Block NSA funding for collecting the call records of all Americans - <AUTHOR> http://DefundTheNSA.com/ <comment><USER2> Important point:

(This point was made clear in the actual page, but some of the comments suggest that not everyone understood it.)

The title to this posting (and the name of the website) are misleading. This is not a proposal to block funding for the NSA. And that's good, because such a proposal would have NO chance of passing, and would probably be a bad idea anyhow. Instead, this is a proposal to block funding for NSA collecting records on American citizens that are not being investigated. Which is a much more reasonable position.

<comment><USER3> Also important: money is fungible. To block funding for a particular activity is to say that Congress appropriates money per activity. I don't think that's the case, but would happily be corrected.

So a law that states 'here's your money, but you're not allowed to use it for x' seems toothless in the extreme. It's words on a page.

Keep in mind also that the NSA is close to lawless, so any room for interpretation will gut the intent. If it's words on a page, it's room for interpretation.

The only actual solution is to actually reduce the NSA's budget, substantially. Is that in this bill?

<comment><USER4> I don't know. If we say "Here is your money; you can't use it for X" and the next whistleblower shows that they are nonetheless using it for X means they're misappropriating government funds, and people can go to jail for that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is something real, tangible, and valuable that we can all actually do. All of this month I have felt powerless. This is something within everyone's power to do, and it can definitely help start the ball rolling back the way it came.

It is pretty unfortunate that there is such a short window of time in which this information can be disseminated. I can imagine if there were a bit more time, this could really spread over the whole Web, as the SOPA outroar did. Anyway, we have to do the best we can, with the time we have.

<comment><USER6> I disagree, it is not something real or tangible. I'm all for defunding NSA, but it's not like a regular business which you can boycott by not giving them money. You have to go and ask permission from the government to not give the money (which they previously extracted from you by force for the "good of society") to some of the government agencies. It's pretty much like going to NSA itself and ask them to defund themselves. Voting is just a suggestion, it's not binding. Presidential candidates promise stuff, get votes and then are not obliged to deliver what was promised. It works the same way in every country today.

Real and tangible way to defund NSA is this:

1\. Withhold your taxes.

2\. Protect yourself against the police and the military who will try to extract them by force (possibly by having crowdfunded guards).

3\. Switch from using US Dollar as most of the money government generates comes from inflation (gov sells "bonds" that it will never repay in exchange for new money). Since all national currencies are inflationary and controlled by similar institutions all over the world, only Bitcoin is a good alternative. Or gold, if we can protect the vaults properly and build trust in a company that keeps it (but history shows it doesn't work).

4\. Pay only what you think is fair and where you think it's fair. E.g. if you like social security, pay there directly as much as you want.

Only voluntary payments will guarantee that people who you don't like get as much money as someone is willing to give them explicitly and voluntarily. You should not ask for permission to not participate in what you don't approve.

<comment><USER7> If you make this a choice between the surveillance super state and anarchy, you'll get the super state. Everyone knows we need some kind of government.

It's definitely hard to imagine the NSA being defunded, but that is rooted in a culture that is less concerned with government compliance with law and more with "reasonable" outcomes. The inability to control institutions, and the establishment of those institutions as powers in their own right, is the logical consequence.

<comment><USER8> _Everyone knows we need some kind of government_

I don't. Many people I know don't either. So what if we don't really need any kind of government?

<comment><USER9> I hear Somalia is nice this time of year.

<comment><USER6> So violence in Somalia is not acceptable to you, but allowing your government a lot of violence is acceptable? If people in Somalia cannot find out a way to avoid violence it does not mean it's not possible in principle, or that government is somehow "good".

<comment><USER10> Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, etc.

I love white people who are satiated by the blessings of good government that they can talk, without irony, about how they don't need government. I don't meet many anarchists from my part of the world...

The state of human nature is lawlessness and violence. The only thing keeping society from collapsing into the _hell_ that people in those countries live with is the collective force of the majority asserted through government.

Anarchy sounds dandy until a bunch of people realize that in the absence of the overwhelming power of the state, all it takes is a gang of a dozen people to terrorize their neighbors, taking from them whatever they want. Morality doesn't prevent that. The only thing that prevents that is a bigger group of men, with guns. At first those groups of men were warlords, who eventually became kings, and ultimately we decided we should be able to vote for them. History of civilization in a nutshell.

<comment><USER7> It takes considerably more than "government". It takes a society, with culture and virtues and churches and economy and civic institutions and traditions. There many places in the world that have actual elections were those elections are used by some factions to abuse others. There are still more where decent democracies ultimately collapsed.

Democratic government, government by discourse and persuasion, is a remarkable achievement of a society. It is maintained and supported and continued by that society. There is nothing inevitable about it.

<comment><USER10> You're right that it does take more than government. The western world enjoys not just (relatively) good government, but a virtuous culture and people. But government by itself can be better than culture by itself. I'd imagine a lot of Iraqis miss the strong but dictatorial government under Saddam as compared to the weak but democratic government they have now. Basic security is a higher need (in the Maslovian sense) than self determination. That is the history of the world, after all. People embraced the kings that saved them from the petty warlords and criminals long before they instituted democratic government.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Just a quick note to add that this was built over the course of 5 hours by four developers as part of [http://taskforce.is](http://taskforce.is), which was pretty much assembled here on Hacker News.

Please take a few minutes to call. It's amazing how low conversion rates are on calling campaigns like this one - a factor of 100 lower than email asks - but this is really critical. We only have one day to make this happen.

If you're interested in helping with campaigns like this in the future, you can sign up here: [http://sina.is/rritf.html](http://sina.is/rritf.html)

A big thanks to Thomas Davis, Jens Nockert, and Beau Gunderson for building the site.

<comment><USER11> I just called.

A feature that would be really nice: A way for me to give them my email address and zip code and then get an email when vote results are posted with how my Representative voted.

<comment><USER12> That's a really good idea.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> No, no, a thousand times no. Hey, I'm the biggest fan of anonymity and privacy you can find. This is not an answer. It's an emotional over-reaction.

Countries need intelligence agencies -- they are the best way NOT to fight future wars. SIGINT is a useful function when used against foreign leaders. It's just a terrible idea when used against the population as a whole. Separate the parts that work and are useful from the parts that are destroying the country. Just don't lump it all together.

Unilaterally disarming is not a way forward. The only thing you accomplish by doing that is allowing dozens of other countries to spy on you without your knowledge. How is that a solution? These movements are in real danger of becoming "useful idiots" for others who wish us harm [1]

The only solution here is parity, i.e., whatever blanket surveillance is going on by corporations and the government regarding every citizen should be available to all citizens. This policy would naturally severely limit these kinds of operations without asking us to make broad decisions about delicate matters.

If you insist on defunding something, de-fund and kill the TSA. Then eliminate DHS and have the work go back to the separate agencies. But don't take a flamethrower to something which has a useful, important purpose because the politicians changed their mission to something terrible.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot)

<comment><USER14> Read the website. Despite the name, it is not about defunding the entire nsa, but instead about removing the authorization and funding for blanket data collection

<comment><USER13> You understand that my argument was not against all blanket data collection by the NSA, right? In many cases it might still work. That's the entire point: this issue does not reduce to simple answers, only shared values that can then discuss depending on the particular situation.

Address-to-address SIGiNT, two hops out, with only the address and time? I _might_ could get behind that -- as long as I had that data also.

This discussion is not about surveillance. We are going to have that anyway. All this does is give it to every other country but us. This discussion is about _priviledge_ \-- who gets access to what?

Apologies for reaction to the link bait title, but that doesn't change the point I'm making.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> We elected Bush in 2004 when he had Tom Ridge upping the terror alert every week before the election. It never seemed to go down. But it always managed to go up to red every week.

I think we have hit the point that you can't really roll anything back. If you do and 9/11 v.2.0 happens you are politically screwed. And, unfortunately, it is all about the next election and soccer moms.

<comment><USER16> "We elected Bush in 2004 when he had Tom Ridge upping the terror alert every week before the election."

You hit the nail right on the head. The problem in America isn't the politicians, it's the people.

<comment><USER17> If Obama would do what he promised he would do, we would be in a better situation right now (about the PATRIOT Act, Guantanamo, etc..)

<comment><USER15> I do honestly believe that he wanted to do the right thing. But once he got more info he had to change his mind. For all I know they prevent 1 attack per week. I have no clue. So I think we need to have the security verses privacy debate. If the country is like my sister she thinks she doesn't do anything and will pick security every time. She has three kids that love soccer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> brown9-2 Instead of voting to block funding for programs, why not repeal the laws that enable those programs in the first place? I don't understand this logic.

<comment><USER2> The laws do NOT enable the programs. The laws had specific clauses stating that they could not be used for this sort of widespread surveillance of innocent citizens. But the administration has an "interpretation" of the laws which apparently is at odds with the plain text of the law. I can't say HOW they came by this interpretation, because the interpretation of the law is secret. (Yeah... really.)

So maybe the power of the purse will still be effective. We can hope.

<comment> brown9-2 Or Congress could pass new laws that remove any ambiguity that allows for a different "interpretation" than what was intended.

