Some thoughts about the reports of supposed evidence of election irregularities - <AUTHOR> http://electionupdates.caltech.edu/2016/11/24/some-thoughts-about-the-reports-of-supposed-evidence-of-election-irregularities-in-mi-pa-and-wi/ <comment><USER3> _Once more unto the breach…_

Looks like we're about to have the same voting/election discussion we've had at least 6 times over the past month or so (most recently a day ago). If anyone's interested in reading what's already been discussed, here are links to the previous threads:

"Edward Snowden Demonstrates How Easy It Is to Hack a Voting Machine" [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13032199](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13032199)

"American Elections Will Be Hacked" [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12921967](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12921967)

"Maryland will audit all votes cast in general election" [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12885396](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12885396)

"Cylance Discloses Voting Machine Vulnerability" [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12883356](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12883356)

"In Pennsylvania, Claims of a Rigged Election May Be Impossible to Disprove" [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12790247](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12790247)

"Votes could be counted as fractions instead of as whole numbers" [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12841178](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12841178)

</comment><comment><USER4> This is similar to what Nate Silver put out earlier (as mentioned in the article). The difference in voting to each candidate by county and voting machine type is completely explained by the population distribution in those counties.

In Wisconsin, the counties that used paper ballots tended to be less white and better educated. That's why Clinton got more votes there, probably. It is unlikely that there is real widespread tampering.

That said, there is still good reason to audit all national elections. They're quite important, after all. The mad dash to say who won really quickly does a disservice to the process, IMO.

<comment><USER3> _there is still good reason to audit all national elections. They 're quite important, after all. The mad dash to say who won really quickly does a disservice to the process, IMO._

Agreed. Maybe it's late, but I'm leaning towards thinking auditing should be closer to the norm than otherwise. Kinda like testing? Get the system so smooth and clean that everything is obvious and trustworthy.

Edit: Okay, it _is_ getting late. I just starting thinking of what an election Chaos Monkey would look like.

<comment><USER5> Nobody else mentioned it, but an election "chaos monkey" would be interesting.

From the few second I thought about it, you could have some "approved troublemakers" that are VERY well controlled and licensed to go and do things like attempt to tamper with machines, multi-vote, ballot stuff, or something similar. If it's done in a way that they know exactly how many extras they put in (how i'm not sure, but it'd need to be bullet proof) they could basically "audit" election systems.

Currently, there is no legal way to "test" the system as far as I know.

<comment><USER3> Interesting idea, isn't it? I suspect that many of the failure modes you'd want to test would require a full re-do of the election, at least at the level of the precinct. I don't know how tolerant the population would be. Though I encourage you to follow through and see what you come up with :) I'd be interested to read about it.

<comment><USER5> I'm not so sure it would need to be that drastic.

If I get a "stamp of approval" to tamper with a voting machine, I could get to the point of being able to tamper, but not do anything. Or I could (if it was safe to do so) have it add 30,000 votes to a false candidate. It would be similar to how "white hat" hackers need to be able to show a POC but not actually do any harm.

Hell even having "false elections" could be a useful first step.

It wouldn't be perfect, but it could at least start figuring out where the weakness are.

<comment><USER3> _Hell even having "false elections" could be a useful first step._

That, I think, would be potentially useful.

<comment><USER6> Here's a 2012 paper from a team at the University of Michigan detailing a "mock election" gone wrong:

 _Title._ Attacking the Washington, D.C. Internet Voting System

 _Abstract._ In 2010, Washington, D.C. developed an Internet voting pilot project that was intended to allow overseas absentee voters to cast their ballots using a website. Prior to deploying the system in the general election, the District held a unique public trial: a mock election during which anyone was invited to test the system or attempt to compromise its security. This paper describes our experience participating in this trial. Within 48 hours of the system going live, we had gained near-complete control of the election server. We successfully changed every vote and revealed almost every secret ballot. Election officials did not detect our intrusion for nearly two business days—and might have remained unaware for far longer had we not deliberately left a prominent clue. This case study—the first (to our knowledge) to analyze the security of a government Internet voting system from the perspective of an attacker in a realistic pre-election deployment—attempts to illuminate the practical challenges of securing online voting as practiced today by a growing number of jurisdictions.

[https://jhalderm.com/pub/papers/dcvoting- fc12.pdf](https://jhalderm.com/pub/papers/dcvoting-fc12.pdf)

<comment><USER3> Thanks for the link! I look forward to reading the paper.

Yeah, from what I've read I really don't think any type of online voting system is the way to go. Interesting that they pretty much owned the server. Without reading, I suspect that has more to do with the system architecture than it being a voting application.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Has anyone noted that Trump sounding off about election rigging is a perfect ploy for one who knew the election would be rigged in their favor?

In response, the opposition made strong claims that elections cannot be rigged, in spite of the verified evidence of experts that they can be rigged.

Net result: Trump wins an 'upset' election, that was actually rigged in his favor, whilst the opposition cannot bring itself to claim that is was rigged, as that would be a contradiction of their earlier defense of the voting system's integrity.

There already exists a flawless system for ensuring 100% accurate voting results: a distributed consensus network utilizing a public block chain. Voters get assigned public/private key pairs upon registration. Their vote is a simple transaction on the blockchain which they can validate anytime they want.

<comment><USER8> If a voter can validate their vote at any time, the system is susceptible to coercion and vote buying. From what I've read most experts seem to agree that paper voting is the safest.

<comment><USER9> Also susceptible to hackers who get access to the voter's private key. It's not "a flawless system for ensuring 100% accurate voting results".

</comment></comment></comment><comment> i-think I don't think this article adds anything to the discussion. It repeats Halderman's earlier point.

 _the important point is that all elections should be audited, and not only if you have statistics suggesting that something might be fishy._

And repeats other conclusions which say that there are no signs of something fishy in the currently available data, at least based on initial statistical analyses.

<comment><USER10> It's a pity that journalists (and a few self-interested politicians) distorted Halderman's points so dramatically. This stuff's never going to go away, now -- it'll be the foundation of wild conspiracy theories for decades.

<comment><USER11> More damaging would be if it implicitly changes the message from 'audits should always be done' to 'we're doing it because there was monkey business'

<comment><USER10> It already has. Which is doubly unfortunate since there is no evidence whatsoever of monkey business anyway.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Why do they allow computers for voting at all? There will always be doubt that computers have been manipulated.

<comment><USER13> But paper ballots and scanning machines... those are clearly safer?

<comment><USER14> Yes. Because - assuming you keep the paper ballots around somewhere - <USER2> 2000 miles away can't manipulate what those paper ballots say.

<comment><USER15> > Yes. Because - assuming you keep the paper ballots around somewhere - > someone 2000 miles away can't manipulate what those paper ballots say.

But someone on the premises can. It's not as if there was never election fraud before computerisation!

<comment><USER14> It's a lot harder to organize multiple staff at multiple polling stations in multiple precincts - enough so that it's unlikely someone not in on the plan won't notice what's going on, all of whom are willing to cover for each other and who won't leak, and who can somehow protect the ballots against independent auditing, to conspire to manipulate paper ballots than some guy in another country just compromising the polling station and tweaking the numbers slightly to give one side an edge.

Election fraud is possible in any system, but it's a lot easier when the system is purely computer-based.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> In 2013, the supreme court struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act. As a result, "fourteen states had new voting restrictions in place for the first time in 2016. [...] This was the first presidential election in 50 years without the full protections of the Voting Rights Act." [0]

For instance, this was the first election in Wisconsin where voters were required to show a photo ID, a measure which barred 300,000 people from voting. Trump's margin of victory in Wisconsin was only 22,525 votes.

In addition to voter suppression, there were also large unexplained discrepancies between exit polls and vote counts. [1]

[0] [https://www.thenation.com/article/the-gops-attack-on- voting-...](https://www.thenation.com/article/the-gops-attack-on-voting- rights-was-the-most-under-covered-story-of-2016/)

[1] [http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/can-we-count- election-...](http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/can-we-count-election- results-exit-poll-discrepancies-and-voter-suppression-are)

<comment> james-watson I can't go to a bar or buy alcohol/tobacco without showing ID.

Why should I be able to vote for the country's future without ID?

<comment><USER16> The voter ID law in Wisconsin disqualified 9% of its registered voters. The right to vote is protected by 5 constitutional amendments and isn't conditional upon obtaining a state-issued photo ID. Requiring a photo ID is akin to a poll tax (24th amendment). There's no evidence that photo IDs make elections more secure, since voter-impersonation fraud is practically non- existent [0].

[0] [http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-why- voter-i...](http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-why-voter-id- laws-are-evil-20141013-column.html)

<comment> james-watson In what meta-logical wonderland is requiring ID equivalent to a poll tax?

