Robinhood stock trading app valued at $1.3B with big raise from DST - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/31/now-whos-the-rich/ <comment><USER3> Robinhood is just a marketing play. Anything about them selling flow or using margin offerings to become profitable is not realistic.

Traditional brokerages have a customer acquisition cost of around $400 to get someone to deposit at least $100 in an account.

They've got a million users and continue to grow quicker and quicker. For a small multiple of traditional CAC they are already close to their >$1B valuation just in terms of user acquisition.

It's not easy to get funded brokerage accounts, especially funded accounts by millennials. Their current user base might not be worth much, but the average age of a brokerage account in the US is over 20 years. That means that Robinhood's AUM is only going to grow as their user base gets older and has more money.

Frankly, the current brokerage houses have been dumping hundreds of millions into marketing to try to acquire millennial users without a ton of success. TD Ameritrade alone spent $300 million last year in ads, a lot of that targeted at the millennial market.

Robinhood is a user acquisition strategy for the millennial market and they'll get bought for $2-3 billion within a couple years by one of the existing brokerage houses.

<comment><USER4> What do they do to make money once they have their users on board?

<comment><USER5> They really do sell flow and use margin. There just isn't any way they're profitable doing just that.

<comment><USER6> They could be making a good chunk of money from stock lending, like zero cost index funds are doing.

<comment><USER7> Can an introducing broker participate in stock-lending programs?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Here are my 2cents: Robinhood is irrelevant and border line dangerous.

Irrelevant, because for someone who knows what they are doing in the stock market paying $10 or $0 per trade is not going to save them any money.

Dangerous, because it promotes more trades for the "unsophisticated" investor and encourages leverage = very dangerous situation.

Bottom line, if you do not know what you are doing, don't do it, buy and hold is not a strategy and sooner or later will leave you very disappointed, especially if you are leveraged on top of that. Just ask the investors in the Japan asset price bubble when they'll see the top again – looks like never in their life time...

To be able to invest successfully you need to spend the time and educate yourself like in any other profession or hobby and the first step is to go to eBay and search for historical stock market data, you can buy 20 years of data for less than $100 and you can test all your ideas for free and without losing a single penny...

Good luck!

<comment><USER9> You're right, Buy and Hold is a terrible strategy. Look how poor Warren Buffet is as a result of holding. /sarcasm

Not having capital isn't the same as being unsophisticated. I could do all the right research on which stock I want to buy, but if I only have $100 to invest at the end of every month $10 fees would dig into my earnings very quickly.

Assuming that people without large amounts to invest are stupid says more about you than it does them.

EDIT: you also don't need to spend $100 for 20 years of stock data. Plenty of services, such as Quantiacs/Quantopian/QuantConnect allow you to test your strategy against historical data for free.

<comment><USER10> That's not entirely fair. It is disingenuous to characterize Warren Buffett's methodology as "buy and hold." Berkshire Hathaway takes far more active participation in the companies it's long on than any individual retail investor could hope to imitate (or even fathom, logistically speaking). It's not just a matter of being long on a company and buying the stock - the amount of capital they invest provides Buffett et al with involvement and corporate direction that few other institutions can command, let alone individuals.

I agree with your point that buy and hold can be a valid strategy, I just don't think that example is fair and Buffett it basically a meme in these threads now.

I think you may have misinterpreted the OP's point about sophistication - <USER2> don't think he was trying to be condescending to those with comparatively little to trade with. His actual point is valid - if you are optimizing for commissions first and foremost, you're probably doing something wrong (as an active trader). Robinhood is a platform that, by design and mission, differentiates itself on the lack of commissions, not on superlative features or strategy availability. This means that if you choose Robinhood as your platform for trading (as opposed to, say, Interactive Brokers), you're likely optimizing on commission/fee avoidance, because that's all they're really got to offer that's unique.

Commission and fee avoidance is great, sure, but optimize for that within the context of a larger strategy. It's very important to reduce fees because it can make an otherwise unprofitable strategy profitable, I agree! But you should really start by getting to the actual _strategy_ first, and Robinhood's business directive might encourage potential investors to prematurely optimize on fees, when that is honestly _not_ the thing that typically prevents people from being successful in the market. The thing that _typically_ prevents people from doing well is the lack of real alpha.

If you _do_ have a viable trading strategy with a good Sharpe ratio, the commissions will not stop you from being successful. Conversely (as one example), if you are using the commission-free trading as a way to explore strategies that you _think_ are viable, but which are actually just risk- overloaded returns attributable to chance in disguise, then yes the commissions will eat you alive - but that's because you don't really have a working strategy in place.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Does Robinhood sell retail order flow on? I've read conflicting views both ways, but can't really see how they'd make any money if they didn't.

I think the way it's being promoted is a bit dangerous though. It seems like they're promoting to the exact market that really, really shouldn't be flipping stocks (and promoting use of margin to do so). Interactive brokers is what, a few bucks a trade anyway?

Something aimed at a similar market that I like a lot more is 'acorns'. It just rounds up any transaction you make to some number, and invests the difference in one of a few ETFs. I think it promotes a much healthier view of investing for the average young joe/jill.

<comment><USER12> > Interactive brokers is what, a few bucks a trade anyway?

IB Commission is $0.005 per share, with a minimum of $1 total. The problem with IB for regular folks is a bunch of monthly fees if you don't have enough activity each month.

[https://www.interactivebrokers.com/en/index.php?f=1590&p=sto...](https://www.interactivebrokers.com/en/index.php?f=1590&p=stocks1)

<comment><USER11> True, I forgot about the extra monthly fees -- though you can just use free, 20 minute delayed data. I also forgot that the US is so cheap -- I pay $6 each way with IB on the ASX.

<comment><USER12> Is there a particular reason you trade the ASX? It isn't _too_ hard to get a US brokerage account in Australia.

<comment><USER11> Smallcap market here is fun (read: it's pretty stupid). Otherwise, I'm just more used to reading Australian news, more local people on twitter, etc. It's just more in my 'sphere', and I know a lot more about the local companies than I do about the U.S. counterparts.

I have an IB account, but even setting that up to trade properly requires owning a company. I did wake up early and trade the US options market a little while ago & that was pretty great. Might play with some algorithmic stuff I have that works on the ASX, but on the US, just need a load more data.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> FYI - you will not have a good time buying and selling stocks onesie-twosie when it comes time to filling out your tax return.

If you want to avoid commissions, Schwab & Fidelity have commission free ETF's - just buy and hold.

<comment><USER14> True, but only if you don't use Turbo Tax.

My first year after graduating (and dabbling in stocks/ETFs) I had a painful time filling it out manually on H&R Block. Last year, Robinhood's integration made it so easy that I was both simultaneously pissed that I'm pretty much locked into Turbo Tax and amazed that it's so nice with all its integrations (e.g. also works on Lending Club, Wealthfront, etc).

<comment><USER15> Did H&R Block software not support your specific brokerage? Pulling in consolidated 1099s from major brokerage houses seems to be a relatively well- solved problem in tax prep world.

<comment><USER16> I had an inherited Edward Jones account and brought my many paged paper copy to a local H&R block, it baffled the employee for a bit but he eventually figured it out and did a lot of manual things.

Used Turbotax this year and it slurped my Vanguard data without issue. They also support EJ so I bet if I still had that it would be much more straightforward.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I laughed at the article's url slug playing on the company's name - _now-whos- the-rich_.

I haven't used Robinhood, but welcome new fintech companies who lower the barrier of entry toward financial health for the average consumer. Good for them, and I hope they use this money well.

<comment><USER18> I have my doubts that playing with the stock market is in any way conducive to "financial health" for the average consumer.

<comment><USER19> Traditionally (or when I started looking), a single stock trade was $6 so you'd have to be moving 4 digits at a time to avoid losing everything to fees.

But Robinhood's free. You can do $6 of trades in a year, still learn about stocks and not necessarily lose anything. Very hard to complain about that.

I think a little literacy is needed, since if you're lucky enough to have savings buying CMF+VXF is a much better deal than keeping it in a bank account.

<comment><USER20> Depends on what stage of the cycle you buy in at and what stage of the cycle you sell.

Right now equities are priced very highly

<comment><USER21> Especially the USA its looking quite expensive atm an index fund targeting the USA might not be the best bet right now

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I tried opening an account on Robinhood. But they wouldn't approve my application because I am a citizen of Myanmar (Burma) and the country was under economic sanctions. But those sanctions were cleared a bit over a year ago and when I reached out to Robinhood support again (with the proof detailing there is no more sanctions), they ignored my contact. So I decided to stick to Vanguard and TD for index fund buying and stock trading respectively (both of which accept Myanmar citizens as account holders). I think Robinhood's support team is fairly small and they don't have the capability to support a bit more unusual cases like mine.

</comment><comment><USER23> I think what Robinhood is doing with Gold accounts is pretty shady. I'm guessing that the vast majority of people who trade on margin don't fully comprehend the risks in doing so.

<comment><USER24> It's not rocket science, and it is obviously a loan. How is margin shady? This claim that it is somehow predatory or that consumers need to be protected is nonsense. This assumes that people can't do research and due diligence. If you aren't informed to make financial decisions than you probably shouldn't be trading. If you choose to proceed, do so at your own risk.

All brokerages offer margin and typically this is how they make their money, not commissions.