<comment><USER18> Even so, they are doing it this way because it is a late amendment to the directly related Defense Appropriations Bill. They can hardly stick clarifications to the Patriot Act on to it. It _would_ be great to "treat the cause, not the symptoms", but they didn't have the immediate opportunity to do that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Looks good, is to the point, very convenient -- tells you what to say, who to say it to.

Wonderful job guys. I think this is going to be a pretty effective grassroots campaign.

</comment><comment><USER20> This won't work. Even if they defund the existing programs, the IC will just change the codenames and move them around between departments, as they did with TIA. The technology will live on.

The only way to really end these programs would be a full public debate followed by a statute that outright bans them. Anything less is a PR move.

<comment><USER21> In politics, partial victories can snowball. And vice versa: repeated loss teaches helplessness. The direct real effect of this would be small, but I'd expect it to be much more useful than a loss.

Added: If you read about Watergate, the scandal wasn't any one event or one reaction: it took over two years from the break-in to the resignation, and people weren't sitting still. Some of the important action was in Congress. (Admittedly it was a different country then.)

<comment><USER20> This isn't Watergate. There isn't widespread public outrage. If you want to change the policies, you'll need to generate or simulate that outrage first.

<comment><USER21> Watergate made barely a ripple at first, according to Woodward and Bernstein's book. It built up over time.

<comment><USER22> I was politically aware at the time, it was more than a ripple---burglary of the DNC headquarters meant _something_ \---but it wasn't big for a long time, and even longer before it became bipartisan.

This is _the very first (recorded) vote_ on the issue; even if it were 100% symbolic, which way it goes, how many votes for it will make a difference going forward. And this is bipartisan from the beginning: in a Republican House, an heretofore obscure Republican is the sponsor with the very prominent Democrat John Conyers as the leading co-sponsor.

<comment><USER21> Thanks for the correction. I agree about the significance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Do we really believe that "a vote" can change such things? Do we really believe that we can avoid such situations (= non-transparent governments) within the current system?

I mean, when did you actually vote FOR the NSA funding in the first place so that you can now believe that you can defund it by voting against?

</comment><comment><USER24> Nearly everything that the NSA does is Top Secret, so can we claim to know anything about its activities? Why do we believe that we have the power to defund it, when we don't actually know where it gets its money, or how much it receives? Are posters here aware that the CIA has long been accused of being involved in the global drug trade, as a means of self-financing and leveraging power?

Despite the recent revelations having vindicated the world's tin-foil-hats, we still seem to collectively lack the stomach for darker conspiratorial notions. To be in step with reality, it may be important to build up a bit of tolerance. I'm not making any claims (because I just don't know), but I see absolutely no reason to assume that democratic process applies to these agencies. They may have gone rogue; they may have always been rogue. Their global network may be the actual, de-facto world government. Would it really surprise anyone at this point if a convincing leak exposed such notions? What would we do then?

Let's stop imagining that Law will take care of this problem so we can at least assume a proper direction for our efforts. Which is to say, let's dispense with some of our convenience and fashions and start writing software the right way -- the paranoid way.

To quote the eternal R. Buckminster Fuller:

"In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete."

</comment><comment><USER25> The NSA is the heart of the intelligence gathering apparatus of the US Military Industrial Complex. Like it or not, this bill will pass either tomorrow or another day, tacked on to another bill. It is strategic to the military and the country.

There is no way in hell, this bill will not pass. You can scream, occupy the streets, protest, do whatever but it will not change a thing. It will go through.

The US military Industrial Complex is vast. It lobby's hard. To vote against it is to be called "un-American"- you know its BS but the talking heads will say it. Its powerful but that isn't the point of this post.

Truthfully, our governments have been spying on us for a long time. My country, the UK was reading the mail and telegrams long before the US. Then it was listening and recording phone calls. This is just a step up. As technology increased capabilities, the net has grown wider. From ECHELON to this.

Civil liberties does not mean anything to them as the mindset has stayed the same no matter how much you may scream or complain, realistically it will not change a thing because at the end of the day, the country will have enemies and it needs an intelligence gathering capability. It won't give a damn about our rights as it tries to secure itself.

<comment><USER26> Your post accomplishes nothing except to persuade people to give up the fight for civil liberties. You propose no solution or do you give any additional insight into developing a solution.

Regardless of your actual intentions, you _might as well_ be performing psychological propaganda. It's not helpful.

<comment><USER25> No offence is taken. I've been reading and studying Intelligence/espionage for a long time. Not the fancy James Bond stuff, just the boring average, mundane stuff of the past 100 years.

I offer no solution because quite frankly, there isn't one. Unless you want to shut down the US military's and civilian intelligence gathering capabilities, it's not going to happen. There will always be reading your mail and listening in to your phonecalls. It is not going to stop.

I am not for this, I love my privacy but I am simply pointing out what will happen, regardless of any action taken.

<comment><USER26> You're repeating yourself, and so I'll repeat myself: it's not helpful.

Unless you are prepared to give a mathematical proof of your claims, you ought to doubt them yourself. A priori, there is "no reason" (to mirror your argument) that life ought to have evolved 5 billion years ago on this planet.

Likewise, there are lots of tech projects aimed at countering this sort of thing; saying they won't succeed only makes the participants more determined. :) Propaganda is a double-edged sword.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> In theory it sounds nice, but how many black ops and secret budgets already exist? "Defunding the NSA", will just mean its "official" budget will be cut, and under everyone's noses, they will keep being funded through secret budgets.

I'm not saying it shouldn't happen - eventually - but first the priority should be to repeal the Patriot Act and the FISA Amendments Act, and end the secret FISA Court, or at least overhaul it in such a way that it's public, judges get elected in a much more democratic way than simply having one person naming them, as it is right now, and allow adversarial hearings, and for people to be able to use FOIA against this sort of spying.

If it's done on an American citizen (under a _proper_ warrant - and not en masse), then that citizen should be able to request a FOIA for it, and get an almost completely unredacted document. If there's an investigation done on him currently, then at most he can get a few months delay, to a year. After that everyone should be able to use FOIA to get these documents.

</comment><comment><USER28> I have a question.

It's pretty much a safe bet that the NSA runs Open Source Software. You can't do anything on the internet these days without using FLOSS.

I'm not an expert in software licenses but can't GNU, Linus, Mozilla and all other Open Source contributers revoke the NSA's license to use their software?

Surely Open Source licenses, just like any other license, can be revoked?

<comment><USER29> Clause 6 of the Open Source Definition ( [http://opensource.org/osd- annotated](http://opensource.org/osd-annotated) ) states that open source software licenses cannot discriminate against fields of endeavor. That is, you can't state in your license that an abortion clinic / anti-abortion activists can't use the software and still call it open source.

<comment><USER30> Right. Because "open source" no longer fits, you'd need a new name for software released under the anti-surveillance license. "Freedom Software" instead of "Free Software" has a nice ring to it. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Makes sense hn would too vote such a stupid idea. If it didn't exist already something like it would have to be created.

<comment><USER32> The Soviet Union went out of business in 1991. Why do we still have a mechanism that was built to target a closed totalitarian system armed with 20 megaton hydrogen bombs? The NSA is out of date and out of place.

<comment><USER31> =) This assumes you have correctly defined what"it" is and does? Or what current is? Current isn't on tv.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Remove the funding and they will get it from elsewhere; that 50 years worth of data just became market research.

</comment><comment><USER34> Just called my representative! I spoke the receptionist, who was very nice. I told her repeatedly to support Representative Amash's amendment to HR-2397. She requested my full name, zip code, and email address. Happy to help, from Restore the Fourth San Francisco!

<comment><USER35> When I called in the first time, I got a busy line. When I called in a second time, I was directed to Nancy Pelosi's voice mail.

Hopefully, this means we are flooding the lines!

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> "The bill gives taxpayer money to fund defense programs, including NSA surveillance."

Why does it take money to defund an operation? Doesn't "defund" mean to not allocate money for.

Obama says he will veto. So what? If no money is allocated for said programs where is the budget for them coming from?

These NSA programs are only the tip of the iceberg of intrusions. <a href="The [http://www.govexec.com/technology/2013/04/consumer-bureau- de...](http://www.govexec.com/technology/2013/04/consumer-bureau-defends-data- collecting/62730/">Consumer) Credit Bureau</a> collects all financial data on US citizens and obamacare will be collecting and sharing everything medical with numerous federal agencies.

</comment><comment><USER37> Didn't congress say no to funding the stealth MH-60 SOF variant and later see tail rotor of a stealth MH-60 SOF variant in someone's backyard in Abbottabad?

<comment><USER38> I think you're thinking of the Comanche helo. There's absolutely zero chance IMHO that Congress actually went out of their way to de-fund a fancy SOF toy.

<comment><USER37> I am almost positive it was the MH60. If my memory is correct: Congress did not defund it, they just did not authorize the funds to go forward with the plans to build a stealth MH60 SOF. Upon hearing the news the CIA said fuck it we have some black budget money we will pay for it. The next time congress heard about the program was news reports about a tail rotor from a stealth chopper in some guys yard in Abbottabad.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I called all three of my listed representatives - the phone was answered almost immediately.

