Why I'm not hiring - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052748704017904575409733776372738-lMyQjAxMTAwMDAwODEwNDgyWj.html

<comment><USER2> I believe state & federal taxes existed 3-4 years ago when unemployment was at 5% so I'm not sure how it's relevant to the current unemployment situation. Also as a rule anyone who uses the term "ObamaCare" has an agenda so I just assume he's either lying or misrepresenting the situation with a 28% increase in health care costs. I wouldn't expect anything less from WSJ -- taxes bad, Obama bad. Maybe we'll start hiring again when you elect some Republicans.

<comment><USER3> > Also as a rule anyone who uses the term "ObamaCare" has an agenda

Everyone stop and think for a second - do you hold yourself to the same standard of debate as you hold the other side to? Would you, jsz0, call out a user of the word "teabagger" as coming from someone with an agenda? It's the same level of discourse.

A lot of people get upset when their ideal gets hit with a tacky dismissive label while simultaneously trying to slap one on the other side.

<comment><USER2> I try to. I don't use the term "teabagger"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> "Companies have also been pressed into serving as providers of health insurance. In a saner world, health insurance would be something that individuals buy for themselves and their families, just as they do with auto insurance. Now, adding to the insanity, there is ObamaCare."

Actually, in the saner world, companies don't have to worry about health insurance because it's provided by the government.

<comment><USER5> _Actually, in the saner world, companies don't have to worry about health insurance because it's provided by the government._

Should the government also be providing even more necessary items like food, housing, and transportation?

<comment><USER6> > food, housing and transportation

Dole money, food vouchers, council houses, roads and subsidized public transport. They pretty much already do and I have no problem with my taxes paying for that.

Think of it from an entrepreneur's perspective. The bigger the safety net the higher you can jump.

<comment><USER7> _Think of it from an entrepreneur's perspective. The bigger the safety net the higher you can jump._

And yet, the UK is hardly known as a startup greenhouse. In fact quite the opposite. Now why do you think that is?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Wait, I don't get it. What is he proposing as an alternative? Would he be happier to pay Sally $74,000 so that she herself can do the whole process of paying $30,000 for taxes and health care and stuff like that? Or is he proposing to pay sally $44,000 and let Sally pay $30,000 out of _that_? Or is he just whining?

<comment><USER9> just whining. he could, instead, hire freelance or contract workers. he won't have to pay much to the government, he'll just have to pay the contractor double what he pays Sally.

<comment><USER10> I don't know how it works in the US. In Canada, if a business hires someone on contract but they are not in an "arms-length" transaction (ie. the 'contractor' is working in their office, using their equipment for more than a 'temporary' period of time), then the Canadian Revenue Agency can force the business to re-classify them as an "employee" causing both the person and company to pay back-taxes and any penalties.

<comment><USER9> i honestly don't know the details of the current US laws, but i do know that i've worked in a team with reasonably permanent, in-house contractors before.

<comment><USER11> And that company was likely breaking the law in the state in which they operated. If CA, MA, WA, or most others.

CA and many other states are now going after companies that hire contractors to do the work that is usually done by employees (and they use their own definition of "employee", too). They will hit you with fines and back employment taxes should you be audited. How would you be audited? A contractor files for unemployment, to which they are not entitled (because unemployment taxes are not paid for them). It happens all the time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> What total utter crap. Taxes is the price you pay for a civilized society, and the US has far less taxes that most western countries, and as a result is arguably less civilized. Millionaires whining to other millionaires in the WSJ. Spare me.

<comment><USER13> He has to make the calculation about hiring people. If he doesn't feel comfortable hiring he shouldn't. Why do you feel as though you're in a position to tell him what his reasons are or should be?

Taxes take money out of the private sector and thus reduce the pool of capital for private sector job creation. Our taxes go to fund bankers and wars. That's why we're in such bad shape. If they went to build roads and bridges no one would care so much.

<comment><USER14> Yeah, except he's not actually calculating. He's just delivering a pre- scripted rant with a little argument to authority, "I make hiring decisions". Great, I feel better.

He's paying almost as much for his end of the health insurance as the total tax take. What's he whine about? Taxes. Who's providing more bang for the buck, the health insurance company or the relevant federal, state and local governments? Does he have kids in school?

Does this guy even look at his own numbers?

<comment><USER12> I would be very surprised if his kids go to a state school with the plebs.

<comment><USER15> Whether his kids go to "state school" or not, he is still taxed as if they did.

<comment><USER14> And here we find the real complaint. His tax burden compared to his health insurance is probably much higher.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> It's interesting how his private insurer raising rates is obviously "ObamaCare"'s fault. Like all businesses, insurers raise prices because they _can_ , thanks to market position, scarcity and all the other usual factors (distorted, as the health insurance market is, by oligopoly-entrenching state regulations that have little to do with the Affordable Care Act).

<comment><USER16> To elaborate a bit - it just really struck me as bizarre that he's basically giving his insurer a pass for raising his prices, because it's "business", and business can do no wrong - as a fellow businessman, he understands the plight of the insurance company. But all the money that's collected in taxes, in his mind, goes into the black hole of Washington & Trenton - including not just the somewhat-opaque things like income tax (which indirectly funds his and Sally's roads, schools, police force and wars abroad) but things like disability & unemployment insurance, which it seems like Sally might need if he has a bad day.

<comment><USER14> Welcome to the mind of the Republican.

This guy probably spent 8 years defending the Bush deficits and discovered he was a fiscal hawk on January 29, 2009. Until 2016, that is, or earlier if he's lucky.

<comment><USER17> To those upvoting this speculation about the author's frame of mind, why does this add to the conversation? To my mind, it distracts from the argument by focusing on the arguer. Is this TPM?

<comment><USER18> Understanding the motivation behind irrational thinking usually requires some degree of focus on the one doing the thinking.

And just for the record, I've been a registered Republican since I turned 18, and I've also noticed this sudden surge of fiscal hawkishness in the party. This isn't liberal bas talking.

This also isn't to say the guy is necessarily being disingenuous. Just that somebody in his chain of trust is playing politics and that's causing him to form opinions that aren't entirely rational.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> The author has an agenda. However he also has a point.

During the Bush recovery there was much complaining about how salaries didn't go up. Well it turns out that the amount spent by employers on employees did go up at normal rates for a recovery. However increasing health care costs absorbed that surplus, and employees did not directly see more. In fact employees got moved to crappier plans and so saw less income.

It is too early to tell whether Obama's plan is going to cost us all more or less than the distorted market has been costing. But it is certain that the USA cannot long afford to let current cost trends continue unchecked.

</comment><comment><USER20> $74,000 to put $44,000 in Sally's pocket and to give her $12,000 in benefits.

Employees get to keep more the 75% of what the company spends for them? (56k / 74k) Employees in Italy and Scandinavia countries barely get 50% of what companies pays them...

<comment><USER21> Yep, move to Sweden and he'd be shelling out some 90k to put $44000 in his employees pockets (46% payroll tax, 5-15% social security, then 30% income tax on that).. And then there's the 25% sales tax.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> It's worse then outlined in the article. Sally also pays other taxes with her "net" income. If she rents, her rent is certainly higher because of the landlords property taxes. If not, she pays it herself. Then there is sales taxes and excise taxes to may. Truth be told, of the money that the employer pays to keep her employed, only a little more then half of it ends up in her pocket.

Here is a huge _opinion_ that could be incorrect. Most people work for what they need to live. If it becomes more expensive to live, Sally will want a raise. If it's cheaper to live, she won't be so pissed when she doesn't get a raise. The bottom line is all that matters to most people. Therefore, no matter what taxes are created, purported to be income tax and what not, are paid by businesses.

What does this mean in practice? It means that by having incoming taxes at all, we are encouraging business to hire people outside of the US. The only way to level the playing fields, as far as I can see, would be to shift the taxes from income to sales. I don't know if that is plausible or not, but it's the only way I can see the US government really encouraging job growth here in the US. It would mean that no matter where your company does it's business, if it uses the US market, it has to pay the piper, and would give a real shot to US workers at competing with other world-wide workers.

<comment><USER23> Shifting taxes to sales, especially in a significant way, will just dampen aggregate demand, and push us into a deeper and longer recession. (See a comment I made here, on an article that didn't get any front-page time about states looking to raise revenue by taxing online sales: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1513784>)

An alternative solution is to tax the unused value of illiquid capital like land. Unlike income and sales taxes, which act as _dis_ incentives on economic exchange, this kind of tax acts as an incentive for exchange, production, and employment: if you own capital which is not being put to use, this tax is either an incentive to put it to use or to sell it to someone who will.