<comment><USER23> Margin isn't shady in the form that it takes at every other brokerage. Robinhood's Gold is shady because they make every attempt to market it as a higher membership tier, to young unsophisticated investors. It may not be illegal, but it certainly seems like a dark pattern.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> That's cool and all, but I trade so rarely that $10 a month would cost me more than my current brokerage (TD Ameritrade). If you re-balance anually, and only hold a handful of different stocks, it's easy to keep trading costs below $120/year.

But, I guess one of the reasons I never tinkered with algorithmic trading was the cost per-transaction. So, maybe it's a good thing this didn't exist when I first read about algorithmic trading, as I might have actually tried it.

<comment><USER26> The $10 per month is only if you need some additional ability beyond basic trading. If you can live with three day clearing time (i.e. trading in a cash account) then the trades are free.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I don't know if I might be a little less smarter than average but could someone please enlighten. e on why RobinHood is valued at such an amount? What special purpose do they solve that C.S wouldn't copy as a feature or own in the nearest future?

<comment><USER23> 1) Robinhood Gold is margin lending i.e. lending money to customers who want leverage. The monthly fee is effectively the loan's interest rate, rebranded in less shady terms.

2) They have very valuable order flow, which they sell. Almost all of Robinhood's customers are unsophisticated investors. Trading firms pay a lot of money for unsophisticated trading flow as there's room to "skim off the top".

3) Add in the typical "successful VC-backed startup" premium.

<comment><USER28> "...less shady terms"?

I'd say more shady. If you use less than the margin amount that they allow you, that fee looked at as an interest rate can be rather usurious.

<comment><USER23> Sorry, what I mean to say is that it's _very_ shady, but they try to mask it in innocuous terms.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Aren't there opportunities for arbitrage given the zero transactional costs on Robinhood?

I haven't thought it through that much, but it feels like a lot of sound trading strategies (which were previously impractical due to high transactional costs) can be made to work on Robinhood.

*Maybe arbitrage is the wrong term, but zero cost of trading would mean more efficient trading strategies. No?

<comment><USER30> That's my line of thinking as well. Not arbitrage, but perhaps trading at a frequency not profitable on other retail platforms (and obviously a couple orders of magnitude slower than HFT).

Some things you could perhaps do on Robinhood that aren't feasible with other retail brokers include:

a) Tiny, _tiny_ position sizes, even on small accounts. 1% position sizing? What about 0.1%?

b) Not incurring a transaction fee if your system decides to immediately exit a position after entering it due to adverse movement in the time it took to fill the order.

Potential concerns might be:

1\. Order execution speed. Sending orders to retail brokers via the internet can only be so fast, but it'd be interesting to benchmark Robinhood vs IB for example.

2\. Order execution capability. There's no public API, just Quantopian integration. My other post in this thread touches on that.

3\. Order execution quality. RH sells order flow. How much this matters is probably beyond my knowledge. I'm inclined to think that it wouldn't matter too much, and is more likely to adversely affect competing HFT firms who are in competition against the order flow buyer(s) than it would people trading at even the upper bounds of retail frequencies.

4\. How many trades is too many? Will Robinhood shut you off at some point? Another post suggested RH is paid a fixed amount per share in their order flow dealings, so if that's the case then maybe Robinhood wouldn't care. Certainly as soon as they have a public API there's going to be people making a _lot_ of trades, barring any artificial limitations.

Of course, if your margin account balance is below $25,000 you'll be subject to pattern day trading restrictions and unable to execute such a system since Robinhood is purely stocks. I loathe PDT rules to the core of my being and believe they actually increase risk for short-term traders, but that's a rant best saved for another time.

<comment><USER31> > Order execution quality. RH sells order flow. How much this matters is > probably beyond my knowledge. I'm inclined to think that it wouldn't matter > too much, and is more likely to adversely affect competing HFT firms who are > in competition against the order flow buyer(s) than it would people trading > at even the upper bounds of retail frequencies.

This problem is that if all of the uninformed flow is internalized then I have to quote wider on the lit exchanges because all of my fills are going to come from informed traders. This is bad for the market as a whole.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> If you are interested in fractional shares investing, check out loyal3 [https://www.loyal3.com](https://www.loyal3.com) and stockpile [https://www.stockpile.com](https://www.stockpile.com)

</comment><comment><USER33> This has been done before, perhaps most successfully by Zecco, who eventually had to initiate a commission, and then were bought by Tradeking. Zecco started in 2006. [http://www.internetnews.com/ec- news/article.php/3635496/Zecc...](http://www.internetnews.com/ec- news/article.php/3635496/Zeccocom+To+Offer+Free+Stock+Trading.htm) I vaguely recall an even earlier broker doing the same, I forget their name, but it had something to do with a cactus, or a cafe in the name.

</comment><comment><USER20> Any UK/EU equivalent of Robinhood (free trading, ISA support)?

<comment><USER34> I was wondering the same thing. It's a shame Robinhood appears to be US only or I'd have signed up for it off the back of this discussion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I use Robinhood in tandem with my traditional online brokerage and love it.

The Robinhood iOS interface is really excellent, though they provide way less technical tools and analysis than my traditional online brokerage. However this is to be expected since Robinhood is targeting non-pro/power users.

Trade execution time and preference has actually been solid on Robinhood, though untested in a highly volatile situation where liquidity could be an issue for non-institutions and professionals.

Shameless plug (I've posted it before), but here is a blog post I wrote on leveraging capital using Robinhood Gold (margin) for those who are interested:

[https://justink.svbtle.com/leveraging-capital-using- robinhoo...](https://justink.svbtle.com/leveraging-capital-using-robinhood- gold)

<comment><USER35> I read your post and am left with two questions.

1\. Robinhood Gold interest is 6%. Interactive Brokers is 2.4% [1]. Why do you think there is such a massive difference, and would anyone benefit from paying it?

2\. Your analysis works on ten years of data from 2007 to 2017. Did you know that is a very positive period and that shifting it by a few years would completely change the analysis? [2]

I'm not surprised you stopped using it. I am surprised you would encourage us to use it.

[1] [https://www.interactivebrokers.com/en/index.php?f=interest&p...](https://www.interactivebrokers.com/en/index.php?f=interest&p=schedule2)

[2] [http://www.1stock1.com/1stock1_2312.htm](http://www.1stock1.com/1stock1_2312.htm)

<comment><USER36> > 1\. Robinhood Gold interest is 6%. Interactive Brokers is 2.4% [1]. Why do > you think there is such a massive difference, and would anyone benefit from > paying it?

I've used IB (and don't use robinhood). The IB GUI is a fucking trainwreck. If design had ethical obligations the way bridge engineering does, IB's designers would be in prison. It is bad. And it's still one of the better trading interfaces. Ever seen a bloomberg terminal?

That jump from 2.4 to 6% is effectively a "regular people can make sense of this without wanting to kill themselves" markup. No different from the markup any other SaaS company puts on "run this 10 line script periodically". One can sell convenience.

<comment><USER12> > I've used IB (and don't use robinhood). The IB GUI is a fucking trainwreck. > If design had ethical obligations the way bridge engineering does, IB's > designers would be in prison. It is bad. And it's still one of the better > trading interfaces. Ever seen a bloomberg terminal?

I agree that the UI is terrible but keep in mind that IB is very very specifically targeted at active stock traders and institutions, not regular people. The UI starts to make _slightly_ more sense if you're trading a lot.

For an example of a good UI though, I'd look at TD Ameritrade, which has a pretty decent one.

<comment><USER36> > I agree that the UI is terrible but keep in mind that IB is very very > specifically targeted at active stock traders and institutions, not regular > people

I understand what you're saying here, and you're right. Large parts of IB's complexity come from accomodating the crazy stuff you have to do when you want to unload millions of shares without tipping off algos.

However..

The implication that "active stock traders" and "regular people" are mutually exclusive is one of the things holding finance software back.

<comment><USER12> I don't think this is a bad assumption to make though. Active stock trading, daytrading at least, requires a minimum balance of $25k in the account due to SEC regulations. The people who have that much money available for investment outside a retirement account are very very few and near-entirely investors.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> ITT: people who've increased their wealth through ownership of shares telling other people not to increase their wealth through ownership of shares.

</comment><comment><USER38> Robinhood could technically use the zero $ commission gambit to get people on board a Systematic investment plan for buying individual stocks. Since you are buying small amounts of stock every month, zero or very low commission is a huge draw. This ploy might reduce their customer acquisition costs as well.

</comment><comment><USER30> I'm a Robinhood user and am definitely liking the experience thus far. A few things that could be better:

a) The only manual order entry method is via the mobile client. There's situations where rapid order entry could definitely be a lot less painful, e.g. limit orders on high-volatility stocks. I've read that some people run multiple instances of the RH client, with one instance running on a desktop system using an android emulator. Not exactly ideal, though supposedly there's an actual web/desktop client in the works. I'd gladly make my own if there was a public API.

b) Robinhood Gold is nice—its simplified presentation is very elegant. However, if they're going to aggressively market relabeled margin accounts to often-clueless retail traders, they need to explain things better. Preferably an entire page with visual explanations and examples of what can happen in different scenarios; stupid-simple stuff that's unambiguous. I can see a lot of people not fully understanding the FAQ on their site, and just thinking "Oh, more buying power!". The current explanations are decent, but it could be a lot better given their target audience.

c) No public API. It's a planned feature that hasn't arrived yet. While Quantopian[0] integration is nice—and definitely better than nothing—it isn't for everyone. I've seen unofficial APIs that send HTTP requests to their private API based off of sniffed traffic from the mobile client (no thanks).

d) No short selling. There's no way to hedge your downside risk or otherwise trade a beta-neutral system on Robinhood currently without using another broker. If the market tanks, most RH users will get wrecked. Especially if it happens fast and they sit there fumbling with order entry.

