A Renegade Trawler, Hunted for 10,000 Miles by Vigilantes - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/28/world/a-renegade-trawler-hunted-for-10000-miles-by-vigilantes.html?_r=0 <comment><USER2> This is the same writer, Ian Urbina, as the Sea Slaves story that also made the HN homepage yesterday. He's been writing a number of sea stories that look fascinating: [http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/u...](http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/u/ian_urbina/index.html)

Looking further back into his archive, he also writes about tech, and racism.

<comment><USER3> As you have correctly noted, this piece is another entry in The Outlaw Ocean series:

[http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/24/world/the- outl...](http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/24/world/the-outlaw- ocean.html)

<comment><USER4> Needless to say, advocates for the shipping industry aren't happy about this kind of coverage. [http://gcaptain.com/maritime-industry-advocates-slam-the- new...](http://gcaptain.com/maritime-industry-advocates-slam-the-new-york- times-the-outlaw-ocean-is-attack-journalism/)

<comment><USER5> Wow, that was a pretty substandard PR response. They talk about the complexity of their policies but don't talk about enforcement or performance.

<comment><USER4> That's exactly why I found it interesting. It's always revealing when a response mixes shock and outrage with a series of dodges, misdirections, and evasions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I know nothing about sea or sailing of even fishing but this article was just stunning. That is the kind of journalism i'm ready to pay for.

<comment><USER7> Talk is cheap -- did you sign up for an NYT subscription?

<comment><USER8> I tried, but they have a form that claimed it works but does not actually work for my American Express card. I cleared it all and typed it in looking at my card and it claimed my CVV was invalid.

It worked with another card.

I'm home and ill today so I can't do any actual work which is why I had time for this charade. Any other day I would have simply hit the back button and ignored them.

Talk _is_ cheap. A broken billing form? Now that is costly.

<comment><USER9> I hope I don't come across as too patronizing, but Amex cards do trip end users up sometimes- the CVV number being 4 digits, and on the front of the card, unlike Visa & MasterCard... I've personally made the mistake of reading the wrong numbers off my Amex cards a few times.

<comment><USER8> Ha ha, not to worry, I did use the four digits on the front. This is my primary card. They have a "what is this?" too to look at and help with the CVV that corresponds exactly to my card.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > Illegal fishing is a global business estimated at $10 billion in annual > sales, and one that is thriving as improved technology has enabled fishing > vessels to plunder the oceans with greater efficiency.

Not sound like a First-Worlder, but so much environmental destruction by sweeping the seas clean of life and helping destroy the planet for so little money. I would have guessed that illegal fishing netted (No pun intended) a lot more than that.

<comment><USER11> This is in general true about most criminal activity. Most crimes net very little profit.

<comment><USER12> Except white collar and government crime, from the Wall Street deregulation abuses to colonialism. Those net trillions....

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This series is really good. The fact that the nytimes is bleeding money while still producing content of this quality is a sad state of affairs. Must be a better way to monetize this stuff.

<comment><USER14> It seems like they're aggressively paying down debts and resolving union related costs. Based on their quarterly reports they seem to be doing okay in terms of cash on balance sheet and revenue vs costs of production. Their major concern long term is still valid - 74% of their revenue comes from print advertising. They need to significantly grow the digital side of their business, and reduce their overall costs.

<comment><USER3> It would also be nice if people would re-think their mental model about where content comes from and who pays for it. I hear about so many people blocking ads and whatnot - and I understand why - but you don't really see these same people evangelize subscriptions or otherwise supporting these places.

Of course, ad blocking is only one aspect to lower digital advertising revenues, but so many people complain about paywalls and whatnot, yet nobody seems to have any good solutions.

Until we have a good solution, and people get over their entitlement to free (as in beer) media, outlets like the NYT and others will continue to precariously wobble near the tipping point of print's demise (and the revenue with it).

<comment><USER15> Has anyone experimented with micropayments? I'd pay a dollar or two to read an article like this now and then, but I couldn't see myself paying $200 a year for a subscription.

<comment><USER16> Yes, Blendle in the Netherlands (and Germany?) :

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9453821](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9453821)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Well, there's my daily dose of "my life is boring by comparison".

<comment><USER18> Plenty of projects like that if you want to a) make the world a better place and b) seek adventure

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." \-- Edmund Burke

<comment><USER19> Funding is the difficult part.

<comment><USER18> I don't disagree with this. That's a hard nut to crack.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Ian Urbina's "The Outlaw Ocean" serie is quite the fascinating and nicely researched read - [http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/24/world/the- outl...](http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/24/world/the-outlaw- ocean.html)

</comment><comment><USER8> These are the same folks who also used to own the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MY_Ady_Gil](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MY_Ady_Gil) which was famously destroyed in a collision with a whaling ship. It's interesting to read internet comments describing these incidents.

The universal opinion on the Internet at the time blamed the Ady Gil for being reckless. I wonder what people would be saying if the Bob Barker hadn't been able to handle the storm.

</comment><comment><USER21> The Interpol Purple Notice explains that the ship was previously sailing under the Mongolian flag. Isn't Mongolia a landlocked country? Does it have any navigable routes to the oceans? Where are Mongolia's ports?

<comment><USER22> Any country can issue ship registrations, even landlocked ones. For a while, Sea Shepherd's vessels sailed under the flag of the Iroquois Nation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> AP tracks slave boats to Papua New Guinea: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9965296](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9965296)

<comment><USER24> From the article: "Numerous other agencies — including Interpol, the United Nations and the U.S. State and Defense departments — told the AP they don't have the authority to get involved."

So Interpol can get involved in illegal fishing but not human slavery? That's strange.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> This is an amazing article, that is crying out for a big budget feature film. I wonder whether legalizing efforts like this would justify bringing back Letters of Marque: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque)

<comment><USER26> I bet if they did Blackwater would rebrand back to Blackwater.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> The 4 month campaign must have been really expensive. Is there a reason they didn't just forcibly board the boat with a swat type team from helicopters, or something similar?

<comment><USER28> They are a non-governmental organization (NGO) and don't have any legal authority.

<comment><USER27> Ah, in that case, why is the ship even running from them?

<comment><USER29> They do their best to interfere with their fishing practices, following them around and pulling up their illegal nets, and sending their location to Interpol.

It's likely that whatever remaining shred of legitimacy such operations have is highly dependent on not having high-def video of their operations on TV and the internet as well.

As the article states, what they do that is most harmful to them is to follow them around and notify any port they attempt to dock at, so they can't get supplies (esp fuel) without risking arrest.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Off topic, but NYT seems to be breaking things again. I have media.autoplay.enable set to false, yet all the videos on this article still autoplay. Better yet, if I change from true to false and then reload the page and scroll down firefox crashes when I reach the first video. edit: ye old error.

console.error: [CustomizableUI] Custom widget with id loop-button does not return a valid node Segmentation fault

<comment><USER31> The videos on that page use JavaScript and scrolling to control when a video plays. The setting you are referring to probably controls autoplay options set from HTML. I doubt any kind of setting in Firefox would disable JavaScript controlling videos as that would break custom controls.

<comment><USER32> > I doubt any kind of setting in Firefox would disable JavaScript controlling > videos as that would break custom controls.

True, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing. I usually prefer the default controls on HTML5 video players to whatever the site wants to cook up. Somewhat similar to scroll bars and form elements. Native, please.

<comment><USER31> You could probably achieve what you want with an extension.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Sorry for off topic...

Is there a way to allow myself to select text on this website? I find it hard to read on screens without and it's bugging the hell out of me.

</comment><comment><USER34> Great article!</comment>


Ask HN: How do you deal with family members who are into conspiracy theory? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER3> What kind of conspiracy theory?

If it's the "people" kind then what you have to realize is actual conspiracies happen all the time - there are many interwoven plots, ulterior motives, and hidden agendas going on all around you.

People are generally good at noticing that _something_ doesn't add up - <USER2> worse at working out what might have actually happened.

They have also been lied to and mislead by our institutions often enough that they are unlikely to trust your sources or corrections.

