do get some mixed places). The thing is, they're so polite that it can take a _long_ time to realize that you're just in the wrong place.

Note: this goes for almost everything, from baths to ramen shops.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I was eager to call out the clickbait here, but actually it's not as I expected. The karaoke-escort incident is apparently another piece of evidence that the company's sexism problem is endemic and comes from the top. In other news, they keep getting their cars involved in accidents. Maybe they programmed the autonomous driving system to get distracted by nice girls on the sidewalk.

<comment><USER10> Whats sexist about going to an excort bar?

<comment><USER11> It reinforces the notion that women are objects to be paid for?

Sexist or not, this seems highly inappropriate for a work outing, and definitely adds more evidence to how Uber does not strive to have an inclusive culture.

<comment><USER10> How on earth do you get to that conclusion? I get that uber is a toxic environment but it's not because they go to an escort bar and they don't go to an escort bar because the environment is toxic.

Plenty of people do that and they work in great companies. They mostly do it because they are men and some men like to do that.

It sounds more like the a priori acceptance of some feminist branding of sex for money as turning women into objects to be paid for.

Everyone who takes money to do something for others are assets for them. That's why they pay the money. Whether thats working in an escort bar or working 100 hours a week in a startup, the only difference is that one job is paid much much better.

<comment><USER12> Again: normal people do go to strip clubs (not so sure about "escort bars"). But normal companies don't have what are effectively company outings to strip clubs, and plenty of companies have gotten in trouble for doing that.

<comment><USER10> Sure they've gotten in trouble but the claim is that it's sexist. Thats not why they got in trouble though.

<comment><USER12> It is sexist in exactly the same manner as the (I think you thought deliberately absurd) example you provided downthread, in which a company held business meetings in the men's bathroom.

<comment><USER10> I didn't say they held business meetings in the bathroom but nice strawman.

I said that men meet and talk in bathrooms which excludes women at places where there are very few of them.

So it wasn't deliberately absurd it was just deliberately different to make a point about the absurdity of the argument that excluding women from being in the company with men from their company is sexist per defition.

Furthermore where in the article does it say that they were conducting a business meeting at the strip club? Nowhere what so ever. So you are basing your argument on things that didn't happen.

<comment><USER12> I didn't say that you did. Again: I know we disagree about a lot of this stuff, but I'm taking pains not to jab at you, and would appreciate if you'd reciprocate.

It is in fact the case that if a company has a systemic practice of making business decisions in the men's bathroom, women working at those companies will have a cause of action against that company.

Further: I made clear to you downthread that on the matter of whether the trip to the club was a business matter at all, reasonable people might disagree. I conceded up front that you might have an argument there --- I strongly disagree with that argument, but it's one you can reasonably make.

<comment><USER10> Yes you did

"(I think you thought deliberately absurd) example you provided downthread, in which a company held business meetings in the men's bathroom."

Furthermore you haven't pointed to a single example of any kind of business being conducted at the strip club.

It's not something I would drag other people to do, but it has nothing to do with gender discrimination to go to a scrip-club especially not when the purpose seemed to be picking up women not discussing the latest strategy.

<comment><USER12> Once again: if your argument is that a group of company executives can decide on a whim to go to a escort club together and not have it be a business function, I can agree to disagree with you. I'm simply rebutting the notion that attending an escort club can't be on its own intrinsically sexist. Clearly, it can be.

<comment><USER10> who said it can't be? Another strawman.

<comment><USER12> You literally asked the question:

"Whats sexist about going to an excort bar?"

I'm simply answering the question. Please stop being so rude.

<comment><USER10> You seem to be the rude person here. The context is pretty clear, i dont need a lecture in theoretical scenarios that have nothing to do with this case. Nowhere is feels pressured or businnes meeting at an escort bar mentioned.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


What to do? Technical interview where interviewer stubbornly gets Big-O wrong. - <AUTHOR> http://www.reddit.com/r/cscareerquestions/comments/1ilh7o/what_to_do_technical_interview_where_interviewer/

<comment><USER2> Pretty funny actually.

The tactical error the interviewee made was not addressing the misconception on a different play field and then misplaying the politics (assuming he wanted the job). He should have brought the question up in each subsequent interview and seen the reaction of the organization.

The way to address the misconception is to pose a slightly different question of the interviewer, namely, is this O(N) or O(N^2):

for (i=0; i<N; i++) { for (j=0; j<N; j++) { if (i==j) maxtrix[i,j] = 1; } }

and this

for (i=0; i<N; i++) { for (j=i; j<=i; j++) { matrix[i,j] = 1; } }

<comment><USER3> Aren't both of those O(N^2)? The first case is your standard example of nested for loops, where you run "i==j" N^2 times. In the second case, for every iteration of the outer loop, you run the inner command i times, leading to the sequence 1+2+3+4+5+...+N=N(N+1)/2=O(N^2)

What is going on in the story is more a case of for(i=0; i<N; i++){for (j=0; j<K(i); j++) {matrix[i,j]=1}}, where K(i) does not grow with the size of the problem; and (for the sake of Big-O analysis) can be replaced with a constant.