Overall I love Robinhood, I just wish they'd roll out essential features faster, or at least provide better estimates than "the near future".

-

As an aside, if there's any algo traders here that use Robinhood and Quantopian together, I'd love to hear your experiences.

From what I've seen, Quantopian doesn't seem to be suitable for trading at a frequency below minute bars, so I figured it might be possible to use Quantopian as an order conduit for an external system—allowing that external system to in effect place orders on Robinhood as a stop-gap until Robinhood has a public API.

It's a side project and I'm not a Quantopian user, so I haven't yet evaluated the technical feasibility of such a setup.

Obviously I could just move to IB, but I really appreciate Robinhood's engineering ethos. While I'm sure IB's APIs are solid (and they're far more fully-featured), their platform does have a lot of legacy cruft[1] that gives me pause.

[0] [https://www.quantopian.com/](https://www.quantopian.com/)

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14009778](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14009778)

</comment><comment><USER39> Robinhood's Gold tier, which is a different name for buying on margin, has potentially dire implications for the health of the economy....

The great depression was largely the result of massive numbers of everyman speculators entering the markets with reckless amounts of leverage. Robinhood vastly lowers the barrier for gambling with money you don't own. There's a reason you can't buy lottery tickets with credit cards.

<comment><USER40> They offer 2x margin with the normal rules against pattern day trading with <25k balances, which is pretty mediocre.

There are _much_ better options for high-risk (reckless) trading, like 500x Forex accounts, "binary options", and lots of other nonsense enabled by offshore jurisdictions.

For an easy example of how reckless/risky these alternatives are, look at FXCM/Alpari/etc after the 2015 EURCHF action.

<comment><USER30> How do sketchy offshore shops collect on negative cash balances?

500:1 leverage sounds so crazy I wouldn't be surprised if it's used as a money laundering vector.

<comment><USER41> They don't, or shouldn't have to. Brokers that offer generous margins do something typical brokers do not - they auto-liquidate when you fall below minimum maintenance margin. Most retail brokers would give you a friendly phone call and let you liquidate the next day or so.

Next, forex markets are so heavily traded they have a virtual guaranteed stop. That is, if you set the order you will get it filled no worse than that price.

The only way a broker gets hit is a sudden currency drop, like the Swiss franc did a few years back.

<comment><USER42> I think most of these x500 Forex shops are bucket shops. They are not even derivatives. More known as CDF which means you are buying/selling against them.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


How to choose a web framework and be surprised - <AUTHOR> http://www.slideshare.net/jmarranz/how-to-choose-a-web-framework-and-be-surprised

<comment><USER2> I found it hilarious how they outruled everything but Java on slide 6, without any proof why the others would be inferior.

I also found it quite funny how the slides dissed Javascript just a few pages later, only to come back to it a few pages later: except now it's generated on the server side, and never directly written. Makes sense if you're doing everything in Java, but still.

On the plus slideshow does have a few good slides (29-33, for example), which show good practice, regardless of the framework used.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Real presentation is till slide #70. After that it gets advertisement.</comment>


Stop whining about Android fragmentation and do some damn QA - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/google/2012/04/02/zipline-ceo-stop-whining-about-android-fragmentation-and-do-some-damn-qa/

<comment><USER2> "The actual root causes of our crashes were our own decisions – specifically, a stack corruption issue and a thread locking issue which took us some long nights to track down."

This is the same kind of thing I see from developers complaining about fragmentation caused by jailbroken devices: that there is actually an underlying real bug in their application.

Meanwhile, this shouldn't be considered "extra work": this is a bug that might show up much more rarely on the devices you support, or is going to rear its ugly head the next time the OS is updated, or the minute a new device comes out.

Thereby, developers should really consider "testing on as many different configurations as possible" as one of the invaluable tools available for debugging: some classes of bugs are obvious only on certain configurations.

(That all said, however, the scary issues with Android fragmentation I've head of were mostly about hardware rendering differences: the same kinds of things that bite you while trying to support numerous graphics cards on desktop machines... it really can be brutal.)</comment>


Talk on making an impact by Seth Godin at Business of Software last year - <AUTHOR> http://businessofsoftware.org/video_10_sgodin.aspx Are you afraid to truly make an impact? The opportunity for linchpin organizations and the people who run them. <comment><USER2> Seth Godin's ratio of actual stuff made to buzzwords invented is staggering.

<comment><USER3> Is the past founding and sale of a successful internet media company to Yahoo!, and the founding and current running of a top ~100 quantcast media website not suitably impressive? I believe he has walked the walk, and earned the right to talk the talk.

<comment><USER4> Hiring other people to do the actual work while you just do sales and negotiation isn't _that_ impressive.

<comment><USER5> Tell that to Steve Jobs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> <http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html>

"Please don't do things to make titles stand out, like using uppercase or exclamation points, or adding a parenthetical remark saying how great an article is. It's implicit in submitting something that you think it's important."

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. I hadn't really thought about it that way but have changed the title. Mea culpa.

<comment><USER6> No worries - I'm a relative newcomer to HN but I remember reading the guidelines and thinking, "hey, that makes sense".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I hate to say this, I really do...because I am a MAJOR fan of Seth Godin's work.

But I got NOTHING actionable from this talk.

Am I missing something ?

<comment><USER8> How does a major fan of Seth Godin go to a talk of Seth Godin and expect any actionable work?

Seth is inspiring but don't look to him to tell you what to do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> How do I access to other talks at BOSS last year ? This website doesn't have a central place for them...it seems.

<comment><USER9> In past years, the talks have gone up slowly during the year after the conference.

<comment><USER7> Ugghh...how annoying.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> So who's going to this year's conference?

<comment><USER11> I will be going, and will probably deliver one of the keynote (hour-long) speeches.

<comment><USER10> It would be great to see you give a keynote.

About €3,000 total registration and travel costs - I'll have to mull it over some more (not related to your keynote, just on a general note of costs!).</comment></comment></comment>


20 Things I've Learned From Traveling Around the World for Three Years  - <AUTHOR> http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2010/10/30/20-things-ive-learned-from-traveling-around-the-world-for-three-years

<comment><USER2> "Even if it is technically a democracy, most nations are run by and for the benefit of the elites that control the institutions of power"

Democracy by itself is almost meaningless. Individual rights, including strong property rights, even when there is no democracy at all (such as in Hong Kong for most of British rule) produces more freedom and economic well being than decades of democracy without them.

I really liked this piece. Although not sure about the whole thing about Americans traveling less than other people do. Most people in geographically large countries do less foreign travel than people in tiny countries, but they aren't necessarily traveling less.

<comment><USER3> I think the problem is that the US essentially spans from the arctic circle down close to the tropic of cancer - if you include Puerto Rico it extends past.

This provides a large number of environments _within_ the US. It's hard to blame someone for not going through the colossal bullshit of an international crossing when you can simply drive or take a national flight to get to another environment.

In countries like the UK (where I'm from) people travel out of country on almost every holiday as you want to go somewhere different, but it's hard to do in the UK.

I think there's a stronger correlation between vertical size of the country and lack of international travel.

<comment><USER4> Probably a more sensible comparison is to compare Europeans who travel out of Europe and Americans who travel out of the United States - both are roughly the same area.

[NB I mean Europe the Continent, not the EU, or Western Europe]

<comment><USER3> I believe that is a fairer comparison. My family traveled less distance to holiday in France than it takes my in-laws to visit much of their family whilst remaining within Canada and that's only Ontario to the Atlantic's, that's nothing compared to some of their family that lives on the Pacific and can travel to the Atlantic just to see family.

However I have currently traveled to the US and Turkey (in the legitimately Asian geographical area), and currently live in Canada and am currently planning a trip from Canada to Australia because of my brother. Which will have netted me 4 continents. I'll need to hit up somewhere in South America and Africa, perhaps I'll have to land myself in Japan or China sometime to fully claim Asia.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Already posted at <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1851537>

<comment><USER6> And that was also a repost of <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1629521>

though they followed the submission guidelines there and removed the "20" from the title. (maybe they need to be more visible? Could be a case of bad UI/UX)

<comment><USER7> How about just asking the submitter, if the number is really necessary? Can be done by a program.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> For some reason this reminds me of the quote from Dune:

"Without change, something sleeps inside us, and seldom awakens"

To me, travel is definitely one of the most interesting kinds of change.

</comment><comment><USER8> It's actually pretty interesting the things learned. The preconceived notions that the author had are so US centric.

Having travelled around the world, I'd mostly agree, but coming from a European country I maybe saw things a little differently. For example the US/Canada culture thing.

Also I found it rather amusing the shot about not needing much stuff, carrying a $1000 camera :)

</comment><comment><USER9> Just wondering if the 4 hour work week is actually a good book, I read like the first chapter, I was very disappointed, no in content and very wordy. Does it get better?

<comment><USER10> Like the blog, the book is more about bragging than giving useful advice. All you have to do, he says, is start a zillion-dollar-a-year business which can run without any actual effort on your part. And then you can spend all your time doing other stuff. The rest of the book is a list of other stuff he's done and musings on whether it's better to bum around Berlin or Buenos Aires.