This isn't a new idea. It was put forward by Henry George in _Progress and Poverty_ in 1879: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_and_Poverty> (Disclaimer: I haven't read the book, but I did buy it recently and it's on my to-read list.)

<comment><USER24> This is actually the economic argument for low levels of inflation.

<comment><USER23> Can you elaborate, please?

<comment><USER24> It forces people to be more aggressive with their investments if they want to maintain wealth. If your making 15% ROI each year 2% inflation is nothing, if you make 2.5% ROI each year inflation is going to crush you. Now which one of those people has demonstrated a better utilization of capital?

Consider property taxes: if your ranch makes 100k / year many people will haply keep doing that for sentimental reasons, if however the land is worth 50 million and you need to pay 100k in taxes each year you will sell it to someone who will use the resource more productively.

It also eats away at debt. So if say the housing market is under water inflation is going to help people get out from their debt load.

PS: Or consider what happens with 20% deflation, what would you invest in?

<comment><USER23> Ah, I see: the argument is that we ought to try to maintain a little inflation, but not too much, because it acts as an incentive for better capital utilization.

Perhaps I'm being thick, but I'm still unsure: when you say, "Actually, this is the argument for low inflation," do you mean that we should focus on maintaining a low level of inflation _instead_ of taxing underutilized capital? or _in addition_ to it? or that, in policy terms, they're two sides of the same coin?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Sounds like he should move his company to Canada. He could replace $10,000 in private health insurance with $5,000 in extra taxes.

<comment><USER19> Better yet, Canada has a balanced budget. The US situation gets even worse when you add in unfunded future liabilities each year.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Fair enough; perhaps we should make the system a bit more progressive. Perhaps if FICA weren't capped at ~$100K, we could reduce Sally's share of the burden? Or if we eliminated any number of corporate-tax loopholes, or agribusiness subsidies, or defense spending, we could reduce personal income tax rates?

<comment><USER26> > Perhaps if FICA weren't capped at ~$100K, we could reduce Sally's share of > the burden?

Are you planning to uncap benefits? If you do, Ross Perot gets $400k/year. If you don't, rich people start caring about SS. Those are the reasons why Social Security advocates used to like the cap. Were they wrong?

FWIW, SS payouts are very progressive. Folks on the low end get a reasonable return on their contributions. Folks near/at the cap get a crappy deal. The rich ones don't care because of the cap.

<comment><USER24> It's not a binary choice, you can have uncapped benefits hand Bill G 5 million a year, and give them exactly as crappy a ROI as I get.

Edit: This would also really help out aging athletes / rock stars / actors who make a lot of money when they are young and then run out.

<comment><USER26> > It's not a binary choice, you can have uncapped benefits hand Bill G 5 > million a year, and give them exactly as crappy a ROI as I get.

Crappy payout was assumed in the "Ross Perot gets $400k/year".

It has two huge political problems - folks will scream about large payouts to rich folk and rich folk will fight the crappy ROI.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> You can read all about Michael Fleischer and his "re-building" of Iraq by removing government subsidies to state owned businesses: [http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2004/jan/17/weekend7.w...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2004/jan/17/weekend7.weekend6)

He's a neo-con of the highest order, so take his "Joe Biz" spiel with a grain of salt, he certainly has an agenda.

</comment><comment><USER28> How much money does Sally bring in to the company? The unexamined part of the equation.

<comment><USER29> Exactly, if Sally only brings in $30K / yr, BYE BYE Sally! Otherwise, if she allows the guy to bring in another $150K, the guy should quite whining and hire a few more.

Never miss an opportunity for a good libertarian rant, though, at the Journal I guess.

Oh, and it should have read: costs 74K to give her 56K in pay and benefits -- 18K in taxes.

<comment><USER30> Sally may not bring in enough to cover her own pay. Instead, she might enable someone else to bring that much in. You know, like programmers do.

<comment><USER28> So is she a force multiplier? Part of a tandem or group role? You can't just say that she brings indirect revenue as an excuse for not discussing what she adds.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> The logical conclusion I get from this article is that if the government wants to improve hiring, they should remove all income taxes on people making <$100k a year, and tax business profits to compensate. Also increase taxes on those making >$100k to discourage upper-middle class and uber-rich hiring.

I don't think that's the solution he's looking for, but I didn't hear him offer one.

<comment><USER32> The solution is for government to cut its spending. But that brings up an interesting question. Has any government in history ever significantly cut its spending and reduced its taxes for the long-term benefit of its people, without a violent revolution?

<comment><USER31> It's clear that that would benefit the OP, but your assertion that it would be to the long-term benefit of the people is completely opinion. You take any piece of government spending and cut it, there's a rational argument as to why cutting it would cause serious harm in the long term, and many of those arguments are stronger than the reverse.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Taking home 66% after taxes / healthcare is considered normal in large parts of the world, so why are Americans so much more likely to make a fuss about it? [Edit: jswinghammer enlightened me below: "Our taxes go to fund bankers and wars." That indeed may make a big difference. Over here in Europe I feel most of my taxes do good, not evil. So I'm kinda ok with them.]

<comment><USER34> That's exactly right. We don't get even a tiny fraction of what you get for your ~50%+, or would get for ~35%.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> The OECD publishes an extensive comparison of tax burdens on wage income in various OECD countries: <http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/44/2/1942506.xls>

Some key numbers, at average wage: US 34.4%, UK 38.8%, Germany 63.3%, France 52.0%, Japan 34.2%, Hungary 71.5%

<comment><USER36> You get free health care in the UK though. Also, you pay much less for university, well for now anyway. It used to be free only 4 years ago!

<comment><USER35> Health care, etc. are indeed covered by taxes here in the UK, but the bottom line adds up the same anyway.

Obviously, the services different countries "provide" for your income tax vary by country; some countries provide "free" healthcare, some offer high (perhaps sometimes too high) unemployment benefits, while others decide to wage wars instead to protect their interests overseas.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> This is a ridiculous article. By ignoring the reality and focusing on only a small aspect of the economy, the author attempts to covey the idea that the current tax structure is not only bad for business, but bad for employees.

The author suggests that his company pays $74,000 to get $44,000 into his employee's, Sally's, pocket. The tone used implies that the other $30,000 is purely a waste. The key point conveniently ignored, however, is where that $30,000 goes. He mentions the abstract ideas of state and federal taxes, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, Medicare, and Social Security.

If we assume the author would be happy eliminating all taxes and insurance payments, we're left with a range of possibilities; he wants Sally to have between $44,000 and $74,000. Considering the article's purpose is to suggest he's not hiring because he doesn't believe Sally is worth $74,000 and we can eliminate the high-end (let's take of the top 10% and put Sally's max at about $66,000).

Starting from the $44,000 figure. $7,322 of that would have to go toward a supplemental system for Social Security. It's not government backed and Sally has to spend time managing her investments. As we've all recently learned, even without making any mistakes herself, she stands to lose a lot of money if the stock market fails. $1,712 would be spent on supplementing Medicare. The $12,000 in benefits would have to come from somewhere, in this worst-case for Sally, we'll take it out of her pocket. Without paying taxes, Sally must pay however much the privatized school charges her. She must pay the privatized police force to protect her. She must pay the privatized fire station in case there is a fire. She'll pay tolls for every road she uses to get to and from work. I'm sure the author enjoys the ability the company has to lay off workers, so Sally will have to put back some money in case she becomes suddenly unemployed or temporarily disabled. That's $275 for the author today -- but Sally wouldn't have the benefit of a collective pool of funds, so she'd have to build up a buffer very quickly. So far, we're well above $21,309 not counting the costs to which we've failed to attributed any value (police, fire, roads, schools, et cetera). Let's assume those and associated services currently provided by the government are a very reasonable $8,691 per year (many private schools would be beyond Sally's reach). Whereas the author would save $30,000 to put the same $44,000 in Sally's pocket, just to maintain her standard of living today, she would need to easily spend that $30,000 out of her own pocket. Whereas the employer might then be willing to hire someone, Sally wouldn't be willing to work. Well, actually, she wouldn't have any choice but to work or die.