<comment><USER16> There are fees involved in getting a photo ID.

<comment><USER17> And that's before you get to the states which require photo ID making it somewhat more difficult by requiring it to come only from government office X which is in county Y (obviously with poor public transport) only open on every third Tuesday between 1000 and 1400.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> A bit off topic but: our country has a real problem that was hit home last night by a comment made by a dinner guest. He is a democrat (my wife and I are also registered democrats) and was over joyed at the prospect of a recount and/or electoral college delegates putting Clinton in the White House.

I pointed out how disruptive this would be to the country and the fact that Clinton has acknowledged that Trump won, and that Trump will probably end up with close to 2/3 of the electoral votes, kind of a landslide. I stated that we could have mass violence in this country if the election were overturned this late after the election.

Our friend said that mass violence was better than a Trump presidency, which seems like a really stupid point of view. I find it troubling that his view seems to be reflected by many people. In my opinion, we should respect the office of presidency, give Trump a "honeymoon" period to see what he actually does, and most importantly, get very politically active before the next interim elections.

<comment> james-watson > I stated we could have mass violence in this country if the election were > overturned this late after the election.

"Could"?

There will be a civil war if Trump's presidency is revoked. Count on it.

By the way, how many Democrats are there in the Army, Navy and Air Force? How about the National Guard? Law enforcement? How many Democrats own guns?

Democrats are funny people. "Mass violence is better than a Trump presidency."

Be careful what you wish for.

<comment><USER19> >Democrats are funny people. "Mass violence is better than a Trump presidency."

And yet Republicans have been using crypto-revolutionary language for years, especially after deciding to make the Tea Party their proxy in order to gin up fears of Obama's "radical marxist ideology".

This isn't a matter of only one party or the other wanting bloodshed. The Second Amendment has deeply ingrained into the American political consciousness the premise that revolutionary violence is not only justifiable but periodically necessary for a free state - that ideal, coupled with the polarized political atmosphere that requires everyone to view their opponents as evil and their every political action illegitimate, makes violence seem inevitable.

Luckily for our Republic, far more American armchair revolutionaries are willing to talk about watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants than are willing to do the gardening themselves.

<comment><USER20> > _the polarized political atmosphere that requires everyone to view their > opponents as evil and their every political action illegitimate_

I don't recall such an atmosphere being present in prior elections. I don't recall _ever_ witnessing so much divisiveness among Americans as I have the last few weeks. This election was particularly heated, and, frankly, I blame the Democratic party and the Clinton campaign for that.

The Clinton campaign somehow managed to convince roughly half of the country that the other half are _actually_ akin to, _and just as evil as_ , Hitler supporters. Such thinking has _no_ basis in fact. It's _her_ characterization of _half of the population of the US_ as "deplorables" that caused such enormous divisiveness among Americans. In response to the election, many democrats have resorted to name-calling (racist, sexist, etc.), fraudulent claims of violence and rape, actual violent attacks on alleged Trump supporters, and temper-tantrums in general. This reaction only serves to fuel the division. And, because of Clinton's tactic of demonizing her critics and non-supporters, her supporters feel _absolutely justified_ in these actions. After all, if you had a chance to stop the Nazis from taking over, wouldn't you do _anything_ in your power to do so? Hillary, whether she intended to or not, gave her supporters a free pass to be utterly ruthless towards everyone else without compromising their consciences or their morals.

It seems to me like many of Hillary's supporters never even gave Trump a fair listen, given that all of their arguments against a Trump presidency seem to be counterfactual bullshit straight out of the campaign propaganda machine. There are _plenty_ of _legitimate_ arguments to be made against Trump, but vague accusations that he's a "white supremacist" and a "sexist" and a "Nazi" seem to be par for the course, and have no empirical foundation _whatsoever_.

Everybody needs to take a deep breath, take off the propaganda goggles, and have a look at the reality around them. Instead of writing off your fellow Americans as bigots, give them a chance to explain where they're coming from. Seek some understanding of your compatriots instead of being so quick to deride them.

<comment><USER21> > It's her characterization of half of the population of the US as > "deplorables"

Let me help you read that quote: "you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic"

Half of Trump's supporters. That's roughly 20% of the country. And yes, if they're racist, sexist, homophobic, etc, they are deplorable.

> Everybody needs to take a deep breath, take off the propaganda goggles, and > have a look at the reality around them.

Cough, yes. You really should lay off the propaganda.

> Instead of writing off your fellow Americans as bigots, give them a chance > to explain where they're coming from.

No. If you're telling me what to do in my bedroom, I don't give a rat's ass. If you're racist, I don't care what anecdotes made you that way. If you're trying to tell me who I can marry, I don't care in the slightest why you feel that way.

You don't want me in your kitchen telling you what to do, so don't pitch a fit when I don't care for you telling me how to run my life.

Stop trying to control people and they'll stop pushing back.

> Hillary, whether she intended to or not, gave her supporters a free pass

You're equating mean words with Trump's racist scapegoating, his stated intent to kill families of terrorists, deport people born here, etc. Get a sense of scale.

> never even gave Trump a fair listen

A fair listen doesn't mean hang on his words, it means to listen until he's made it obvious that he's clearly unfit for the position.

Maybe you believe he's smarter than all the generals, etc, but if I heard that ignorant bravado from a coworker _or_ a presidential candidate I'd put them in the stupid pile.

For years before the election he went on about Obama's birth certificate. Him and the racists. But yeah, you can tell yourself that he had a real legalistic reason for asking Obama but not Clinton, Bush, etc.

> frankly, I blame the Democratic party and the Clinton campaign for that

I'm sure you do.

<comment><USER20> > You don't want me in your kitchen telling you what to do, so don't pitch a > fit when I don't care for you telling me how to run my life.

> Stop trying to control people and they'll stop pushing back.

Ironically, I'd wager that a significant number of votes were cast for Trump as a kneejerk reaction (i.e., pushback) to some extremely vocal groups on the far left making conspicuous attempts to control other people. The "Social Justice Warriors", the "PC Police", and the "Special Snowflakes" have, for the last several years, been loudly and publicly shaming people who don't share their opinions. These are the same people who decry bullying and use their hashtags to raise awareness about "cyberbullying", and then turn around and try their best to get some "toxic male" who criticized Anita Sarkeesian in a tweet _fired from his job_. The same people who emphasize diversity and equality while systematically silencing and excluding anyone with so-called "privilege". The people who are "helpfully" pointing and wagging fingers at "racists" (who may or may not _actually_ be racists — the word gets tossed around so often nowadays that it's bordering on meaningless) all the while wearing T-shirts emblazoned with references to an _actual_ black supremacist movement.

The reasons for Trump's election are varied, complicated, and much more nuanced than "toxic masculinity and white privilege".

I don't like the outcome of the election any more than you do, but it's made even worse by all the tantrums being thrown over it. The power of the president is constitutionally limited for this very reason, checks and balances and all that. And, frankly, once we got through the primaries, I wasn't going to like the outcome of this election no matter what. President Bernie would've been nice (too bad the Clintons colluded with the DNC to give him the shaft), or even Rand Paul (too bad he's a boring, down-to-earth guy lacking in outrageous, showy behavior or anything particularly radical to put forward... and, for all I know, Trump colluded with the RNC... I wouldn't be surprised at this point (cash rules everything and whatnot)). I'm more worried about the American people at this point than I am about the president. Shit's tense right now.

<comment><USER21> > I'd wager that a significant number of votes were cast for Trump as a > kneejerk reaction (i.e., pushback) to some extremely vocal groups on the far > left making conspicuous attempts to control other people.

Right. I totally agree. I mentioned this just upthread, though in a slightly different context.

The 90% of sane voters are defined by the crazy 5% at either end, because you're either in one party or the other...

Some candidates and some parties are better about not endorsing these loons though, which is all we can ask for. At least to not have their nonsense codified.

> The "Social Justice Warriors", the "PC Police", and the "Special Snowflakes" > have, for the last several years, been [...]

Even though I'm closer to their side than the KKK types at the other end, I too see them as a toxic corruption of the proper message. I do think we need to get rid of bullies, but I don't think that simply having an unpopular attitude is a problem unless you act upon it to actually discriminate, etc.

I don't know the anti-Sarkeesian tweets you mention but I've seen many other baseless fits pitched, so I can imagine.

> The people who are "helpfully" pointing and wagging fingers at "racists" > (who may or may not actually be racists — the word gets tossed around so > often nowadays that it's bordering on meaningless)

Yes, and being someone who cares about actual racism, this bothers me. We can't get proper treatment for real issues if we're executing people for tweets.