There, I just saved you fifteen bucks.

<comment><USER11> hahaha, you're spot on. It's a good read for motivation and inspirational purposes, but it won't teach you any mad scientist tricks.

I don't think I know a single person that's more self-promotional than Tim. I'm not sure whether to congratulate or hate him for it.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How long do you wait for a great candidate? - <AUTHOR> Hiring for a fairly senior position, but the best option candidate keeps asking for more time to consider the offer. I have a few candidates in the wings that are reasonable but not ideal replacements. How long do you wait? <comment><USER2> Depends somewhat on how long you've been looking to fill the position and the position speciality itself. But my general rule for most software positions is anything over a couple of weeks waiting for a senior candidate to make a decision and I'd tell them we will have to rescind the offer and move on (jr candidates is a week for me generally but there are exceptions). I also offer fair salaries from the start and don't play any games trying to negotiate, if the candidate says they want X more, I'll see if it fits and if so give it to them, if not I won't. I generally don't have that problem often though because I start with a strong offer within our limits.

If you know you offered a low salary for the experience candidate then first, shame on you, second fix it and see if that resolves it but be careful not to make it all about money. A fair salary with fair benefits in a good environment will beat a slightly higher salary that has a blah working environment. And senior candidates can tell from interviews which is which.

Easiest thing to do is reach out and just ask what is it that is hanging you up on making a decision. Be up front and see what they say, maybe they were waiting for an offer that promised them a magic amount of money, which doesn't even mean it is that different than your offer, but maybe it checks some goal box for them. Or maybe they are waiting to see if a special company accepted them, usually you have to figure that out by reading between the lines as most people won't be direct and say that. Don't do this via email or IM, get the person on the phone or video call and just have a talk.

As a counter to my argument, some friends that hire at other companies will not put a defined limit but they make every offer contingent on the position still being open. So essentially if they make you an offer this week and you take 3 weeks to respond they may have filled it and so no longer have a position for you. But they don't push you to make a decision. I don't personally like this method, but it can be efficient.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. Your post actually helped a great deal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Is this for a programming position, or senior management? If the former, tell the best option candidate that the door will always be open for them, then hire one of the runners-up.

</comment><comment><USER4> bump the compensation up $30K - $50K ... should fix your problem.</comment>


Is There Any Point to Protesting? - <AUTHOR> https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/08/21/is-there-any-point-to-protesting <comment><USER4> Yes, there is a point to protesting. This paper used rainfall as a source of exogenous variation to measure the effect of the Tea Party protests.

[https://academic.oup.com/qje/article- abstract/128/4/1633/184...](https://academic.oup.com/qje/article- abstract/128/4/1633/1849540/Do-Political-Protests-Matter-Evidence-from-the- Tea?redirectedFrom=fulltext)

 _Can protests cause political change, or are they merely symptoms of underlying shifts in policy preferences? We address this question by studying the Tea Party movement in the United States, which rose to prominence through coordinated rallies across the country on Tax Day, April 15, 2009. We exploit variation in rainfall on the day of these rallies as an exogenous source of variation in attendance. We show that good weather at this initial, coordinating event had significant consequences for the subsequent local strength of the movement, increased public support for Tea Party positions, and led to more Republican votes in the 2010 midterm elections. Policy making was also affected, as incumbents responded to large protests in their district by voting more conservatively in Congress. Our estimates suggest significant multiplier effects: an additional protester increased the number of Republican votes by a factor well above 1. Together our results show that protests can build political movements that ultimately affect policy making and that they do so by influencing political views rather than solely through the revelation of existing political preferences._

<comment><USER5> The tea party was very astroturfed at the beginning -- how many of these protests were co-funded by investors in republican campaigns?

If funding to protests were correlated with funding to candidates (which in this case, it almost certainly is) then the variable with political consequences is "amount of campaign funding".

<comment><USER6> It was correlated with rainfall.

<comment><USER5> Yes, but are they looking at protests in the sense meant in OP?

A campaign rally funded and organized as a protest is not a protest. If these were astroturfed then all they tell us that attendance at campaign rallies can have political effects.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> _" Let me flash back to November 15th 1969, Washington DC and the Moratorium for Peace in Vietnam. This was probably the single biggest anti-war demonstration of the era, estimated at half a million by some and twice that by others..._

 _" My scepticism about the demonstration's effect seemed warranted when five months later, at the end of April, 1970, the US extended the war into Cambodia. In the protests that followed six students, four at Kent State in Ohio and two at Jackson State in Mississippi, were shot dead. The upshot was the biggest student strike in US history: more than 4 million students walking out of classes in universities, colleges and high schools across the country. Yet still the war did not end. Two and a half more years would pass before the peace treaty was signed in Paris in January 1973. By this time there were millions upon millions dead, disabled, bereaved, traumatised. Nonetheless, the movement against the Vietnam war is widely considered the most "successful" anti-war movement of modern times, against which more recent movements have measured their "failure"._

 _" Many years later, I learned that the Moratorium demonstration was, in fact, anything but ineffectual. In July 1969, Nixon and Kissinger had delivered an ultimatum to the Vietnamese: if they did not accept US terms for a ceasefire by November 1st, "we will be compelled – with great reluctance – to take measures of the greatest consequences." The US government was threatening and indeed actively planning a nuclear strike against North Vietnam. In his Memoirs, Nixon admitted that the key factor in the decision not to proceed with the nuclear option was that "after all the protests and the Moratorium, American public opinion would be seriously divided by any military escalation of the war." What would have been the world's second nuclear war was averted by our action, though we couldn't have known it at the time..."_

[http://www.socialsciencecollective.org/success-failure- polit...](http://www.socialsciencecollective.org/success-failure-political- myths/)

<comment><USER8> Nuclear weapons were never seriously considered for use in Vietnam either during the French War or American war.

Saying your actions prevented something isn't that compelling if it was never likely in the first place.

<comment> aaron-lebo It sounds absurd because Nixon was paranoid but he wasn't completely stupid. There would be no benefit to nuking North Vietnam. You'd enrage already pissed off citizenry, turn the world against you, maybe bring the Soviet Union into the war, and all for what, nuking Hanoi when the real problem was guerrilla warfare? It makes no sense.

 _we will be compelled – with great reluctance – to take measures of the greatest consequences_

It seems like the author is interpreting this as "nuclear weapons", but it could very easily be political posturing, or an increase in conventional conflict. Disappointing if it's exaggerated to make the author look better, and to see that statement made and accepted so uncritically.

Just googling, can't find any good sources suggesting nukes were seriously considered (as you said). Is there something more concrete than a favorable interpretation of that quote?

edit: this seems to be Duck Hook

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

<comment><USER9> Is this real?

 _In his Memoirs, Nixon admitted that the key factor in the decision not to proceed with the nuclear option was that "after all the protests and the Moratorium, American public opinion would be seriously divided by any military escalation of the war."_

Then that is concrete proof of nuclear considerations

<comment><USER10> The quoted part can be found on Google Books in "The Memoirs of Richard Nixon -- By Richard Nixon". The context there does not mention the word "nuclear" though, only "increased force". Some other quotes from there:

"My real concern was that these highly publicized efforts aimed at forcing me to end the war were seriously undermining my behind-the-scenes attempt to do just that."

"What counts is whether the demonstrations, regardless of intention, does in fact give encouragement to Hanoi and thereby presumably prolongs the war."

"If a President - any President - allowed his course to be set by those who demonstrate, he would betray the trust of all the rest. Whatever the issue, to allow government policy to be made in the streets would destroy the democratic process."

"I thought about the irony of this protest for peace. It had, I believed, destroyed whatever small possibility may still have existed of ending the war in 1969."

<comment><USER9> These are very interesting considering how they show the xact opposite side of the OP's debate.

I find it very amusing when articles quote someone to support their arguments even though the person actually disagrees with their PoV

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It depends on how you protest and who does the protesting. The lame-ass protests you see happening in most of the United States are ineffectual because they don't threaten those in power, because they're either holiday- looking marches or they're staged by students/young people, who are easy to ignore.

The only way you can change something by protesting is by projecting power. You do that either by the way you do the protesting, i.e. by actively engaging the police forces in trying to reach the seats of power (Parliament, Government's buildings) or by taking up in the streets the people who have the most power come election day, i.e. lots and lots of middle class people.

Movements like BLM are ineffectual when protesting because they do neither of the 2 things I mentioned above: they don't actively engage the powers in Washington and they are not joined by lots and lots of middle class people. As such, they'll remain ineffectual as long as nothing changes.

Source: me, a guy living in Eastern Europe who has grown-up by watching protests toppling Governments and who has actively joined those kind of protests once I grew up.

<comment> blubb-fish > The lame-ass protests

Please, give me an example when ever in history a or a series of not-lame-ass protests did change something.

G20 in Hamburg was a good example of several not-lame-ass protests which didn't lead to anything beyond violence and destruction. Absolutely nothing changed or started to change because of them.

<comment><USER12> A protest by its very definition is 'lame ass'. When you protest you're accepting the status quo, that's why they're allowed even in places like Turkey and China. They're a steam valve for people to feel they're doing something then they go back to their television and Big Macs.

For a protest to achieve something it has to have a goal, and the goal is always 'protesting', that doesn't change anything.

If you want to overthrow the Government then go shoot your local senator[0], taking the kids and waving hand made protest signs at the local park isn't going to do sh*t.