What about the magnanimous author who'll now pay Sally $66,000? Well, she'd bring home $66,000 and immediately spend $30,000 to pay for all the gaps that taxation left. Which means she'll effectively receive $36,000. That sucks for Sally and distills the author's argument down to: he wants to place the burden squarely on the shoulders of the workers so he can save money.

Obviously any employer will only spend as much on an employee as they make from having hired that employee. So, either Sally creates $74,000 in wealth or more OR she doesn't. That's the bottom line. Stop trying to blame taxation when the reality of the proposed system merely punishes the employee to the additional benefit (beyond the value already created by the employee for the company) of the employer.

Also, please note the multitude of public services I failed to mention which are supported with taxation. Research, universities, military, postal services, social services, public health, water, sewage, oversight and regulation... Without these, Sally's standard of living would likely be much worse than it is today.

<comment><USER37> By the way, you ~could~ argue that Sally could get by with less money for Social Security, Medicare, and benefits. It wouldn't work, though, as it would be predicated on the idea that individual endeavors would be more sustainable than large-scale investments among an aggregate population. Even if we opened these services up for private enterprise, it's unlikely that they would operate as efficiently or more than the government bodies. Some people take that as a maxim, but they don't evaluate the services currently offered with the appropriate considerations. The most notable of which is "Caveat Emptor." Private enterprise can cut corners and save money, sure -- but someone's paying the cost. In no research that I've seen do private industries significantly out perform government institutions without a lot of cajoling and numerical torture.

The postal service is a frequent scapegoat here. Yet, the price of a stamp has been nearly constant when evaluated based on purchasing power and inflation. Further, try doing a cost comparison between FedEx, UPS, and the USPS for the same package. I've worked in shipping and receiving and both FedEx and UPS have more than their fair share of delivery issues and damages. Yet, I get bills and letters in the mail _very_ regularly and reliably. Go figure.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> He lost credibility with me somewhat when he threw out the term Obamacare. I think it's a tactic by the Right meant to be derogatory by implying that somehow only Obama wanted it or designed it. In reality, many people contributed to it and shaped it, and the majority of Americans polled wanted major health care reform and the majority of Congress passed it.

That said, the OA author made points I agree with that it seems unfair and inefficient to require businesses to perform tasks and provide services which are unrelated to their core business, and arguably should be the responsibility of individuals or the government. I hate the fact that businesses are involved in providing health care for employees, it seems horribly inefficient and out-of-place. Businesses should only pay cash to employees, ideally, since that is most efficient and the most transparent and ungameable. Employees should then get health care from the market and/or from the government.

</comment><comment><USER39> Not from the US, but I don't understand his issues with taxes. What does change for his company if Sally has to pay higher taxes? Wouldn't it just mean that Sally ends up with less cash, not with his company having to pay more.

Is it mandatory now to offer health insurance to employees? How has this system of companies arranging for the health insurance emerged? I can only guess: providing health insurance is a way of giving employees a tax free bonus (like a company car, or free food)?

<comment><USER40> Presumably he is contracted to pay Sally $59,000 gross + some level of benefits. But his costs to pay this are higher ($74,000). Presumably as taxes rise, he will still have to pay Sally $59,000 gross + the same level of benefits, and his own costs will have increased. He is unable to pass on the full cost of a tax rise to Sally.

From what I understand, the health insurance situation has arisen due to buying power. It is impossible for Sally to buy her own insurance at the same rate that her company can do it (even ignoring any tax breaks).

<comment><USER39> That could explain it, but it seems weird. In my country salary is usually negotiated pre-tax, and I think in this case it makes sense.

But is there a law to set up salaries that way? He cites it as a reason for not hiring, so presumably he could just negotiate salaries post-tax and do away with the problem.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Poll - How many of you who have written comments have 1 or more employees?

</comment><comment><USER34> Perhaps due to my incessant optimism about people's reasonableness, the way I understood the argument seems to me to be primarily about the regressive character of the tax system. $59k/$44k just isn't that much anymore, especially in a relatively high-cost area, and especially considering the sources of cost inflation he identified.

But okay, $59k/44k is one thing. You want to talk about regressive taxes, tell me why I have to pay nearly $2k to employ a part-time person who nets just a little shy of ~$1400 (roughly ~$22k annual gross), and that's without any benefits. Talk about a disincentive for job creation! I'd much rather pay my part-time employee more of that ~$2k, and if I could, I would.

If I give him a $300 bonus one month, he's going to see about $180 of it if it's run through the normal payroll withholding mechanisms. At that level of income, that really is ridiculous.

</comment><comment><USER42> This seems like a lot of whining to me. 33% does not seem high for total taxes for employment. That's the total that both the employee and employer pay together. Sure, they could do more without having to pay that, but they also wouldn't have, I don't know... roads, police, fire department, public education, an army to protect them, etc. What percent do they think they should be paying? Sounds like they think they should be entitled to get it for free.

</comment><comment><USER43> Point and counterpoint...

[http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/08/wall-street- journa...](http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/08/wall-street-journal- editorial-page-outdoes-itself)

</comment><comment><USER44> This is little but a thinly-veiled attack on Obama.

</comment><comment><USER45> Another explanation for why Bogen Communications is not hiring might have to do with their declining financials:

<http://www.bogen.com/aboutus/financials/#historical>

<comment><USER46> Good observation. The decision to hire comes down to a very simple "will hiring this person cause us to make more money than the person costs us." He's blaming the cost side of the equation for all of the decision to not to hire. He could just as easily blame himself for having failed to streamline his company's old-school high-markup sales network.</comment></comment>


Less Aesthetic, More Design - <AUTHOR> http://blog.wells.ee/less-aesthetic-more-design

<comment><USER2> As a developer trying to gain more insight into proper design methodology this really spoke to me. With all the articles and discussion around "design" really focusing more on aesthetics, for some time I thought that was all design is about.

For example, I work mainly on mobile apps, and it took some time for me to view another app's design with an eye for more than just "looking pretty". You really have to think a bit differently to begin noticing the small things the designer did to make the experience more enjoyable.

</comment><comment><USER3> There are tons of projects (even some open source projects) investing heavily into AB testing and other usability testing. Unfortunately, nobody ever seems to publish the data from these studies.

To really move user interface forward, it would be great to have a large list of UI design tips that are _backed by real world data_.

      Do X and not Y : 72% of users found X easier.

Nearly everything I read about UI design these days seems to come down entirely to the authors opinion. Surely there is a better way?

</comment><comment><USER4> Wait, since when does "Design" not include aesthetics?!

[Indeed, I'd say that most common uses of the word "design" are almost _synonymous_ with aesthetics... "industrial design" => making cool looking cases; "graphic design" => pretty pictures; "web designer" => someone who makes pretty websites]

<comment><USER5> Not really. Think of design as the core, while aesthetics is the chrome. In my opinion, design has purpose. Something is "designed" to do something. You know, as in 'intelligent design'.

Take an example here. In this website, which what people call a github for recipes [0], note how the recipe pages are made. The recipe page is an example of a high design, low aesthetics page. It was designed to do one thing and do one thing well: display a recipe. It was designed to draw attention to the FORK button, because that's what the aim of Fork the Cookbook is all about: to get people forking recipes.

It is lacking in aesthetics. It's not that beautiful to look at honestly, but in my opinion, it does its work well in doing its task.

[0] [http://forkthecookbook.com/recipes/white-chocolate- passion-f...](http://forkthecookbook.com/recipes/white-chocolate-passion- fruit-truffles-846fe)

disclosure: I designed the layout for Fork the Cookbook</comment></comment>


Show HN: Startup outbound sales ebook 50% HN code: awesomesauce - <AUTHOR> http://www.startupsalesguide.com/

<comment><USER2> Just bought. Haven't yet read it yet but if I go by the table of contents, it seems to be well thought of and rich in content.

Thanks for the promo code. Also, thanks for all your writing on the topic that I have consumed for free. (Glad to pay for this one)

This was shared over a day ago. I would expect to see something like this on the front page. Not sure why this wasn't upvoted/commented on enough.</comment>


Canadian plans to transport oil as solid briquettes move forward - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/01/canadian-plans-to-transport-oil-as-solid-briquettes-move-forward/ <comment><AUTHOR> > First, to send bitumen through a pipeline, a diluent to make the bitumen > flow more easily must be added, and that diluent is often 30 percent or more > of the volume traveling through the pipeline

My first that was that even though this seems like a good idea there's no way oil companies would go for the added expense, but I didn't realize there was so much additive already needed when oil is sent through a pipeline.