The only long term solution I can think of is to clean up our institutions - but that won't happen overnight.

If it's the "flat earth" kind - overall these people are higher than average intelligence and fairly well versed in the topics they are discussing - and so unless you yourself understand the subject matter they will run circles around you.

This second group are actually really interesting to talk to and ask interesting questions - for example why do pilots fly without adjusting for the curvature of the earth? Why do many long distance snipers not adjust for the curvature of the earth? Etc etc.

I'm sure there are great scientific explanations - and I'm also sure that many in the flat earth crowd would listen.

<comment><USER4> I think you are right about the long term solution and the underlying cause being disillusioned with leadership / govt / institutions.

I wonder if we don't need some sort of reboot because it is no impossible to iterate out of where we are. I'm more hopeful for the later and human perseverance

<comment><USER5> > some sort of reboot

Note that this is not a thing that is possible. There is no "after the revolution"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I would remind them that the conspiracy has no impact on their life and they are powerless to do anything about it, so why focus on it?

Them: "The earth is flat! They're trying to hide it from us!"

Me: Okay. So what?

I wouldn't try arguing with them. It's usually futile and reinforces their sense of superiority they derive from knowing the "truth."

</comment><comment><USER4> That's a tough one because logic and fact does not work. There are some previous threads and posts on HN. Try searching around with the advanced filters.

Here are a few links I grabbed some time ago

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/08/07/qanon- isn...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/08/07/qanon-isnt-just- conspiracy-theory-its-highly-effective-game/)

[https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.nbcnews.com/think/o...](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/psychology- qanon-why-do-seemingly-sane-people-believe-bizarre-conspiracy-ncna900171)

[https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/psych- unseen/201911/...](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/psych- unseen/201911/the-qanon-conspiracy-theory-mistrust-and-mass-appeal)

</comment><comment><USER7> I sit them down, pull out the list of conspiracy theories which turned out to be proven true, and explain to them that these are the only conspiracy theories that deserve any time and attention. All future conspiracy theories should be rejected instead of analyzed, and we should always try to align with the mainstream.

</comment><comment><USER8> Something I learned a decade ago was that facts often don't change people's mind.

Before I learned that, I would try to change other people's views with facts. Now, I don't try so hard since I know it won't make any difference. Love the conspiracy believer for their other qualities and ignore their crazy ideas.

</comment><comment><USER9> Aim the conversation towards their feelings instead of "facts" or the "truth".

Here's some structure to pull from :

[https://www.cnvc.org/training/resource/needs- inventory](https://www.cnvc.org/training/resource/needs-inventory)

[https://www.cnvc.org/training/resource/feelings- inventory](https://www.cnvc.org/training/resource/feelings-inventory)

The needs:feelings model from the Non Violent Communication course is great.

</comment><comment><USER10> What kind of conspiracy theory? A percentage, no matter how small high stakes events regarding money, power and fame are considered a conspiracy until one day they aren't and its all real.

</comment><comment><USER11> Talk to them but avoid social media. Eventually people return home and you should try to be a friend if that is something you can deal with.

</comment><comment><USER4> Q Anon, the main active right wing group has one of their main sites here: [https://qmap.pub](https://qmap.pub) You can see the gamification instantly. They employ techniques in psychology, advertising, and much of what has been learned from modern dark patterns.

Are you dealing with the left or right conspiracy theory?

(assuming right because that's the main one I'm hearing people having concerns about family getting deep into)

</comment><comment><USER12> Block them from Facebook and only see them at family functions like weddings.

<comment><USER4> This is näive, it's their family and that is a last resort more used with addicts. You don't just throw family out when they have been brainwashed, you try to help them like OP.

<comment><USER12> I personally think it's näive to think you can change someone's mind who has been politically brainwashed. Maybe your experience is different.

<comment><USER4> Minds change and open up all the time, despite the prevailing story told by the media brainwashing a much larger portion of the populace.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Like the one involving trump and russia?

<comment><USER14> trump and russia was a cover up for the clintons murdering seth rich

<comment><USER13> My comment was meant to point out the hypocracy of the mainstream who thinks conspiracy theories are bad but at the same time bought into the trump/russia conspiracy theory hook, line and sinker</comment></comment></comment>


InfoWars Has a Platform Again, Thanks to a New Roku Channel - <AUTHOR> https://www.engadget.com/2019/01/15/infowars-has-a-platform-new-roku-channel/ <comment><USER2> > Update 1/15/2019 8:48PM ET: After receiving backlash, Roku has decided to > remove the channel.

That was quick</comment>


QUIC in the wild, only for Google ad advantage - <AUTHOR> https://blog.brave.com/quic-in-the-wild-for-google-ad-advantage/ <comment><USER2> Considering the QUIC source is available this article is a bit silly. It's not Googles fault that other ad-networks have ignored QUIC.

[https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/net/+/master/...](https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/net/+/master/quic/)

<comment><USER3> Seriously. QUIC was announced 4 years ago.

Also QUIC requests show up in devtools fine

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Well, this post makes some claims that are either false or at least extremely misleading.

> QUIC runs on top of the UDP protocol. The Chrome webRequest API does not > have permission to access the udp:// scheme, therefore extensions that rely > on webRequest to block ad and tracking requests cannot see QUIC requests. > There is no other API available to extensions that can detect and block > QUIC.

QUIC requests are not logged as using the udp:// scheme. They're regular [https://](https://) URLs; QUIC vs. TCP is a lower-level decision.

Since the explanation didn't make sense, I decided to test whether the claim was true, i.e. the webRequest API cannot see QUIC requests. I randomly searched the extension store for something that could log all requests, and found this weird extension:

[https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/my- webrequest/ojod...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/my- webrequest/ojodgdaaholkmelbddlhnfdgamohijhk/related?hl=en)

I went to www.google.com, and the dev tools showed that all requests were being made over QUIC; the extension dutifully logged a bunch of requests with request headers, etc. (To https: URLs.)

So unless something changed recently, either the author is wrong, or they meant that extensions can't detect /the fact that QUIC is being used/, as opposed to being unable to detect the requests at all. But I don't think that interpretation makes much sense - why would "extensions that rely on webRequest to block ad and tracking requests" care about whether QUIC is being used?

On the other hand, that's the only possible interpretation for this other claim:

> QUIC requests are currently not visible in the Network tab of Chrome > Developer Tools, with default Network settings. The user is required to > right click and select the Protocol menu option in order to view.

All that right clicking and selecting Protocol does is toggle the Protocol column in the list of requests. It doesn't show or hide any requests. Surely the author knows that if they tried the option in question, so I guess they must have meant, again, that /whether a request is QUIC/ is "not visible". Unless you press the button to make it visible. I don't really see why the author has a problem with that, since for most purposes it doesn't matter, and it's easy to enable. And again, the wording makes it sound like something a lot worse.

This really makes me question the technical competence of the Brave team...

</comment><comment><USER5> The author seems to be strongly biased and is missing some important pieces of information. Mainly:

QUIC is an open protocol, the spec and chromiums implementation are public. The fact that work on an IETF RFC is currently being performed attests to that.

As the author points out, QUIC has been announced in 2013. That's plenty of time for Google's competitors to use QUIC in their own infrastructure.

There are also some misleading pieces of information in the article:

      Competitors are bound to using TCP requests that require extra round trips

That's not true, competitors can use QUIC or 0-RTT features in TLS 1.3.

</comment><comment><USER6> The author is making it seem like Google is doing something sinister here.

But Google submitted the QUIC drafts and it's being developed in the open under the aegis of the IETF.

[https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/quic/](https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/quic/)

QUIC seems to be following the playbook Google set with SPDY and its eventual maturation into HTTP2. I think everyone is happy with how that process turned out, so I think Google have earned the benefit of the doubt given they're handling QUIC the exact same way.