[0] It's an example. I'm in no way advocating anyone actually do this!

<comment><USER13> You're getting downvoted but you've hit on something: Most of these protest movements are or aim to be nonviolent, whereas the power of the state is always ultimately projected via violence. For a protest or movement to have real impact, it has to either use violence itself (projecting political power directly), or it has to prepare for a sustained nonviolent absorption/withstanding of state violence (to get political power on its side). Either way you need a lot more determination, organization, sustained effort, and friends than it takes to organize a flash mob.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Remember the Occupy movement?

They had no immediate demands. People thought it was pointless and the protestors copped a lot of criticism because of it.

Almost ten years later Bernie Sanders rallied millions around a platform that was based on the idea of 'the one percent'. That wouldn't have happened if the idea hadn't already been made popular by the Occupy movement.

So yes, there is a point to protesting - even if you don't have any demands.

<comment><USER15> While Bernie Sanders may have rallied some people, in the end he didn't actually end up accomplishing much of anything.

<comment><USER16> The Democratic Socialists of America went from 5,000 people to 25,000 people in a year.

<comment><USER17> Yes, and the National Socialists had similar growth in response. I'm not sure that was a good bargain.

<comment><USER18> That was not a bargain because one event don't cause the other but both events have a common cause.

The common cause is that people is tired of the establishment. When this happen, some go one way and others the other way.

It's not new, it's a historical pattern.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> We've forgotten the core point of protesting. The article skirts near the truth in the section about how hierarchical organisations are more effective than the modern decentralised variety, but it frustratingly seems to still miss the point.

The Iraq war protests, while massive, never seriously threatened the government or the established order of things. Whereas, the Poll Tax riots in the U.K. where relatively small, but Thatcher was ousted by her own party within months.

Protests work when they threaten to overthrow the government. They could either do that through existing democratic processes, via financial means (e.g. tax revolt) or violently. But the point is the same, governments are motivated by self preservation.

Protests need either powerful organisational structures with figureheads that could assume power, or a broad enough base with sufficient reckless abandonment that it _could_ turn into armed uprising. Without either of those things, the incumbents in power are not threatened enough to act. The actual event where you all march on the streets is just a demonstration that your organisation is powerful enough to threaten the government. It's not meant to be a fun day out with the kids.

<comment><USER20> This is the only thing that makes sense. The people, governments, and institutions being protested only know one language: violence. Otherwise, they will hold onto their power no matter what, as long as they can. People often forget or never learn this. There are lots of parents teaching their children all sorts of fantasies about government, armies, and police, that these are institutions that should be respected and trusted rather than feared, disbelieved, and toppled. Attitudes like that lead to the ineffective protests we've seen lately. The people being protested do not care if there are millions in the streets if those millions will never pose a threat and those millions cannot pose a threat if they have delusional misconceptions about their role and the role of the people they're protesting. A lot of power and responsibility lies with parents and many of them are too clueless to see the world for what it is, let alone teach their children to react to it properly.

<comment><USER21> > "This is the only thing that makes sense. The people, governments, and > institutions being protested only know one language: violence."

Not true. They also understand money. I'd say money is the best thing to focus on if you want a truly effective protest. Violence is too easy to condemn by those not taking part. That's why I'd say we'd be better off arranging protests as boycotts rather than marching in the street.

That said, there is a sense of community with collective gatherings like street protests. I'd say fostering connections between people is probably the main strength of protesting in the streets.

<comment><USER22> > That said, there is a sense of community with collective gatherings like > street protests. I'd say fostering connections between people is probably > the main strength of protesting in the streets.

Yes!

After Trump was elected, I went to my first street protests and I was shocked at how positive it felt. The sense of community and togetherness was amazing. I talked to more strangers that day than I had in the previous year. People were kind, and funny, welcoming.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> "If a protest falls outside of the media, does it make an impact?"

No. But in my lifetime these protests changed life

Womens rights. NOW. riggs vs billy Jean king. Women took a job away from a man. Now you cant afford to own a house without a woman's income.

Vietnam war. War is bad. Draft is evil. How america treated returning soldiers means today it is taboo to say anything negative about a veteran. (yet 20 years earlier there was family shame if you didn't enlist for wwii)

Civil rights. Who even met a negro back in 1966??. Now who cares.

Gay rights. So.. Its not about inability to procreate... Before gays were oddities. Now.. Who cares. Marriage even.

Animal rights. Yeah, out of sight... Lets protest. Cleveland amory. Aspca.. Now we turned the word "rescue" into a washed out version of saving.

Nukes. We forget that one nuke will wipe out life with years of darkness... Remember iran in 1979??? "Nuke Iran"

YES. PROTESTS MATTER

<comment><USER24> This all seems to be an expression of the zeitgeist. Popular perceptions shift. Things get accomplished democratically (or through court fiat without too much blow-back) and protesters protest, because, you know, man, that's what they do. Other than creating some photo fodder for the National Geographic 2100 edition of the natives, I'm not sure that protests do anything more than pound the dirt on things that are already top-of-soul to the public.

In other words: Maybe minds are not changed. It seems to me, as I observe it, the after effect is that they are hardened and protests are actively harmful in that regard.

I'd like to hear your counter-x on that.

<comment><USER25> My counter-example is me.

I was pretty ignorant about the US's long history of structural racism before Ferguson. But when that blew up, I was surprised. Clearly, there was something I didn't understand going on.

I started following a lot more African-American voices on Twitter (and do to this day). I ended up reading more about the history, both distant and recent. I dug into the economics of it. [1] But mainly, I listened to non-white reactions to current events.

My initial reaction was often denial. "It can't be that bad!" And that's easy to say when you have a small n. But as the n gets larger, I had to give that denial up. What I wanted to believe about America was contradicted by the facts.

I'm sure some people do bunker down in their denial rather than taking time to hear out the protesters. But I suspect those are the people who wouldn't have changed their minds regardless.

[1] E.g., [https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/7/7/15929196/police- fine...](https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/7/7/15929196/police-fines-study- racism) or [http://www.nber.org/papers/w9873](http://www.nber.org/papers/w9873) or [https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the- cas...](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for- reparations/361631/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> If you're hoping the point is instant change, no.

If you're hoping for more realistic gradual change, then yes. Peaceful protest in particular gets your message to the masses.

That's really the most your can hope for. Real actual change takes generations.

<comment><USER27> Yes, peaceful protests achieve more than violent protests.

I feel bad that people die in protests or get arrested, etc. Current protests have people throwing bottles and rocks at the police, even peeing into bottles and splashing the police with their urine. That is not peaceful and provoking people.

Better than protesting is getting people out to vote against Trump and the GOP next election. Get some Democrats and third parties in Congress and make Trump compromise. That would do more than protests ever will.

I don't get this identity politics, and gender politics, etc. Identity and gender are social constructs I am told and the right does not control society the left does. I've never fit into society and getting an identity. I'm like an outcast because I don't have many social skills to get these social things. If the left controls society by tv shows, music, movies, plays, education, liberal arts, etc they would make better social constructs of identity and gender to help pass legislation to protect people in certain groups. But beware, for if you protect one or more types of genders or identities you have to protect them all, even the ones you don't like or agree with.

<comment><USER28> That went to some weird places

\- Modern protests have largely been peaceful. There's a protest every week nowadays, and the only violent ones I can recall in the past few years were Baltimore and Charlottesville. Smaller scale violence does occur at these protests, but it's usually a few bad actors.

\- It's a common and well documented tactic for governments to send provocateurs to delegitimize protests

\- Protest organizers know better than anyone the importance of getting out the vote, and are often part of that effort. Also, the midterm elections are still a year away.

\- Uh not even gonna touch your identity politics rant tbh

<comment><USER29> There have been quite a lot of protests over the last few years that have gone violent. G20, The Berkeley Milo Speech, The Free Speech Demonstrations in Berkeley, Ferguson, etc. I don't know what you call "small scale" but these events have had a substantial amount of brawling and property damage being done. Maybe not Rodney King level, but definitely noteworthy.

In many of those cases, it's far more than just a few bad actors. If you watched footage from the Milo event for example, the Antifa crowd had a lot of people out in force. Ferguson had a lot of out of towners come in to create trouble despite the locals trying to keep things calm.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> "The biggest mistake that was made during the Holocaust was that people didn't speak up. The Holocaust took place because individuals, groups and nations made decisions to act or not to act. The world was quiet then, but we must not be quiet again. Now we know better. We must all commit to making the world a better, kinder and more understanding place. Perhaps it's as simple as speaking out when you see something wrong and saying, "I know better." But please, never be a bystander or a perpetrator."

\--Sonia K., Holocaust survivor. [http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/19/opinions/holocaust-survivor- tr...](http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/19/opinions/holocaust-survivor-trump- charlottesville-sonia-k-opinion/index.html)

Fascists gain power when good people stay silent out of fear or ambivalence, when the millions who might oppose them each believe themselves to be alone. Protests may not cause direct and immediate policy changes, but they let allies know that they are _not_ alone, they let enemies know that they are not in total control. That's huge. It's vital.

</comment><comment><USER31> In terms of anti-Trump Resistance, I was skeptical in the beginning, but the Women's March did show that getting together in big numbers gets people's attention. If nothing else it manages to rattle a President who is addicted to watching TV!