> That said, Auld was explicit that a solution like CanaPux probably wouldn't > work for anything but the heaviest of crudes. "The heavier your crude oil > is, the less polymer you need [to make CanaPux] and the more diluent you > need" to send that oil through a pipeline, Auld said. In those specific > cases, the economics favor CanaPux. Lighter crudes, on the other hand, flow > through pipelines much easier and would need a lot more polymer additive to > be made into solid form.</comment>


Choosing Hong Kong Is a Brilliant Move by Edward Snowden - <AUTHOR> http://www.correntewire.com/six_reasons_why_choosing_hong_kong_is_a_brilliant_move_by_edward_snowden <comment><USER2> This is by far the most informative [edit: if speculative] article I've read on Snowden's choice of Hong Kong, which has been the most puzzling detail of the whole story. If true, it explains a lot, not just about why he chose Hong Kong but also about his subsequent interview with the press there. Can HNers who know Hong Kong shed light on how plausible it is?

It's striking how one obscure blog post can be more valuable than all the media speculation on this question (that I've seen) put together. That doesn't make its interpretation true, of course. But the alternate explanation that was going through my head seems a bit movie-esque by comparison.

<comment><USER3> "It's striking how one obscure blog post can be more valuable than all the media speculation on this question (that I've seen) put together."

Perhaps this still qualifies as striking, but it's becoming rapidly more common, as mainstream journalism becomes ever more predictable and imitative, and individuals with expertise and actual insight, not working for news organizations, stand out as the only voices worth paying attention to.

<comment><USER4> Exactly. Blogging allows subject matter experts to easily, cheaply publish, be widely read, and compete for eyeballs with the MSM.

There's no way most people who just went to Journalism school can compete with, say, an experienced Constitutional lawyer like Greenwald or Lessig, or hacker like PG or Spolsky, or VC like Fred Wilson etc.

But there are some things MSM can still do - good professional journalists can still round up experts and put together a composite of their views. Or they do real investigative journalism that bloggers may not have the resources for, be it Bloomberg suing the Federal Reserve under FOIA [1], or sending reporters to hotspots for first-hand reporting.

Personally I think a combination of data journalism and investigative journalism (like WaPo's Top Secret America [2] and Bloomberg's FOIA lawsuit and reporting) are their best way forward. Both require resources most individual bloggers can't provide, and both are real news, real journalism.

[1]: [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-23/fed-s-once- secret-d...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-23/fed-s-once-secret-data- compiled-by-bloomberg-released-to-public.html)

[2]: [http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret- america/](http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/)

<comment><USER3> I agree with all your points absolutely. The best reporting and photojournalism in the _New York Times_ and other real newspapers is worthy of tremendous admiration; fortunately they still have the resources to put correspondents all over the world. My comment was not meant to suggest that we can dispense with the MSM, and I don't agree with the replies below that seem to advocate this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> There is another big reason why Snowden may have chosen HK. A few months ago the HK high court ruled that the process for applying for asylum needs overhaul, and until that happens all extradition proceedings for asylum seekers are on hold. So Snowden simply needs to apply for asylum in HK to significantly delay things:

[http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/asia- pacific...](http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/asia- pacific/china/130610/why-edward-snowden-hong-kong-extradition-asylum)

I haven't seen much coverage of this in the US press, aside from Slate & CSM. The rest of the media seems more interested in Snowden's girlfriend and scholastic record instead (sigh).

<comment><USER6> I was about to ask, how he would deal with staying, as you can't simply choose a country but must conform to its visa regulations. He might be there as a tourist for now but I would think that cannot do so forever.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> The graphic in the article is downscaled -- here's the direct link: [https://www.scmp.com/sites/default/files/2013/06/14/snowden-...](https://www.scmp.com/sites/default/files/2013/06/14/snowden- extradiction-web.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER8> You can also sneak out of Hong Kong easily, and it is an hour ferry ride a to Macau or Guangzhou or a bus or taxi ride to Shenzen.

Hong Kong has very loose exit visa policies on western passports. You can jump on a plane to some destinations with your passport only being checked at checkin (which is of the ticket). It is very simple to get to any number of ~50 countries in the space of hours and not having your identity checked until you land.

Private banking in Hong Kong means he can have money sent to him and he can spend money without worrying about who finds out who supports him.

He is also likely to find work, since there is a lot of English speaking expat work in the country especially in the IT industry.

I'm unsure if he has a path to citizenship, a path to residency is easy but I think the only way he could swap his passport is if he works out an entire 4 or 5 year residency or go citizenship via asylum.

<comment><USER9> This isn't true. At the airport there is a passport check after security. At Hung Hom train station the same. At all the China land borders things are pretty strict.

Most smugglers go through Sha Tau Kok in the north east, but you need a permit to even enter that area.

<comment><USER10> Can one take a swim/use an inflatable at night undetected?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Somewhat disingenuous to suggest swapping sim cards to avoid being tracked. This myth is one that law enforcement love. They just track phones with IMEI numbers.

<comment><USER12> Because nobody sells phone for cash, right?

<comment><USER13> GP still has a valid point, SIM card swapping as mentioned in the article is not track-proof.

<comment><USER14> Well fine there's cloning a phone, setting a bogus or duplicate IMEI, or simply buying cheap throw-away phones. Here, have a look at a really terribly done video of one electronics market in HK. One of many. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxTR5X0PIP4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxTR5X0PIP4)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I live in Hong Kong too (about 20 minutes walk from the Mira where Snowden was allegedly staying), and his stated reasons of coming here due to the country's commitment to free speech and political dissent are baffling and misguided. When compared to China, Hong Kong seems free but the reality is very different.

Start with the South China Morning Post, the main English language newspaper here which has been covering this story extensively. The current editor, Wang Xiangwei, joined in 2011, is a member of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Congress, and has been criticized for self-censorship multiple times since taking over.

Then you have the political system here, where people can vote in local elections but not in the main election that actually decides the Chief Executive (President). The current CE, CY Leung, was dogged by accusations that he was a Communist Party member throughout the election period. These accusations were not without merit given his political history (appointed to a prominent committee at a young age, a position traditionally occupied by party members), and these issues have not died down since he's taken office.

It makes no sense for Snowden to have come to HK for its political freedom. Neither is this city a hotbed for political dissent. The Occupy movement here was largely ineffective (there were often more homeless people than protestors at the camp), and power here is concentrated in the elite (HK has one of the highest Gini coefficients in the world).

He came here because here he can leverage China vs the US. Any talk of political freedom or appreciating the culture is pure fluff.

<comment><USER16> There is a lot of perceived political freedom from people outside of Hong Kong (both people in US as well as in China - why else would Chinese dissenters travel to Hong Kong to protest?). By declaring Hong Kong has political freedom, China is forced to defend that image, both domestically and internationally. I am from Hong Kong, so I know what you're talking about, but I'm currently living outside of Hong Kong, so I know what foreigners' perspective of Hong Kong is, too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Fourth point about Hong Kong being under China probably has a significant effect that public cannot know about to full extent.

It's not a outright conspiracy to believe that there's a largely hidden but real power struggle between US and China. China probably likes the fact that Snowden has brought NSA and US government into public scrutiny and they are probably plotting a way to make the best out of it.

<comment><USER18> I don't think so. China has so many problems, it's government always preferred the status quo, anything new like this is considered a threat to political stability: imagine if a few Chinese decided to go Snowden way?

<comment><USER19> It can be spun other ways too. Snowden could be heralded as "proof" that China is better than the US.

      "US citizen flees oppressive government, seeking refuge
       in China."

I'm sure that this incident will also enter the lexicon of North Korea when they try to bring up the bad things that US has/may have done in order to justify their own actions.

<comment><USER18> Do you think that Chinese are _that_ stupid? They all know their wealthy elite send kids and wife to the US, why would they do that if China was better?

<comment><USER19> The way that I understand it, a lot of the propaganda that the Chinese see in the media is known to be propaganda (i.e. it's not fooling anyone). Why would this be any different?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I live in Hong Kong, and can verify that it is absolutely a technologist's paradise and an extremely easy place to move around in.