</comment><comment><USER7> While QUIC is an open protocol and the source is available, I personally believe the issues here are:

\- Google has majority share of browsers with Chrome

\- Chrome has QUIC enabled by default (opt out via chrome://flags)

\- Google has a large amount of resourcing allocated to Chrome/Chromium. They ultimately control whether or not code is accepted

\- Google also owns DoubleClick; ads are already being pushed using QUIC

\- Regular end users are likely not aware of QUIC. Sure, a more advanced user can show it in the dev tools if you enable it and then look for it. But the problem is more that people aren't aware this is something to look for and they are opted into this

Showing a banner and trying to sell a product is one thing. But using a protocol that the user is not explicitly approving of to track / advertise is another thing. It seems to me (and maybe I'm wrong) that they are using their borderline-monopoly position in the browser market to opt people into questionable advertising technology

<comment><USER8> What effect does a transfer protocol have on the average user? If they knew, why would they care? Genuinely curious.

<comment><USER7> How widely adopted is QUIC outside of Google? If Google (including DoubleClick, etc) sites are the only ones using QUIC, it's a little unusual IMO to enable an experimental protocol by default

For example: this technology looks cool. How can I take advantage of QUIC to speed up my personal hosted content? Is there a module for nginx or an Apache mod_quic I can install? The code is out there of course, but it seems prebuilt options are limited

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is slightly unrelated but just curious about this: is there any documentations regarding why Brave is built using Chromium as the core browser engine? Since Brendan Eich founded Brave, it should be quite natural to base Brave on top of Gecko or maybe even Servo.

<comment><USER10> I'm a co-founder on Brave. Brave was actually built on Graphene, which is Gecko at the start, similar to Mozilla's browser.html project which was created by paulrouget, Gozala, and gordonbrander.

We switched to Chromium within the first few months for various reasons including performance and HTML JS based APIs being ready across platforms.

We do want to move to Servo once it's in a more complete state, it just has a lot of years until it is ready.

<comment><USER9> That makes total sense, thanks a lot!</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Why will someone contribute to a project which is licensed under MIT? - <AUTHOR>

Since MIT is the most permissive license, your contributions could be used in a proprietary software. I am wondering, given this, why will some one ready to invest their time & effort in contributing to something which at one point can be/benefit a proprietary software? <comment><USER2> It all comes down to why you want to write software. If you want to be paid for writing software, then doing it on your own time and contributing to an MIT licensed project is NOT the way to go.

On the other hand, if your goal is to have your software used by as many people as possible, then MIT licensed may be the way to go. In my case, the piece of software that I wrote that runs in the most places (measured in the billions) is probably the IJG JPEG library that was very liberally licensed and consequently found its way into all sorts of devices... Yes, I wrote the code back in 1991 but it still gives me a kick to know how often it is used!

</comment><comment><USER3> It all depends on which false dichotomy you're looking at. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to see the choice as being between the code being tied up in a proprietary project and being readily available in a popular Free Software project. Given those choices, I'll readily chose the later option and avoid the MIT license.

A different false dichotomy, though is whether you'd prefer to see your code buried in a proprietary project or to have every copy and back of your code burned before your very eyes. Is it worse for some mooch to make money off your hard work or for all your hard work to be wasted and no one benefits.

The vast majority of the code I've written will never earn me a single penny. I've come to terms with that. There's a couple of pieces that my vanity has convinced me have potential and they're licensed under the GPL. The rest, though, is fully MIT licensed. If they wind up in a proprietary software project, that's wonderful, because it means that someone is actually using it. That's pretty much my best case scenario and far superior to the likely outcome where the project fades into obscurity and the code benefits no one.

</comment><comment><USER4> If you write code in the open, most often than not you do not really care what other people will do with it. If the project is MIT, that's fine. If the project is GPL, that's fine too. Often the license is somebody else's concern, not the actual creator.

I remember Woz saying he planned to give away his designs and it was Jobs who convinced him not to. Woz was fine too, he didn't care. Only Jobs cared.

Even if it is GPL I'm sure that many people will not honor it, just like there are tons of deadbeats who do not pay for closed source software even if it is just for the rush involved in outsmarting the closed source developer. It is human nature and I'm sure that programmers working in GPL projects know it and do not care.

</comment><comment><USER5> Even if someone uses your code in proprietary software, someone else may still use it in something open, or contribute their own changes back to your project. And it is advantageous for anyone improving the code to contribute it to the project, because that makes the project better, and makes it more likely that others will use it and improve it, and you will ultimately benefit from their contributions too.

</comment><comment><USER6> I tend to avoid viral GPL/LGPL projects:

1) Because I wanna have the freedom to eventually sell the software based on third party libraries.

2) Even if I would _want_ to open source parts of the project, I mostly can't open source all of it, because of proprietary code from third parties (e.g. bought assets from Unity Asset Store).

3) I have no interest in a license telling me how I have to license my own source code.

<comment><USER7> > 1) Because I wanna have the freedom to eventually sell the software based on > third party libraries.

GPL/LGPL doesn't restrict the copyright holder from selling. It's a public license. You can still sell proprietary, more-permissive licenses to companies, even.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Group A wants to use the code for profit. Group B wants to work with A but will contribute some code back. Group C isn't too bothered about licence but wants to work with B or on their resulting code. Group D prefers GPL, but uses MIT because B and C are. It can flow the other way too, think how insignificant GPL might be without GNU and linux.

</comment><comment><USER9> There is probably many different reasons.

Mine is that it's better that this work benefit to a proprietary software than to nobody.

Then, there is a hope that bugs will be found, and even that corrections will be sent back to the MIT licensed software.

</comment><comment><USER10> Basically it boils down to whether you think whatever you personally gain from contributing outweighs the likelihood (or certainty) of _not_ making money from it.

It's also worth noting that there's nothing inherently evil or distasteful about proprietary software. It's proprietary exactly because it's meant to produce a monetary return on the time and effort invested in it.

Whether you aim for monetary gain, and with what degree of certainty, is just a personal choice you make.</comment>


Why I Will Give 100% of My Book Earnings to Women in the Struggle - <AUTHOR> http://www.bhorowitz.com/why_i_will_give_100_of_my_book_earnings_to_women_in_the_struggle

<comment><AUTHOR> Ben has a good idea here. More about the American Jewish World Service campaign that he's supporting:

[http://webelieve.ajws.org](http://webelieve.ajws.org)

...and the related International Violence Against Women Act, currently introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives:

[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi- bin/query/F?c113:1:./temp/~c113A4Q...](http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi- bin/query/F?c113:1:./temp/~c113A4QoxH:e1300)

</comment><comment><USER2> Answer: b/c I am an attention whore parading around as a V.C.

</comment><comment><USER3> Why just the proceeds from his book?

Why not more?

</comment><comment><USER4> I would suggest finding "pro" organizations to support as well, not just "anti" organizations. Pro-education is a good one. Pro birth control is another good one. At the moment, I don't recall the short list, but supporting certain things that benefit "women" tends to a great deal for society as a whole.

</comment><comment><USER5> It's funny how you stated that you were so shocked and repulsed by slavery in the 1600s that you started to _study_ it deeply.

Little that you know that now, in the 2010's there are more slaves than in 1600s. Also, you state that slavery is happening now and the victims are women. I highly doubt that slaves in Pakistan, North Korea, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Russia, Thailand, Congo, Myanmar, Bangladesh, ... are exclusively women.

Look, you did a good thing, but I'm just sayin'. If you do something good, why not do it for all people irregardless of gender?

<comment><USER6> He's shockingly naive about forced labor. It's a shame that someone of his stature could claim that slavery "ended."

Furthermore, although there's nothing wrong with AJWS, I question his choice of charity given that there are so many non-profits whose sole goal is the elimination of forced labor.

<comment><USER7> Slavery exists, but is not culturally accepted the same way as it used to be. De Facto slaves exist, but a legitimate slave trade doesn't any more. You couldn't buy a slave at an above-board auction, bring it home the the US, and then exploit it.

However, women are exploited in lots of the moden world, and laws exist to maintain these practices. Women are kept ignorant by national and religious law. Marriage law often dictates a lower marriagable age for women than for men. There's many areas where women are restricted from education by law.