<comment><USER2> I think you saw the 2nd case before I correct it to make my point clearer.

In the first example, it is O(N^2) with clock cycles but O(N) with memory access. If memory access is 100 times slower than CPU or your compiler is smart enough, then the O(N) term dominates.

My corrected 2nd example is clearly O(N).

The reason for presenting these example to the interviewer is to reframe the problem into something simpler to make the point that having two nested loops does not make something O(N^2).

<comment><USER3> Either that, or I just missed it. For anyone wondering (I think) the change is that the inner loop read "(j=i; j<=i; j++)". Note the first statement "j=i" is not "j=1". It would probably be clearer with a variable other than i.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


I Was a U.S. Diplomat. Customs and Border Protection Only Cared That I Was Black - <AUTHOR> https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/08/30/black-us-diplomat-customs-border-protection-cbp-detained-harassed-325676 <comment><USER2> This is my own personal experience, and who knows maybe it's not at all the experience of others.

I used to cross at San Ysidro frequently, and would get pulled into secondary maybe 1/4 of the time. This is extremely common if you're crossing the land border alone, and you don't 'look Mexican.'

Even if you don't get pulled into secondary, they're extremely unpleasant to deal with.

I don't think I ever came across a border patrol agent during that time who didn't appear to be actively going out of their way to be mean. They don't even pretend to be welcoming or polite. They are there to make you feel small and under pressure, and in that process they are looking for any excuse to pull you into secondary. They know that you have zero power in that situation. Just try using the bathroom after sitting in the border line for 3 hours and then getting pulled into secondary and sitting in your car for an hour waiting for them to show up with a drug dog.

The Mexicans will sort of do something similar. I've been flagged by their secondary before, but they are always extremely polite. Even the soldiers in fatigues with FALs are pretty nice guys in my experience.

I think there is something in the training and recruitment of US CBP that is incredibly broken. As an American, everytime I cross the border back into my own country I am deeply ashamed.

<comment><USER3> I crossed the border at San Ysidro on foot a couple times when living in San Diego. I found it entirely predictable that the CBP 'cops' were generally rude and off-putting. I was pleasantly surprised to find the Mexican military officers were not constantly scowling and didn't point their weapons at me when I accidentally took a left into their facility instead of turning right to walk onto the streets of Tijuana (they tried Spanish first, presumably because I'm brown, but then asked me politely in English to turn around and go the other way).

The only thing that _really_ surprised me was that my friend was able to return to the United States without any documentation after losing his wallet. Then again, he was a white kid with a Louisville accent. Like he said, "Not a hard decision for them which side of the border I should be on". I was scared shitless of losing my passport and I-20 the whole time I was there, being a non-citizen.

I found the Mexican officers' demeanor to be similar to the German federal officers one sees in German airports; not constantly smiling (except perhaps at children), but if you cross glance with them they'll usually smile & acknowledge you. Also as with most people surrounded by foreigners they'll definitely smile if you say something nice in their language.

<comment><USER4> I have been in airports and customs from China to Germany and pretty much only in the United States are the security personnel (generic term) looking like they have a hot pepper up their ass.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Is there a reason to doubt the official explanation of a name collision? This is not uncommon.

A case of someone getting even worse treatment, including strip searches. He was white.

[https://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2010/10/08/acton_man_repe...](https://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2010/10/08/acton_man_repeatedly_mistaken_for_convict_with_same_name.html)

A white woman sharing a name with a black male convict even had issues:

[https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Technology-issue- at-...](https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Technology-issue-at-border- results-in-mistaken-572632.php)

There is often a common theme reported in these experiences. Customs cannot seem to properly "remove" flagged individuals. Or if they do, something keeps re-adding them. It sounds like many different source databases synchronize with each other and it's difficult to prevent bad data from being reintroduced.

<comment><USER6> _Is there a reason to doubt the official explanation of a name collision?_

The fact that the saga went on for months at the same border post despite complaints?

People like to distinguish between incompetence and malice but there is not much point in it; in either case the outcome shows that people in charge are not capable of performing their duty and should be relieved.

<comment><USER7> Also, what's the point of SENTRI if not to obtain a more reliable and detailed database entry? Shouldn't that information somehow take precedence over a too- broad query of some other database?

Even if the official explanation is true as far as it goes, _something_ is seriously broken here.