It took less than 5 minutes of my time. It may even take you less. It was quite pleasant.

Do it now!

<comment><USER40> Agreed. The people you call know exactly what to expect and make it as quick and painless as possible. They're also very pleasant. I'm young and shy but this was probably the easiest social interaction I've ever done. Worth a shot, worth 30 seconds.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> The best way to rein in the NSA is make it difficult or impossible for it to find and hire employees and contractors. Without people it cannot function.

</comment><comment><USER42> Man, you should put a big "call with Twilio" button right on the page to dial straight out to the representatives then and there.

</comment><comment><USER43> Not sure if this is good idea.

Their database may be worth too much on a commercial market, and what if they may be tempted to become self-funding.

</comment><comment><USER44> More info - [http://rules.house.gov/bill/hr-2397](http://rules.house.gov/bill/hr-2397)

Amendment #100

</comment><comment><USER45> I wish there was an email option instead of having to call my congressman.

</comment><comment><USER17> Their secret budget will see an increase if this happens...

</comment><comment><USER46> I was shocked for a while, since I read it as defendthensa.

</comment><comment><USER47> Oh snap - my rep proposed this bill. Cool!

</comment><comment><USER48> LOL Fools

You know that the CIA run most of the drugs in and out of the great US. You know that they have massive surplus cash? Like so big they don't really know what to do with it

These 'government' bodies can and will exist without government. This is how they fund most if not all their black ops, that way nothing needs to be on the books.

if we stopped public money, I doubt it would even make a dent

<comment><USER16> This may sound farfetched, but it's not. If you're interested in learning more about the CIA and drugs, I recommend the following:

\- The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade by Alfred W. McCoy [1]

\- Whiteout: The CIA, Drugs and the Press by Alexander Cockburn [2]

\- Acid Dreams: The Complete Social History of LSD: The CIA, the Sixties, and Beyond by Martin A. Lee [3]

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/The-Politics-Heroin-Complicity- Global/...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Politics-Heroin-Complicity- Global/dp/1556524838/)

[2] [http://www.amazon.com/Whiteout-The-CIA-Drugs- Press/dp/185984...](http://www.amazon.com/Whiteout-The-CIA-Drugs- Press/dp/1859848974/)

[3] [http://www.amazon.com/Acid-Dreams-Complete-History- Sixties/d...](http://www.amazon.com/Acid-Dreams-Complete-History- Sixties/dp/0802130623/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I think this is fighting the symptom rather than the cause. NSA is a symptom of a much larger problem, which is taxes. If you didn't have them, you wouldn't have to demand those things in the first place, because all the money you'd give would be given voluntarily and to organizations that you choose and think are important.

<comment><USER49> Meanwhile, back on Earth...

Taxes are the means of transferring worth to folks like firefighters, police officers, construction works etc... You know, the folks who hold up infrastructure and need to eat food and stuff. And I can count on one hand the number of people I've met who would donate to these institutions in this economy.

Now if there's a way to reroute existing tax funds that used to go to rubbish into things that are really necessary, I'm all ears. And there may just be a way to work out something that enough heckling of public officials may... just may... get off the ground.

Step 1: Earmarks are verboten. I've lost count of how many times I've seen a bill pass congress with a whole heap of pork-barrel nonsense (subsidies to shady companies anyone?) because some senator has to do a kickback to the folks who paid for his/her election.

Step 2: _Every_ law that is to be passed is read out loud from front page to end in congress by a designated reader from each party. They may take turns if they're tired, but no one is allowed to leave, have bathroom breaks, nap, chat or be otherwise distracted.

You actually get to bloody _know_ WTF you're passing. Someone raises a hand and goes, "hey, that's stupid!" Everyone stops and discusses what it is that's stupid and the thing gets amended on the spot.

Step 3: No consecutive reelections... for anything. No exceptions! The chance that you won't be here the next term is a damn good way to ensure people remember you for the _right_ reasons in your current term so you can come back the term after that to finish what you started. It also takes away the incentive to seek office as a career. No, you get to government to serve. Now pick up a broom, damn it!

...I'm sure someone else has some bright other ideas short of throwing out taxes, which functional societies will always have in some form until we throw out currency altogether.

<comment><USER6> Me and my friends will never stay in your way if you want to fund a firefighter or NSA, or local McDonalds. It's your choice, your property. Even if we don't like your lifestyle or disagree with your ideas. Will you give me the same respect to disagree with you and act upon my beliefs? Since I don't force you to pay for what I think is good, will you please allow me not to participate in things I don't approve of? If yes, then you should be against taxation. If no, will you employ violent action against me if I disagree with you and try to peacefully avoid certain things you like?

<comment><USER38> As long as you don't drink water from public infrastructure, use public Wi-Fi, get power from public lines, drive on public roads, get healthcare at public hospitals, ever call the public 911 line no matter how scary that burglar is, etc. etc. then sure dude, go nuts.

<comment><USER6> You have a logical fallacy right there.

First, see my replies to you on why government == violence.

Now imagine if I extract some money from you ("for the children") and provide you with some "service". Service could even be valuable to you. But if at some point you get disappointed at my actions and decide to protect yourself from my aggression, I'd educate your children that your family is using my service and must shut up and pay for it. How'd you like it when your child will call the cops because daddy is against schools and public wifi? Government is nothing different, just on a larger scale.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Taking your Site from One to One Million Users by Kevin Rose [video] - <AUTHOR> http://vimeo.com/6905398

<comment><USER2> Lie about it not being yours on national TV?

<comment><USER3> Hey he had a platform and he used it. I'm not sure he lied about it but he definitely made it seem like something he had stumbled upon as opposed to something he built.

(slight aside, I worked at TechTV when Kevin Launched digg)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I feel that Kevin Rose has a mixed-reputation in some circles. But I thought his advice was interesting and he has some good credentials in terms of building community-centered sites (Digg, Revision3, WeFollow (Pownce, not so much)), that can't be denied.

</comment><comment><USER5> I haven't watched the video yet, but I'm sure he didn't mention one thing I did. I answered all the support emails, and I tried to personalize every one of them with a joke or something. And put my real name and email.

</comment><comment><USER6> Is it just me or is the audio only on the left channel?

<comment><USER4> It is. The final interview is stereo and you can feel the difference.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do you choose what to work on? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> I think of this phrase: "Spend time on what your future self most wants you to work on." That being said I often lose focus (assuming I know my future self). One project I'm engaged in is learning about systems and complexity. I figure that applies broadly enough to any work to meet the criteria above. I write about it here: [https://unintendedconsequenc.es/blog/](https://unintendedconsequenc.es/blog/)</comment>


Python Developer Survey 2018 Results - <AUTHOR> https://www.jetbrains.com/research/python-developers-survey-2018/ <comment><USER2> 7% of respondents do "software testing / writing automated tests" as a hobby? Bravo to those hardy souls.

<comment><USER3> A healthy chunk of that is probably folks who work somewhere where you can't/don't have time to write tests, and keep up with it on their own so they are current when job searching.

<comment><USER4> _raises hand_

My current workload is mostly a bunch of data-collect scripts (hitting APIs, building a CSV, loading that to cloud storage and databases), plus prototyping small web apps for internal limited span projects. Testing doesn't make much sense for our current tasks, but I also really don't want to be left in the dust.

<comment><USER5> I need to start doing this. Any recommendations on where to start? I'd consider myself a pretty experienced python developer, that has not only not done unit testing, but have actively avoided it.

On the web side, any generators that create unit tests I normally delete...I know it's terrible.

<comment><USER6> Don't drink the kool-aid.

<comment><USER7> I'll second that. I owe a great amount to those willing to publicly denounce TDD.

If I had been a working developer as this nonsense ramped up, I would have avoided it too. Nobody really does TDD. It's a mythical concept.

Some sanity checks are fine, and some integration tests. Unit tests are often a pit of time waste, depending on the unit. I aim for my unit tests to look like integration tests.

<comment><USER8> > Nobody really does TDD. It's a mythical concept.

That is 100% not true it is far from a "mythical concept" and you should not be misguiding devs.

Where do you think your testing suite is from? You might even be using their code who knows.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > It's quite surprising that 35% of Python users don't use any testing > frameworks and are presumably not testing their code.

That's some olympic-level conclusion jumping there

<comment><USER10> Agreed. You don't really _need_ a testing framework in Python. It's nice, and I use one, but a script with asserts (potentially importing other scripts) goes a long way.

<comment><USER5> Yep, this is what I've been doing, plus typing now...it's pretty good.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Never heard of this survey. I guess only people who're using Jetbrains products had filled it... (looks at the editor statistics) yep, sounds like it.

<comment><USER12> I guess you ignored their disclaimer beside the editor statistics?

From their methodology section:

> The data include responses only from the official Python Software Foundation > channels. After filtering out duplicate and non-reliable responses, the > data-set includes more than 18,000 responses collected in October and > November of 2018 via promoting the survey on python.org, the PSF blog, the > PSF's Twitter and LinkedIn accounts, official Python mailing lists, and > Python-related subreddits. No product-, service-, or vendor-related channels > were used, in order to prevent the survey from being slanted in favor of any > specific tool or technology.