Phones are incredibly cheap; the cheapest functional Android knockoff smartphones will run you about $50-80 (all prices in USD for simplicity), maybe less if you get it in Kowloon. "Burner"-style phones can be as low as $8. SIM cards are essentially free (usually about $8-10 deposit on the card) and minutes are as lower than $0.01 each[1]. Data is about $5/GB prepaid. All cash, no credit cards, no checks. You don't even have to give them your name.

Coverage is completely universal here because the density is absurd. It's a cell phone carrier's dream; one tower can potentially reach nearly a million people. Taxi drivers here regularly have half a dozen cell phones in their cars. One for personal use, one for work, one for less savory work... who knows, there is always a lot going on, especially in relation to gambling.

Additionally, the broadband is great (and cheap) - I regularly get as much as 250mbps or more to the US from my home connection. I can say with confidence that I browse US sites more quickly from here than I could from my home connection when I lived in the states. The ping is of course higher but it is not as bad as you'd think (150-180ms).

There are great technology centers like Cyberport[2] that will rent you a desk or tiny office with gigabit internet for very little money.

It is easy to disappear in HK because it is so dense. While housing is not cheap it is available and some landlords will take cash. Being white earns you stares here, it is well known that the Chinese suffer from the same problem we do; it is difficult to tell white people apart, much like we may find it difficult to tell some ethnic Chinese apart. I am speculating but it could be used to his advantage: with a hairstyle change and contact lenses it would be difficult for a US citizen to identify Snowden, going only on the news photos. It would be even harder for a foreigner. That is, if the novelty of seeing a young nerdy white man doesn't arouse suspicion alone.

Members of the expat community have been setting up rallies for Snowden and they have been getting decent attendance. The South China Morning Post has been very favorable in their framing of his actions. I think the populace here is very sympathetic to his plight.

As for the legal system, I can't comment; I just work here, man.

[1] Keep in mind, prices are in HKD - 1USD = 7.76 HKD. [http://one2free.hkcsl.com/jsp/prepaid_sim_card/o2f_local_pre...](http://one2free.hkcsl.com/jsp/prepaid_sim_card/o2f_local_prepaid_sim/charges/charges.jsp)

[2] [http://www.cyberport.hk/en](http://www.cyberport.hk/en)

<comment><USER21> yeah

to cut straight to the chase

a special administrative region of the people's republic of china is actually more free than the USA.

<comment><USER22> Dunno about "free", but what really bothers me is that someone decided to seek asylum from the US.

US used to be the gold standard in democracy and justice.

<comment><USER23> The US has only ever been the gold standard to itself, it's a nice story to tell the kids as you tuck them in for the night, but it's just not true.

<comment><USER24> The US doesn't ban hate speech at least, so in that respect it's freer than a lot of other countries.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Author says, "Budding spies and others of a paranoid nature can buy a couple of those SIM cards to swap in and out of their (unlocked) phones for $10 in any 7-11, no registration, no questions asked (try doing that in India or Argentina!)"

I don't live in India, but I do live in Argentina, and there are guys selling SIM cards on the subway and outside the train stations for, I think, AR$5, which is about US$0.76. No registration, no questions asked. If you instead go to a cellphone store, not only do you need to register, but they want ID.

I suspect that India is porous enough that there are similar holes in whatever controls they have to require registration.

I don't get 250Mbps in my house though; maybe 1Mbps to the US. And the murder rate is a little higher than in the US.

<comment><USER25> Update: I asked the blind guy selling SIMs on the subway today how much they cost. The price has gone up to AR$10, which is currently about US$1.20.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I think Snowden didn't have a lot of choices of places to fly to from Hawaii, where he was last based.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5854562](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5854562)

Some of the rationales for being in Hong Kong we see attributed to interview statements by him sound like statements by a person who knows a lot less about east Asia than he thinks he knows. In the six years that I lived in east Asia, all spent there after first learning the history, language, and culture of China thoroughly by university studies and independent reading and participation in foreign student clubs before going over, I grew quite tired of instant experts on Asia who can't even speak any local language. Snowden made the move he could make when he decided to leave his employment at Booz Allen Hamilton, but it's not clear that his move was "brilliant" or even very thought out at all.

<comment><USER27> I want to explain why I think you are wrong in terms of it being thought out. I think it was very carefully thought out and it fit into his plans very well. Whether it was "brilliant" or not I suppose depends on what you think of the game he is playing.

If you carefully look at Snowden's actions and his statements to various press establishments, his entire strategy is based on playing one group off another. He got the Washington Post to publish a story on Prism by getting the Guardian to run one on the Verizon warrants, for example. If you look carefully he is doing the same thing regarding Hong Kong.

1\. He went to Hong Kong and immediately made provocative statements about the commitment of the special administrative province to the rule of law and to political dissent. _This does not mean he believes that this is the nature of things._ What these statements immediately did was put the image of Hong Kong's independence at risk of Bejing comes in too forcefully.

2\. He then makes a number of statements about US intelligence activity which, quite frankly, everyone would probably assume to be the case anyway (hacking Chinese internet backbones etc). This creates a US vs China dynamic and shows that he can be a danger to the US if the US does not back off.

In essence what he has done has been tailored around Hong Kong specifically. He has chosen somewhere to make a stand that fits his strategy, nothing more and nothing less.

<comment><USER28> Sounds more like a typical 29 year old to me. Doesn't have a retirement plan.

<comment><USER27> 29-year-olds think differently than 39-year-olds. He's probably more focused on the details, than the next 40 years.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I'm curious... is there anything currently preventing him from flying to a further country as well? I'm not aware of there being a warrant out for his arrest or anything yet... What would happen today if he just hopped on the next flight to Iceland or Ecuador or wherever else (or let's just assume nonstop flights)?

<comment><USER30> Apparently INTERPOL can issue red notices that are not public. So its possible if he tried to leave Hong Kong under his own ID he'd get arrested.

I assume he doesn't have a real forged passport. But how hard do they check for leaving Hong Kong? Could he get to Iceland and instead of trying to fool Icelandic passport control, just request asylum?

<comment><USER31> Pretty hard?

China has steep controls on its _own_ citizens leaving China. Hong Kong is now part of China, and probably a favoured way out.

<comment><USER19> Travel between HK and 'mainland' China regulated, as I understand it. It's possible that China is looking more closely to that border as an escape point than people leaving HK.

<comment><USER31> "Closely" is a relative term when it comes to airport. I'd think Chinese intelligence would be paying very close attention to someone who the US wants to arrest within their borders, seeing as how it impacts relations with their biggest trading partner.

<comment><USER19> Maybe so far as Snowden is concerned, but the comment I was replying to was talking in more general terms (i.e. Chinese citizens using HK to flee from China).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I actually don't think Hong Kong was a great choice, as it brings up the whole question of foreign intelligence service involvement. He absolutely should have picked a common law jurisdiction (like Hong Kong), and probably not US/UK/Canada, but NZ would have worked pretty well.

He's not "in hiding" from the intelligence services. I suspect even second tier countries know where he is.

<comment><USER33> I'm sure Kim Dotcom thought his move to NZ had "worked pretty well".

<comment><USER14> It did. It wasn't without it's hiccups. But, there he is in NZ still doing two things that he apparently loves to do, trolling and making money.

<comment><USER33> He trolls Hollywood interests, Snowden is effectively trolling the whole US government; the difference is of some importance.

NZ was in the original Echelon program, in terms of intelligence they fall squarely in line with GCHQ and friends. It's really one of the worst locations he could choose, right after the US and Britain.

<comment><USER34> Hong Kong also does not have a CIA/NSA/GCHQ/MI-6/MSS type agency. Your statement make me think Snowden saw the level of cooperation on the intel side and picked someone without a horse in the race.

<comment><USER32> Everyone is active in Hong Kong, and the Chinese military and intelligence organizations are the "home team".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> > Budding spies and others of a paranoid nature can buy a couple of those SIM > cards to swap in and out of their (unlocked) phones for $10 in any 7-11, no > registration, no questions asked (try doing that in India or Argentina!)

Argentine here, you can buy SIM cards literally everywhere. Vendors will even sell them to you on trains.

<comment><USER36> Logging on to GSM your phone uploads its IMEI ('phone serial number') with the SIM card identifier or IMSI ('sim ID'). So if you switch, you are still tracked. Budding spies will learn their tech before putting their ass on the line.

<comment><USER37> As mentioned further up these comments, IMEI's can be forged, and phones produced "off-hours" in the factories often have IMEI's consisting of all 0's or all 1's. I gleaned this much just from reading this thread.