You couldn't bring a purchased slave back to the US with everyone's knowledge that you'd done so, and have them perform sexual favors and clean your house for you.

You can go to the Philippines and pay to marry a young uneducated woman and bring her home and introduce her to all of your friends. You can have her perform sexual favors and clean your house for you.

It's currently culturally acceptable to do the latter because she's your wife, and we have laws and rules that make that acceptable. If, on the other hand, you were to tell everyone about the new slave you purchased, you wouldn't get any pats on the back, instead you might get federal investigators at your house.

Forced labour still exists, but it exists typically as a criminal and immoral act. It exists in places where authority can't be exercised due to weak or corrupt government. Generally laws exist to prevent it, but those laws can't be upheld.

Discrimination against women exists in the open. Laws are in place which enforce it. It's not just that laws exist that aren't being followed, it's that laws exist that make it impossible to avoid. There are still places where a child bride can try and escape their much senior "husband" and will be caught and by law reunited. While a corrupt justice system might easily turn a blind eye to slavery, there are corrupted laws that say that 14 year old girls can legally be married. Not boys of course, they couldn't afford it at 14 anyways.

The issue isn't that forced labor still exists. Generally even where forced labor exists, it's still at least nominally considered wrong. Murder is generally considered wrong everywhere, it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. But there are still many many places that find the exploitation of women perfectly acceptable if not necessary to maintain a stable society. This is the category that slavery used to be in. Slavery still exists, but is now unacceptable. Discrimination against women exists and is still very much tolerated if not promoted and institutionalized.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> As long as you (general you) aren't giving money to things that are actively harmful, you don't have to 'justify'[] what you give your money to. Sure, it can be constructive to discuss what things should be focused on compared to others. But I think it's silly when people judge others for trying to make a positive impact in one area because they think that there are more pressing issues.

[] Yeah, that was probably not the main intent in this case. You know what I mean.</comment>


Ask Julie Zhuo any product and design question - <AUTHOR> http://www.juliezhuo.com/design/mailinglist.html <comment><USER2> >Here's how this will work: you ask me anonymous questions.

>Email address* First name* Last name*

Something here doesn't add up.

First question: How do you feel about accessibility and graceful degradation? I only ask because half of that page doesn't work with NoScript...</comment>


Why autonomous finance apps are so important - <AUTHOR> https://www.sethi.to/2019/12/05/automated-finance-apps-are-eating-deposits/ <comment><USER2> Why not take it a step further and let the user opt-in to a "single-buyer" network of savers? This is how it would work: hundreds of customers would indicate that they will exclusively use a savings account for one year, but they don't care which one as long as it's SIPC-protected and offers certain features. Dozens of banking institutions will then "bid" for that bundle of customers with a yield rate. The company with the highest yield "wins" all the cash savings of all the customers in that bundle, and in return, those customers get a higher yield than they ever would have otherwise.

Cash savings, the bread and butter of banks would be utterly and completely commoditized. If banks want less volatility for maturity transformation purposes, they would offer a higher yield rate for 5 and 10 year commitments.

<comment><USER3> Is this meaningfully different from those customers using bankrate.com to find the highest yielding one year CD?

<comment><USER2> Yes, it's quite different. Bankrate doesn't aggregate customers and put them in a single-buyer bargaining pool. Customer aggregation would basically tell banks "if you show us your best possible rate, you will potentially gain hundreds customers instantaneously. Our customers have already pre-committed to whichever bank offers the highest rate." That should result in rates going as high as a bank could possibly offer. Would you use such a service?

<comment><USER3> I don't know, it seems to me like a search engine _does_ aggregate customers. Aggregate means to put together, and having an easy way to search for the highest rate focuses the people who want that on whoever is at the top. Since there is predictably a pool of people like that, having them come together in some more explicit way wouldn't seem to add any value.

The highest rates _are_ a lot higher than normal, (like 2%) and from banks that you wouldn't normally think of, so I don't understand where anything additional comes from. It seems like a projected free lunch from unspecified sources.

<comment><AUTHOR> Search engines aggregate the intent, the app can actually move the funds. Big difference.

<comment><USER3> If bundling the assets of a hundred or a thousand people made a difference, then entities with millions would be able to get the same deal _already_. But 1 year treasuries only pay like 1.5%, right? Who is getting >2% risk free?

I don't see where the _there_ is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is the one area so ready for disruption by a startup. Mint guys came, quickly cashed out and since then the space has been stagnant.

</comment><comment><USER5> It might back fire: Currently, banks need to offer enough incentive to motivate a human to spend time to switch. This will benefit the lone deal seeker.

OTOH, a never-ending bidding to get a customer's money might give a better result, on average, for everyone involved.

<comment><AUTHOR> The key here is that the app automates the movement of the funds.

The app is the UX that: \- Solves a pointed customer problem (ex: getting best yield, moving money at right time of month, etc...) \- Removes the friction of moving accounts

which turns an insured valid account into a commodity that is evaluated purely on the yield offered at that time.</comment></comment>


The Solowheel: like a Segway but cool - <AUTHOR> http://solowheel.com

<comment><USER2> I highly disagree. Segways are awesome.</comment>


Notes from Dynamicland: Geokit - <AUTHOR> https://rsnous.com/posts/notes-from-dynamicland-geokit/ <comment><USER2> Having worked as a researcher at Dynamicland, I think this is one of the most important bits from the end of the article:

        > A lot of what's new about Dynamicland is that it's a programming system!

We've had projection mapping, physical UIs, gestures, etc for years, but this is the first system that puts them together in a user-programmable editing environment.

An analogy might be Xerox PARC in the 70s and early 80s. Alan Kay and his team saw hardware shrinking and becoming cheaper, saw powerful UIs demo'd in research settings, and had the spark of creativity to combine these elements synergistically into Smalltalk, a programming system to support a brand new expressive medium.

Similarly, the research vision of Dynamicland / Realtalk is to make a more humane and accessible dynamic medium. This is only the first version, with (hopefully, depending on funding) many more versions to come.

For a bit more information about the vision see my own demo made in the precursor to Dynamicland, a sweaty game called Laser Socks: [http://glench.com/LaserSocks/](http://glench.com/LaserSocks/)

<comment><USER3> Do you know if there's any chance we'll get one on the east coast? Or other ways to get involved?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I've been following Dynamicland since its inception, and the work is really cool. But it seems like all of the interface work is rather two-dimensional (i.e. using paper). Isn't the underlying theory that this is all based on that humans are better suited at working with three-dimensional objects (like doorknobs and cutlery and what not)?

I think it would be really cool if the Dynamicland UI technology (projection and object recognition) could work with e.g. 3d printed objects, especially if they could be embedded with motion tracking sensors in the case that your hand occludes the computer vision trackers. Is anyone working on that sort of thing?

<comment><USER5> Sounds like something that you would see a lot of at SIGGRAPH, but all I can find is [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHSDGBGct9g](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHSDGBGct9g), [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oauJ99Mfru4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oauJ99Mfru4), [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogsCTxAxGwU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogsCTxAxGwU).

I know hololens can do some of that, but not to a terribly great extent (better at just bringing virtual 3D objects into your environment).

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I wonder what the details of the computer vision tracking are. I am thinking its simple color tracking which has challenges under lighting and contrast with other colors. Object detection using deep learning could make the tracking more robust.

<comment><USER7> This summer at NYU ITP Camp, a fellow itp'r setup [https://paperprograms.org](https://paperprograms.org) which "recreates just a tiny part of what makes Dynamicland so interesting" (quote from JP, one of the creators) [http://janpaulposma.nl](http://janpaulposma.nl)) The outline answers some of your questions. It's really easy to setup, all you need is a web camera and a projector, and the colored dots and a printer. We were up and running playing pong with paper controllers within twenty minutes... Lots of fun.