<comment><USER13> If I remember correctly, I believe the JetBrains / IntelliJ / PyCharm brands of the sponsor were very visible when taking the survey.

That might have influenced significantly in the selection of the Python users taking the survey: why answer a survey setup and sponsored by a private company you are not really familiar with and that you don't necessarily trust as a result?

There is also a second selection bias: the people who follow the PSF and the official python.org communication channels are probably nerdier than the average Python programmer. This is reflected in the OS statistics. The survey results suggests than 53% of the Python users do not use Windows at all.

On the scikit-learn online documentation, after removing the mobile traffic we have: Windows at 61%, macOS at 23% and Linux at 15%.

On stackoverflow, the primary OS statistics are: Windows at 47%, macOS at 27% and Linux at 23%.

<comment><USER14> oh come on. 18000 responses.

This is the js survey results all over again: no. Unless you can _statistically prove_ the results are biased, you don't get to ignore the results because you dont like them.

Finding data points with _no methodology_ that contract the survey result __does not invalidate the survey results __.

Thats. not. how statistics work.

A great deal of effort was put into this survey, and the stats you're looking at are more likely biased than the ones in this survey.

The stats and the methodology here are clearly documented; if you want to argue with them, be specific and provide concrete statistical proof for your assertions.

 _Specifically_ , why do the stats you have prove anything, and what confidence do you have that _they_ are representative?

<comment><USER15> If you're that strict then this survey is also useless as you cannot prove anything about general population of Python developers.

<comment><USER16> I think the point here is people tend to reject survey data because they can only see some tiny minimal subset of the data and it doesn't match in aggregate.

In this situation often the smaller dataset is wrong.

...not always. But often.

Human intuition based on limited data can seem compelling, but it's always worth acknowledging _you_ might be the outlier.

18000 respondents is a lot, especially when a specific effort has been made to sample from various sources.

The parent post didn't even bother to check their own biases.

<comment><USER12> Another thing that I've noticed is that often what we, humans, feel makes intuitive sense (and therefore must be correct), when you actually look at the data, is often very wrong. Just because it makes sense to us doesn't mean its correct. Basically, humans are naturally biased not only towards certain held beliefs, but also towards things that just "sound" correct, regardless of what the reality is. It makes sense though, if an explanation of something is understandable to us, then we can think about it logically (or otherwise) and come to conclusions, but unfortunately often things that are understandable are also based on flawed assumptions.

I don't know if that's the case here, but I do often think that people gravitate towards the first thing that they can understand that seems to, at a glance, check out, without investigating.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> > Surprisingly almost two-thirds of respondents selected Linux as their > development environment OS. Please note, for this question we allowed > multiple answers. We're not drawing primary OS popularity conclusions here.

What makes that surprising? A past result? A preconceived idea?

The surveys 9th takeaway is the same:

> Surprisingly, almost two-thirds of Python developers choose Linux as their > development environment OS.

... Why is it surprising? Did you expect an equal split? Did you expect Windows to dominate?

There's no answer here. I have no idea why the result is surprising: it fits what I would expect.

<comment><USER18> It is surprising to me, for probably similar reasons that the authors expected. OSX has, for a long time, been the OS of choice for arguably the majority of developers that aren't developing specifically for windows (.NET etc). OSX has been obviously popular, though I recognise that in the last year there has been a trend of people complaining about OSX and threatening to leave.

I took the survey and I marked both OSX and Linux, because I deploy (local/docker remote/vm) to linux and spend quite some time in linux shells. I think it likely that a lot of windows users would do the same.

To be crystal clear, I wouldn't think that the majority of python developers are using linux as their primary development machine. I bet next year the survey will focus in on selecting primary OS as a choice.

<comment><USER19> > been the OS of choice for arguably the majority of developers that aren't > developing specifically for windows (.NET etc)

Not necessarily. In absolutely every enterprise Java development environment I've seen in Europe, they're using Windows as the developer OS. Easier to manage using AD.

<comment><USER18> Sure, you've added another segment that is not linux. The point I was trying to make is that I don't think many people would expect linux (of any flavour) to be the dominant development OS.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> JetBrains is so nervous that PyCharm ended up as the most popular Python IDE in a survery that they conducted themselves :)

No worries guys, As a happy CE user, I find it's not only a phenomenal contribution to the overall Python experience but also a huge gesture of goodwill from your part.

Kudos!

</comment><comment><USER21> I completely dropped PyCharm in favor of VSCode + Kite; PyCharm became unacceptably slow and VSCode fixed their missing pieces; all my Deep Learning/ML workflow is now done either in Jupyter or in VSCode.

</comment><comment><USER15> Can we say that python 2.x -> 3.x transition is done?

<comment><USER22> It was done 2 years ago, with the 3.6 release that triggered the migration for many major libs and shops.

Today tools start dropping python 3 versions... like latest numpy and django don't support 3.4

<comment><USER23> 3.4 is EOL at the end of March, so we'll be seeing less and less of it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I think there's a mismatch between their classification and that of the people surveyed.

The survey characterizes "Scientific development" as "Data analysis + Machine learning", with 28% of the people selecting one of those two latter categories as the answer for "What do you use Python for the most?"

However, only 6% of the users said they were in a company which did science, and only 2% develop for a science industry.

Now, it's certainly true that a scientist can work for a company which neither does science nor targets science research. As an example, an ice cream company may employ food scientists.

It's also possible that people who do, for example, actuarial science might group themselves as working in "insurance" rather than "science".

But it seems wrong to infer that "Scientific development" is equivalent to "Data analysis + Machine learning" without stronger support.

After all, an engineer uses data analysis to evaluate a design, and while engineering is an applied field of science, with a great amount of engineering science to back it up, I don't think many engineers consider themselves as a scientist or as someone doing scientific development.

<comment><USER25> I think you're expectations of what makes something "scientific development" is a little too high. An analyst using statistical methods - ANOVA, market basket association, association rule learning, outlier detection - is doing ""scientific development". A network engineer working on a congestion algorithm is, too. Postgres? RoR? PHP?

These are all in the realm of scientific development, vis-a-vis non-trivial impacts both socially and commercially.

<comment><USER24> By "mismatch" I believe that an analyst using statistical methods would typically not consider themself to be a scientist or doing scientific development.

I agree that "science" can be a broad term - I gave the example of engineering as a branch of science. But what use is there to describe 28% of the respondents as doing scientific development if only (say) 6 percent of the people would describe themselves as doing scientific development?

Also, is there nothing else to scientific development besides data analysis or machine learning?

<comment><USER25> Scientific development isn't research, which is why it's called Research _& Development_.

<comment><USER24> How about this then - if science is a broad term which includes research _and_ development, what sort of software development isn't "scientific development"?

<comment><USER25> What we have today is the result of scientific development, and software development is among the fields at the very forefront of modern growth. In that context, all of it.

AirBnB? Yup. Uber? Definitely. Facebook? Beyond a doubt. Flickr? Twitter? MySpace? How about open source projects like Apache httpd? Kafka? Linux? What about the guidance software used in the Apollo missions? Think about what the MP3 coding format did for digital media.

It's very easy to take these things for granted, boiled frog and all that.

<comment><USER24> Then you also disagree with the survey's definition that "Scientific development" = "Data analysis + Machine learning" = 28% of the users.

You agree that there is a mismatch between their classification and yours, and believe it should be 100%.

This supports my argument that their definition is not useful. Rather, it could have been "foobar programmers", and been a more useful as it wouldn't have come with a large amount of existing associations with different meanings.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Anyone else think the inference from "not using automated testing frameworks" to "are not testing their code" is a little unwarranted?

<comment><USER27> Yes, especially considering that a lot of the respondents are doing data analytics and therefore probably running multiple different types of analyses and cross checking numbers and results, so testing is sort of baked into their workflow.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Its a bit strange that they consider data analysis and machine learning should be put together, yet, web development, dev ops and automated testing shouldn't. I guess my job falls mainly into web development, but I still have to get data out of the database every so often with custom queries, so should data analysis be included there my job as well?

<comment><USER29> Custom queries are not analysis

<comment><USER28> Depends what the purpose of them is.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Did the survey miss an important survey choice or is robotics really that low?

<comment><USER17> I would posit that it is a result of collection - the survey mainly collected from JetBrains users.

It is possible that people working for lower systems have different editor choices, making them less likely to have answered the survey.

<comment><USER30> You mean "lower level" systems, right?

I dunno... Robotics can be very high level, particularly with ROS.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> The Experience in IT bar chart is underwhelming, it would be nice to see the breakdown by incremental years of experience in IT. NONE of the year ranges span the same number of years. Making a basic inference from the percentages and bins it would seem that Python use is negatively correlated with years of experience.

<comment><USER31> Also you can compare it with the age below. Most people are 21-29 years old, but have 11+ years of experience? I think the meta-physics of the job market make people write bigger numbers than truthfully would apply.

A smarter way might be to ask when was the first month/year that one got paid for python dev work and then calculate the experience number oneself.