<comment><USER36> Sure. Also, according to recent quotes from Snowden, this is the primary mobile communciations key the NSA maintain records and search by... not phone number.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Ron Paul has specifically mentioned two places as having more liberty (in certain ways) than the US: Switzerland and Hong Kong.

</comment><comment><USER39> It's strange the Falun Gong paper Epoch Times hasn't written more about this case.

</comment><comment><USER40> Is there any hard evidence that ES is actually in Hong Kong? It seems to be widely accepted that he is, though I'm not familiar with the evidence in favor of this claim.

</comment><comment><USER41> Brilliant move, maybe, unless he was manipulated by the Chinese. It is very interesting that the allegation that the NSA has been hacking into Chinese systems came out at the time when the US and China are meeting and Obama is trying to admonish the Chinese on hacking.

It would be interesting to explore if Edward Snowden has any handler. And how exactly he chose Hong Kong and decided to reveal that the NSA has been hacking the Chinese.

<comment><USER42> It is "very interesting" in the sense that Snowden may have realised that strategically talking to Chinese press and leaking information that would be likely to be looked upon favorably by the Chinese government at this time would be likely to be beneficial to his chances of avoiding extradition in the future.

I'm not sure what you are trying to imply - the choice and timing of that particular leak would seem to be a logical choice once he'd chosen somewhere to go.

<comment><USER41> If he is afraid of being charged in the US, I would think he wouldn't have done this in the first place. Initially, it is said he did this because he cared about Americans. But by working with the Chinese, he is no longer a patriot in the eyes of many Americans. Overall, it appears like he was manipulated or at least fueled by the Chinese operatives.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Born in Hong Kong. Personally don't think Hong Kong is that safe and has such freedom. But may be good for his case. As China like to see him exists...

</comment><comment><USER44> I dont get it - every one of those factors is present in India as well (with a few compromises on bandwidth I'll admit).

If the article makes a case that in Hong Kong people _can_ take to the streets, it so happens that they _did_ in Delhi [1]. Hell, India has a superior record of amnesty than most other countries [2].

Plus, the tech work scene is undoubtedly better in India as well as .... um... not being 100% undemocratic.

I personally am of the opinion that one of the big reasons could be that the pay is potentially better in Hong Kong - especially for someone from Booz Allen.

[1] [http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2013/0315/Reacti...](http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2013/0315/Reactions- to-Steubenville-Ohio-and-India-gang-rapes-show-India-isn-t-so-backward) [2] [http://www.unhcr.org/50001ec69.html](http://www.unhcr.org/50001ec69.html)

<comment><USER45> Is there access to uninterrupted electricity?

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> I've been thinking of alternative destinations. New Zealand, home of exile Kim Dotcom, could work. But what about Sweden? Aren't they very neutral? Or Switzerland, the nation that's synonymous with neutrality?

<comment><USER33> Are you serious?

New Zealand is the land of night-raids on Kim Dotcom's home to please American corporations -- not exactly a prime candidate.

Sweden is the country currently responsible for Assange's plight.

Switzerland, as I said elsewhere, is now an EU state in all but name, and their security services are laughable anyway.

What Snowden needs is not "neutrality" in a Cold-War sense. Strictly speaking, no government will ever defend the ideas he's fighting for; he can only choose the lesser evil, the place where he gets the most leverage out of his stance (i.e. most non-US-friendly nations) without losing his rights (i.e. most democratically-run nations with a respectable legal system). There's only a handful of countries in this peculiar intersection, and HK is definitely one of them.

<comment><USER19>
      > New Zealand is the land of night-raids on Kim
      > Dotcom's home to please American corporations
      > -- not exactly a prime candidate.

That has caused a bunch of blow-back in NZ though. I'd say it's up in the air as to whether or not another such incident will occur.

<comment><USER33> Yes, but I don't see NZ ever abandoning their strategic intelligence alliance with US and UK (which produced, among other things, the original Echelon). Blowback all you want, Snowden would still be sent straight to Washington.

<comment><USER47> new zealand gave the big F U to the USA back in the 80s when they refused the USS Buchanan nuclear powered destroyer entry to the port as it violated the nuclear-free legislation.

<comment><USER19> Harbouring Snowden would probably create a lot more tension than just refusing a port entry to a specific boat, though I don't know the rest of the context of that incident.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> A warrant may never even be issued, since if he is arrested Hongkong police will be duty bound to turn over anything of national security interest to Beijing. Yeah it is a pretty sharp move.

</comment><comment><USER49> This still doesn't explain why he didn't choose a country with no possibility of extradition like, uh, any of these: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_law_in_the_United_S...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_law_in_the_United_States#Countries_with_diplomatic_relations_but_no_extradition_treaty)

They may not be technological paradises, but it's pretty hard (nearly impossible) to be extradited to the US from any of them.

<comment><USER50> He did. China is on that list. Hong Kong is China.

<comment><USER49> Right, it is but it isn't. The whole point of the piece is that because of HK's complicated relationship with China it makes extradition possible, just very hard. I guess my point is, why not Shanghai? I'm sure the PRC would love the opportunity to grand asylum to an Internet freedom activist.

<comment><USER50> My opinion is that he didn't really think it through that far, but that seems to be an unpopular thing to say on HN.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> "Nobody stands to win by taking decisive action on Snowden, so my guess, based on years of living in Hong Kong, is that both Beijing and Hong Kong will avoid doing so, which heightens the possiblity of a long, long court process."

That depends on how badly the US wants him. If they want him badly enough, they'll buy him from China with an offering big enough to create a winner. That would be trivial for the US to do - they could have Snowden back in a few days - but the price might be very high.

<comment><USER52> Like movies, do you?

<comment><USER51> Taiwan

Would that do? Yep, I think it would. Perhaps even just the substantial delay of new arms sales. It's meant as a black and white example, but it proves my point. There are countless things the US could give China that are worth a lot more to China than Snowden is.

Your comment is comical in its lack of realism. And that's comical because you're alluding to me being the unrealistic one. In reality, politics is a game of buying or trading favors. It's that simple, and it works that way locally or internationally.

<comment><USER52> If it's that simple, you'll have no trouble coming up with historical examples of the mechanism you describe having operated with the simplicity you assert.

<comment><USER53> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percentages_agreement](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percentages_agreement)

Or, if that doesn't suit your fancy, any of the WWII dealings among the Allies about how things would be divied up.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> The question I've been wondering about is how he'll get money to live on. Presumably it won't be long before the US will freeze his bank accounts, if they haven't already.

Has he set up offshore bank accounts in advance? Won't they get frozen too?

Is he planning on working in HK? He probably doesn't have a visa that allows working, and switching visas usually requires leaving the country. He's too well-known now to work under the table.

Did he carry huge amounts of cash?

</comment><comment><USER55> The commentary about swapping SIMs and fast 'net puzzles me. If someone in Snowden's position wants to avoid tracking, given the leaked information that is __the very reason __he is wanted, I would think the safest tactic is to eschew personal devices and 'net usage entirely.

</comment><comment><USER56> My guess is someone gave him advice on it because at first sight Hong Kong isn't the most obvious choice at all. The infographic explains how it all works but if someone had asked me something like that, I wouldn't even be able to answer it for my own country.

<comment><USER33> It's 2013, we have the internets, 24/7 news and no end of sources on everything related to politics of any country on the planet.

If something you don't know becomes vital to a project you're planning, you fire up Google every day for a few hours and learn what's going on. It's clear he didn't leak on a whim: he planned it over a certain period of time and, being a smart fellow, had all the time in the world to read up on the fine points of US international diplomacy, which would significantly narrow down his research pool on extradition systems.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> Especially if he is a Chinese spy. Because bragging about Hong Kong freedom's sounds like a cold war farce.

<comment><USER58> I thought that I was the only person that considered that a possibility.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> CBS' Bob Schieffer on Snowden's junket:

      "For one thing, I don't remember Martin Luther King, Jr.,
      or Rosa Parks running off and hiding in China. The people
      who ran the civil-rights movement were willing to break
      the law and suffer the consequences."

      "That's a little different than putting the nation's
      security at risk and running away."

      "What I see in Edward Snowden is just a narcissistic young
      man who has decided he is smarter than the rest of us"

       "I don't know what he is beyond that. But he is no hero.
       If he has a point — which I'm not sure he does — he
       would help his cause by voluntarily coming home to face
       the consequences."