> [...] while wearing T-shirts emblazoned with references to an actual black > supremacist movement.

Yeah, I don't know how people can openly support any racist group in the name of wiping out racism.

> I don't like the outcome of the election any more than you do, but it's made > even worse by all the tantrums being thrown over it.

I remember just as many tantrums from the candidates in the previous elections. (Asking for recounts, mocking the person asking for recounts, etc.) The protests are somewhat new, but they're a peaceful expression of disgust, not riots or anything. They seem totally reasonable, considering the toxic messages flying around.

> President Bernie would've been nice (too bad the Clintons colluded with the > DNC to give him the shaft)

I agree, but I'll point out that both political parties are intended to do this. Because similar candidates are "spoilers" in a first-past-the-post election you need a way to weed out people like you but with slightly less chance of winning. The only issue is that they did it behind closed doors.

This won't be fixed until we have a better process, such as Approval voting, that isn't vulnerable to these problems.

> for all I know, Trump colluded with the RNC

I have no faith that he wouldn't have, but it seems unlikely given how much nasty infighting there way.

> I'm more worried about the American people at this point than I am about the > president.

Well ultimately, that's the right stance. The president, even elected and in power, can't do anything on his own. Everything he hopes to accomplish can only be enacted by the people. If we do terrible things under his rule it'll be because we were already willing to and just waiting for someone to come along and justify it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> All we do is make excuses.

<comment><USER23> Yes; HRC lost because she ran a bad campaign, not because the voting machines were hacked.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> The whole reason people think it's fraud is because the media led people to think that Hillary couldn't possibly lose. When she lost, people started looking for an explanation.

<comment><USER25> The result of the popular vote reflected the media's interpretation of pre- election polls: she won by a strong margin, millions of votes. Trump still won the presidency thanks to the peculiar American system that emphasizes the mostly arbitrary state lines over popular representation.

Because the results of a single state can swing the total so wildly out of proportion with the state's population, doing recounts against the paper trail (which otherwise would never get looked at) seems like a reasonable thing to do.

<comment><USER26> The popular vote is meaningless. Everybody knew the system. There is no incentive to vote in states-not-perceived-as-swing-states. It's not clear from this election who would have one a straight up popular vote. Also: The voting system America has is an important step to protect minority groups, that is, small population states. Maybe the winner-takes-all in the states has to be modified.

<comment><USER27> The president is meant to represent the populace more closely than it does, as should the House. The Senate is meant to protect less populace states.

Really, the problem is capping the number of representatives at around 450. We should have something like 1000-3000 members of the house, which if distributed by population would fix most people's problems with the electoral college.

Basically, Congress got selfish and broke the balance of power for the country to entrench their own, and now the states that don't do much have too much say, and basically slow the country down.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


A full featured checkout process in your email - <AUTHOR> http://rebelmail.com

<comment><USER2> The most interesting part of this to me is the swatch - I'm guessing they use some advanced CSS3 techniques to do that, since you presumably wouldn't be able to use JavaScript in email.

That aside, it looks like a pretty straight-forward form submission. No real security concerns - as it posts to a webapp and the credit card is stored server-side. Biggest concern might be that an attacker could buy things for you and they'll ship to your address? All they'd need to know is your billing zipcode (which isn't too secure).

That aside, their best bet would include releasing plugins for popular ecom software - such as Magento.</comment>


The Pirate Bay moves to .GL domain name, ahead of Swedish seizure of .se domain. - <AUTHOR> http://www.tweaktown.com/news/29632/the-pirate-bay-moves-to-gl-domain-name-ahead-of-swedish-seizeure-of-se-domain/index.html

<comment><USER2> Already suspended: [http://torrentfreak.com/new-pirate-bay-greenland-domains- abo...](http://torrentfreak.com/new-pirate-bay-greenland-domains-about-to-be- seized-130410/)</comment>


Are You Ready to Consider That Capitalism Is the Real Problem? - <AUTHOR> https://www.fastcompany.com/40439316/are-you-ready-to-consider-that-capitalism-is-the-real-problem?partner=rss&utm_content=buffer29f39&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer <comment><USER2> Capitalism is just a tool. It can be used well, or badly.

<comment><USER3> Capitalism is not a tool; it's a system of human relationships, typically intermediated by markets.

Tools can be used for different ends, whereas participation in capitalism determines the ends we apply our tools toward.

Participation in capitalism isn't optional for most people. If capitalism is a tool, it's a tool for a very small minority of people and a mandatory system for most.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Yes.</comment>


Celebrating 22 Exciting Years of Innovation with Delphi - <AUTHOR> http://blog.marcocantu.com/blog/2017-june-celebrating-22-years-of-delphi.html <comment><USER2> I spent 13 years writing software in Delphi professionally. It's really more like 22 years of buggy, bit-rotting in-house developed software left behind in the dust as Delphi has pivoted is way forward over dead bodies. Not to mention 22 years of well-intentioned but delusional architectural decisions and numb- witted implementations stacked on top of a sinking foundation to check features. Every year they come up with revolutionary, proprietary and over- engineered solutions to the currently most popular problems; while consistently pretending like the crap they sold yesterday never happened. Delphi makes it easy to whip up a quick Windows GUI, and that's about it; hardly worth the insane amounts they've always insisted on charging. With a less greedy and marketing-driven approach, Delphi could have been great. The same could be said of many lost technologies.

</comment><comment><USER3> Very sad. I was a Delphi developer for 14 years here.

Was very happy with Turbo Pascal 7 and later Delphi, it was perfect and still haven't found a manual as helpful as the one at their IDE. Then it died. Was probably with this .NET bloat and then getting completely out of touch with their developer-base.

Delphi built amazingly small executables and really good looking UI without much trouble for newbies, that you could escalate to highly complex software (I've even wrote a language compiler with Delphi). Even today, those smallish Delphi binaries built for Windows run surprisingly well under OSX and Linux through Wine. That's multi-platform right there.

There was no need for the bloat or crazy licensing prices that pushed away the small developers, which in turn killed the popularity of Delphi.

I'm a Java developer for 8 years now, it isn't perfect but sure is reachable for anyone and at least the code under a JVM will keep compiling without buying licenses.</comment>


Ask HN: How did you choose the name of your startup/product? - <AUTHOR>

Successful or not, you need a sexy/catchy name for your startup/product. How did you choose yours? Was a hard process? <comment><USER2> I call it Namestorming (play on Brainstorming). I'll come up with some key words that convey what the product does in 1 word. These will be the root words. Then I'll look up all the synonyms, and any related prefixes or suffixes. I'll put them all in a spreadsheet and try them in different combinations until I come up with some cool ones. Then I'll do a trademark search on the USPTO to make sure it's not already trademarked. Then I'll do a Google search on the name, and see if anything comes up. Then I'll search for the Domain and see if it's available. If it's a Web based product, a service, or something tangible, then I consider the .com is essential. If it's an App based product, then I'm ok with other domains, especially ones that play into the word (for example, one of my unbuilt projects is named infostre.am). Then I'll do a search in the App Store(s) and make sure it's not in use (previous example is in use in the UK, but not in the US). The last test I do is to ask 10 people if they can spell it just based on saying the word verbally. If more than 75% of the people spell it wrong, or everyone spells it different, then that's no good. About 99% of the time, one of the above will fail, and I'll toss the name and start over (usually its the .com domain squatters that ruin it).

</comment><comment><USER3> Personally I haven't ever created a startup, but I have been slightly successful in the marketing realm. Here's some tips: #1: Create a Unique Name Now I know this sounds dumb and obvious, but creating a name that sounds to similar to something else in that realm is just not a good idea. #2: Make it either really abstract, or having an element of what you're doing in it. Microsoft has the word "soft" or software in there. Apple, on the other hand, is completely abstract. Both have been successful. #3: Make it short. You probably don't want it to be 2 words or having a hyphen in there. Less than 10 characters is preferable. #4: Make it rememberable. Branding is everything, and generic names like "Beats" and "Apple" have been really successful nowadays. Also, knockoffs of real words are cool too. Think of a bicycle making startup named "Byke".

As for actually coming up with names, I find it actually works best to: #1 Think about it throughout the day, no matter what you're doing. and #2 Sleep on it. #3 Oh, and think about it in the shower too :P

I hope that helped!

</comment><comment><USER4> One of my friend was starting a customer loyalty data analytics startup and had "Cube" in his company name for DataCube. Initially I was going to join him and others (all MBAs). When they kept talking about revising business plan that they created in MBA program, I decided to go on my own with a personal data analytics project. But I liked "Cube" as part of analytics project name. As I was addressing data for peer to peer lending space, my wife and I came up with combo word "PeerCube" as the name. We really liked the name. Luckily we got the PeerCube.com domain name as someone had abandoned the ownership after owning it for a few years. I believe name goes very well with what we are doing.