<comment><USER8> Exactly- with Sentri you have an id number that has your personal and vehicle info

How would the automated system scan the card, the face and the license plates and then do a name lookup?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> From what the author wrote, it seems likely she was flagged as a person of interest. Perhaps her name was similar or identical to an alias used by someone else, or perhaps she looked very similar to someone on a watchlist. Automated systems can exasperate the problem of persecuting the innocent. For anyone who thinks they are able to make an automated system for law enforcement that does not provide false positives, I strongly recommend you think twice.

For anyone interested, the author has a gofundme page. [0]

[0] [https://www.gofundme.com/f/A-Love-Letter-To-Durham-North- Car...](https://www.gofundme.com/f/A-Love-Letter-To-Durham-North-Carolina)

<comment><USER10> That doesn't explain being pulled over before they have checked her documents unless they are using a licence plate scanner to ID her beforehand. Doesn't sound likely due to the questions about whether it is her car - or those questions are therefore blatent harrassment.

I'd recommend Gladwell's last book 'Talking to Strangers' about how preconceptions and cognitive biases shape our interactions and how things can quickly derail as a result. You could put a spin on their motives that it is a prejudgement of her as a person of interest - but that then becomes an issue of individual training or a systemic failure in the whole force to not let that happen.

<comment><USER11> I would never recommend a book by Gladwell, anymore, since I learned more about him. "I don't write about what's true, I write about what's interesting."

<comment><USER10> That is unfortunately the case for most journalism and even scholarly research.

If you treat much of what he writes as anecdotal fluff pieces you won't be disappointed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> CBP are the most unfriendliest border agents I've ever had the misfortune of dealing with. Contrast that with the likes of Canadian and Irish border people who are outstanding I'm my experience.

<comment><USER13> It's not just the agents, as a foreigner, it's CBP as a whole.

I lived in the US for 3 years on an E-3 visa (like a weird H1B that's only for Australians). I wasn't eligible for any of the expedited entry procedures like Global Entry since I was an Australian without a green card.

The journey starts in the foreign airport. Did you know that the US has its own security in many foreign airports? After you've already been through the airport's own security and are waiting at the gate, just prior to or even during boarding, the US can have you pulled aside and searched thoroughly once more. They'll make you take off your shoes, jackets, go over you with a wand, unpack all of your carry-on luggage on a table and then make you pack it again. This happened to me on 3/4 international flights returning back to the US from Europe (France, Germany).

Then, once I arrived in the US, I had to go through the "foreigner that needs to see a human" line. Have a look at the wait times for that line, as reported by CBP [0]. I ran an average for October 2019 at SFO and the _average_ wait time was 26 minutes but depending on when you arrived, it could be hours. In my experience ~45 minutes was the norm (I chose unlucky arrival times I suppose).

When you get to the human, they basically treat you like a criminal. They take your fingerprints, make you look into a camera for biometrics and interrogate you about why a foreign peasant deserves to enter the utopia that is America. On each visit after renewing the visa, you also have to carry a massive pile of documentation with you (documentation that was already submitted to the State Department as part of the visa application).

And then, after immigration, you have to go through customs. Normally customs isn't so bad but every now and then you can get pulled aside for a baggage search. This means being told to stand in a line for easily an hour without any indication of why, no access to food or drink and of course you can't use your phone either.

I've travelled fairly widely and the US border really is the worst I've had the misfortune of crossing. When I enter the US the whole CBP process gives a sense of dread and makes me feel like a huge pile of weights is being dumped on top of me. When I leave the US it's like I'm finally free and returned to civilization. Even "oppressive" countries like Russia and Turkey feel better than the US.

[0]: [https://awt.cbp.gov/](https://awt.cbp.gov/)

<comment><USER4> I remember asking two police (military?) carrying machine guns at the Hong Kong airport for directions to the train into the city. I don't even dare to look a CBP agent in the eyes as I am passing them. (And I'm born and raised American)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Racism is awful and ubiquitous. What I find terrifying about America, and stories like this, is that it is aimed at compatriots.

</comment><comment><USER15> > There were only a few consular officers of color in Juarez. They, too, had > been pulled into secondary inspection a few times at the border, but CBP > officers seemed to be more aggressive with me, probably because I had begun > regularly to ask to speak to a manager whenever I was pulled to secondary > inspection.

She might have just gotten on their "annoying-persons" list. If this was indeed race driven than the other black officers would have a similar track record and it would have made a much more damning post with their combined experiences. The fact that she doesn't mention their stories leads me to believe that her experience was much worse than the other black diplomats.

Be it incompetence (a recurring glitch in the computers) or malice (the guards were harassing her personally) it doesn't seem to me to be clearly caused by racism.