<comment><USER32> The pool of respondents aged 30-39 was 31% and all 30+ was 49%. So 25% of all respondents having 11+ years in IT shouldn't be farfetched. I myself am in my late twenties and I'm not far from 11 years of professional experience.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Kinda surprised (pleasantly?) that Anaconda is the most popular non-official distributor. Though I'm surprised Enthought has almost zero representation. I was considering a move, and though they would be worth the try.

<comment><USER34> I used Enthought before switching to Anaconda. I don't remember exactly what got me to try it, but I found the experience a lot better.

Maybe the Windows support? I'm not sure. It's been a couple of years.

I hadn't even thought about Enthought until I saw your comment.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Wasn't there a bunch of questions about how python could be best improved, and what libraries could be better? What happened to all that?

</comment><comment><USER36> How is it that the largest portion of people responding had over 10 years of experience in software development but the largest portion of people responding were between 21-29 yeas of age?

<comment><USER37> I'm sad that the over 40 crowd is so low. After years of C#/Java/C++, I want my next gig to be Python.

<comment><USER38> Hmm, I spent >10 years with Python and on large/important apps it's hard to refactor and slow. (PS they're still using Python 2 as well). I want to pivot to C# on Linux / .Net Core.

<comment><USER37> That wouldn't be too bad. I'm over Windows. More specifically I'm over enterprise development using Windows. C# is a great language.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I use Python as a prototyping tool only, and I mean prototyping in the sense that the code will always be thrown away and rewritten in a more suitable language.

Python sacrifices so much in the way of efficiency, safety, and maintainability that it's hard to justify the wins in expressiveness. Easily checked errors that should have never made it to production manifest at runtime even after rigorous testing. Increasing performance requires moving to asyncio which drastically reduces readability and limits the code reuse from non-async libraries. Eventually code bases grow so large mypy becomes a must, and we have to contend with interfacing untyped libraries and refactoring all of our existing code with annotations.

Python has its place, but in line with how scary modern software practices are to me, it's crazy that Python has become such a mainstay in production software.

<comment><USER40> Maybe you have the luxury of rewriting that others don't have. Do you rewrite to assembly? That's going to be really fast you know!

With a proper test framework, people can and are building large scale applications. There are plenty of ways to optimize performance without a complete rewrite. Python is really Python+C to a large extent.

<comment><USER39> Prototyping is something that should be time boxed and usually costs me a day to a week of time at the most. Experience tells me that most applications do not survive the first iteration very long without prototyping, and Python lets me maximize my time spent prototyping.

As for your jibe, my original point was that there is something between Python and Assembly. There are many languages that provide all or many of the nice things that Python gives us that are staggeringly more efficient and safe.

Python is really Python+C if you're willing to write C extensions, which completely negates the point of using Python. C extensions also don't maintain safety, or solve Pythons shift of compile time bugs to runtime. It really only addresses the efficiency losses by making you write code in another language.

People can and will build successful applications in all sorts of crazy ways. It's a fallacy argument that just because something is done a certain way, that must mean there are no better ways that could save us time, money, and sanity.

<comment><USER40> Python is not perfect and languages do evolve. Maybe Rust or Go or something new will take over the world. But there's a trade-off between developer time and execution time and you can't focus on just one. There's also the benefit of a large ecosystem of libraries (and talent, if you are a large enterprise) when you embrace Python that may not yet be available in some other newer languages.

Prototyping usually involves working with existing code base and the ecosystem, although if you are building a brand new product or application, your context may be different.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Offer HN: Free project management - <AUTHOR>

I released Wedoist some time ago and I have mostly built it for managing my own startups and I know a number of other startups that are using it to manage their tasks. I think Wedoist is the hacker way of managing your startup :)
I offer 1 year of free Wedoist Pro (worth $60) for one of your projects. Wedoist Pro offers ability to upload files (5GB) and SSL (and upcoming features such as milestones).
Email email@example.com with "Offer HN: Wedoist" as subject along with your Wedoist project URL (and your HN user id).
If you haven't checked out Wedoist you can do it on http://wedoist.com/ <comment><USER2> Clickity: <http://wedoist.com> Looks like a pretty cool website!

</comment><comment><USER3> tasks + status updates + group chat actually sounds like a great combination. Don't overload it with heaps of other features :)</comment>


Show HN: Chrome extension to auto-close Zoom meeting tabs - <AUTHOR> https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/clozoom/ginkdklliadpegalhjlibeggnnbdkghi <comment><AUTHOR> Hey HN! Made this to clean up the mass of Zoom attendee tabs on our Chrome windows. It's open source, and really just around 100 lines of vanilla JS. But I think scratches a pretty big itch for a lot of us in these strange times.

[https://github.com/thesephist/clozoom](https://github.com/thesephist/clozoom)</comment>


The Beginner's Guide to Freelance - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/code-like-a-girl/the-beginners-guide-to-freelance-ed89c4051c26#.83mxhvo08 <comment><USER2> He forgets to mention intellectual properties issues. Working with a friend here is super dangerous if you don't define who owns what before starting. For those who are like I was sometimes ago, things can go super wrong : someone claiming copyright on some code you wrote (yes, he can do that even though he didn't write a single line of code; just because "he got the idea") can actually block you from using it for your own; that is your code is not yours anymore because you are afraid of your friend claiming (and winning) copyrights on it...

<comment><USER3> _" He forgets to mention intellectual properties issues."_

Minor nitpick, but the author is a she.

But this is a good point. Generally speaking, whenever you're freelancing, you should be aware that "work for hire" is the standard agreement. This means that the work you create will become the intellectual property of the commissioning client unless you and the client agree otherwise. The burden is typically on you, as the contractor, to raise this issue and attempt to stake a claim -- be it maintaining ownership of the finished product, or be it making exemptions for any aspects of the product (for instance, any use of your existing IP as part of the new project).

IANAL, but I have freelanced pretty extensively over the years. I'm not sure what would happen if you entered into a freelancing project without addressing IP status in a contract or statement of work -- whether the IP would therefore be assigned to the client by default. But I don't leave that to chance. It goes in writing.

That said, I don't often fight for IP retention on freelancing assignments. Many of the people I have freelanced for would not have hired me if they couldn't own what I created. That's just the nature of the work I do. Your mileage may vary.

<comment><USER2> Sorry for the "she", my mistake.

As for th eIP, my case is a bit strange, I have an app that I GPL'ed, now I want to sell a service where I actually add functionality to the app. The client gets the functionality, I get to put the functionality in the app (ie I open source it).

I also work in Belgium. Here, the author is the one who writes the code (in case of freelancing; it's the opposite if you're employee). Unfortunately, even if the law is fine, my client doesn't want to hear it ...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The first part is actually the more daunting one. How do I find work in the first place? I'm only a student with virtually no connection in the industry.

<comment><USER5> I've been freelancing since 2005 - my main tactic to build a steady stream of consulting/freelancing leads is what I call "planting little seeds" \- I describe that here [https://www.wisecashhq.com/blog/how-to-have-clients-find- you...](https://www.wisecashhq.com/blog/how-to-have-clients-find-you-rather- than-you-chasing-them).

Feel free to drop me a line if you have questions! (email in HN profile).

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> The section on setting your price is bad advice. There's no consideration for covering your business costs, your living costs, taxes, credit card processing costs, or even what the minimum wage rate is ($15/hr would actually be below the Australian minimum wage, for example).

There's lots of Freelance Rate Calculators out there that can give you better direction, here's a few selected semi-randomly:

[https://motivapp.com/freelance-hourly-rate- calculator](https://motivapp.com/freelance-hourly-rate-calculator)

[http://www.flyingsolo.com.au/hourly-rate- calculator](http://www.flyingsolo.com.au/hourly-rate-calculator)

[https://hourlyrate.beewits.com/](https://hourlyrate.beewits.com/)

There is one redeeming feature in the pricing suggestion (for beginners), and that is it might stop analysis paralysis. It's better to actually get out there & undersell yourself the first time, than to stress so much that you never even get your first client.

<comment><USER7> The problem with those calculators is that they are based upon your desires, not on your customers.

If I needed $40K per year to maintain my lifestyle and I invented a cure for cancer, would I only charge $40k?

Similarly, if I needed $100 per hour to maintain my style of living, should I demand $100 to someone who wants to hire me as a doorman? He'd never pay that much.

<comment><USER6> You're right that value based pricing [ie what it's worth to the customer] is a better approach. Both the Freshbooks book Breaking The Time Barrier [1] and Brennan Dunn's website [2] are good resources on those. But they might be too advanced for someone just starting out.

You do need to determine what your own base costs are though, at least to ensure you're not going backwards. The calculators I linked to above at least help with starting to think about those costs.

[1] [https://www.freshbooks.com/blog/breakingthetimebarrier/](https://www.freshbooks.com/blog/breakingthetimebarrier/)

[2] [https://doubleyourfreelancing.com](https://doubleyourfreelancing.com)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > I. How do you calculate a price for what you do?

Work in the industry you want to freelance in first. This way you find out how much clients value your work. Then you know what to charge.