</comment><comment><USER5> With 3 friends, we chated for a few days and put down what we believed would be the ideal name for company of that type. After several names and several more exclusions that ended up being similar names with other websites or the website was not available we ended up with a name.

www.fitorganizer.com The best we could figure out to create my start up. Although we were a team, on the name, i am the completely alone on this project.

</comment><comment><USER6> I asked my SO, "What would you call an app that would let you connect instantly with anyone else using the same app?"

Answer: One Degree (as in one degree of separation between user A and any other user).

Yes others are using the name, but I liked it and I can change it later.

But I named my corporation after a street name in Dubai that I have always liked - Mankhool.

</comment><comment><USER7> I was just thinking around the word 'bug' and it came to me. It made me chuckle and I couldn't believe the .com was available, so I went with it.

Occasionally someone finds it offensive, but most people love the name so I'm sticking with it.

My product is called BugMuncher

</comment><comment><USER8> Start with a consonant, follow by a vowel, and being four syllables.</comment>


New Way to Monitor Your Logs for Performance Problems - <AUTHOR> https://www.loggly.com/blog/using-loggly-monitor-logs-performance-problems/

<comment><USER2> I'm building an app that has a big server so Loggly could be a valuable way for me to gain insight into my users.

</comment><comment><USER3> Interesting, thanks for sharing. I'm going to try this out.</comment>


Django Girls: workshops about programming in Python and Django for women - <AUTHOR> http://djangogirls.org

<comment><USER2> I don't really understand the need to create a women only workshop. Why is there such a need for this?

<comment><AUTHOR> Me neither. Every time I see Django Girls mentioned in my Twitter timeline (often retweeted by a Django core developer), I fight the urge to ask aloud: are girls not allowed on "regular" conferences and workshops? Or, perhaps, we guys are being so mean that girls choose not to attend?

The first question is rhetorical, but the second isn't. Perhaps such workshop is indeed warranted and it's my worldview that's missing something. However, I don't want to seem like a hater and actually ask those questions on Twitter, so I decided to post this to HN (I guess though the post wouldn't take off this time).</comment></comment>


The Insanity Virus - <AUTHOR> http://discovermagazine.com/2010/jun/03-the-insanity-virus <comment><USER2> > _Beyond that, the insanity virus (if such it proves) may challenge our basic > views of human evolution, blurring the line between "us" and "them," between > pathogen and host._

Oh, I think we're already there. Given that there are ~10x more microorganisms in your gut than cells in your body[1], and the more you learn about the lymphatic / immune system the more it seems like a symbiote rather than a part of our body, _and_ that mitochondria share many characteristics of symbiotic bacteria[2]. It's another wrinkle, and a very interesting one at that, but that's far from a revolutionary concept.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gut_flora> [2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrion#Origin>

<comment><USER3> Jeff McMahan has some very interesting arguments about what we are. Simply put, he argues that we are not our cells. Our cells, our organisms are simply part of ourselves. Based on that I think that we are entities made out of e.g. our cells, immune systems and the bacteria which our organisms carry. Sure, we can make a distinction between 'us' and 'them'; it's just that 'us' actually includes 'them', and that it's just a distinction made by ourselves because we like simple models and hate the feeling of being not autonomous. Humans like to compartmentalize: we see that all the time especially when dealing which psychiatric diseases.

<comment><USER4> I don't think I'm my cells or the bacteria living in my gut. Well, that's not entirely true, I clearly perceive the cells in my hand and the bacteria in my gut as part of myself in some way but not the same way as other things.

Maybe this question is helpful: What do I care about? Clearly not my cells or microorganisms. I would be more than happy to dispose of my hip joint and replace it with titanium should that ever be necessary. I essentially think the same about every other part of my body.

I also don't care about my DNA at all. If you cloned me after my death I wouldn't suddenly spring to life, I wouldn't be reborn as a baby, my clone would be a different person.

What do I care about, then? That, which says this sentence in my brain right now as I type it, whatever it is. It's probably rooted in structures in my brain somewhere. Which doesn't mean that I care about the cells in my brain, not at all. If there is a way to preserve that structure and run it I would be just fine. That's what I care about.

That, to me, is the most important, probably the only really important part of me. The body matters but only in the sense of being a sort of tool.

<comment><USER5> You should care about your DNA! It isn't just a blueprint, but a computational device that stores an insane amount of state information. In fact, the internal state of your cells as an aggregate (genome/proteome, concentration/expression levels, modifications, etc) hold far more state info than mere synapses.

I understand that we all view our brains as a record of our cognisant experiences. However, there is far more at play at the molecular level than non-biologists usually consider. Brains are not magical "higher level" abstract devices. They work in concert with the existing computational machinery of the cell and the genome.

If you don't buy that argument, at least be mindful that if you don't take adequate care, you will increase your probability of getting a cancer that your immune system cannot fight. Your cells are critical. Your gut flora is critical. You are an ecosystem, not an individual. Your mind is only the deterministic imprinting that the physical world makes on you as you make your way through life.

(I'm a computational biochemist and soon to be systems biology student.)

<comment><USER4> Ok, then let me rephrase that, I care about whatever it is that makes me think this sentence. I don't necessarily care about its specific implementation, whatever it is.

This doesn't mean that I think I shouldn't take care of my body – I know that it is instrumental to me – I just wouldn't care much if it were destroyed should I be able to continue be whatever makes me write this sentence.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This article reminds of something Gregory Cochran has been saying for years - "Your genes didn't evolve to kill you". He has a hypothesis that many of the illnesses and chronic conditions that do not have a clear genetic or environmental toxin basis are actually caused by germs - bacteria or viruses. This would include things like heart disease, diabetes, some cancers, some mental illnesses, etc. The problem is that many of these things do not satisfy Koch's postulates for infectious disease, making it very difficult to test. Or the disease progression takes 40+ years. Unfortunately I'm on my phone at the moment so I can't look anything up, else I would post some links.

<comment><USER7> Death is an evolved trait. It's an advantage for most organisms because it ensures a steady turnover of populations which enables micro and macro evolution at a reasonable pace in response to environmental, climate, et al changes.

<comment><USER8> Sounds like the bad kind of group selectionism hypothesis to me. Death bestows no fitness benefit to the individual, and is therefore not evolutionarily selected for. Organisms don't die because evolution says they should, they die because evolution doesn't care.

<comment><USER9> It's more active than that. A trait that enhances reproduction and reduces longevity will be selected for, so whenever there are engineering tradeoffs between reproduction and longevity, evolution will select in favor of reproduction.

<comment><USER10> Odd then that the most advanced species have the longest gestation periods and the simplest species have the shortest.

<comment><USER11> That's because there's no advanced and simple in evolution.

<comment><USER10> My point was that the parents comment was completely unfounded. Did humans always have super fast gestation periods and then right before we gained intelligence it suddenly took the better part of a year and produced a child that isn't self sufficient for at least a decade?

When the evolution subject comes up it always seems to inspire a bunch of would-be scifi writers to come out and explain "how it all works" based on, as near as I can tell, pure fantasy.

<comment><USER11> Depends on how you interpret `reproduction' in the comment you're talking about.

Reproduction trumps everything in evolution. It's everything, actually. But for that to be true you can't define it as `number of offspring born', but in a more long-term sense. And e.g. Elephants seem to have more long-term off- spring by investing more in fewer births.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I have a very close family member who has suffered from schizophrenia. It is troubling to think that the months of ear infections (or infections that caused said infections) when she was a newborn could have been the trigger.

On the flip-side, it is very heartening to think they may be moving closer to understanding the disease. Looking at my family history, I believe there is a strong predilection in my family for it, so having some hope that my children and/or grandchildren could possibly be spared would be fantastic.

</comment><comment><USER13> I have the feeling that these things we never can pin down the cause for - like schizophrenia, MS, and psoriasis - I don't think they are caused by any one thing. Perhaps we have been fooled by the almost one-to-one mapping of reason-to-illness that we have seen so far. Schizophrenia, MS, and also psoriasis, are complex systems that manifest from accumlated weaknesses in incredibly complex systems.

<comment><USER14> Schizophrenia is, to my understanding, sort of a catch-all phrase for several different problems with similar symptoms but different effective treatments. Even in the study, they found only 49% of people with schizophrenia were infected.