<comment><USER6> _She might have just gotten on their "annoying-persons" list_

This is the Juarez-El Paso border crossing, not a reenactment of "The Comedians" with Richard Burton and Liz Taylor. First rule of government interaction: if it can be used against them it can also be used against you. Police shitlists should never be used as an explanation, rather they should serve as a call for savage consequences.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> North America's racist roots are showing. Perhaps it's time for immigrants to consider more welcoming destinations.

<comment><USER17> What about those of us who arrived decades ago are now settled with families and children who were born here are proud to call ourselves American citizens? We never imagined even 5 years ago an America like this and are questioning our life choices.

<comment><USER18> America was like this five years ago too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Tbh it's not that different in Europe. If you are dark skinned and it looks like you may be part of the ethnic group that causes trouble around your area, you will be stopped.

Since I was 16 I was asked for documents and pulled over so many times, it wasn't even funny. I can't say I blame officers, though: I don't think recognising patterns is racism. I'm more pissed at people that look like me and contribute to the majority of crime.

I hate the police sarcasm and bad treatment though. I think it's too easy to have unlimited money from the taxpayers' pocket without having to lift a finger to actually fight crime.

I remember this one time, they stopped next to me in their car and just asked in between laughs "so, which country would you be from?". I replied the name of a small town nearby in the country's native accent and they immediately went "ohh, sorry sorry" and left immediately to poke at someone else. Apparently I wasn't part of their personal zoo of illegal immigrants to make fun of and ignore.

That's probably the best argument I have for decriminalising victimless crimes and not having all power centralised into a public police but split into private entities with a Profits and Losses sheet.

</comment><comment><USER20> Car registered in NC, while living in Texas, is sufficiently suspicious, a smuggler won't bother to change license plate.

</comment><comment><USER21> Sounds like installing a dashcam (or several) would have been useful here, for better capturing the interactions.

</comment><comment> BXLE_1-1-BitIs1 Best to be subservient and compliant in all dealings with CBP. My bet is that the agents didn't like her attitude. Once that happens, it's time to find another crossing and change your plate - that's the first thing the cameras feed into the computer system. That might work better for the ordinary schmoo than a special pass holder.

Living close to the border I cross often to pick up parcels. For some reason I have yet to fathom, CBP often asks exactly what I'll be taking back to Canada;so I tell them without asking why they are interested.

They have the power to make my life miserable, even bar me from the US where I have family. I think it best to humour whatever bee they have in their bonnet at the time. Mind you they may be following whatever directives are in effect at the time. I've been questioned about certain items several times in a row and then they come up with something else.

Canada customs is usually friendlier, but can get shirty every now and again.

</comment><comment><USER22> Wouldn't having traveled extensively (non-employment travel) in both hemispheres over the preceding two years get _anyone_ added scrutiny?

</comment><comment><USER23> And that's on a US Government official, the ones who are not may end up in a cage...

<comment><USER5> No, that isn't what is happening at all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> read the whole article waiting for the reason they cared she was black, maybe a smoking gun, felt like a detective piece.

was dissapointed

i guess its just an axiom to a ethnonarcissist

<comment><USER25> > read the whole article waiting for the reason they cared she was black

The reason they cared she was black is that they were racist... In one of the interactions she documented, the CBP officer told her he knew "what drug smugglers look like" and said "you know what I mean".</comment></comment>


Big Data and meritocracy: data do not lie - <AUTHOR> https://kiply.com/blog/big-data-meritocracy-data-not-lie/ <comment><USER2> But humans do or can be fooled... The problem is that the more data you have, the more likely you are to find a set that confirms your priors. Further, as N. N. Taleb pointed out, in large data sets, noise grows faster than real information. So beware of big data (if such a thing exists).</comment>


Five Years of Rust - <AUTHOR> https://blog.rust-lang.org/2020/05/15/five-years-of-rust.html <comment><USER2> The progress on the error messages truly is worth highlighting, and kudos to the team for all the hard work there. It's one of the hardest things to get right in a programming language, particularly if that language has a fussy compiler.

<comment><USER3> I've been using the anyhow crate and it's made error handling almost painless.

<comment><USER4> Just to point out for other readers, nowadays to make a custom error type you just need :

\- an enum (or struct)

\- its Display implementation

\- its Error implementation, now just one function

And a few `impl From<OtherError> for MyError` to make the try? operator work.

For a library it's really not that much work. And even that can be simplified further to a few derive macros with another library : thiserror.

<comment><USER5> To simplify even more, you don't _actually_ need `Display` or `Error` impls. I use Error enums frequently without display or Error impls. Though, with better backtrace support coming it'll be handy to have Error and the Backtrace related APIs implemented.

 _(Sidenote, I don 't use `impl Error` because I never use `Box<dyn Error>`. Which isn't to say that's correct, just to say that I've never had the need to implement it)_

<comment><USER6> Even though GP meant to highlight compiler error messages, I also have to take my hat off for the library/application error-handling story in Rust.