How does Paper Programs work? Programs are stored on a server (using Node.jsand PostgreSQL), hosted on paperprograms.org. Each program has a number, and the dots on the paper encode that number. Currently each corner is uniquely identified with 5 dots of 5 possible colours, which means you can have about 600 unique papers currently (this is a significant limitation). A camera detects the dots and retrieves the program associated with each paper. This is done in a browser, using OpenCV compiled to WebAssembly, and some custom Javascript code. Calibration happens manually, using a UI built in React. Program code and configuration are stored in the browser's local storage. Projection and execution of programs happens in a separate browser window. Each program runs asynchronously in a Web Worker, and can request access to a canvas, coordinates of other programs, and so on. Then there is an editor page, which anyone in the space with a laptop or tablet can use to edit programs, using Monaco. When having created a new program, you can click a print button to print out a new paper that runs that program. It has the program text printed on the paper itself. Any edited program can be reverted to its original state.

<comment><USER7> The calibration is pretty good at dealing with the background noise of your table top area, and we set this up in a pretty average open workspace environment and didn't encounter any issues with the image detection. Dynamicland has even lore advanced image detection from what I've gathered from various posts, where robots and action figures, and other 3d objects can be placed within a tabletop and integrated into a variety of different interactive programs. If you'd like to follow this down another path, nyc's Recurse Center has been supporting development of a Roomdb framework that also uses concepts from the Dynamicland universe. This goes more into the database side of things in the vein of Smalltalk and Linda, and is really interesting stuff. [https://www.recurse.com/blog/132-living-room-making-rc- progr...](https://www.recurse.com/blog/132-living-room-making-rc-programmable) [https://livingroomresearch.tumblr.com](https://livingroomresearch.tumblr.com)</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What makes a good programmer? - <AUTHOR>

What do you think makes a good programmer? Knowing lots of programming languages, efficiency, etc... <comment><USER2> <http://paulgraham.com/head.html>

> _"A good programmer working intensively on his own code can hold it in his > mind the way a mathematician holds a problem he's working on."_

<http://paulgraham.com/pypar.html>

> _"I'll call the Python paradox: if a company chooses to write its software > in a comparatively esoteric language, they'll be able to hire better > programmers, because they'll attract only those who cared enough to learn > it. And for programmers the paradox is even more pronounced: the language to > learn, if you want to get a good job, is a language that people don't learn > merely to get a job."_

<http://paulgraham.com/avg.html>

> _"Lisp will make you a better programmer, and yet you won't use it."_

<http://paulgraham.com/taste.html>

> _"Whatever job people do, they naturally want to do better."_

<http://paulgraham.com/avg.html>

> _"After a couple years of this I could tell which companies to worry about > and which not to. The safest kind were the ones that wanted Oracle > experience. You never had to worry about those. You were also safe if they > said they wanted C++ or Java developers. If they wanted Perl or Python > programmers, that would be a bit frightening-- that's starting to sound like > a company where the technical side, at least, is run by real hackers. If I > had ever seen a job posting looking for Lisp hackers, I would have been > really worried."_

Be self-driven.

Be committed.

Think different.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is a philosophical question in the ballpark of "what is good?" So I'll turn it around and ask "what do you mean by _good programmer_?" Someone who meets deadlines? Someone who gets the job done? Someone who doesn't upset the boss?

I think the following video will explain why there can never be a single answer to your question:

[http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/malcolm_gladwell_on_spagh...](http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/malcolm_gladwell_on_spaghetti_sauce.html)

</comment><comment><USER4> Someone for whom programming is a passion, and not just income. Someone considerate enough to help the next programmer who will look at the code.

This type of person then naturally picks up good practices with experience. For example: using multiple languages (and not being afraid to use the one best suited to a task), testing carefully, documenting responsibly, and favoring clarity over cleverness and optimization most of the time.

</comment><comment><USER5> Having a life outside programming :)</comment>


Microsoft Patents The Sudo Command - <AUTHOR> http://gizmodo.com/5402796/microsoft-patents-the-sudo-command

<comment><AUTHOR> Link to the actual full story <http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091111094923390>

</comment><comment><USER2> How come this patent fails to mention AT&T's 1972 patent 4135240 on Dennis Ritchie's setuid() function?</comment>


StrangeLoop 2011 Slides - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/strangeloop/2011-slides/blob/master/TOC.md

<comment><USER2> Wow, Sussman's slides look great but will take a while to absorb the content. I must try to get to the strange loop conference next year!</comment>


Apple now accepts videos in the App Store - <AUTHOR> https://developer.apple.com/app-store/app-previews/

<comment><USER2> Separate screencast video needed for every device form factor. Physical device required to record video. Is screen recording possible in the simulator?</comment>


What would a nicotine patch do to a non-smoker? - <AUTHOR> https://www.quora.com/What-would-a-nicotine-patch-do-to-a-non-smoker?share=1 <comment><USER2> Gwern has a lot of pointers to research on nicotine, and its effect as a stimulant.

[https://www.gwern.net/Nicotine](https://www.gwern.net/Nicotine)

</comment><comment><USER3> That needs a whole lot of [citation needed].

It got the basic idea right, a nicotine patch will give the benefits of nicotine. And there are some, it's pretty much like caffeine, very harmless on its own.

But of course you can get addicted to it. Theres not necessarily a physical addiction, but if your ape brain connects a nicotine patch with some perceived or real benefit, that is all you need for a habit right there. You can get the same from chocolate.

So sure, withdrawal will not kill you, but it can still be habit forming. And you just need to look around to know there are plenty of people with difficulty to get rid of those.

<comment><USER4> My personal experience, I did nicotine patches before anything else.

I had previously used adderral, and was seeking an alternative that wouldn't require a prescription. I used nicotine patches for 3 years, before switching to vaporizing for 2 years now, almost entirely because of the socialization it has allowed that patches did not.

I'm sure there's more adverse effects from vaping than patches, and I'm sure long term stimulant use of any sort (caffeine included) can cause problems of many sorts. I personally don't think adderall or other prescription drugs (or unmedicated as I had been most of my life) would have been better, but of course they could have been.

So just wanted to share my experience.

<comment><USER5> How much nicotine do you vape now vs how much did you use with the patches? I'm told the absorption rate of nicotine through the lungs is higher than through the skin, but I'm curious to find out from someone who has used both which method is more effective.

<comment><USER4> Nothing beats the patch for consistent delivery. With vaping I have it more in bursts.

It's possible that's true about absorption. I wonder if maybe more nicotine is wasted vaporizing because you breathe most of it out or something, or maybe I'm not breathing deeply enough, but with the method of vaping that makes me most comfortable I "use" >3x the mg of nicotine I had before, 4ml of 6mg/ml strength juice a day compared to one 7mg patch.

I would say the patch is more consistent throughout the day, and the vape is easier to adjust throughout the day. Both are effective.

<comment><USER4> Oh, absorption rate duh, yeah with the patch the onset is like an hour almost, vape hits you much faster.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Hook them on the patch. [/s]

[edit: add informative metainfo.]

<comment><USER7> Nope, not physical addiction like with tobacco. There are many addictive things in tobacco products, but nicotine is not one of those.

<comment><USER8> This is tremendously surprising. Does this mean that e-cigs that are just nicotine with some flavor and a binding liquid of some sort aren't addictive?

<comment><USER9> Anecdotally, it's similar to caffeine. Nicotine on its own has proven a mild stimulant with minimal addictive effect. I like it, I want it, but mostly it is not something I think about.

<comment><USER10> But caffeine causes strong unpleasant withdrawal symptoms if you quit cold- turkey...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It's on the internet. It must be fact.</comment>


Ask PG/HN: Is there an issue in HN? - <AUTHOR> http://twitpic.com/2dy1zu check this : http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1597512 <comment><USER2> just to note, someone else saw this: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1597512>

not for the purpose of "you shouldn't have posted", but for the purpose of "there is >1 user affected"

<comment><AUTHOR> oops! didn't see that post!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Yes, I've been seeing that behavior not too infrequently, for the past some weeks, usually exhibited into the higher 100's or the 200's in terms of the current item count. (I'll scan through listings of the top couple of hundred items in the history, once or twice a day.)