But I do think one big problem is how to channel the energy the American Left has for marching, protest etc. into voting. Maybe there needs to be a 'March to the polls' on voting days! Everyone from a specific district or area get together, then groups go to their specific local voting locations.

<comment><USER32> Well, Hillary did get _at least_ 2.9M more votes than Trump. So voting wouldn't seem to be a problem. Instead we have a gerrymandering problem, we have a voter suppression problem and we have an election that was probably hacked by Trump and the Russians.

<comment><USER31> True. But the problem is that Democratic voters are overly focused on the Presidency and don't turn out in large enough numbers in off-year elections. The reason the GOP has a stranglehold on government (including being able to gerrymander and suppress votes) is because they won big in the 2010 Congressional elections.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> No of course there isn't.

And if you're only just now figuring that out, now in 2017? Then you haven't been paying attention.

Come on, protesting hasn't been real since the requirement of having "permits", and the creation of "free speech zones". We live in a tyrannical police state masquerading as a peaceful democracy, where trouble makers are gunned down by death squads who are later pardoned by the courts.

Just posting a comment like this on the internet will lead to downvoting and social penalties. Did you know that this site participates in the practice of "hell-banning"? That is where they silently blacklist people for expressing their unpopular opinions about any particular subject. Those people can no longer contribute, but they believe that they can because the system lets them post. But nobody ever sees their comments. It's the exact same thing as what the government does.

Many of "the people" belong to the tyrants' pyramid of control and those who don't are brainwashed by it.

"Is there any point to protesting?", hah I say. Wake up.

<comment><USER34> I know reddit has shadow bans but I am not aware of it on HN. Do you have any proof?

<comment><USER33> No they don't, they just ban people. Maybe they used to, but it's an unpopular method.

<comment><USER35> A HN ban is a shadowban. The user doesn't know he is banned unless being told, and he can post normally. You can, however, see all dead posts by enabling showdead option in your HN settings. I encourage everybody to do that. There are extremely few spam posts, most dead posts are dead for different reasons. Often I see people having been shadowbanned for _years_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Vietnam-era Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara later claimed the catalyst for his change of heart on Vietnam policy was when Norman Morrison burned himself alive outside the Pentagon in protest.

I suppose that's one data point in favor of the effectiveness of self- immolation, at least

<comment><USER37> A self-immolation of an impoverished street vendor is credited with starting the Arab Spring.

<comment><USER38> The self-immolation of dozens of Palestinians and Tibetans didn't change much. Immolation might be good when the balance of powers is toi strong, but the conflict isn't muddied yet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I would like to think that there is but it seems like any time the current administration gets significant negative reaction it just turns even further towards racism. As for local members of congress, I live in Indiana and our republican senator seems content to toe the line despite the fact that many of my friends called in protest of the healthcare repeal and I did not see a single post on his facebook page or at him on twitter that supported his vote.

My fear is that Pence does somehow end up as president since he is both a career politician who knows how to work the system and seems to want a theocracy.

<comment><USER40> My first reaction is to not let the threat of a foolish group of leaders to become more foolish override ones place to voice their opinion.

Second thought is that these foolish leaders stay in power as long as they can point a finger and or claim superiority

I don't think silence helps but it's important to stay principaled and not turn protests into riots which gets difficult at high volume and where people are instigating it

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> The author puts this transitional, rhetorical statement in the middle of the piece:

> The question, then, is what protest is for.

and somehow doesn't even realize that they largely answered it in the quote that seems like it was included to fill out a "rule of threes" set of examples of protests from the 70s:

> and the pushy, calculating Earth First! movement, which sought to "make it > more costly for those in power to resist than to give in."

If we're talking about protests throughout history as a tactic for change, that quote encapsulates not only the purpose of protests but also the metric by which we retroactively measure their success. (I say retroactively because the most important protests happen under dictatorial regimes that typically aren't keen on accurately communicating to a resistance movement how much they've managed to deplete the dictator's coffers.)

There are certainly also such things as symbolic protests, but it's a truism that those are more amorphous and less likely to lead to change than more serious ones. And if the idea was to use the word "protest" as a shorthand for the set of symbolic protests in the U.S. that seem at the moment not to have had any measurable effect, that is unclear and prone to confusion.

</comment><comment><USER42> When I hear this question, my answer is: Imagine the world without the protests. Imagine if nobody protested Trump's actions, or Putin's. Imagine if something horrible happened and nobody responded, they just went about their days. Imagine the terrible, demoralizing, crushing silence.

Protests are a public service message that what is happening is not ok with your neighbors; that it matters to them. That's why I encourage people to show up, even if it seems pointless; each additional body matters: 10 people is still better than none; 100 better than 10; 1,000 better than 100, etc. Silence = consent.

<comment><USER43> Oh yes, imagine the silence of people peacefully talking with each other and forming their own opinions, and come election time change the government. Having opinions without being told by the opinions makers, crushing.

Imagine the property that wasn't destroyed, the lives that weren't lost, the sides that didn't become more and more polarised.

<comment><USER42> I'm against any violence. Protest does not at all require violence.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Protests are a consequence of a democracy that isn't.

If people had power, they would cast votes (on laws or representatives) instead of wasting their precious time walking around with little to no observable effect.

<comment><USER45> Well no, because you still need to convince the _majority_ to your opinion... your single individual vote is still meaningless on the macro scale

<comment><USER46> Why should the majority share my opinion? Maybe I am wrong. Maybe it would be boring, because there wouldn't be discussions any more.

Different opinions may coexist.

<comment><USER45> ....because in a democracy, majority vote rules

So obviously if you want something to change...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> There are point(s) to protesting the state, but not other groups of fringe citizens who disagree with you. They would be better dealt with by ignoring them.

The people showing up at these 'stand-off' style events are not wrong, but they are probably just short-sighted and distracted by boogeymen.

<comment><USER48> There is a point in counter protests, you show others that they have good people on their side.

<comment><USER49> Doing a counter-protest the next day or at a different location would also do that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> The Boston counter-protest clearly had some effect. A large number of nationalist rallies have been cancelled [1], as a result. So there does seem to be a point.

Also, it does raise public awareness of matters, in general, as long as the media doesn't just ignore or downplay things.

[1] [https://twitter.com/joncoopertweets/status/89980448626848563...](https://twitter.com/joncoopertweets/status/899804486268485632)

</comment><comment><USER51> Do not go gentle into that good night

Dylan Thomas, 1914 - <USER2>

      Do not go gentle into that good night,
      Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
      Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

      Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
      Because their words had forked no lightning they
      Do not go gentle into that good night.

      Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
      Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
      Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

      Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
      And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
      Do not go gentle into that good night.

      Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
      Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
      Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

      And you, my father, there on the sad height,
      Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
      Do not go gentle into that good night.
      Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

<comment><USER52> That poem means the exact opposite of what you seem to think it means (like most allegories, to be fair).

<comment><USER53> What does it mean?

<comment><USER54> It's artsy nonsense pandering to people who think unqualified anger arising from helpless dissatisfaction and lack of composure is cool and praiseworthy. It's not, just like the protests.

<comment><USER53> I'm surprised by your strong reaction. What makes you think it's artsy nonsense?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> There was a protest in state of Tamil Nadu, India in regards to jellikettu(bull racing) where the central government banned it. The whole state protested, and the ban was lifted.

<comment><USER56> Is that a good thing though? Maybe the government banned it because they found that most of the population is opposed to it. Then it got reinstated because of a loud minority. Why should a loud minority get their way at the expense of everyone else?

<comment><USER57> If most people were opposed to it, then they would have voted out the law makers who reversed the ban.

<comment><USER58> For some subjective perspective, Tamil Nadu is basically a hardcore Hindu area. The people are positively fervent. It seems like Tamils sort of see themselves as protectors of ancient tradition (they are one of the oldest communities in India). It's really conservative: in the cities you rarely see women alone on the street. If you go there during election time the election posters are _hilarious_. Examples: [https://goo.gl/photos/nLsD5XFYT3t2XVpu8](https://goo.gl/photos/nLsD5XFYT3t2XVpu8) [https://goo.gl/photos/AmZrD94WWBk3ddup8](https://goo.gl/photos/AmZrD94WWBk3ddup8) [https://goo.gl/photos/ETSdFDftX8fvcLVU8](https://goo.gl/photos/ETSdFDftX8fvcLVU8)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> Maybe protests do something, but they are less important than the primary elections every 2 years. The House can be completely changed every 2 years. People just need to get smarter with their voting and candidates will start to represent the people.

The time spent protesting is better spent fielding candidates, coming up with a platform that helps 80% of the population, and going door to door to spread the message.

</comment><comment><USER60> An easy way to test this article's hypothesis would be to sit down with the old hands who help organize these protests - let's say, some of the old former SNCC and Black Panther types advising the younger Black Lives Matter organizers, and ask them if they think a series of demonstrations are the means to change things. I am pretty confident, because I have spent a lot of time around organizers of different colors who go back to the 1960s (or 1930s) that 99% of the time, they are going to say no. It's a very easy way to falsify this hypothesis. I mean, you might get this reaction from some 16 year old who has come to their first demonstration, but you would rarely get it from someone seriously involved. New Yorker articles about such matters usually have some flaws, but this one is much worse than usual as he didn't do a very simple thing to falsify his hypothesis.

</comment><comment><USER61> A protest can only work if the people who are in power feel that their lives are being threatened. They get death threats all the time and they take notice of big upticks in numbers.