Using a crate such as thiserror[1] combined with displaydoc[2] makes handling errors in a structured manner a great experience. I love how the error handling story has evolved over the last couple of years in Rust, and it really feels like we're entering into the final stretch of fine-tuning to get the best possible experience.

And yes, anyhow[3] is also great, it serves a different purpose, but I frequently reach for all three crates.

[1]: [https://crates.io/crates/thiserror](https://crates.io/crates/thiserror) [2]: [https://crates.io/crates/displaydoc](https://crates.io/crates/displaydoc) [3]: [https://crates.io/crates/anyhow](https://crates.io/crates/anyhow)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Now that there's been 5 years since v1.0, is there any consensus on design mistakes that Rust made? Any mistakes that people wish they could turn back time and do differently but can't because it would break compatibility with too much existing code out there? That's the more interesting list to me.

<comment> ainar-g One way to reason about what could have been done better from the beginning is looking at stuff that is marked as [deprecated] in the standard library. E.g. how the "try!()" macro was deprecated in favour of the "?" operator.

<comment><USER8> I would say the try!() macro is an exception to that rule: if the ? operator existed since the beginning, it would be seen as "too much magic" (in a language that already used up most of its "strangeness budget" in lifetimes/borrowing), while try!() is just a very simple macro you could write yourself, with no special compiler support. Only later, after people got used to try!() everywhere, the ? operator became viable, as "just a shortcut to try!() with better precedence (and it also works on Option)".

That is, there's a path dependence, where the existence of try!() made the ? operator viable.

<comment><USER7> _> if the ? operator existed since the beginning, it would be seen as "too much magic" [...] That is, there's a path dependence, where the existence of try!() made the ? operator viable._

Yes, C++ creator Bjarne Stroustrup made a similar observation:

\- For new features, people insist on LOUD explicit syntax.

\- For established features, people want terse notation.

There seems to be an invisible "Overton Window" of evolving programming language features and syntax.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Is now the time to start learning rust? In your estimation, are there going to be lots of job opportunities for people who have 15 years experience with rust?

I primarily live in the .Net world, but rust seems extremely close to f# in terms of compiler safety, and I'm trying to decide what programming language to learn next.

<comment><USER10> My job is about 50% Rust, 40% Typescript, 10% Python with regards to language.

I would say Rust is the best day to day experience out of these 3 except for glitchy editor tooling and the long compile times. We have 1000 line services that take close to 10 minutes for a release build which is not ideal.

I would not necessarily suggest learning Rust to get a job though. We mostly stopped mentioning it in our job ads because we don't want people applying for the "hip stack". Usually, competent programmers with some basic understanding of how manual memory management works have no trouble picking it up as they go.

<comment><USER11> > We mostly stopped mentioning it in our job ads because we don't want people > applying for the "hip stack".

Can you elaborate on that? I'm maybe thinking of changing jobs soon and my #1 want is that I can commonly program in Rust as opposed to C. Why would you explicitly avoid mentioning Rust?

<comment><USER10> Also, a word of advice: the language in use should be one of the last things you're considering when looking for jobs. It really doesn't make a difference in your day-to-day happiness.

Instead, try to look for a team you fit in with, a manager you can trust, growth opportunities, and the chance to work on interesting projects that have impact. Case in point, one of my most enjoyable (and beneficial to my career) jobs was mostly Java 8 - and that's certainly near the bottom of my "good programming languages" list.

<comment><USER12> This is all very good advice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Non-Lexical Lifetimes was huge. Impressive list.

I hope the next 5 years bring compiler speed ups.

<comment><USER14> It probably will. Every release has a number of performance improvements although the release notes don't mention them. Great work like [1] [2] [3] weren't mentioned in the release notes because those notes mostly focused on feature improvements.

This work seems to be gaining momentum, if anything. The next version (1.44) will significantly improve the performance of programs that use async [4]. The next version of LLVM will be faster [5] (hopefully reversing the perf regressions in LLVM 10).