> II. How do you write a proposal?

Work in the industry you want to freelance in first. Learn how the proposal writers do their job and what clients expect to see. Improve on it.

> III. How do you draft a contract?

With a lawyer who has experience in the industry you want to freelance in.

I supported a family freelancing for a long time, about 6 years. It's terrible. If you are unsure of how to do something, you have to wonder what value you are really adding. Learn it first. Then execute it as a freelancer.

</comment><comment><USER9> Signing contracts _after_ you have carefully read them is another issue. In the last five years, two people have sent me long contracts, and buried near the end, was a statement that I would indemnify the company and investors if they were ever sued for patent violation for whatever I was working on. Do people actually sign stuff like this?

<comment><USER10> I got a contract from a client that would have held me responsible for _" estimated loss of profits"_ !!!

I wrote back quoting the offending paragraph: "Nice try but yeah, no."</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Does doing a CS PhD makes sense? - <AUTHOR> I am contemplating whether or not to do a PhD in ML(received an offer from a good North American lab). Financially it makes no sense. However, I am wondering whether it opens up new possibilities in career advancement in the industry. The reasoning is that, scientists get more autonomy and hence a greater chance to make an impact. Is this the case in the real world?<p>edit: I understand that some can work on a PhD without any financial motivation but purely as a passion. I enjoy doing research just for the sake of it but I do not have the freedom to not think about finances. <comment><USER2> I have a PhD in SE and it didn't help me financially. But it was an awesome experience in research, learning and personal development. My take is that there's far more to life than chasing after money. Living within your means is an easier path to happiness.

To answer your question: If you can potentially land a job at a FAANG or Microsoft Research or in SV or NY, then it probably will pay-off in the long run. Academic research jobs are very hard to get. By the time you graduate with a PhD, ML might no longer be the trendy field. AI has been on and off trend for over 50 years.

In summary, whilst there is a chance of eventual financial advantage, the real value of a PhD is in being paid to pursue an interest that you are passionate about.

</comment><comment><USER3> I think your question is based on a false premise that scientists get more autonomy and more autonomy means a greater chance to make impact. Just getting a PhD would not gaurentee either or these. To make deep impact in industry you would have to assemble or work with "A" grade teams. Academic PhDs seldom do that, more often than not PhD is an individual effort. Some skills might transfer but PhD is typically not structured to impart skillset that would directly contribute to growth in industry. I would personally think getting into industry after Master's is a better choice.

</comment><comment><USER4> If you can do the ML, do it. As long as you can enjoy work, not worrying about finances, I would take that any day.

Good luck!</comment>


An OpenID is not an account! - <AUTHOR> http://simonwillison.net/2007/Jan/10/account/ <comment><USER2> This is a really confusing aspect of openID. It still perplexes me that when I log into a new site with my openID that I have to verify email, choose username etc.

Whats all the fuss about if all it does is handle the password entry aspect?

I know that many 'normal' users find it very confusing to be redirected to a different web site to enter their password and then redirected back.

<comment><USER3> It all depends on the implementation on the relying site.

Indeed you must still pick a username (or perhaps you don't -- again, depends on the implementation), but it all comes down to simplifying the identification process. If the identity provider recognizes you, the relying site trusts that the information you provided there still holds true.

Single sign-on is the main hook right now and it's an attractive one, especially for users who are hesitant to try new services due to a lengthy sign-up form. Because it's open-spec, there are some interesting new applications for OpenID that are coming into light.

<comment><USER2> There was a good point that Simon Willison raised recently. If your building a web app and that app gets dugg, the digg users will be able to log straight into your site with no sign up process if you support openID. Aything that lowers the barriers to someone using your app has got to be a good thing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> In theory couldn't one ban any OpenID below a certain pagerank? For example, my OpenID is embedded on my homepage, which has a pagerank of 6. So then could I create a Reddit clone and ban anyone with an OpenID coming from a site with a pagerank of below 4? You would probably have to accept only OpenID's from the header of index.html, and check to make sure there was only one OpenID per page. That way if you got banned for trolling then you'd have to make a new homepage and get it up to a certain pagerank before you could make a new account at the site.

<comment><AUTHOR> yeah, because there are no unscrupulous ways of elevating one's pagerank...

<comment><USER4> PageRank works almost exactly the same way as a PKI. The only difference is that instead of people signing your key to vouch that it belongs to you, they are linking to your webpage to vouch that it has quality content. PageRank can be faked, certainly, but it is difficult enough to at least significantly slow someone down. To make it more trustworthy you'd probably have to modify it to create certain webpages that were absolutely trusted, and then do some sort Kevin Bacon rank where end users were scored based on the degrees of separation. That way there is some designated starting point, rather than the whole system being based off popularity.</comment></comment></comment>


Best-Selling Author Cancels California Affiliates - <AUTHOR> http://entrepreneurbootcamp.blogspot.com/2011/07/best-selling-author-cancels-california.html

<comment><USER2> As someone who is living in Las Vegas NV (no state income tax) I am struggling with where I should move. I just checked and the CA state income tax is 10% for my earning bracket. That's a 10% premium (>$10k per year) when compared to Texas, Nevada and Washington. It's also 1% greater than Oregon. It's 5% greater than CO or NM. Add to that the high cost of living in the valley (particularly housing) and it's difficult to justify moving to California vs. getting a remote job working for a company in California at the same salary.

I see the economic value of working the valley and that the salaries are higher, but they would have to be 30% higher than what I'm earning in Nevada just to offset the increase in costs. Imagine if I actually wanted a raise.

If you tell me that not only is the CA legislature requiring these funds from me, but also requiring corporations with operations in the state to collect sales tax (putting them at a competitive disadvantage to companies that don't have operations there) I'm going to start to wonder about what other anti- business measures might get passed. Anti-business measures are going to cause businesses to move if they can. Less businesses means less chance for jobs which is obviously a negative for someone looking to move to economic opportunity.

<comment><USER3> For that remote job, just be careful to check the law first. Some states tax telecommuters. I do not believe California is one of them, but I also do not believe that will last forever since lord knows they need revenue.

All CA has to do is redefine "source" and poof, free money. <http://www.ftb.ca.gov/aboutFTB/manuals/audit/rstm/3000.pdf> section 3420 "The critical factor in determining the source of income from personal services is not the residence of the taxpayer, the place where the contract for services is entered into, or the place of payment. It is the place where the services are actually performed" - change that definition, and there goes your sweet telecommuting tax break.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/20/business/businessspecial2/...](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/20/business/businessspecial2/20tax.html) is an interesting article about the New York telecommuting tax.

<comment><USER4> _lord knows they need revenue_

Or they need to cut spending.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Sounds like someone who is looking to generate PR by coasting on other news and slamming California. As someone who has started a company in CA, I don't find the business climate "repressive".

<comment><USER6> As an outsider dealing with CA taxes... due to a previous CA employee, I find CA intrusive and expensive to deal with. More paperwork and fees, and hassles than anything in my own business tax state of Colorado. And, like I've said in other posts, I'm still dealing with CA... 2 years after I let my CA employee go. Don't believe me? Try calling up the Franchise Tax Board... 2 hours of waiting, if you can get thru their automated phone system that is. Yes, there are much better business friendly states... CA is at the bottom of the barrel.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Im curious - why does California's 'anti-business' culture not interfere with silicon valley startup activity?

<comment><USER8> As a Silicon Valley entrepreneur, none of what this guy says rings true for me.

I'm here because I think California's climate for business is great. What I need is smart, well-educated, creative workers. I need reliable infrastructure. I need great universities. I need a broad-minded culture, so creative oddballs feel comfortable, and talent from overseas feels like they could make a life here.

Personally, I'm happy to pay taxes to support education, infrastructure, and a fair bit of regulation, because it directly benefits me and my business. As far as I'm concerned, This guy's whole anti-tax-means-patriotism stuff is just another way of saying "I Got Mine, Fuck You". And since affiliate marketing funds an awful lot of web spam, I am not going to shed too many tears about the end of his affiliate program.

<comment><USER9> Strangely, the author's example of a more business friendly state (Texas) seems to beat California on a number of your government-related metrics.

Texas schools are better than California schools for all racial categories at grade 4 and 8 (the grades in which comprehensive data is collected).

[http://nationsreportcard.gov/science_2009/g4_state.asp?subta...](http://nationsreportcard.gov/science_2009/g4_state.asp?subtab_id=Tab_4&tab_id=tab1#tabsContainer)

[http://nationsreportcard.gov/science_2009/g8_state.asp?tab_i...](http://nationsreportcard.gov/science_2009/g8_state.asp?tab_id=tab1&subtab_id=Tab_4#tabsContainer)

According to the only ranking I could find, Texas has better infrastructure as well:

<http://www.cnbc.com/id/41666598>

So maybe this guy's attitude isn't so much "I got mine, fuck you" as it is "if Texas can do more with less, California should as well."

<comment><USER8> As an engineer, I'm naturally fond of doing more with less. And California obviously has substantial problems. But the "tax cuts = patriotism = awesome" meme has nothing to do with efficiency. Indeed, I think it's a big cause of inefficiency. California's biggest structural problem is the insane mess created by Proposition 13, the result of a previous wave of anti-tax fervor.