If enough people want a politician gone, they will be. There is a point when people's will can transcend the boundaries of the law.

</comment><comment><USER62> If you want to influence someone, or some orgnanisation, you need leverage. It could a reward, or a threat, _something_. Otherwise how can you motivate them to accommodate your wishes?

_ Eg. A well organised strike threatens the businesses profits and can be effective.

_ But simply marching on the street, who cares about that?

<comment><USER27> This is the 21st century, protest via social network sites. Tell your grandmother that Trump is a jerk, etc by uploading a meme or something so she can share it with her friends, etc. :)

Sign an online petition to boycott a place that does something wrong. Write to advertisers and sponsors of their advertising that you will boycott them as long as they support that group and tell your friends and family.

Maybe someone can make a protest website called iprotest.com or something?

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> What's worked recently in the US in protesting? Gay marriage succeeded, transgender rights backfired, some local success on $15 minimum wage. The Bundy Malheur takeover fizzled out. Big wins on gun rights. Any visible pattern?

<comment><USER64> One might argue that gay marriage succeeded because it is good for the economy. All gays I know are incredibly smart, savvy and professionally successful. They worked for many years and became a financial and political force, not to mention they succeeded in getting people to like them and empathize with their cause.

<comment><USER65> I think this is the point. The success of any protest movement depends on whether it can be galvanized into a political force. This can happen either when the protesters have economic and financial influence in terms of sheer numbers. Alternatively, it can happen when the protesters learn to organise in a way that they become politically relevant by voting along certain lines or candidate, but even here the numbers are important.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> A viewpoint from the political world: In a word, no. This is because the protests are mostly running on raw emotion and not sustained. I see people screaming at empty buildings on the weekends in DC and it accomplished absolutely nothing. If you really want to make change in America with a protest, it must be consistent, and constant. Show up at 10am on a Tuesday at the US Capitol. Return every single day. These one-off venting of outrage is too easily ignored.

</comment><comment><USER67> Protesting is also a personal act. Regardless of the actual usefulness of protesting, protesting definitely helps us to actually not resign. Protesting in itself is a commitment of oneself to a cause. Not protesting is definitely putting oneself away from that cause. So the question of the consequence on the "system" is, to me, second. I protest because I disagree, then I protest to remove the cause of that disagreement.

</comment><comment><USER68> The author manages to completely rip off Adam Curtis's excellent documentary film Hypernormalisation without a single reference to it. Well done.

</comment><comment><USER69> Protests speak, but so does money, and since citizens united, it speaks louder them ever before, drowning it the relative whisper of the people.

</comment><comment><USER70> Perhaps not directly. But might initially ineffective protests consolidate and inspire the participants towards larger actions?

</comment><comment><USER71> Right leaning = "wing nut", Centrist = "quailing".

</comment><comment><USER72> You certainly get a lot more bang for your protestor buck when you're able to show the politicians that their own electorate is against issue X.

<comment><USER34> Are there modern examples of this?

Follow up questions: 1) Especially for issues relevant to the tech community? 2) Can that be done by an average citizen?

<comment><USER73> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_SOPA_and_PIPA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_SOPA_and_PIPA)

About the only supporters those bills had were IP owners; effectively everyone else in the US was against them and Congress got the message.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER74> Gotta pay rent.

</comment><comment><USER75> You need to very well understand what you are protesting against, that this monolith of power is not a monolith - more something like a medieval wall, with cracks and fractures. You need to find these fractures, and apply force only to these weak points, to bring down a avalanch.

And then what? Then the machinery will repair itself- replacing damaged careers with new up-jumped individuals and the process will continu.

The goal should actually be to understand the nature of humanity, not as in "I-understand-to-feel-self-rightous-about-it", but in a "Know-your-bricks-to- build-a-house" way.

There will always be those who claw and crawl for power and control. Taking away that control, for example by a basic income, is percived as hostility towards by that mindset. So protesting for it, will not lead to change.

Now, if you state that anyone who recives basic income must join a group- who strives for a endavour, and that the most succesfull of these groups shall be taken as example policy in that sector.

You only subtile changed the demand. But you crafted it more compatible to human nature. Suddenly protests can be succesfull.

</comment><comment><USER76> Only a hipster snowflake's magazine could put such question in a headline.

A crowd is a major hardwired social heuristic. When someone sees a crowd of protestors or supporters almost automatic mental processes of estimating it's size and more importantly of taking a side wether one is with it or against it are triggered. It also forms a emotionally charged long lasting memory - <USER3> hostile crowd is a major life threat. Crowd of supporters is associated with protection and change. This is freshman's social psychology 101.

Number of likes, BTW, and numbers related to social events in general works in the same way. Social heuristics are hardwired and hence easily exploited by media or sales departments. The best strategy is to convince a potential buyer that there is a presumed crowd of enthusiastic buyers _behind_ him. Tesla is the obviously example.

Crowd of protesters is a major concern even for Trump.</comment>


Deno: JavaScript Runtime for V8 Written in Rust - <AUTHOR> https://deno.land/std/manual.md <comment><USER2> The talk by Ryan Dahl that introduced Deno to the world: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3BM9TB-8yA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3BM9TB-8yA)

<comment><USER3> Overview of the talk from a comment[0] of that video:

> The goal of Node was event driven HTTP servers.

>

> 5:04

> 1 Regret: Not sticking with Promises.

> * I added promises to Node in June 2009 but foolishly removed them in > February 2010.

> * Promises are the necessary abstraction for async/await.

> * It's possible unified usage of promises in Node would have sped the > delivery of the eventual standartization and async/await.

> * Today Node's many async APIs are aging baldly due to this.

>

> 6:02

> 2 Regret: Security

> * V8 by itself is a very good security sandbox

> * Had I put more thought into how that could be maintained for certain > applications, Node colud have had some nice security guarantees not > available in any other language.

> * Example: Your linter shouldn't get complete access to your computer and > network.

>

> 7:01

> 3 Regret: The Build System (GYP)

> * Build systems are very difficult and very important.

> * V8 (via Chrome) started using GYP and I switched Node over in tow.

> * Later Chrome dropped GYP for GN. Leaving Node the sole GYP user.

> * GYP is not an ugly internal interface either - it is exposed to anyone > who's trying to bind to V8.

> * It's an awful experience for users. It's this non-JSON, Python adaptation > of JSON.

> * The continued usage of GYP is the probably largest failure of Node core.

> * Instead of guiding users to write C++ bindings to V8, I should have > provided a core foreign function interface (FFI)

> * Many people, early on, suggested moving to an FFI (namely Cantrill) and > regrettably I ignored them.

> * (And I am extremely displeased that libuv adopted autotools.)

>

> 9:52

> 4 Regret: package.json

> * Isaac, in NPM, invented package.json (for the most part)

> * But I sanctioned it by allowing Nod's require() to inspect package.json > files for "main"

> * Ultimately I included NPM in the Node distribution, which much made it the > defacto standard.

> * It's unfortunate that there is centralized (privately controlled even) > repository for modules.

> * Allowing package.json gave rise to the concept of a "module" as a > directory of files.

> * This is no a strictly necessary abstraction - and one that doesn't exist > on the web.

> * package.json now includes all sorts of unnecessary information. License? > Repository? Description? It's boilerplate noise.

> * If only relative files and URLs were used when importing, the path defines > the version. There is no need to list dependencies.

>

> 12:35

> 5 Regret: node_modules

> * It massively complicates the module resolution algorithm.

> * vendored-by-default has good intentions, but in practice just using > $NODE_PATH wouldn't have precluded that.

> * Deviates greatly from browser semantics

> * It's my fault and I'm very sorry.

> * Unfortunately it's impossible to undo now.

>

> 14:00

> 6 Regret: require("module") without the extension ".js"

> * Needlessly less explicit.

> * Not how browser javascript works. You cannot omit the ".js" in a script > tag src attribute.

> * The module loader has to query the file system at multiple locations > trying to guess what the user intended.

>

> 14:40

> 7 Regret: index.js

> * I thought it was cute, because there was index.html

> * It needlessly complicated the module loading system.

> * It became especially unnecessary after require supported package.json

>

> 15:28 Talks about Deno.

[0]: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3BM9TB-8yA&lc=UgwteTb0N1PFq...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3BM9TB-8yA&lc=UgwteTb0N1PFqnr2DqB4AaABAg)

<comment><USER4> >> * Many people, early on, suggested moving to an FFI (namely Cantrill) and regrettably I ignored them.

A bit off-topic but Dahl referenced Cantrill here, who I figured to mean one of the authors of DTrace, Bryan Cantrill, who I then found from his Twitter ([https://twitter.com/bcantrill](https://twitter.com/bcantrill)) just last month started a new "computer company" which sounds super interesting, especially with his past experience and the passion he seems to have for attempting to solve a tough, bold problem:

[http://dtrace.org/blogs/bmc/](http://dtrace.org/blogs/bmc/)

Edit: which apparently was posted on HN with 500+ upvotes [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21682360](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21682360), regardless it's a good read worth re-mentioning here

Edit 2: Also thank you for the excellent write up, I wish every tech talk had a text TLDR

<comment><USER5> For more context, Cantrill was senior at Joyent, who has Nodejs listed as one of their products on Wikipedia and has been the corporate sponsor of Nodejs for a long time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Anyone know what the status of this is or like how close to release 1.0 is? I'd really like to dig in and give a try but it's hard to know just how much time I could waste pre-1.0.