[1] - [https://blog.mozilla.org/nnethercote/2020/04/24/how-to- speed...](https://blog.mozilla.org/nnethercote/2020/04/24/how-to-speed-up-the- rust-compiler-in-2020/)

[2] - [https://blog.mozilla.org/nnethercote/2019/12/11/how-to- speed...](https://blog.mozilla.org/nnethercote/2019/12/11/how-to-speed-up-the- rust-compiler-one-last-time-in-2019/)

[3] - [https://blog.mozilla.org/nnethercote/2019/10/11/how-to- speed...](https://blog.mozilla.org/nnethercote/2019/10/11/how-to-speed-up-the- rust-compiler-some-more-in-2019/)

[4] - [https://ferrous-systems.com/blog/stable-async-on- embedded/](https://ferrous-systems.com/blog/stable-async-on-embedded/)

[5] - [https://nikic.github.io/2020/05/10/Make-LLVM-fast- again.html](https://nikic.github.io/2020/05/10/Make-LLVM-fast-again.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> One of my favorite things with Rust is how other things are starting to use it. Just yesterday I started playing with Deno and was anticipating a severe lack of database bindings. Some people used the built-in Typescript->Rust message passing to make a tiny shim around the Rust bindings for things like MongoDB: [https://github.com/manyuanrong/deno_mongo](https://github.com/manyuanrong/deno_mongo)

</comment><comment><USER16> I hope Rust adds the major anticipated features (GATs, const generics, specialization) soon, or alternatively decides to not implement them altogether. I'm a rather new Rust developer, but still I very quickly ran into the issue of needing a nightly version of rustc because one of my dependencies (PyO3) relied on one of these features. It would be awesome to have some periodic updates from the compiler team on the progress thereof.

<comment><USER17> Technically speaking, those are implemented, just not stabilized, if you're using them in the nightly, they're just disabled in stable.

So I would anticipate they will eventually stabilize like many other features have and become part of stable.

<comment><USER18> Just want to clarify that an implementation being present in nightly doesn't ensure a timeline for stabilization or even that it _will_ happen, as unexpected bugs in the implementation or design of the original RFC might crop up once it's actually used that makes us take the decision to push the stabilization back. This has happened multiple times (from a single version delay to things that are perma-unstable). That being said, the majority of the unstable features you're waiting for "only" need baking time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> The killer feature of rust is rapid incremental improvement of the language. Every quarter something gets better.

<comment><USER20> That's a feature of several languages right now/at times.

<comment><USER21> I agree. That's how I've felt about Python with every release since 3.5

<comment><USER22> And yet there are people complaining it's too slow, or too fast.

I don't think there is any pace of language evolution that will never be criticized.

<comment><USER19> Rust has been really great at incremental language upgrades because of clippy. Stuff get deprecated, clippy issues warnings, buy the time support is dropped your code has been patched.

It feels like we are in some new weird software engineering world where the code is only alive while its actively maintained and worked on. The libraries that are shipped in the OS seem as constant and fixed in time as x86, basically completely abstracted by the constantly evolving software on top of it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Rust is on track to soon--within ten years--become an industrially important language. I see no other language on the horizon that could take Rust's place alongside C++, in the places where they both excel.

That is not to say it _will certainly_ become industrially important. It depends entirely on the numbers. Today, the total number of working Rust coders may be less than the number who start coding C++ in any given week. (This is a simple consequence of the difference between a base of thousands vs. millions.) But if it can sustain exponential growth long enough, and nothing else comes up in the meantime to take the wind from its sails, it should get there.

</comment><comment><USER24> What's the best resource to get started with Rust and make a desktop app?

<comment><USER25> [https://areweguiyet.com/](https://areweguiyet.com/) gives a broad overview, but is slightly outdated i believe. I recommend all raph linus' research on this topic, fairly recent blog: [https://raphlinus.github.io/rust/druid/2019/10/31/rust-2020....](https://raphlinus.github.io/rust/druid/2019/10/31/rust-2020.html)

Personally I used iced [1] a bit and found it very pleasant to use. iced is cross platform, sponsored and very active.

[https://github.com/hecrj/iced](https://github.com/hecrj/iced)

<comment><USER26> Well, at least read the small prints and footnotes of this GUI library.

> Iced moves fast and the master branch can contain breaking changes!

Even in general, this crate is not even 1.0 or stable for production use. I'd rather wait until it is mature before touching it. Until then, Qt is the way to go.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I've been working on postgres-extension.rs[1]. The idea is that, instead of writing a PostgreSQL extension in C (which is the only option for interesting extensions), you can also write one in pure rust.

I've eagerly awaited many features to make this work reasonably well, and I've been very pleased how much rust has helped my use case over the last few years.

Although lots of languages have a C FFI, that's really not enough to extend a complex codebase. Postgres has it's own setjmp/longjmp-based error handling, it's own system of allocators, it needs a way to find the right functions in an extension and call them the right way, its own way of dealing with signals, etc. There are zillions of internal structs, and the extension needs to be able to read/modify them without copying/translation. Oh, and also, postgres doesn't like threads at all, so the extension better not make any (at least not ones that call back into postgres APIs).