<comment><USER15> That's why that 49% figure is so exciting. Because it's so high it could mean that, say, this retro-virus truly is involved in 100% of cases of true schizophrenia, but that those other 51% of the people either (a) don't really have precisely "schizophrenia" but a slightly different disease that just has very similar symptoms, and/or (b) experimental error of some kind. And not only could there be different diseases that have very similar symptoms but it's possible that a single disease could be reached via a different set of initial/contributing causes, or at least a slightly different causal pathway. For example, take some hypothetical disease that is found to be "caused by" a lack of vitamin D. Well, it may be possible that a particular person gets plenty of vitamin D intake, but that they have a gene variant that makes their body not utilize vitamin D normally. Or perhaps their genes are fine, but they have some other gross bodily malfunction (organ failure?) that is causing the vitamin D utilization process to be disrupted or minimized. Regardless of the specific chain of causation, they could all result in the same unhealthy symptoms expressed.

<comment><USER16> _Because it's so high it could mean that, say, this retro-virus truly is involved in 100% of cases of true schizophrenia, but that those other 51% of the people either (a) don't really have precisely "schizophrenia" but a slightly different disease that just has very similar symptoms, and/or (b) experimental error of some kind._

It's really weird to characterize diseases by their effects rather than their cause, because then you don't really have a disease per se, but rather a pattern of symptoms that may or may not always have the same cause.

One major example is SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome), which appears to be little more than a medical term for "the baby died of asphyxiation and we can't figure out how".

<comment><USER17> "we can't figure out"

That's also synonymous with "it's a viral infection".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> _We lug around 100,000 retro virus sequences inside us; all told, genetic parasites related to viruses account for more than 40 percent of all human DNA. Our body works hard to silence its viral stowaways by tying up those stretches of DNA in tight stacks of proteins, but sometimes they slip out. Now and then endogenous retroviruses switch on and start manufacturing proteins. They assemble themselves like Lego blocks into bulbous retroviral particles, which ooze from the cells producing them._

Sounds like technical debt. Anyone up for a refactoring code sprint?

<comment><USER19> From my childhood experience of computing of deleting things I thought were useless and then finding out soon after I really borked my system, i'd be a bit more careful.

<comment><USER11> That's why we use version control.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Wow.

It's remarkable how failure-tolerant the human body is.

I guess that this is truly a sign of 'the future'. Forget hoverboards, we're one step closer to being able to reshape ourselves, one step closer to fixing diseases at the source.

</comment><comment><USER20> I wonder what would happen to creativity and innovation if you got rid of schizophrenia and bipolar by killing this virus as it attacks an infant. Two of the people mentioned, John Nash and Jack Kerouac, were brilliant I think in part because of their illness. I don't know the answer to the question, but it's an interesting thing to consider.

<comment><USER21> I don't know much about Kerouac, but from reading his biography I don't get the impression that Nash was brilliant because of his illness. He was brilliant in spite of his illness, or more accurately I think he was brilliant before his illness really started hitting him and he was never really the same again afterwards.

Schizophrenia has destroyed a lot of promising young minds, and I'm not convinced that it has created any.

<comment><USER20> That doesn't sound right. From what I've read, people with mental illness and those who are highly creative may get the trait (creativity on the one hand and mental illness on the other) from the same source.[1]

From a study on the subject:

 _Daniel Nettle, a psychologist at Newcastle University, and Helen Clegg, at the Open University in Milton Keynes, carried out the survey.

On analysing 425 responses, the psychologists found that artists and schizophrenics scored equally high on unusual cognition, a trait which gives rise to a greater tendency to feel in between reality and a dream state, or to feel overwhelmed by one's own thoughts._

[1] [http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/nov/30/psychology.hig...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/nov/30/psychology.highereducation)

<comment><USER21> _the psychologists found that artists and schizophrenics scored equally high on unusual cognition, a trait which gives rise to a greater tendency to feel in between reality and a dream state, or to feel overwhelmed by one's own thoughts._

I don't think it follows. Just because both schizophrenia and artistic temperament are characterised by "unusual cognition" doesn't mean that they're related. Being drunk is like being a lemur in that they both prohibit you from driving a car, but it doesn't follow that drunkenness and lemurness are related.

<comment><USER22> Right, you can respond that way to pretty much any correlation. But, if there's a plausible explanation for an actual connection, such a dismissal is too trite.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> The last paragraph says it all:

 _Even after all that, many medical experts still question how much human disease can be traced to viral invasions that took place millions of years ago. If the upcoming human trials work as well as the animal experiments, the questions may be silenced—and so may the voices of schizophrenia._

</comment><comment><USER24> A honest question, is Discover magazine usually this good?

</comment><comment><USER15> Due to the breakthroughs discussed in the OA, and some other things, I'd bet they'll have a "cure" of some sort for schizophrenia within the next 10 years, tops. Feels like they're hot on the trail. Also cancer and diabetes.

<comment><USER25> I would say much the opposite.

Given the fact that schizophrenics seem to have different brain morphology, it seems that whatever causes it has _organizational_ , not _activational_ effects.

That is to say, the brain is permanently damaged during a critical period in a child's life, which leads to these effects later on. If it is a virus, perhaps it could be prevented, but almost certainly not cured.

<comment><USER26> Unless neurogenesis can be triggered in such a way that new neurons develop and migrate along the normal routes, once the disruption is removed.

Therapy to encourage new synapse development could also help, once any morphology-disrupting factor is removed.

<comment><USER25> Migration of neurons occurs primarily in utero and very early childhood, and as you might notice, during this time very few memories are formed.

That's because memories are built on those very synaptic connection you would need to rewire. Any cure that deals with reorganizing the brain could very well wipe out who they are. If it's even possible. And for that kind of technology we're talking at minimum centuries, not decades.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Monotonicity Types: Towards a Type System for Eventual Consistency - <AUTHOR> http://prl.ccs.neu.edu/blog/2017/10/22/monotonicity-types-towards-a-type-system-for-eventual-consistency/ <comment><USER2> For anybody looking for additional footing on understanding this, I found the following to be very helpful: [http://bloom-lang.net/calm/](http://bloom- lang.net/calm/)

Personally, I've never done programming on distributed systems before so please correct me if I'm off at any point. The issue seems quite clear: you want to ensure that your function mutates inputs (or returns values relative to inputs) in a predictable way with values headed in one direction-- increasing or decreasing. So, the idea of monotonicity types actually seems quite intuitive: ensure your outputs monotonicity are well-defined. It's mildly surprising this isn't something that has already been implemented.

On the other hand, could this monotonic type could be more generalized? Maybe something less two-dimensional, though perhaps this is overkill for most uses.

Also, as an aside, I don't have a Ph.D. in comp. sci, type theory, mathematics, or anything for that matter. This article was borderline gobbledygook to me and could be summarized far more succinctly (in a manner more friendly to the general programming public?)

</comment><comment><USER3> Great work and obscure enough that I'm sure one of the authors made the submission :)

If so, here are a few things that I saw while glancing over the paper (I'll read the paper in detail later):

\- you might be interested in neel krishnaswami's paper on datafun, which is a functional language that includes datalog primitives in the form of least fixed points of monotone functions. Monotonicity is tracked in the type system, so this seems very relevant.

Edit: just saw that the paper was referenced after all, my bad!

\- why do you need termination? Is it an artifact of the logical relation you use? If so, step indexing might help to relax this restriction.

<comment><USER4> I'm actually the Datafun paper's other author, so folks can AMA if they're interested in Datafun.

It's very interesting to me to see the connections and differences here:

\- Monotonicity Types and Datafun both track monotonicity, but for entirely different purposes; MT for CRDTs & distributed programming, Datafun for enforcing termination on recursive queries.

\- MT uses a refinement-type-style system, while Datafun uses a modal type system. It's not clear to me whether this is related to their different use- cases, or just an accident of history.

\- Relatedly, MT builds on an existing language (Lasp, which itself builds on Erlang), while Datafun is entirely new. MT is definitely more practical in this respect. My hope is that Datafun, while not practical to use directly yet, will have a big impact in the long run, as its namesake Datalog did, but that's just a dream :).

\- MT and Datafun both care about semilattices: MT because CRDTs are based on semilattices, and Datafun because they give a natural and general way to comprehend over sets, and also guarantee a "bottom element" for our fixed- points to start computing from.

\- Datafun has two kinds of function: monotone (preserves ordering) and discrete (could do anything). MT has _five_ qualifiers on function arguments, representing whether the function respects the ordering, inverts the ordering, disrespects the ordering, ignores the argument entirely, or returns that argument unchanged. Wow! Are all those qualifiers really necessary? Maybe. Antitone functions (order-inverting) are something we're considering adding to Datafun, at least.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Could anyone provide some intuition for what's supposed to be happening in the sample code?