I looked on the status page and it seems like things are moving along to the ~1.0 release, but as an outsider I can't gauge if that's three months or a year.

I'm mostly just really excited for this at there's a great deal of it (Deno) that makes a shitload more sense to me than Node (module loading is one, $HOME/.deno/bin is another); and being so heavily integrated with Rust appeals to me in a big way (I actually understand Rust, but C++ always leaves me just instantly mind-fucked).

<comment><USER7> I believe the current goal is by the end of January (and the main blocker right now is v8 inspector support (debugging in Chrome devtools)).

However internally there are quite a few things need to refactor. Since Deno aims for better Web spec compliance, we need an overhaul of the Worker implementation we have right now. So likely existing API interfaces under the Deno namespace is stabilizing soon, but many of the Web-compat APIs still need frequent updates

<comment><USER8> i know you guys banned this guy [1] for trolling, but he certainly has a fast v8/tcp stack that bypasses node's internals.

from the benchmarks, deno looks similar to node in net/http perf. is there any specific reason you guys cannot get significantly more perf out of deno? (Alex has always said and shown that v8 is not the bottleneck).

does v1 mean that some of the existing architectural choices are frozen and any significant perf improvments become impossible?

[1] [https://github.com/uNetworking/uWebSockets.js](https://github.com/uNetworking/uWebSockets.js)

<comment><USER7> TBH I am not probably the right person to answer this. Bartek has been working on a lot of internal refactoring these days and he had some discussion with Bert (presenter in dotjs video) on the topic. Maybe ask him in the Gitter chatroom?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> In a GitHub thread ry mentioned, "Currently async ops are executed on the same thread as the issuing Isolate - however I'm quite sure we can improve this and execute async ops in different threads." [1]

Is this what I think it is? Does it mean in the future I can write 'await fn()' and it'll run in a different thread? Or am I a fool and hoping too much?

[1] [https://github.com/denoland/deno/issues/3003#issuecomment-53...](https://github.com/denoland/deno/issues/3003#issuecomment-534157150)

<comment><USER10> Node does this as well AFAIK, IO operations are ran on a worker pool [1]

[1] [https://blog.logrocket.com/a-complete-guide-to-threads-in- no...](https://blog.logrocket.com/a-complete-guide-to-threads-in-node- js-4fa3898fe74f/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Another comment [0] provided a list of features differenting Deno vs Node, but once it's complete, in what situations would it be more appropriate to use Deno rather than Node?

[0]: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22103054](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22103054)

<comment><USER5> I think it's intended to just be a "better node" in as many respects as possible. Better security, more coherent module/package system, async/promises from the start rather than hacked in, first class security/sandboxing options.

The cool stuff I think is in where Deno is different. Able to be used as a library from other Rust or C compatible languages. Able to compile your javascript and Deno itself together into a single binary, etc

<comment><USER7> Also scripting feels nice in Deno so far. Also the ease of using a script written by someone else hosted on the web to do stuff, without worrying it taking over my machine, is cool IMHO.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I thought Deno was supposed to be Typescript native?

Edit: It still supports Typescript (since TS is a superset of JS it can be a native runtime for both, right?).

<comment><USER7> Deno does transparent compiling and caching of TS into JS. This allows interesting behavior such as the ability to import TS files with explicit .ts extension in JS files, e.g. `import A from "[https://example.com/a.ts";`](https://example.com/a.ts";`)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Discussed 7 months ago: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20373430](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20373430)

In 2018: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17183241](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17183241)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18143572](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18143572)

</comment><comment><USER14> Wonder what itch this is scratching (security? RiiR/TS?). The IMHO biggest flaw of node (no std lib) still seems present.

<comment><USER15> I don't know, I feel like Node.js has a fairly full-featured and useful standard library? [https://nodejs.org/api/](https://nodejs.org/api/)

\---

From the OP:

Comparison to Node.js

\- Deno does not use npm - It uses modules referenced as URLs or file paths

\- Deno does not use package.json in its module resolution algorithm.

\- All async actions in Deno return a promise. Thus Deno provides different APIs than Node.

\- Deno requires explicit permissions for file, network, and environment access.

\- Deno always dies on uncaught errors.

\- Uses "ES Modules" and does not support require(). Third party modules are imported via URLs:

import * as log from "[https://deno.land/std/log/mod.ts";](https://deno.land/std/log/mod.ts";)

<comment><USER16> We (fly.io) use Deno pretty intensely. We really like:

* No npm spaghetti, just requiring a URL is a win

* It'll build a lightweight static binary. Usually way smaller than the equivalent node Docker image

* The stdlib and every community lib were written at a time when async/await was the norm. So they're all very nice to use compared to wildly inconsistent node libs

<comment><USER15> Very interesting to hear. I didn't realize Deno was "production ready", I'd been curious about it for a long time.

Your comment inspired me to study Deno deeper and consider it for practical use. In addition to the pros you've listed, seamless integration of TypeScript sounds fantastic.

Would love to hear more about how Deno is used in your company!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I hope at some point in time we can use Typescript's type hints to replace/add a better JIT for v8 engine.

<comment><USER7> I remember saw something long time ago that type hints does not really offer much performance benefit here. Also TypeScript types aren't that reliable anyways since you can always @ts-ignore them. Real impact of TS on runtime performance is more or less an encouragement to developers to create objects of similar shapes that are easier to optimize.

JITs create "shapes" or "hidden classes" anyways: [https://v8.dev/blog/fast- properties](https://v8.dev/blog/fast-properties) . They also do many speculative optimizations.

<comment><USER18> My understanding is that non-sound type systems are not helpful for runtime optimizations. (In fact, to the extent that they operate at runtime at all, they will slow things down, by adding extra checks.) Only sound type systems give you enough guarantees to start doing optimizations with.

(TypeScript is not sound.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Does Dino plan to have any gui or even electron like functionality?

Google Chrome keeps changing which affects Electron. I already had one tutorial that went out of date because of these changes.

It would be nice to use a different base, especially something that is built upon Rust's security and correctness guarantees.

<comment><USER5> It's not releasing with any GUI functionality, though in theory there's no reason it can't go the same route as Electron :)

You might also be interested in webview, which allows programs to use the native system webview without needing each application to bring their own copy of a browser everywhere!

[https://github.com/zserge/webview](https://github.com/zserge/webview)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> For people who are interested to learn more about the current status of Deno, we have a Gitter chatroom: [https://gitter.im/denolife/Lobby](https://gitter.im/denolife/Lobby)

Feel free to ask any questions there!

</comment><comment><USER20> It isn't clear from the materials, but is a capabilities based security model being put in place .. similar to WASI? .. or is it just the beginnings of one with blanket `--allow-read`, `--allow-net` and such.

</comment><comment><USER21> Been following this for a while... it's going to be a big deal.

</comment><comment><USER22> I wonder what Rust is being used for here.

<comment><USER23> Dahl wrote rust bindings for V8 and Deno itself is a rust project.

You can think of it as a large rust wrapper around C++ Javascript runtime.

<comment><USER7> The Rust v8 wrapper used in Deno is rusty_v8: [https://github.com/denoland/rusty_v8](https://github.com/denoland/rusty_v8)

The whole privileged side (except for v8 itself) is in Rust.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> For those not aware, this is written by Ryan Dahl, the creator of Node.js.

<comment><USER25> And Deno is literally Node shifted 2 letters over

<comment><USER26> Ö

<comment><USER27> Umlaut o is now my favorite emoticon.

<comment><USER28> TIL Ö

<comment><USER29> feel free to add an

Ü

on top of that :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> so is typescript the default with Deno? yes I know js is subset of ts, but still I would like Deno default to JS instead of TS.

I never get the point of TS, as long as JS ES2023(or whatever) got some typing in place, I will stick with JS for good.

</comment><comment><USER31> Will wait he drop this one for a new "Endo". Omg, nodejs just works, keep improvements.

</comment><comment><USER32> \- no file system access \- no internet access \- no environment access

also loads code from the internet and runs it no questions asked.

<comment><USER5> .... except it does ask questions

Goal 2

Provide Secure Defaults

        Unless specifically allowed [by the user], scripts can't access files, the environment, or the network.

<comment><USER33> That doesn't mean what you think. See [https://deno.land/std/manual.md#linking-to-third-party- code](https://deno.land/std/manual.md#linking-to-third-party-code)

"Note that we did not have to provide the --allow-net flag for this program, and yet it accessed the network. The runtime has special access to download imports and cache them to disk."

<comment><USER5> I don't understand what you're trying to say?

Deno the privileged runtime can do these things, but the scripts/code you get it to run cannot do these things without permission.

Specifically I was talking about this section of the posters comment "runs it no questions asked". No, it will _not_ be run no questions asked.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Warren Buffet's Pledge to Donate 99% of Wealth [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://givingpledge.org/Content/media/My%20Philanthropic%20Pledge.pdf

<comment><USER2> The somewhat mind-boggling aspect is that he's _so_ incredibly wealthy that, even if he carries through with this plan in full, he'll still be one of the richest people in the U.S.---the remaining 1% of his wealth totals $450 million. Not that it doesn't make his pledge laudable.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well....he does like expensive planes...but multiple houses (not so much). So that $450M should suffice him.

I do agree though...even 1% (i.e. crumbs from his plate) is more than enough for both himself and his entire family to live off of - and have everything they will want or need (his words, not mine).</comment></comment>