There's also no discernment about what to cut, or how. Every hacker knows that optimization always requires a firm grasp of the details, and that a well- optimized system requires long-term thinking and investment.

If this guy were proposing particular fixes, I'd be totally in favor of that. But his only proposed fix is "please allow me to continue taking advantage of a quirky sales tax loophole". While, of course, running his business via a medium created by government-funded research. So no, I'm pretty sure he's in the IGMFY camp.

<comment><USER9> California spends 70% more (per capita) than Texas and achieves poorer results.

<http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/287.html>

I can't see how California's inability to raise taxes further is the problem.

The author is proposing a fix: move to Texas and avoid creating a nexus in California.

<comment><USER10> It doesn't tell a complete picture to compare the absolute per capita costs without adjusting for buying power. For instance, looking up the cost of living between e.g. Houston and LA shows that cost of living is 60% higher in LA. Without some statewide adjustment added into the mix - I don't how one might conclude one state gov't is more efficient than another.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Its amazing how california with all its advantages (climate, tech industry, hollywood etc) can be in such a financial mess...Think how great the state would if its atleast 10% as business friendly as Texas

<comment><USER12> You do know that california gives more to the federal government than it receives, to keep shit states such as alabama and the like propped up? You do know that if california did not have to pay out to the federal government there would be no financial issues of any kind?

Of course you didn't.

<comment><USER13> Not "California", California residents. You are referring to US income tax, which is the same everywhere. Yes, it bleeds money out of our state. But I don't understand HTF you make the leap that this is the cause of all of our fiscal problems.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Places like New York City and San Francisco will always have a strong startup culture regardless of how oppressive the tax culture is. Why? People want to live there. Not all people, of course, but there's a huge number of people who would still live in New York City even if the tax rate of the highest income bracket were twice what it is now. It's New Effin' York.

Incidentally, I'm kind of curious how the California/Amazon thing will play out, given that Amazon is currently collecting sales tax in New York. When New York passed their affiliate nexus tax law in 2008, Amazon went the route of collecting the taxes and suing New York to have the law repealed; they are still collecting sales tax in New York 3 years later. I'm guessing their experience in New York has lead them to try the more extreme route in California, of starving the state of more revenue in an attempt to force them to change the law. If California holds firm the way New York has, will Amazon give in?

<comment><USER15> Amazon won't give in in California because it has no reason to. California can only demand Amazon collect state sales tax if Amazon has a physical presence in California. Once there are no affiliates there isn't anything the state can do.

I suspect the reason they're collecting taxes in New York is they _have_ a physical presence there and they don't want to give it up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Insane entitlements?

I just don't get people.

<comment><USER8> I think this particular facet of human nature was well explained by Upton Sinclair: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it."</comment></comment>


European Parliament adopts tough new data protection rules - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2016/04/14/european-parliament-adopts-tough-new-data-protection-rules/ <comment><USER2> [http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/top- stories/20130901TS...](http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/top- stories/20130901TST18405/Data-protection)

[http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news- room/20160407IPR2...](http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news- room/20160407IPR21787/Trade-secrets-protecting-businesses-safeguarding-the- right-to-information)

[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A5...](http://eur- lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A52013PC0813)

</comment><comment> k-mcgrady Haven't looked at this in detail yet but the key changes all outlined in that article seem completely reasonable. Opinion will always be split on right to be forgotten but nothing else seems particularly objectionable.

Edit: I believe this is the final text if anyone is interested: [http://statewatch.org/news/2015/dec/eu-council-dp-reg- draft-...](http://statewatch.org/news/2015/dec/eu-council-dp-reg-draft-final- compromise-15039-15.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER3> I was hoping the "right to be forgotten" in regards to search engines would be removed. I don't think it was. Do anyone know why?

<comment><USER4> Privacy is a fundamental right for EU citizens, it isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

<comment><USER3> I am talking about a specific kind of privacy, for example for non-search engines right to be forgotten in the sense of deleting accounts for example does make sense.

<comment><USER4> Search engines are the only practical way to make RTBF work.

<comment><USER3> Once personal information is removed from the original source (such as Facebook) it generally gets removed from search engine indexes in time. It does not make sense to remove news articles and the like anyway. It might make sense to push older news articles down in the results.

<comment><USER5> Practically speaking, it's probably easier to get the results off search engines than it is to get them off random websites (EDIT: easier, or at all possible).

<comment><USER4> Exactly. Websites are hosted all over the world by businesses with no revenue in the EU. Search engines are pretty much universal, and a central source to enforce.

Furthermore, the original article may have good reasons to remain, and be searchable as part of other topics, but simply shouldn't be a result for that person's name.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Well, this (particularly the fines for non-compliance) should be an interesting clash with the EU-US data sharing mess.

::grabs popcorn::

</comment><comment><USER7> "tough". it's a fucking joke. techcrunch has long succumbed to repeating the myths. but i guess that's what "reporting" is.</comment>


Internet Archive's National Emergency Library Harms Authors - <AUTHOR> https://www.authorsguild.org/industry-advocacy/internet-archives-uncontrolled-digital-lending/ <comment><USER2> Oh my god this attitude absolutely infuriates me. I just assisted my kids' piano teacher in organizing an online virtual piano festival. The technical piece was easy- set up a google form where students could submit their information and a video of their performance.

The hard part? In an in person festival, the student hands their sheet music to the judge sitting in the room before performing, so the judge can track and note any deviation between the music and the performance.

We wanted a similar experience online, so our local festival organizers reached out to the wonderful music publishers licensing lawyers. Their response was wholly unhelpful. They wanted to make SO certain that in this pandemic their precious sheet music for elementary school age kids was NOT stolen. They wanted measures such as pasting a "used with permission" watermark on any picture of the music, purchasing a separate copy for the judges, and ensuring secure erase of any files after the festival!

It was absolutely insane. This sort of inflexible attitude in a time of crisis makes me irrationally angry. If we had any way to avoid purchasing music from these .... people ... I would do it in a heartbeat.

<comment><USER3> I guess the implication is that the exact approach you were originally taking in the in-person version of the festival, wouldn't have been allowed by the IP authors if you'd have asked them.

Which is a great reason to just boycott their works, get every piano school to stop using them, and thus starve them of all royalties.

<comment><USER2> I agree but these clubs of piano teachers are very conservative (in the meaning that they don't want to rock the boat) and it's hard to get the sort of collective action required to effectively economically boycott these publishers....

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Copyright just introduces artificial and undesirable scarcity, and I doubt that it really supports many authors. This piece says that mean writing incomes are only $20,300 a year, and I wouldn't be surprised if a large proportion goes to a few of the most popular authors and many get little or nothing.

Scrap copyright and find other ways to support creators. I'd suggest funding from government for a decent number of writing scholarships with input from various sources (including the general public if feasible) on which writers to support.

This could be started without scrapping copyright initially, simply require that all output from the scholarships be released under Creative Commons Zero.

<comment><USER4> This isn't particularly radical, arts and science already receive quite a bit of government funding in many countries. I suggest doing more of it and expanding it to new areas, and adding the CC0 requirement. I doubt that it would cost much compared to the amounts governments are throwing around these days to support people, and at least some creative output would come from it.

<comment><USER5> The idea that artists should be first forbidden from selling the work they create, and then supported by the state, is totalitarian. Analogy: would you make all code compulsorily open-source? (I know some people will answer yes: in my view, they're nuts.)

<comment><USER6> I think OP was suggesting that authors should have a choice. Either take a government grant in which case output is open source or don't.

<comment><USER4> Yeah, well I'd prefer to see copyright abolished. It's totalitarian to try to control what data people can share and store on their devices. But as a first step, we can start finding alternative methods of funding the creation of information. I'm not a supporter of Soviet-style bureaucratic command-and- control socialism, everything should be voluntary.

I suppose you could complain that funding creators by taxation (or government debt, more likely these days) is involuntary. True, but I just see it as a way of paying for civilization. In total, the cost may be similar to what people are currently paying in copyright licenses, but with the benefit that all works would now be available to all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> These are the same assholes that sued Google in federal court, claiming that even if Google provided only snippet results in searches, the very act of Google holding an archive of copyrighted books, and allowing it to be searched, was itself infringement.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_Guild,_Inc._v._Google,...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_Guild,_Inc._v._Google,_Inc).

Fuck them.

<comment><USER8> There's a Contact Us link at the bottom of their website. Let them know how you feel about their hoarding of human culture.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Well, thank you authors guild, for pointing me to the great library. 'Tis a shame you are people who would see the great library of alexandria burn in the sake of profit.

<comment><USER10> To show my gratitude to the author's guild, I'd like to point out that Library Genesis exists and is pretty great. Unlike the Internet Archive, they don't bother paying lip service to cretinous publishing industry lawyers; 'lending' is fully unrestricted year round. Up-to-date URLs to mirrors can be found on their wikipedia page: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_Genesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_Genesis)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> How much of your annual $100-$500 membership dues are you waiving in the light of the difficulties you explain your membership as facing in these dire times?