<comment><USER6> The first few lines define the interface that is going to be used and its monotonicity properties. E.g. _getAt :: (m : NatMap, k : Nat) ⇒ Nat[↑ m, ? k]_ means that when you get the value of key _k_ in the map _m_ , the result is a number that increases as the map increases.

Based on the names, I guess that _getAt_ is for value access, _joinAt_ updates an entry of a map with a new value, _span_ returns the maximum key with an associated entry, _max_ is the maximum of two numbers, _emptyMap_ is a map without entries and + and > are the usual mathematical functions. The _GCounter_ type is essentially just a wrapper around maps that will be used to count things, apparently.

The function _sumCounters_ they define first unwraps the maps backing the counters and determines the maximum key that will have to be considered.

Then there's a helper function _sumCell_ which takes a key _k_ and an accumulator _acc_ containing the intermediate result for all previous keys. The helper function then checks whether all keys have been handled already, and returns the accumulator if that's the case. Otherwise it updates the accumulator with the sum of the entries for the given key in the two input maps. Then it calls itself recursively to handle the next key with the new accumulator.

The final line just starts off the helper function with an empty accumulator and the first key.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Great. 35 points and no discussion. I'd say that tells you SOMETHING about type theory.

<comment><USER8> E.g. it says: we need time to actually read the paper.

<comment><USER7> Funny. If only.</comment></comment></comment>


The Founder's Battle for Mental Health - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@tchebotarev/the-founder-s-battle-for-mental-health-c5d8eaff09c#.g7py1ntcc <comment><USER3> > This battle is the worst, because you are fighting it with yourself — not > with anyone else. It's damn hard to win against someone who knows you inside > out and knows your every weak spot (which are plenty).

This line of thinking is one of many general problems with the world. Many of us walk around fighting a battle in our head that does not exist. The last line stands out the most because it presumes there could be a winner. How can that be if you're the one who's making the rules?

It gets worse for founders because there's always something to be doing and always some problem going on. A couple of mental hops and they've now incorrectly associated their peace with the success of their business. This is bound to fail even if you do very well -- you'll always be fighting "problems".

Forgiveness goes a long way. Learning how to forgive others will teach you how to better forgive yourself and visa-versa. It's not noble to lash yourself on the back with a mental whip because you didn't live up to some superficial aim.

I don't care what happens to this stupid body of mine -- I'll die someday like the rest of you. This awareness shields me from damaging myself with superficial qualities that change with each passing whim.

Finally, I don't suggest pumping your body full of drugs to protect yourself from your thoughts. First, work with the thoughts and forgiveness then move onto drugs if they would help you better find the peace you need to forgive and let go.

<comment><USER4> > A couple of mental hops and they've now incorrectly associated their peace > with the success of their business.

This.

Personally, I find physical activity the best way to combat this. Last year I biked 4,000 miles commuting and on long weekend rides, lost 30lbs and feel super healthy physically and mentally. Now I attack situations in my business and personal life like a big hill climb. I know I am going to get through the pain, I try to embrace the pain because I know if I don't give up I will be stronger because of it.

<comment><USER5> Lost 60lbs last year and got back to a semblance of decent shape (used to be a exercise nut) that had a big effect but not the largest effect.

That came from sorting out my sleep, I set an alarm for 8am and no matter how tired I was I got up at 8am, after 3-4 days I naturally fell into a proper sleep pattern (head down around midnight, asleep by half past).

I've struggled on and off with insomnia since I was a teenager and this "up at 8 _every_ day" approach has worked really well so far, sucks getting up at 8am on a weekend when you have nothing to do but tight sleep pattern is worth more.

<comment><USER6> Valerian root and trazodone did wonders for my insomnia.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Startups can be super challenging for all of the reasons outlined in that article. We put together this guide to help explain some of the mechanics that make startups so stressful. It is primarily based on Jerry Colonna's work. He is a really good guy who has done some of the deepest thinking in this space. I highly recommend his work. You can find it here: [https://www.reboot.io](https://www.reboot.io)

The guide is here:

[http://www.7cups.com/startup-support/](http://www.7cups.com/startup-support/)

If you have thoughts/ideas on how we can make it better, then please let us know. Thanks!

</comment><comment><USER8> I'm glad to see someone discuss their internal struggles so candidly. I also have a difficult time with maintaining internal peace, and your recommendations raise an interesting point.

Human connection keeps us sane, and it's so easy to use social networks in an attempt to remain connected. But in the process, the actual connection is missed, instead giving rise to feelings such as shame, anger, and fear. I believe in the case of mental health, social networking actually amplifies internal problems because of how one-dimensional the view of others is.

How many people do you know that would post when they are feeling depressed, or anxious about their life? Maybe if we saw a more holistic view of people on our networks, they wouldn't have such a detrimental impact on mental health.

</comment><comment><USER9> Bipolar business owner here. Staying centered and level in the face of business ups and downs has been difficult. Very difficult at times. My reactions to stress and difficult situations, to successes too, are often imbalanced. Still I've remained successful. Here's how:

Talk therapy. I see a therapist weekly to keep the window's clean. To validate that what I believe isn't exaggerated by my varying states.

Medication. Very low does Lithium every night.

Sleep. I make sure I get it.

Exercise has been tough to execute on, but is proven - as much as meds - <USER2> help with bipolar and GAD.

Meditation I try to do once a week as part of yoga. I find it helps.

Family and friends who understand and can be supportive also are a huge help... but are often in the minority of people I know.

</comment><comment><USER10> I don't really see what's unique about founders here. Don't these challenges and recommendations apply to pretty much anyone trying to live a life of purpose, no matter how large or small?

</comment><comment><USER11> It's interesting that two of the six things that the author suggests negatively effect mental health are social media. I think that a better understanding of the impact of habits driven by social media will be a great step forward. Of course, they've hardly been such a pervasive force for very long, so the long-term effects could not be well understood at this point. I see this generally negative sentiment increasingly often, though, and I definitely think there's a lot of truth to it.

<comment><USER12> Social media when it is talking about your startup is particularly hard, trying to constantly manage the perceptions is a ... huge challenge (even if you don't have any internal challenges). Founding a startup is also a good way to work 9 years worth of time in 3 years (or whatever), I sort of view them like the life-extraction machine in the Princess Bride sometimes. You are constantly trying to balance all the forces, mini-max everything, wonder about what you are not doing, and it can always feel like the wheels are falling off the whole time.

I need to write a blog post on this myself very soon. Props on talking about it more, and the general theme of having more public conversations on the subject.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'm glad to see that more and more people are talking about this. People like Evgeny Tchebotarev, Rand Fishkin and Joel Gascoigne are pioneers for openly talking about depression, loneliness and stress. The dichotomy between what we really feel and what we need to show others can be really heavy and most of the times even friends and family are really open to understand what's going on.

<comment><USER14> One way to be able to discuss depression and stress is objectively like in this video animation of how selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors work.[1] Prozac, described in this video, is used to treat both panic attacks and depression. Constant stress from triggers like a boss who insistently attacks and berates or from endless hours working on a project can deplete available serotonin which the body produces at a certain rate. Stress untreated can also in people with genetic preposition trigger more severe diseases like bipolar borderline personality disorder and schizophrenia. There are other chemical systems at play such as dopamine and epinephrine[2]. Another way to deplete available stores of serotonin is using MDMA (ecstasy) which releases all the stored serotonin in the brain at once, however, that chemical requires about three days without stress triggers to rebuild during which time a user will likely experience panic attacks which users often counter with SSRI or THC.

We can mitigate these problems with drugs or by natural means such as learning how thought patterns effect chemical states of the mind, having a low stress job, work in a high stress job without giving a shit -- care without caring, eating healthy balanced foods, and most important daily exercise.

A founder needs to realize that stressors are important motivators for productivity but they effect chemical balances in the body which hasn't evolved much in the last 40,000 years. Different employees will have different coping mechanisms and different types of chemical balances. When the chemical balances start to become off kilter there are several signs verbal and physical such as irritability and heavy shallow breathing. It helps to have an intuitive sense of these and make sure an employee doesn't cross a threshold or in the case an employee does it is a worthwhile investment to help.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElJaPZtSHoU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElJaPZtSHoU)

[2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejq99wLEMTw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejq99wLEMTw)

<comment><USER15> Not to rain on your parade, but the mechanism of SSRI drugs in depression is unknown. They do affect serotonin and they appear to work (although how well they work is questionable), but it's far more likely to be something downstream that isn't necessarily related to the serotonin.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The stress, fear, euphoria, depression associated with starting a startup is not natural (or at least not normal) and I'm sure most founders experience emotions on a level that would qualify them as mentally ill at some point. I've just accepted that it comes with the territory.