Off topic, but while I'm commenting on the listing of older items: Any chance of removing the current 210 item cap on classic/ ? I don't get there all the time; when I do, I'd like to be able to look "back" a bit farther.</comment>


A Small Town in the Philippines Banned Gossip - <AUTHOR> https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/a-small-town-takes-a-stand-it-banned-gossip/ar-BBWix0p <comment><USER2> At a small enough level, you can maintain standards of conduct that are civil and fair. Once you reach a certain size, you lose the cohesion and accountability that makes someone feel like they need to be civil. Maybe part of solving that problem is making everyone part of a group where they are accountable and then making that group accountable to a larger group and so on until the largest group is accountable to society as a whole.

Some organized crime groups work this way as a way of controlling the incidence of violence, but the bonds between the members is stronger, in some sense than the bonds between casual acquaintances in the groups we form on a day-to-day basis.

I was thinking about how Facebook and YouTube are delisting and otherwise punishing creators of "fake news" and while it certainly seems a way of punishing and silencing unpopular thoughts and opinions, I do wonder whether a tightly controlled Facebook is the solution to society's ills. I see people on Twitter being defamed for their speech or actions and I wonder if that is where we start to get our accountability back at a societal level? Where else do we have a group where everyone can be held accountable?

<comment><USER3> > At a small enough level, you can maintain standards of conduct that are > civil and fair. Once you reach a certain size, you lose the cohesion and > accountability that makes someone feel like they need to be civil. Maybe > part of solving that problem is making everyone part of a group where they > are accountable and then making that group accountable to a larger group and > so on until the largest group is accountable to society as a whole.

Japan seems to be a place that has largely accomplished this. It's a slightly different topic, but this short video outlines four reasons social cohesion is breaking down in first world nations, and a few of the ways in which Japan (at 4:55) is distinctly different:

Trump's not the problem. He's a symbol of 4 bigger issues. | Ian Bremmer

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hESLPB3FiyY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hESLPB3FiyY)

Another link that seems relevant to the topic:

[https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2019/04/wh...](https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2019/04/what- ive-been-reading-143.html)

> Patrick Bergemann, Judge Thy Neighbor: Denunciations in the Spanish > Inquisition, Romanov Russia, and Nazi Germany. A very specific, useful, and > interesting account of actual denunciation practices during the above- > mentioned episodes. During the Inquisition, there was general immunity given > to most denouncers, you can imagine the resulting incentives. _This book is > becoming more relevant than it ought to be._

It's a shame reasonable perspectives rarely appear in the mainstream media, I often wonder if that is accidental.

<comment><USER4> > _It 's a shame reasonable perspectives rarely appear in the mainstream > media..._

Problem is, what's " _reasonable_ " is completely different to a lot of people. FOX News is "reasonable" to some people, CNN is "reasonable" to others, and still others swear by the BBC. (And then you have that pitifully small group of people who watch CSPAN, and might actually be argued to be the most "reasonable" in the classic sense of the word.)

BTW, Japan's social cohesion is falling apart just like everyone else'. So even your initial point is a bit suspect. (Unless you feel things like masses of old people dying alone, unwanted and even undiscovered is a sign of great social cohesion. But even if you do hold such a belief, a contemplative individual would likely not be faulted for disagreeing.)

In a modern world, in modern societies, social cohesion just tends to fall apart. Modern societies are set up to be convenient, and when the efficiencies offered by these conveniences exceed the benefits offered by social cohesion, people, understandably, choose convenience.

It's really just human nature. I don't know how we get around it, I just know that it manifests itself all over the globe. As political strife in the EU and US, as strongman leadership in places like Russia and the Philippines, and as some rather horrible social norms that are developing in places like Japan.

<comment><USER3> > BTW, Japan's social cohesion is _falling apart_ just like everyone else'. So > even your initial point is a bit suspect.

When you say "falling" apart, what do you mean exactly? Declining? Is it falling apart to the same degree that cohesion is falling apart in Western first world nations?

> Unless you feel things like masses of old people dying alone, unwanted and > even undiscovered is a sign of great social cohesion.

Ian Bremmer uses four specific dimensions of evaluation to substantiate his case. Your example uses one, but is " "masses" of old people "dying alone" " both an accurate description of current Japanese society (what is the actual degree of change in this respect over time), and _caused_ by "social cohesion falling apart"? Demographics and the rising tendency for offspring to move away from family (in this case, it introduces complexity into what the word "alone" really means) seem like they play a substantial part as well. Epistemologically, I wonder if there's anyone who really has a good idea.

> In a modern world, in modern societies, social cohesion just tends to fall > apart....It's really just human nature.

I wholeheartedly agree that this is the overwhelming norm in most modern societies, but I disagree with "it's _just_ human nature" so will continue to agree with Ian Bremmer for the time being. I think it is largely a function of the kind of societies we choose to build, often optimizing for GDP growth with little respect for the often nuanced qualitative effects this has on our societies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> _> I was just repeating something I heard from someone else. I thought it was true. That family has a lot of debts._

Advanced nations have systematized, normalized and sanitized these ancient behaviors to the extent we don't even realize we're doing the same thing on an industrial scale.

How is gossiping about a neighbor's debt morally different than a credit reporting agency?

How is a mining company giving a bag of cash to a provincial governor morally different from campaign contributions from lobbyists?

<comment><USER6> Credit can be verified and challenged and corrected.

Gossip cannot.

<comment><USER7> There was a recent post here regarding someone who was recorded as dead by the credit agencies after the death of their father. In that case it couldn't be corrected in any meaningful sense. Gossip can be corrected, in a meaningful sense, by contacting choice people, and informing them of the correct information. Even if they don't propagate the correction, they themselves will be aware of it and act according to it. This opposed to unthinking credit agencies, liable to unlearn the correction as soon as another credit agencies re-reports the death.

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19656322](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19656322)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Many evolutionary biologists believe that gossip is an evolutionary adaptation. The highest pressure that an individual organism experiences does not come from predators, but rather other individuals of the same species. There is always a struggle for mates, food, resources, space, etc. Even with predators, it is often not whether you can run away from it, but whether you are faster than other members of your species. Coming back to the gossip, it is basically assessment of what others are doing and where you stand. That's why gossip is so interesting for so many people, and that's why we gossip, why we have all these magazines, and all these reality shows. In some way, even fiction and drama is a sort of gossip, where we watch what happens to others and evaluate it from our own perspective.

</comment><comment><USER9> How much would you like to bet that this became a thing because a city official didn't like a rumor spreading about them?

How much would you like to bet that that rumor was true?

</comment><comment><USER10> Gossip, the lowest form of human interaction and yet most find it a reasonable way to get by in life. It's not laws that have to fix this, but people themselves have to figure out the value of self-respect.

<comment><USER11> I always had your knee-jerk reaction to gossip, but after reading "How the mind works" by Steven Pinker I had to rethink my stance. I think I've been too influenced by sayings such as "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people". What Pinker argues is that gossip is a very important activity, it helps us learn more about our world, the social structures within it, and more importantly: who is trustworthy? Let's say A gossips to me about B (saying something bad). If another person C corroborates the character of B with their own experience, I can reasonably assume B is a bad actor. If C doesn't corroborate then perhaps A is the bad actor, spreading false rumours. Either way I've gained information. During our evolutionary history, learning who is trustworthy and who is not would be the difference between life and death. Just because we are far removed from lethal consequences in today's society doesn't mean gossip is any less useful. It can help you figure out if you should trust your business partner, invest in someone's business or provide a personal loan etc.

<comment><USER12> > If C doesn't corroborate then perhaps A is the bad actor, spreading false > rumours.

The problem: you always suspect B of being a bad actor and maybe A. How long is enough for C to have completed his non-corroboration period?

Gossip destroys relationships with suspicion at every turn.

ETA: please don't take this as an endorsement of gossip being a criminal offense in the Philippines.

<comment><USER13> I think it is worth noting that the word gossip has been painted with negative connotation in our society.