Source:

Schieffer to Snowden: Come home, face the consequences

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IU5-r6mw6nQ](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IU5-r6mw6nQ)

<comment><USER60> Martin Luther King didn't live in a world where we imprison innocent men in legal limbo without trial or habeas corpus, or where we officially sanctioned torture and the oubliette. He could trust that he would be vindicated by the justice system.

The whole point of the Snowden story is that the government is not trustworthy in this era. I would not trust the US government to give him justice any more than they did Aaron Swartz.

I think Snowden knew exactly what to expect if he "faced the music" and exactly how much attention he could keep on his story in exile.

<comment><USER61> Its this sort of uneducated, a-historical crap that makes it impossible to read HN lately. If you think the government was less scary back then, in the grip of anti-communist paranoia, you're insane, deluded, or just plain uneducated. Saying that MLK could count on a fair shake from a justice system that didn't give any minority a fair shake back then, much less political radicals, is the height of ridiculousness.

<comment><USER62> You don't need to resort to insults.

<comment><USER63> HN has been especially frustrating for the last 2 weeks.

Maybe, instead of hoping that people will maintain perfect civility throughout a nonstop stream of political discussions, something could instead be done to ratchet back the politics on HN?

<comment><USER64> Perhaps _reality_ has been especially frustrating?

Although yeah, implying that blacks in the American South in the mid-20th C could rely on the justice system is ridiculous enough to force me to agree with rayiner for once.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> _Since we lack space and spend lots of time cooped up in small rooms, we have taken to the virtual world like ducks to water_

Sounds awesome, you have to love a lack of options.</comment>


Petition: require free access to publicly-funded research - <AUTHOR> https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/require-free-access-over-internet-scientific-journal-articles-arising-taxpayer-funded-research/wDX82FLQ <comment><USER2> This needs to also happen for case law (free as in beer). How absurd is this:

"Pursuant to common law tradition, the courts of California have developed a large body of case law through the decisions of the Supreme Court of California and the California Courts of Appeal. The state supreme court's decisions are published in official reporters known as California Reports. The decisions of the Courts of Appeal are published in the California Appellate Reports.

The content of both reporters is compiled and edited by the California Reporter of Decisions. The Reporter maintains a contract with a private publisher (as allowed by Government Code Section 68903) who in turn is responsible for actually publishing and selling the official reporters. The current official publisher is LexisNexis." [0]

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_California> [0]

<http://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/CACourts/> [1]

<comment><USER3> Yeah, but all those reports are freely available online from the courts websites. The publishers just publish them in paperbound form.

<comment><USER2> Can you provide a link? I am not a lawyer, but I have seen <http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions-slip.htm> which provides a link to the LexisNexis website for opinions from 1850 - Present.

The LexisNexis website also states "There is no charge to search, retrieve or save documents from the California Official Reports Web site, and there is no copyright on opinion text. The site, however, is for personal, not commercial, use."

From this, I assumed commercial use would require purchasing or licensing something from LexisNexis.

<comment><USER3> This is new in the last few months. I think you can do what you want with the opinions, but you can't build it on top of their servers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Academia.edu was very active in working with the White House to spread the word about this petition when it first came out, and getting signatures for the petition to hit the 25k threshold.

The White House hasn't responded to it because initially they were busy with the election, and then with the fiscal cliff, and now with gun reform. Getting more signatures on the petition now will help them see that people care about this topic.

<comment><USER5> Then how do you explain them having time for this; [https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/isnt-petition- resp...](https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/isnt-petition-response- youre-looking)

<comment><USER4> In practice that death star response probably only took an hour or two to write. However, figuring out federal policy on research is really tricky, and there are many stakeholders.

The fundamental problem is that the White House would like all research to be open, but every time they take any steps in that direction, they get whacked over the head in the media by the journal industry, and get called job- killers. The journal industry's argument is that any attempt to open up research will reduce their revenues, and kill jobs.

The view of most people in this debate is that the journal industry makes far too much money off research, and therefore the size of the industry should be reduced. But in this economic context being branded as a job killer is toxic.

The White House really wants to turn the debate around, and argue that open access for research is a stimulus for jobs: it will create more jobs, not fewer. To argue for that requires marshaling arguments and data from the private sector to establish that if people have access to federally-funded research, that will help them in their lives, and those benefits will outweigh the costs that the journal industry may experience.

<comment><USER6> _> The White House really wants to turn the debate around, and argue that open access for research is a stimulus for jobs: it will create more jobs, not fewer. To argue for that requires marshaling arguments and data from the private sector to establish that if people have access to federally-funded research, that will help them in their lives, and those benefits will outweigh the costs that the journal industry may experience._

Do they have a team working on this, and is there any form of crowdsourcing being used to marshall this data?

<comment><USER4> It's a good question. I expect that the Office of Science and Technology is working on it to some extent, but I am not aware of how deep their efforts are.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The White House hasn't had time to respond to this petition because they've been busy responding to more important ones - like "begin construction of a Death Star by 2016".

[https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/isnt-petition- resp...](https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/isnt-petition-response- youre-looking)

<comment><USER8> Have you ever heard of prioritization? One of the factors of prioritizing is the 'time of completion'.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm confused - this link seems to be for a petition that's several months old, already past the deadline, and already reached the threshold number of signatures?

And more confusingly, there's no response to it either. Am I missing something?

<comment><USER10> That is correct, and many people are upset about the lack of response <https://twitter.com/mattblaze/status/290503781093871616>

<comment><USER11> It's hard to respond to petitions about real issues, because it requires you to do something.

Death Stars, however, make for good PR without actually doing anything.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This would be nice but how is this going to be payed for? Research budgets are already being squeezed pretty tight given how much the sponsoring organization takes(universities ...), research costs, and congressional attempts to cut funding I just don't see it happening anytime soon. It already costs quite a bit to publish.

edit: Just to give an idea of the costs> [http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/scholarlycommunication/oa_fees.h...](http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/scholarlycommunication/oa_fees.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> PLoS and arxiv seem to have figured it out. Require federally funded research to be posted on a similar platform.

<comment><USER13> arxiv is not peer-reviewed.

<comment><USER14> PLoS is.

<comment><USER15> And it costs thousands of dollars to publish a paper there.

<comment><USER14> Yes, and? The price to publish with PLoS is not meant to be a barrier; they will wave the fee if you cannot afford it.

<comment><USER15> Not many people waive the fee currently. If a lot of people did, it would be a huge problem for publishers like PLoS and they would have to change their practices.

Assuming that won't happen, then if all publications were open access, there would be a lot more grant money that would have to be spent on publishing fees rather than research. That was the point the guy we originally replied to was making <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5052476> so citing PLoS as an example isn't really meaningful. It's just an example of precisely the issue he was raising, not a rebuttal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This is one of those things that for the life of me I don't understand why we have to petition our government. Why in the heck wouldn't you set it up this way to begin with?

<comment><USER17> Because before you set it up, you don't know there's a problem. Sure, you can say that everyone should get access to the research from the start, but when the framework for federal grants started, the cost of distributing journals was tied to shipping physical copies. No one had to think about whether or not you could legally share it because you had a much higher barrier in the logistics of sharing it. Now those things are still around through organizational inertia. The companies that existed to fill the (necessary) service of printing and shipping all these things don't want to become obsolete. It's not a good reason to keep it around, but it's why you need more than zero effort to change.

<comment><USER18> I agree. It's not an unreasonable thing to have to bring to the government's attention considering how quickly technology allowed for these advancements to occur.

It is ridiculous that the response is taking forever and that they sought time to tell people why the death star isn't going to be built.

<comment><USER19> > they sought time to tell people why the death star isn't going to be built.

There is no political fallout from refusing to build a death star.

The Republican Party's rapid backpedaling after publishing a memo outlining what many HN'ers consider a reasonable policy stance on copyright -- to the extent of firing the staffer who prepared it, never mind that it appears he got permission from the appropriate party channels to publish it as a policy document -- show that the copyright lobby has on its side some of the finest politicians that money can buy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> How many such petitions have there been that have been popular enough to warrant a response? 100? Of those, how many have led to actual changes in policy? Has there been any example of a successful whitehouse.gov petition?

Why do people keep doing these? They're worse than useless. Send letters, don't shout into the void.