The only language even close to getting all of this right is rust:

* it has no runtime that causes problems with threading, scheduling, signal handling, or garbage collection

* typically GC'd languages can't operate very well on unmodified C structs; rust doesn't have a GC so it can

* rust goes out of its way to support C-compatible structs without any copying/translation, and can even treat some plain C representations as more interesting types in a binary-compatible way (like a nullable pointer in C could be treated as an Option<&MyStruct> in rust)

* the tokio library allows nice concurrency without creating threads if you use the CurrentThread runtime

* it supports changing the global allocator to be the postgres allocator

* rust has good procedural macro support, which is important because a lot of postgres APIs heavily use macros, so making the rust version ergonomic requires similar macro magic

Areas rust could be more helpful, but which I'm trying to address on my own to the extent that I can:

* Support for setjmp/longjmp. I know this is not easy, but important for interacting with C code that already uses it. I realize it would be unsafe, and that it can't be wrapped up in a safe way directly, and it would be delicate to create safe APIs that use it at all. But I still want it. I made a crate[2] that adds support, but it has a few issues that can't be resolved without compiler support.

* Better support for cdylib shared libraries that might call back into the host program that loads the library. Right now, you have to pass platform-specific flags to get it to link without complaining about undefined symbols (because they won't be resolve until the library is loaded into the host program). Also, it's difficult to test the shared library, because you have to guess at the location of the built library to be able to tell the host program where to find it before you can begin your test. I made a crate[3] to help with these things also, but it would be nice to have better support.

Oh, and one more thing on my wishlist not directly related to this project is that it would be nice to have support for datastructure-specific allocators (like a mini-allocator just for a hash table). Then, you'd be able to monitor and control memory usage by inspecting that allocator; and when you destroy or reset the hash table, you can know that the memory is freed/cleared as well (without worrying about fragmentation). Maybe these mini-allocators could also be used in other contexts, too, but it would probably be easiest to get the lifetimes to work out if it was tied to a data structure.

[1] [https://github.com/jeff-davis/postgres- extension.rs](https://github.com/jeff-davis/postgres-extension.rs) [2] [https://github.com/jeff-davis/setjmp.rs](https://github.com/jeff- davis/setjmp.rs) [3] [https://github.com/jeff-davis/cdylib- plugin.rs](https://github.com/jeff-davis/cdylib-plugin.rs)

</comment><comment><USER28> Is there a roadmap for the next 1/2/5 years?

<comment><USER14> One of compiler devs Niko Matsakis wrote a couple of posts about this

* Splitting the compiler into libraries so it's easier to iterate on them, while also making it easier to develop static analysis tools - [http://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/blog/2020/04/09/libr...](http://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/blog/2020/04/09/libraryification/)

* Improving the async experience - [http://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/blog/2020/04/30/asyn...](http://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/blog/2020/04/30/async-interviews-my-take-thus-far/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Rust mods have to stop listening to the elite language intelligentsia.

Successful eco systems are pragmatic and idiomatically straightforward.

Everything & the kitchen sink in a language is not a recipe for success.

Every language that has a long lifespan spent a long time in feature minimal stasis too. The world won't learn a moving target.

<comment><USER30> Rust is barely a moving target since 1.0. If you only read the version releases it might seem so, but for the pragmatic programmer not much is changing. Many of the changes concern very special features that only a few libraries make use of. As a library user you don't need to learn them.

I learned Rust a few years ago and without keeping up with the latest changes too much I still feel confident I can work on current code.

<comment><USER31> Having these "very special features" means that there are some things with are added to the language but rarely used. That means that you might come across code in a library that you don't understand, especially if you're not using those features in your own code.

So, I think the argument that "very special features" shouldn't be counted toward language complexity/growth is wrong, IMO. I would even say that there needs to be even more focus on those features, since they tend to be not widely known, not familar, and often there is less documentation about them, so the likelyhood that they make code hard to understand is even higher.

This is not to say that those features are unnecessary. I just don't think the justification "they are not what a pragmatic programmer will see" is good.

<comment><USER32> I'd say having special features is ok, as long as these criteria are met:

1) It's obvious the feature is being used.

2) The feature is easy to look up without knowing what it's called, just based on how it's been used.

3) It's easy to understand what the feature actually does, with the appropriate context.

<comment><USER18> The ? operator doesn't fulfill at least two of the three points, yet it's way more loved than hated. As a general guideline I agree with your points, but it is not to be taken as rigid gospel either.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Is the current status of Rust that it is slower than Go ? According to this previous post - [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23058147](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23058147)

<comment><USER3> As someone who is not a particularly good programmer who has done quite a bit of coding in both at this point, it seems to be easier to accidentally write extremely slow code in rust than it is in go, but once you start optimizing, rust will generally be faster, sometimes by quite a lot. I've also run into fewer pathological cases as I've learned more of the idiomatic rust patterns.

<comment><USER34> And yet, a lot of experienced programmers have noted that even when they write their first time naïve Rust, it turns out to be really fast.