The moment humans realized that the world is full of information asymmetry and unknowns, they started to gossip. Gossip is a tool to transfer knowledge of others/things to someone who may not have the means to confirm it themselves. In theory, a private reference from a friend to a potential employer about you is gossip (E.g. @ARandomerDude is a trustworthy individual, you should hire him) even thought your friend may not have a full picture of who you are.

<comment><USER14> I believe (personally) that gossip is only things you would not say (or would say considerably different) when the gossiped-about-person is there to overhear it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Just another confirmation the Philippines has descended into fascism.

</comment><comment><USER16> I'd be much more afraid of a government cracking down on gossip than a little gossip...

</comment><comment><USER17> thats not gonna happen

</comment><comment><USER18> It's rare that I get to quote Atlas Shrugged so I'll just leave this below:

> There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is > the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough > criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it > becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.

What's even more worrying in my opinion from the article:

\- references to Puritanical punishment seemingly framed in a positive light

\- citing of the linguistic/anthropological context of gossip without much further qualification

\- the Binaloan authorities' clear lack of understanding of what merits free speech

\- the mention of this law being beneficial to upcoming political candidates (of whom public discussion should be encouraged)

<comment><USER19> > There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is > the power to crack down on criminals.

This starts with a false premise that is so broad its hard to take seriously. Well run government can do a lot for innocent people.

<comment><USER20> While I'm no fan of Rand, I think 'rule' here is meant as control and coerce, not normal beneficial government stuff. Viewed in that light, the quote makes sense - you can't get someone to inform on their friends by offering a mere tax break. But if you threaten them with jail time for some 'crime', they'll be much more cooperative.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I hear it's because of what the mayor did.

</comment><comment><USER22> There is a paywall.

But, If the town actually tried to ban gossip, it's essentially a ban on the freedom of speech.

I'm not sure how that would be enforced anyway. You aren't allowed to talk about anything besides yourself?

</comment><comment><USER23> God bless the United States of America.

</comment><comment><USER24> Sometimes I feel like creating a chrome plugin that hides pay wall sites in hn.

Since I couldn't read it. Yikes how do the police handle a report of gossip... You get arrested and then what? Let's say you decide to keep gossiping, 3 strikes and they treat you like a drug dealer I bet.

<comment><USER25> Why not tweak the tool to modify the links into outline links?

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I don't support this specific law, since "gossip" is a nebulous term. That said, the idea is pretty intriguing. I suspect that society would be far better off if the deliberate authoring and spread of misinformation, were made illegal. There would have to be a stupidity-waiver; anyone dumb enough to actually believe in something like Flat-Earth should be allowed to espouse it all they want. But anyone who willfully lies about witnessing things that never happened, or claims possession of evidence that they do not actually possess, should face charges for the deliberate spread of misinformation.

<comment><USER27> This is a bad idea because of the chilling effect it has on unpopular ideas and information. This is especially chilling to scrutinization of long held falsehoods.

I'm thinking of all the "facts" I was taught in school that turned out to be flat wrong.

<comment><USER28> Such as?

<comment><USER29> That the US is a wonderful nation that never did any wrong and never helped dictatorships rise to power in it's decades long fight against the Soviet Union.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


2 ex-employees (who quit) write about Clinkle CEO - <AUTHOR> http://www.quora.com/Clinkle/What-is-it-like-to-work-at-Clinkle/answers/3579130

<comment><AUTHOR> This is written by two people who quit. I personally know 2 who were praised on Friday and fired on Sunday (that's right, Sunday. via a phone call)</comment>


Univ student hacker fixed grades for cash - <AUTHOR> http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/221442/top_student_charged_with_fixing_grades_for_cash.html

<comment><USER2> Very interesting: I wonder at what point they figured out he was messing with his grades?</comment>


In a Changing China, New Matchmaking Markets - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/business/in-a-changing-china-new-matchmaking-markets.html?ref=technology&pagewanted=all <comment><USER2> As I Chinese living in the US, I always found this kind of news reports fascinating and inform me something new about Chinese society to me: strange and bizarre businesses/markets arising from some twisted cultural background, reflecting the confused mindset this new generation of of Chinese people.

On a related note, matchmakers aren't certainly the only ones banking the profits exploiting the traditional and failing marriage/relationship mechanisms in the society. A few years ago, this seemingly dull reality TV show (If you are the one) on dating suddenly gained popularity and became a heated discussion, bringing to attention the confusion surrounding marriage and a wide range of social topics. You can just see in the show how China as a society failed to come up a coherent value system that could address love, relationship, marriage, wealth and pretty much anything meaningful.

Related background on the show and its contents, which also covers the unsurprising step-in of censorship: [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/world/asia/censors-pull- re...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/world/asia/censors-pull-reins-as- china-tv-chasing-profit-gets-racy.html?pagewanted=all)</comment>


A 'Bright Light,' Dimmed in the Shadows of Homelessness - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/03/nyregion/nyc-homeless-nakesha-mental-illness.html <comment><AUTHOR> 'Ms. Dickinson, now a social worker, said that every day she walked by people "who are going through trauma and adversity."

"You never know — you never know anybody's story," she said.'

Now, thanks to this spectacular piece of journalism, we know the story of at least one person who died on the streets on NYC.</comment>


Increasingly, businesses don't generate profits – they generate capital gains - <AUTHOR> http://evonomics.com/amazon-accounting-corporate-profits-rich-peoples-income-invisible-bezos/ <comment><USER2> Unrealized capital gains aren't income because I can't pay my rent and buy groceries with Amazon stock. Even if I could once I did it would be realized same as if I sold it for cash, and I'd owe tax.

You could argue that capital gains rates are too low, but that's a different argument than saying stock owners are getting "invisible income".

<comment><USER3> I was under the impression that loans can be secured by stock. Then you don't pay the gains but get the money to spend on rent or whatever.

<comment><USER4> You are correct sir. I own $10,00 in stock. per reg T, I can borrow $5,000 against it. Now the stock goes on an Apple/Amazon like tear and it's worth $1,000,000. Now I can borrow up to $500,000 against it--that's a lot of rent groceries.

The above assumes you control the shares and they are pledgeable as collateral. It is not easy, but doable, to borrow against RSU's. i.e. you probably need a high net worth/private banker relationship.

<comment><USER5> I was under the impression that per reg T, you can borrow 100% of the equity value of your stock. So if you own $10,000 worth of stock, you can borrow $10,000 against it (but you will get margin called if there's a decline, so don't do that).

You're right however, if you want to acquire more shares using margin, then your equity needs to be at least 50% of the stock value, i.e. with $10k you can purchase (up to) $20k worth of stock.

<comment><USER6> Shorthand: You can borrow 50%.

You can't put $10K into the account, buy $10K in shares, and borrow $10K in cash (leaving 0 net equity in the account).

Your scenario where you can borrow 100% of the value applies only if you apply that 100% to further shares (meaning you buy 2x as many shares and have a margin balance of 100% of your original equity but 50% of the shares' value).

That means you can buy $20K worth of stock using $10K of cash.

<comment><USER5> Interesting. I don't usually use margin since I live in a country without capital gains tax, but if I transfer $10k worth of shares and I want to use it as a line of credit, then I can at most take out $5k (in cash) before getting margin called?

<comment><USER6> Yes and no (mostly yes). The 50% level is the "initial margin" limit (hence the "yes" part) for initiating a loan.

There is a separate, lower limit called the "maintenance margin" limit, which is the equity percentage that you need to hold to avoid a margin call on a held position.

So, if you deposit $10K in shares, they appreciate to $12K, you borrow $6K and then the share price falls back to the original amount, you have $10K in shares, $4K in net equity (40%), but are probably not going to receive a margin call.

Or, if they are worth $10K, you borrow the limit of $5K and the share price falls by 1%, you won't get a margin call there either (on most securities).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This article gets two big things wrong:

1) Amazon's lack of profits appears to be due to reinvestment back into the business, not because the margins are non-existent. If the margins weren't there, there would be no money to invest in R&D.

2) The author never comments on the issue of double taxing corporate profits. Is it really the spirit of the tax code that $1 in profits earned by a business should really yield $0.48 to the federal government? The best way to address the author's concern is to put the effective corporate tax rate (35% corp income + 20% dividend) more in line with capital gains rates.