</comment><comment><USER21> Ask that the US Attorney Carmen Ortiz be removed: [https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-united- stat...](https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-united-states- district-attorney-carmen-ortiz-office-overreach-case-aaron-swartz/RQNrG1Ck)

Carmen Ortiz is planning on running for Massachusetts Governor so if you live in Massachusetts OR if you know any one who lives in massachusetts spread the word about Carmen Ortiz.

</comment><comment><USER22> The NIH has been working hard at getting all NIH-funded research publications into a free database, PubMed Central. And I'm pretty sure all publications listed on CVs for NIH grant applications must include a PubMed Central ID.

<comment><AUTHOR> Pubmed is great.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> just signed the petition, I get the feeling that if this gets pushed to every @mit.edu email address one could easily get more signatures.

</comment><comment><USER24> 53,790 signed so far!</comment>


Facebook hires Nick Clegg as head of global affairs - <AUTHOR> https://www.ft.com/content/358b0e0e-d383-11e8-a9f2-7574db66bcd5 <comment><USER2> Funnily enough, I had a meeting with Nick a few months ago (about Brexit) and he mentioned being out in SV as part of work his organisation was doing. I suspect that may have not been the full truth..

His organisation, Open Europe, employed 6 people. I wonder if they will follow him to FB.

For what it's worth, given his domain expertise (particularly the EU), I think it is a fantastic hire.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Context: Nick Clegg was the UK Deputy Prime Minister from 2010 - 2015, and leader of the Liberal Democrats from 2007 - 2015. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Clegg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Clegg)

</comment><comment><USER3> Non-paywall article: [https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/oct/19/facebook-...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/oct/19/facebook- hires-nick-clegg-as-head-of-global-affairs)</comment>


Tell HN: Ycombinator.com Blacklisted by Norton - <AUTHOR> Just got a warning when trying to visit ycombinator.com:
https://safeweb.norton.com/report/show?url=ycombinator.com
Seems like a false positive, but might be worth to get it cleared. <comment><USER2> This happened to a site I managed a while ago. The cause was a comment a user posted that was flagged as a "batch virus". The content of the comment was all text, along the lines of

       @echo off
       echo "Speeding up your PC!"
       delete c:\Windows\system32\

Thanks Norton!

<comment><USER3> Norton probably blacklisted HN for this comment because it infringes on their intellectual property, not merely because it is potentially destructive code. In other words, it duplicates the functionality of some of their products and they don't appreciate their trade secrets being exposed this way.

<comment><USER4> I was going through some old patent applications from 2015 and found this exact code snippet in Pat. #482739HG by one of Norton's subsidiary companies.

<comment><USER5> Really? I can't find this anywhere

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> You can submit it to get whitelisted here: [https://submit.symantec.com/false_positive/](https://submit.symantec.com/false_positive/)

</comment><comment><USER7> It's a gathering point for _hackers_ \- of course it would be flagged.

/s

<comment><USER8> Nefarious, evil and tricksie people who might actually get things done.

For shame.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Just got an email from Norton saying they have resolved the issue.

Email: [http://imgur.com/a/2WwXf](http://imgur.com/a/2WwXf)

</comment><comment><USER9> Probably a Cloudflare IP got flagged then switched to serving YC traffic

<comment><USER10> ycombinator.com is not handled by Cloudflare; it appears to be on Amazon.

<comment><USER11> Hmm...

      nslookup news.ycombinator.com
      Server:     192.168.1.1
      Address:    192.168.1.1#53

      Non-authoritative answer:
      news.ycombinator.com    canonical name = news.ycombinator.com.cdn.cloudflare.net.
      Name:   news.ycombinator.com.cdn.cloudflare.net

<comment><USER10> That's news.ycombinator.com not ycombinator.com. I was talking about the latter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Is this still happening to anybody? I am with Cloudflare and will escalate if still a problem.

<comment><USER13> It looks like it's OK for me, now: [https://safeweb.norton.com/report/show?url=news.ycombinator....](https://safeweb.norton.com/report/show?url=news.ycombinator.com)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> This is what we get for repeatedly making fun of Symantec

</comment><comment><USER15> Hopefully the bureaucracy to get removed from the blacklist is not as bad as with other vendors.

<comment><USER16> It's not really a static blacklist as such. Sites are added and fall off of it regularly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> All the listed threats are formulaformillionaires.com links, which is odd.

<comment><USER18> And formulaformillionaires.com redirects to medium.com. Weird.

<comment><USER19> Also, the owner looks like a normal author [1].

        $ whois formulaformillionaires.com

        Updated Date: 20-sep-2013
        Creation Date: 01-feb-2008
        Expiration Date: 01-feb-2018
        ...
        Admin Name: Paul McCormick
        Admin Organization: Miracle Writers LLC
        ...

Google says [1]:

> Some pages on this website send visitors to the following dangerous > websites: apollo-computers.com.

Edit: Upon further inspection it looks like a pretty questionable book: "Become a millionaire by just following my 7 simple steps!"

[1]: [https://amzn.com/0979433835](https://amzn.com/0979433835)

[2]: [https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/safebrowsing/diagn...](https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/safebrowsing/diagnostic/index.html?hl=en#url=http://www.formulaformillionaires.com/)

<comment><USER18> >"Become a millionaire by just following my 7 simple steps!"

Looks legit Medium.com to me

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> How did you got this warning, what Norton product are you using?

<comment><USER21> In my case it's Norton 360.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I've got this warning too.

</comment><comment><USER22> got a warning notice from my antivirus (Norton). what's up?

</comment><comment><USER23> Something to do with Peter Thiel?</comment>


My first php/js project: a free dynamic icongenerator - <AUTHOR> http://www.iconoplastix.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Finally started out with php and javascript 2 months ago. My first goal for practice grew a bit out of proportion so it seems: a free dynamic icongenerator. Pretty proud although alot of code could probably use alot of optimizing. Still working on export icons to image which proves very tricky (currently trying this via phantomjs on a dedicated server). Anyways, ofc I also am looking for suggestions, feedback and/or tips. Thnx in advance! Peace yo.</comment>


Ask HN: Does your lawyer attend your Board meetings? - <AUTHOR>

Our attorney is offering to come for free (it's standard for the firm to offer that for startups).  Would love to hear if other companies have their attorney attend.  If so, is it helpful? <comment><USER2> I find that having people present that are not in any capacity directly involved with the day-to-day goings on tends to drag meetings out. I prefer to have them short and sweet, it's hard enough to have a meeting with more than 3 people present having a person there asking questions without the required background. People will start weighing their words in the presence of a lawyer.

When I need a lawyer I'll select one specifically based on their track record in that particular field.

Even if he's doing it 'for free' if there is legal work to flow out from that (and everybody will defer to the lawyer because of his great expertise) then you'll end up paying for it anyway. Smart marketing on their part.

You need a lawyer when:

\- you're incorporating

\- you make a major move (investment, layoffs, policy changes, exits, buyouts)

\- when suing or being sued

Outside of that they're like a 5th wheel on a car.

Also, when I go to see a lawyer I make sure that I'm completely prepared, have a basic brief + all supporting documents. This will help a lot in keeping their hours down (and it really adds up, a simple out-of-court settlement will still cost you between 5 and 10 thousand bucks, going to court can easily go in to the 10's of thousands, especially when there are appeals).

<comment><USER3> For us, our lawyer is an advisor, and he's a lawyer who only works with startups, so we like to hear what he has to say. We include him on board emails, meetings, etc.

However, we gave him some equity and his participation is otherwise free in this regard. We certainly couldn't pay someone hundreds of dollars an hour to give us advice right now.

<comment><USER4> Has your attorney been an investor or successful business person other than just being an attorney? Whilst being an attorney can often give you great perspective and great vicarious experience, that doesn't necessarily translate to real-world experience as an entrepreneur. There are parables about listening to attorneys who offer business advice, you know...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> At my last startup, our counsel was also the corporate secretary. It worked out well and let us get all board-related legal work done for a set fee.

</comment><comment><USER6> This is a common practice for corporations, where you need to keep the meeting minutes as part of legal requirements of being a corp (c or s). You (as a Secretary of the corporation) can do it yourself or you can let them do it for you for free. Most people would choose latter.

<comment><USER4> I would say it is common practice for large corporations but is it really that way for small startups? That hasn't been my experience; generally there aren't any attorneys at a small startup's board meeting unless the attorney is a member of the board.</comment></comment>