<comment><USER35> For example, Bryan Cantrill wrote about his experience in "The relative performance of C and Rust". I found the post fascinating.

[http://dtrace.org/blogs/bmc/2018/09/28/the-relative- performa...](http://dtrace.org/blogs/bmc/2018/09/28/the-relative-performance- of-c-and-rust/)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Flavors of Engineering Management - <AUTHOR> http://blog.benjamin-encz.de/post/flavors-of-engineering-management/ <comment><USER2> Nice.</comment>


HTML5 Boilerplate v2.0 released - <AUTHOR> http://html5boilerplate.com/#v2

<comment><USER2> Glad to see that I'm not the only one who likes the normalize.css technique.

<comment><USER3> I've always thought resetting by using a scalpel would be better than resetting by using a machete. But the problem with the scalpel is, you have to know how and where to cut. So thanks, Boilerplate guys, for figuring out where to cut!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Question from someone who is not an expert in crafting CSS: Is normalize.css something that needs to be actively maintained as newer (versions?) browsers come up or older browser have some changes ?

It sounds to me that CSS Reset might be a "bulldozer" and is absolutely inelegant, but I would not have to download a newer version of it every 6 months as I probably would have to do with normalize.css. Am I missing something here ?

<comment><AUTHOR> Good question. Even CSS resets undergo changes over time (Eric Meyer has adapted his reset several times). But resets are more limited in scope. Normalize.css includes things like: consistent `abbr`, `mark`, `svg` styles; improved `font-size` and `font-family` inheritance for forms and pre-formatted text; and fixes for a few IE, WebKit, and Firefox bugs.

Their approaches are different. But I don't think you'll need to update it regularly - just at the start of a project.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Lots of good changes! I like the standard of prompting for installing Chrome Frame for IE6 users. Gives them the option of installing the Chrome Frame or still getting to the content!

And very interested to try out normalize.css...

<comment><USER6> I wonder what percentage of people who have enough access to install a plugin into IE6, don't have enough access to install a new browser.

To plenty of corporate machines... this will be an annoying piece of bling.

<comment><USER7> IIRC the new version of Chrome Frame does not require Admin access any more. I think it runs a secondary process that injects Chrome Frame into any new instances of IE starting up.

<comment><USER8> Amazingly, it goes one further — reloading any pages that were already open before the Chrome Frame installer ran is sufficient to get the CF goodness on those pages!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I wish more projects were run like HTML5 Boilerplate. Great job!

</comment><comment><USER10> They seem to have pulled down the Mobile boilerplate, which is too bad - I was a fan of that.

I wonder if they're implying we should use html5 v2 for mobile now. I know v2 has a "mobile-first" focus...

<comment><USER11> I messed up the deploy, whoops! back up: <http://html5boilerplate.com/mobile/>

We see a future where these two projects _probably_ merge, but not just yet. I think the mobile-first, one-web community has a little more work to tackle. For now the mobile boilerplate is ideal for mobile-only webapps (like with PhoneGap).

<comment><USER3> I find it rather straightforward to modify H5BP into a responsive design, anyway. When the time comes for mobile-only to die, it's not going to be a difficult transition. No rush.

Thanks for all your great work, Paul!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Awesome! <3

<comment><USER8> Welcome to HN. Don't worry about any downvotes to your first comment, but do keep in mind we tend to discourage comments that don't add anything — sometimes even if they are kind and positive, as your was. Check out the FAQ for more guidelines.

<comment><USER13> That could be displayed to every new member's first comments whenever text.lenght < 20 or something like that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> My first thought when reading this was that maybe my HTML5 boilerplate is too plain. See, mine looks like this:

      <!DOCTYPE html>

Maybe that's too small, but I could have sworn that a big point in HTML5 was that HTML could be a lot looser and have _less_ boilerplate, not more.

<comment><USER15> here we go again people complaining about the boilerplate having too much stuff. I would rather have this than <!DOCTYPE html> which I already know by memory.

You can always remove stuff as you please. Can you guys accept it as a cool project that saves you time? or does the name "boilerplate" bother you that much.

<comment><USER14> I think it saves _some_ people _some_ time. This looks like too much stuff for me. I was really complaining more about the usage of "HTML5". It feels buzzwordy. Maybe I've just been away from serious web development for too long, but this entire site feels like too much stuff.

<comment><USER16> Apart from some of the opinionated "you should be doing it this way" stuff, if your not using a lot of this your probably providing a sub optimal experience for someone somewhere using an old browser. I guess it depends how much you care about backwards compatibility over just building for the latest and greatest, each project will be at a different point on the scale of what they need to support.

<comment><USER14> You're right; I don't care about IE. As a result, I need a lot less code.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I look forward to using this. Great job!</comment>