Screw copyright and screw this rent-seeking noise. Self-publishing is rapidly becoming the norm, and who knew - authors are seeing way higher returns on it. Copying e-books incurs no material cost and therefore charging for it is not justifiable.

<comment><USER5> \-- Self-publishing is rapidly becoming the norm, and who knew - authors are seeing way higher returns on it.

Have you got evidence for either of these claims? Are you an author?

<comment><USER11> Yes, I am. The math is obvious, though: if you distribute $X to Y people, then distributing $X to Y-1 people will result in everyone (or at least _someone_ ) making more money. With the wide availability of publishing-as-a-service, Amazon listings and personal website sales, and so on, it makes little sense for most new or small-to-mid-time authors to go through a middleman. Then the bigger authors (1) have more to gain from going through a publisher, (2) can negotiate a better deal, and (3) have enough income as to make the issues raised in this article trite.

<comment><USER12> It's somewhat more complicated than that. There are other factors.

1.) Publishers do provide editing, etc. services that authors would otherwise have to pay for out of their own pockets. That may or may not be a worthwhile tradeoff. But, between forgoing and advance and paying for services, authors are probably at least a few $K out of pocket if they go their own way. To the degree that things like book tours/promotion/etc. are relevant--they often aren't--that can add to the difference.

2.) For, especially non-fiction, authors for whom books are more about boosting their profile than bringing in money directly, traditional publishers (rightly or wrongly) have considerably more cachet than independent publishing.

3.) This becomes less and less important, but independently published books probably won't be in book stores.

<comment><USER13> My wife is my editor, so I am lucky. She does sometimes provide editing services to other authors for a modest fee; email me if you need an editor. re: 3): this is a big drawback of self publishing. When I wrote for conventional publishers it was always a thrill to see my books in Barnes and Nobles, etc. But, but.... the ability to make frequent improvements to eBooks and effortlessly push changes to readers trumps all the advantages of conventional publishers.

<comment><USER12> I don't really disagree with any of that. I've done both ways and I'm not sure I'd go with a traditional publisher again unless doing so fell in my lap for some reason.

Another thing I find for tech-related books--which is what I do--is that if I do things myself, I control the length whereas publishers generally have a minimum number of pages in mind which may be more than the topic really warrants. And a final point is that, as an individual, I have more flexibility in just giving copies away (especially ebooks) if I did the book mostly for promotional purposes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> As with almost all creative arts, a very small portion of the artist are taking the majority of the profits, while 99% of the artist can barely make a living, often only do it as a side job. I guess that most people do not realize that only a small portion of the sales of a publication goes to the author.

When looking at copyrights, it is easy to look at the few artists that are making millions and forgetting about the majority that can barely cover their costs. Copyright laws also have been getting a bad reputation because they have extended to benefit people and institutions far beyond the original artist/authors and are viewed as unfair. But lets not forget that they also allow many authors to make a living. Also publishers will perish when copyrights are broken down and as a result they no longer will be able to support authors while they are still working on their books.

<comment><USER15> Publishers gave up supporting authors while working on their books years ago. They pretty much only throw their money behind established authors.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> "Unlike a real library..."

The online equivalent can stay open in these times. Physical libraries cannot. The ability to make books accessible while people are isolated is a good reason for the Internet Archive to open up in cases of emergency.

<comment><USER17> See also Hoopla [1]. It works as you describe. Our local library offers it and yours might too.

[1] [https://www.hoopladigital.com/](https://www.hoopladigital.com/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> For context, up until the IA made the lending unlimited, they were adhering to the practice of Controlled Digital Lending:

[https://controlleddigitallending.org](https://controlleddigitallending.org)

</comment><comment><USER19> No it doesn't. It's long passed time Copyright was struck down. Now might be the time to do it.

Publishers are fat enough already from their rent seeking of poor authors. They should've died long ago, so the world can benefit.

</comment><comment><USER20> I discover many books I love on the wild web, and then decide to get the paper version when I'm hooked by the style / want to read it while doing digital detox / want to be able to leaf through efficiently if it is a technical book, etc.

If anything, wild ebooks have increased a lot my paper books purchases, and even if not everybody is like that, even for the percent that is alike it would mean that more free ebooks means more purchases.

</comment><comment><USER21> Distasteful, and not something I agree with at all, but I appreciate that someone is making an alternative argument (even if that's what they're paid to do).

<comment><USER22> Except that there's no argument, just the same old copying = theft meme and a false dichotomy between buying and copying, plus a bunch of whining.

<comment><USER15> They also conveniently avoid accurately describing the scope of what IA is offering, plus misrepresent how IA acquired the books. [http://blog.archive.org/2020/03/24/announcing-a-national- eme...](http://blog.archive.org/2020/03/24/announcing-a-national-emergency- library-to-provide-digitized-books-to-students-and-the-public/)

"This library brings together all the books from Phillips Academy Andover and Marygrove College, and much of Trent University's collections, along with over a million other books donated from other libraries to readers worldwide that are locked out of their libraries.

...

We understand that we're not going to be able to meet everyone's needs; our collection, at 1.4 million modern books, is a fraction of the size of a large metropolitan library system or a great academic library. The books that we've digitized have been acquired with a focus on materials published during the 20th century, the vast majority of which do not have a commercially available ebook. This means that while readers and students are able to access latest best sellers and popular titles through services like OverDrive and Hoopla, they don't have access to the books that only exist in paper, sitting inaccessible on their library shelves. That's where our collection fits in—we offer digital access to books, many of which are otherwise unavailable to the public while our schools and libraries are closed. In addition to the National Emergency Library, the Internet Archive also offers free public access to 2.5 million fully downloadable public domain books, which do not require waitlists to view."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Funny typo in their statement: "AI is pretending to fix a nonexistent problem."

</comment><comment><USER24> Excellent justification for a business model right here: "And students are already accustomed to [being screwed over]."

</comment><comment><USER25> I have to say I agree with the authors guild on this.

There must be rules concerning intellectual property. Laws are the rules our society lives by, and when a prominent public organization decides to willfully break copyright law in this manner it harms everyone.

Copyright law is messy and there are many unintuitive parts. Educating people about the details is difficult and this change they have made is essentially teaching people that it's ok to steal IP.

It's not ok.

<comment><USER8> The current effectively-infinite length of copyright is brand new, it was only put into place in the 1970s. The original length set in 1790 was 14 years, optionally extendable to 28 years. Under those terms, the first Harry Potter book would have entered the public domain in 2011, or in 2025 at the latest. Copyright should be a balance between the rights of the creator and the rights of the public. Right now it is wildly out of whack, with basically all rights given to the creator in perpetuity. We are robbing ourselves and our future generations of our own culture. In my opinion it is perfectly ethical to ignore it. If we can't fight back legislatively, we will find other means.

P.S. you cannot 'steal' intellectual property. That is a fiction you have bought into.

More on the history of copyright here: [https://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/2020/shrinking...](https://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/2020/shrinking/)

<comment><USER26> I'm entirely with you. Even though being an author myself.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I'm so proud of everyone here.</comment>


Typeform Makes Web Forms Interesting Again - <AUTHOR> http://techinch.com/blog/Typeform

<comment><USER2> These guys do it really well. I recommend them--looks awesome on mobile too! We made this one, just so you can see: [https://rebellabs.typeform.com/to/BTGaVf](https://rebellabs.typeform.com/to/BTGaVf)</comment>


Minnesota Public Radio sent us one of the weirdest legal threats ever received - <AUTHOR> https://boingboing.net/2019/11/18/i-am-a-lawer.html <comment><USER2> Paralegal, no answer from MPR -> Hanlon's Razor. In paralegals' defense my paralegal was outstanding. She was also my wife but I digress. Good on MPR for at least crediting the link to Naked Capitalism which is more than some of us do when submitting Yves Smith's great finds to HN.</comment>


Show HN: HTTP Request Snippet Generator for many languages and libraries - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/Mashape/httpsnippet/

<comment><AUTHOR> Code snippets generated in:

Shell, Javascript, Node, C, Java, PHP, Objective-C, Swift, Python, Ruby, C#, Go, OCaml.</comment>


Comcast failed to install Internet for 10 months then demanded $60,000 in fees - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/business/2016/03/comcast-failed-to-install-internet-for-10-months-then-demanded-60000-in-fees/ <comment><USER2> This is no surprise as comcast has been and continues to be the worst internet provider in the US. I worked for a startup in Washington DC and internet would cutout for 5 minutes every hour. We called comcast dozens of times and everytime they said there were no reported issues on their end.

Twice internet went out for 2 days and only then did they admit there were problems in the area.

I've had them at home with the same problem: intermittent and occasionally completely out for days.

</comment><comment><USER3> Reminds me of [http://www.loomcom.com/blog/2015/02/22/its-comcastic-or-i- ac...](http://www.loomcom.com/blog/2015/02/22/its-comcastic-or-i-accidentally- bought-a-house-without-internet/) (Previous discussion here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9269657](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9269657))

</comment><comment><USER4> This shows how bad Comcast's customer service is.</comment>