</comment><comment><USER17> Public Service Announcement.

If you are ill, go see a doctor. Skip the travel, spiritual enlightenment, and other ad-hoc treatment; cut to the chase - visit a psychiatrist. If you wouldn't treat your own diabetes, you shouldn't treat your own mental health.

Often times an afflicted person would not have the energy to make the visit, precisely due to the condition that needs treatment. If this happens to you, ask your friends for help.

<comment><USER18> > If you wouldn't treat your own diabetes, you shouldn't treat your own mental > health.

I treat my physical health on my own all the time. I take DayQuil, I take time off, I lay on the couch and watch TV. Heck, I injured my arm 3 months ago (tendonitis), and after 2 months of self-treatment, I felt like I wasn't doing enough, so I went to the doctor and they told me I was doing everything I could and there was nothing more they could do for me.

I absolutely treat my mental health on my own, and I recommend everybody do it. It's not some bright line that you cross where you're all of a sudden "broken" and need a mechanic to fix it. It's the fuzzy art/science of medicine that absolutely requires patient cooperation and introspection to fix.

<comment> k-mcgrady I don't want to come off too accusatory here but both your statement and the parents are damaging in my opinion. Depending on your issues you may be able to treat your own physical health and mental health but in both scenarios there may come a time when you require professional help. It may be different depending on where a person lives but for me there is no cost in visiting the doctor or getting mental health treatment. So in the example you gave of your arm it would make most sense to go to a doctor immediately rather than spend several months self treating when they may have a much more effective solution to the problem. Also, for mental health in the UK you general require a referral which can take several months so the longer you delay going to the doctor the longer you have to live with the issue. It doesn't apply in your case but it may in others. Not only may you get a solution immediately instead of spending months self-treating unsuccessfully but you may prevent the damage getting worse and in the case of mental health you can spiral downwards pretty quickly. I would say that if you recognise you have a mental health issue you should seek immediate professional help as if you let it get worse you can easily get to a point where you no longer have the right frame of mind to seek treatment even though it is even more necessary.

<comment><USER18> Right, totally understood. My point is that there are shades of grey.

\- My arm. Did I mention this is the 3rd time I've hurt it this way? Since I'd seen this scenario before, I had heard professional opinion on how to treat it.+

\- The cost. Time cost is real. In my case (and most founders), time is more valuable than money.

Should we encourage more people to talk to more professionals than do today? Sure, yes, I do think so. But we should also encourage people to self-educate and self-treat. Those aren't at odds with each other.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Does Stripe Atlas Make Sense for Canadians? - <AUTHOR> Wondering what if any advantages there is using Stripe Atlas to incorporate a delaware company as a Canadian?<p>My main motive is to sell on AWS Marketplace after reading about the monetization blog post. <comment><USER2> Quite a few Canadian entrepreneurs are getting started with Atlas. You'll be able to incorporate a U.S. company, get a U.S. bank account, and accept payments with a U.S. Stripe account. This means you can charge in 139 different currencies, and if you plan on having a lot of U.S. sales, you might see lower decline rates and cross-border fees. Card networks and U.S. banks can be a bit finicky with cross-border transactions, so having a U.S. entity could help for Candadian businesses. We're happy to help with any questions at firstname.lastname@example.com.

<comment><AUTHOR> I've gone ahead and made the $500 USD payment. Anxious to hear the next steps! :)

<comment><USER2> Mind shooting me an email with the email address you signed up with? firstname.lastname@example.com

<comment><AUTHOR> cc'd you on an existing support email! thank you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I will not speak of the business case associated with using Stripe Atlas.

There are some tax considerations. It is not generally a good idea for Canadians to own US LLCs unless you know exactly what you're doing and why you are doing so. The below analysis assumes "C" status, as "S" status is not permitted for non-US person unit-holders.

In the United States, US LLCs are generally disregarded entities and profits will be taxed in the hands of the unit-holders. From a US perspective, a non- resident will thus receive the flow-through earnings from the US LLC and be required to pay tax as a non-resident individual to the IRS. Note: You'll be required to register the LLC and yourself with the IRS.

Canadian law does not recognize flow-through entities except in the case of partnerships and certain trusts. The US LLC, therefore, will be considered a non-resident corporation and the proceeds (the flow through income) will be treated as a foreign dividend in Canada. You will pay Canadian personal income tax on that.

Because the IRS tax profits in the year incurred, and Canada will tax in the year distributed, frequently you will be unable to utilize a foreign tax credit in Canada for the taxes paid in the United States. Historically, there was also the issue with the tax credit being in the name of the corporate LLC, and as it does not match your personal name, it cannot be utilized, but if I remember correctly the latest Protocol may have addressed that.

The above deals with the general aspects of taxation in the US and Canada. There's another important point and that is permanent establishment. The US LLC will have a permanent establishment in Canada if you run and manage the LLC from Canada. Canada's CRA will require the US LLC to submit a corporate tax return in Canada as well and pay branch tax of 25% on profits (reduced to 5% under the US-CA tax treaty).

A few other issues:

\- Interest in foreign companies require form T1134 - Information Return Relating To Controlled and Not-Controlled Foreign Affiliates [1] be filed each year with the CRA. This tax form summarizes the balance sheet and income statement and associated tax treatment in the foreign jurisdictions. It is painful.

\- If you have a bank account with over CAD 100,000 in cash, you must also file form T1135 Foreign Income Verification Statement [2].

\- You will not have access to the Canadian Small Business Deduction as the US LLC is not considered a CCPC (Canadian-Controlled Private Corporation).

\- You will not have access to the $750,000 lifetime Capital Gains Deduction on the sale of your business. (On a related note, sale of a LLC will require tax filings in both countries.)

\- You will not have access to a dividend tax credit on dividends received from the corporation. (Although, the combined tax paid in Canada in either situation may be similar--some Excel magic is required to see the tax loss under both scenarios.)

\- There are many US IRS forms to be filed too, but I'm not going to itemize them here now.

In conclusion, US LLCs for Canadians are hideously complicated and require careful thought and consideration as it will trigger an avalanche of forms and filings and make the tax planning situation very difficult for your tax adviser.

My personal opinion is that Canadians should stick to numbered provincial or federal incorporation. The overall compliance burden will be much lower and I suspect you can have access to whatever US LLCs have access to with a bit of extra effort. A Canadian company can relatively easily get a US bank account and I would presume merchant-related services, though I have not done that myself.

Basis: I'm a Canadian international tax adviser.

[1] [http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pbg/tf/t1134/README.html](http://www.cra- arc.gc.ca/E/pbg/tf/t1134/README.html) [2] [http://www.cra- arc.gc.ca/E/pbg/tf/t1135/README.html](http://www.cra- arc.gc.ca/E/pbg/tf/t1135/README.html)

</comment><comment><USER4> Can you run a US company from Canada? I'm pretty sure CRA are just going to say "that's a Canadian company".</comment>


Programming's Dirtiest Little Secret (2008) - <AUTHOR> http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2008/09/programmings-dirtiest-little-secret.html

<comment><USER2> Typing tutors: [http://alternativeto.net/software/rapid-typing- tutor/](http://alternativeto.net/software/rapid-typing-tutor/)

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't want to type faster than I can think.

</comment><comment><USER4> Programming is more about getting it right than typing faster than everyone else. Quality takes time, you have to watch your syntax. You have to follow your design, make sure the code all fits together.

You aren't typing a letter, you are typing source code. You make a mistake in a letter, nobody cares and few notice it. You make a mistake in your source code, and compile, you have to go hunting for that bug.

Sure I worked with programmers that did 60wpms, I always had to help them find the errors in their source code. I always had to take time away from what I do to help them. I type with just two fingers like Scotty from Star Trek, but I debug better and write a better quality code.</comment>


How to Get Rich Trading Bitcoin - <AUTHOR> http://www.cringely.com/2017/04/04/get-rich-trading-bitcoins/ <comment><USER2> I found nothing helpful in this article. The OP talks a lot but then come up to you and say "Buy the Dip, Sell the _peak_ ". Yeah, sure. But is it really that simple if you don't pick the dates?

Let's say you started very lately on this game: You bought on Oct 08 at 588. You then sold after a 20% gain: That is, you sold at 708 around Nov 12. Now the price of bitcoin doesn't correct, it goes up full retard to 1160. Then correct to 850. You buy there and "Boom", bitcoin still dump again to 740. Now you are faced with a hard choice: Hold the trade until you make profit, or dump it and "get the fuck out".

My experience is: Stress and uncertainly will play a huge role and you'll make the mistake of dumping at 740 and only see the price rises later.

The OP's suggested trade is simply a retarded market making strategy. If you are down for some business, at least do it right.

<comment><USER3> >...goes up full retard

haha

I bought late, I'm wondering why watching it real time drop in rice by potentially hundreds, at least I consider it disposable income

edit: what I'm considering is selling if it goes up twice what I put into it, to at least get what I put in then keep what I have, and let it fluctuate. But I realize I'd miss out on the "compounding interest" by having more to increase than less.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> There is very little substance to this article. This is the core "strategy":

"This suggests my new Bitcoin trading strategy, which I admit I have only tried so far on paper. [...] Bitcoins go down in value when the demand for them as transaction instruments decreases. When that Russian oligarch sells his shiftload of Bitcoins for US dollars, Bitcoin value goes down. When that happens — when Bitcoin prices drop by 20 percent or more — BUY! The price will inevitably come back up, I assure you.

When Bitcoin prices rise by 20 percent or more — SELL! You just made 40 percent on your money.

Rinse, repeat, automate, get rich."

This is also known as gambling. I'm not judging gamblers, but if it were so easy, the author of this post would have implemented it in a few lines of code and actually gotten rich instead of writing a muddy, unclear piece of trivialities.

<comment><USER5> Let me summarise it a bit more for you.

Buy low, sell high.

<comment><USER6> Yeah, lol, how low is low? how high is high? I mean this got to be the most meaningless sentence ever.

<comment><USER7> That's the point of the summary. The blog post had no substance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Perhaps I'm reading this wrong but he would have done better just sitting on the coins rather than trying to trade them.

He claims with his method he started with $100 and bought Bitcoins valued at .05 which means he could have bought 2,000 BTC at this time.

He claims his method netted a profit of roughly $20,000.00. BTC is trading at $1143.00 right now.

If he would have bought those 2,000 coins and sold them right now he would have proceeds of $2,286,000.00, essentially all profit as it started from a $100 investment. Plus he'd be paying a long term capital gains tax and not the many short term taxes he'd have paid by day trading BTC.

I suppose buy and hold would have been the better strategy.

<comment><USER9> Buy and hold is only a good strategy if you have a diverse portfolio. The goal of the strategy is then to keep the value of your assets, and maybe make a nice percentage associated with growing economies.

If you are operating however with an edge on the market, that is to say you have knowledge you think some percentage of the market does not have. For example you profoundly believe that Bitcoin will increase in value, as the author of the article does.

In that case, buy and hold is only a mediocre strategy. At most you will make whatever the percentage is that the asset will grow.

If instead you make use of the idea that between now and the mystical future bitcoin value increase, it will go both up and down, you can come up with strategies that make you more money than that value increase.

I think it's possible to come up with a strategy that are guaranteed to make you more money, based solely off those two assumptions "Eventually it will increase" and "there will be fluctuations". Some simple ones I've come up with I think come close to it, but I've never dared to execute any of them. I wonder if there's people here who have.

<comment><USER8> It would appear that in this instance his strategy of trading the asset numerous times over the years has led to significantly less yield than if he would have bought and held.

If you have an edge on the market there's a good chance you're either breaking the law or deluding yourself. Not that some people haven't found legal edges and made vast fortunes from them - sophisticated mathematicians have for instance. But there's many more who confused dumb luck for alpha and ended up underperforming the market or broke over time.

You're right though - buy and hold is generally best applied to a diverse set of assets. If you're making direct plays on companies and have little ability to influence the board and leadership then that's a lot of unhedged risk. Warren Buffet's advice is often confused with making directional stock plays. He buys enough to get board seats and can influence the direction of the company and has a track record of doing this well. Regular people will never have enough of a bankroll to qualify for a board seat or have influence on the management.

And yes, many day traders and swing traders have some strategies based on short term changes in an asset but taxes are the killer. Short term capital gains are taxed the same as labor but with considerably more risk.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I find it sad that crypto currency with it's really useful interesting features is seen, almost exclusively, as a vehicle for investment thrill rides (ie get-rich-quick bullshit).

Wouldn't be nice to have crypto-currency where the focus is simply as a robust and secure medium in which to exchange goods and services? Am I missing something fundamental about currency in wishing this?

<comment><USER11> That's the view traditional financial market people have, and also the view that they have of apple.

Their perspective is not the only one, but definitely the sexy one that media can profit from.

As for the exchange of services, that is the basis of ethereum. Instead of computing Sha(Sha()) over and over again, the mining network is a global turing-complete computer designed around arbiterless smart-contracts.

<comment><USER12> Ethereum is still doing pointless hash crunching, just with Keccak-256 instead. The energy wastage will go away with a move to PoS

Regardless, the smart contract computing is still removed from the consensus mechanism.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> The trading strategy aside.

The interesting part is that Bitcoin (or crypto in general) represents a limited supply commodity that will (eventually) start to decrease in available supply because it's also used as an active currency.

The users of it as an active currency (as opposed to the users of it as an investment) are price insensitive and don't care what they pay to borrow bitcoin for a few seconds. As long as volatility isn't crazy those few seconds, they are in and out of it as a store of value immediately.

That activity further limits supply. That's the thesis. Limited and dwindling supply along with having an active use that's price insensitive.

Hence his claim that apart from short-term volatility, as long as it increases it's use as a currency, it's long-term value must rise.

</comment><comment><USER13> > growing $100 to $21,638.88 (almost a 220X profit) in about 6.5 years.

If he had just bought bitcoin and held it, its value (20000 BTC) would be currently worth north of 20 mil. usd.

<comment><USER14> the domain name -is- "cringely.com"...

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> For the majority of people:

How to end up with $5 million trading X:

 _Start with $20 million_

</comment><comment><USER16> Dollars work fine as a transfer currency as well, given the short transaction time.

1\. I order A Thing from ThingSupplier for $1000.

2\. I direct MajorBank to transfer $1000 to ThingSupplier from my account.

3\. Underpants gnomes at ThingSupplier coordinate with Shipper.

4\. I receive A Thing (now, The Thing) from Shipper.

There's no need to waste money in conversion fees.

What am I missing here?

Unless you're into high-speed trading, etc., the volatility of a currency is not going to have an effect, because prices don't update that fast, because ThingSupplier is not going to tie their prices to fast-fluctuating currency value. Doing that would Not Be In The Interests of their Customers.

(Capped words because why not.)

</comment><comment><USER17> He discovered reversion to the mean.

I made some money doing that. I made more just sitting on coins.

<comment><USER18> Just sitting on it is predicated on an upward trend, while his "strategy" is predicated on mean reversion. Which one will it be? Who knows.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> IMO, also as an observer since it started, Bitcoin is media driven. Every time it reaches new peaks it gains attention in media/blogs/etc until it something bad happens like a hack/etc to trigger a sell off and it falls out of favor of media. Eventually it repeats. It may be getting to a point where it doesn't feel beta. It's a viable alternative when crazy economic things are going on in India/China/etc and it starts actually becoming the thing it's supposed to be: currency. Then, limited trading volume drives prices up.

</comment><comment><USER20> I have yet to see a strategy that passes this simple test: does it also work if there are other people, most of them more knowledgeable about the market than you, applying similar strategies?

Also, "Why I don't trade stocks and neither should you": [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6831461](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6831461)

</comment><comment><USER21> The strategy is always either flat or long bitcoin. If bitcoin is only going up in value it's hard not to make money. I'd be interested if his position oscillated between short and long if it would be profitable?

</comment><comment><USER22> You're not going to get "rich" only investing $100 at a time. It's a good strategy if you're buying Bitcoin to hedge against fiat though.

<comment><USER23> $100 of AMZN stock in 2001 is worth about $9,000 today.

Investing is easy if you have a time machine or can predict the future.

<comment><USER22> Yeah, and $100 of Bitcoin in 2011 is worth $100,000 today. But like you said, you have to know the future to only invest in wild successes.

<comment><USER24> Or you could be a curious nerd like me who bought coins on IRC at 3$ a pop trying to figure out what the hell this new thing is.

A problem for me now is what the hell to do with all these coins since I am fairly sure i would lose half in taxes (Capital gains, Ireland), and I doubt exchanges would accept "I bought them #bitcoin-otc back in the day" as a valid source of funds and not report me to authorities.

On bright side can go mad shopping on Amazon and holidaying via Expedia

<comment><USER25> Use them to start a business, then you can dump the coins into the business and not have to pay personal income tax. Otherwise all other schemes just lead to tax evasion unless you cash some out via localbitcoins.com while on holiday. In Thailand my friends "bank" is a service that converts his bitcoin wallet to ATM codes to withdraw without a card.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>