<comment><USER8> Amazon's retail business is very low-margin. Most of the profit they do make now is coming from AWS. Their valuation right now comes from investor expectations that they will eventually run every other retailer out of business and then change monopoly rent with much fatter margins, rather than on the margins they have now.

<comment><USER9> Interesting proposition. Anything I can read on this further?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> A principle well known to economists is that if you tax some activity, you are going to see less of that activity. This applies to business profits. Heck when I started my first business our newly engaged accountant told us "whatever you do don't make a profit" (meaning pay any money mad to employees/managers). Hardly a new or specific to Amazon concept.

<comment><USER11> > "money mad to employees"

"mad"? What does that mean?

<comment><USER12> It was likely a typo for "money made."

<comment><USER11> Oh right, the accountant advised that all leftover money be paid to employees or managers.

<comment><USER10> Yes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'm all for raising taxation, but I've always felt Amazon is often the wrong target to pick on. They are a rare example of an old-school business in the digital age - they pinch every penny and then reinvest all revenues in the business itself or send them out as personal compensation. They don't stash billions in Bermuda accounts, they don't give them to Wall Street players with the right connections, they don't leverage their might to spike property prices, and so on. Amazon is what every big business could be if people at the top were a bit more concerned with actual efficiency and growth, and less with pure greed.

But: in their actual business practices, Amazon often squeeze the little guy - both their workers and their small-retail competitors - so they are easy to hate. They clearly display all the problems with cyberspace (who should be taxed where, when bits go up and down some fiber? Where is my data "in the cloud"? Etc etc), so they are at the nexus of a number of critiques, and rightly so. I personally don't think, though, that their overall investment/growth strategy should be attacked, because it's actually _very good_ from a social perspective.

<comment><USER14> What makes you think Amazon is doing everything in it's power to avoid paying taxes just like every other multi-national?

[http://www.newsweek.com/2016/07/22/amazon-jeff-bezos- taxes-4...](http://www.newsweek.com/2016/07/22/amazon-jeff-bezos- taxes-479814.html)

<comment><USER13> The point is not tax minimization (which every company does), it's what you do with the money thereafter. Amazon historically didn't hoard cash like, say, Apple, preferring to put most of the money back in the business, which is what I was talking about; however, looking at recent data, it seems like they've started significant accumulation of cash in 2014, and they're now sitting on $20bn+. I wonder what triggered this change.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Avoiding double taxation? Evil!

How about removing the corporate income tax? [https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/opinion/abolish-the- corpo...](https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/opinion/abolish-the-corporate- income-tax.html)

<comment><USER16> I've never understood the whole "double taxation" complaint. Money is taxed whenever it changes hands. Why is it that only the taxing of dividends is considered "double taxation" [1]?

1: [http://www.thepatriotaxe.com/blog/wp- content/uploads/dividen...](http://www.thepatriotaxe.com/blog/wp- content/uploads/dividends.gif)

<comment><USER17> Because companies can't deduct the dividend payment on their taxes. If $100 is paid in dividends then both the individual and the company pay income taxes on that same $100.

<comment><USER18> If I use $100 to pay for groceries, I had to pay income tax, sales tax, then the company has to pay any profits on it, and then when the employee gets paid they have to pay income tax on their part.

Perhaps the issue is we tax money way too much as it flows through our economy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> "Simple: don't show any profits" is a concept that's been used forever to avoid paying taxes from the local handyman all the way to Amazon.

It isn't evil, but just try and convince some people that.

Especially that handyman, who's trying to avoid those estimated payments in a slow business part of the year.

<comment><USER20> If you ignore scale, sure. A handyman pocketing $100 in cash here and there is a good deal different from a company whose whims could affect the trajectory of the economy.

<comment><USER21> It's not the act that is evil, is the person doing it, am i rite. We must take the veil off Lady Justice.

Please. Corporate taxes make no sense as they are, companies don't pay taxes, people pay taxes. And corporate taxes more often than not fall on the consumer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Almost six years ago, before I took to taxi driving, I spent almost two months as a "seasonal associate" at an Amazon warehouse in Phoenix. It was such a relief to get laid off... In the warehouses, people are servants to the machine, and are entirely replaceable.

"Humanity's Second-Best Hope" was based on my experiences at Amazon: [http://www.taxiwars.org/p/humanitys-second-best- hope.html](http://www.taxiwars.org/p/humanitys-second-best-hope.html)

<comment><USER19> Seasonal. Warehouse. Job.

This experience sounds like a typical warehouse job. I'll ignore the outdated political symbolism.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Amazon's net profits increased to $1.17b in 2016 and are likely to stay healthy. So the article is already a bit obsolete. It's not like it isn't onto something, but the ingenious scheme used by evil megacorporations isn't just not posting a profit, but moving that profit to some tax haven to avoid taxation.

<comment><USER24> This seemed to be the case but after the recent earnings report Bezos & Co. hinted that they are likely to go back to losing money now.

[https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/27/it-looks-like-amazon- would...](https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/27/it-looks-like-amazon-would-be- losing-a-lot-of-money-if-not-for-aws/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Am i the only one so cynical that i don't see how is this a problem for anyone?

</comment><comment><USER26> Of course their unrealized gains are not included in income... that's not what income is.

The online reason this works is because the tax code specifically preferences investment & the gains thereon vs interest & wages/Self Employment income.

Wouldn't that be an interesting discussion to see as part of tax reform...not holding my breath.

</comment><comment><USER27> We get more of what we tax less?

Weird.</comment>


Dude, Where's Our Car ? - <AUTHOR> http://shareable.net/blog/dude-wheres-our-car

<comment><USER3> Personally I hate cars and consider it a luxury to be able to get by without one. Living in the suburbs and going everywhere by car sounds like hell to me.

I think in the future it will seem odd that we give so much space to the ugliness and pollution caused by cars. Just as it seems odd to us that people just used to dump their shit on the streets.

<comment><USER4> Really depends where you live, in some places it's not really practical to get around everywhere you need to go without a car, either that or it takes a large amount of time longer. For example my girlfriends would take about 2 hours to get to with a combination of trains and a walk yet takes me about 20 minutes to drive.

<comment><USER5> How long does it take to bike? I find that often the issue is the infrequency or inconvenience of public transit routes, not that there's any inherent obstacle to traveling without a car.

<comment><USER6> Bikes aren't always a viable replacement - my parents travel with large (up to 100 pounds) instruments. Also, bikes are frequently a poor idea in inclement weather, making them non-ideal for things like transit to work if you've got a reasonable distance to travel. If I ride my bike to work, it's 15 miles - <USER2> won't bother in the rain. It'd be slower than any of my public transit options, and considerably less safe.

<comment><USER5> You'd be surprised how much weight you can transport on a bike with appropriate gearing and a trailer. I'm not sure what your public transit options are, but unless I've got a straight-shot light-rail route to where I'm going or it's really hilly, biking is almost always faster than public transit for me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I wonder if people are missing the bigger point here- this isn't just about selling your car, it's about understanding your real needs and living within them.

Few people have the courage to do this. Fewer still will resist going back to their old over-indulgent ways (spring water et al) once times are good again.

<comment><USER8> I agree there is a virtue to living within ones means. Having as small a 'footprint' as possible - carbon or otherwise.

I probably first entertained this idea after reading translations of Buddhist texts or things like Merton's "Saying of the Desert Fathers". But for much of my life this was a fuzzy idea like most liberal thoughts something to declaim with out really applying. In my mind it took the form of a clean aesthetic - clean, Zen-inspired, Danish modernist work and living spaces. (Which couldnt be farther from the current reality of a 1000sq' apartment with my wife and two boys.)

When I first became conscious of GNU/FSF and Open Source this became a bit more concrete. Before I was able to get Linux working on whatever hardware I could find, it was interesting to me because of its economical and simple design which lent itself to self-reliance and control.

I've tried in little ways to wean myself of a certain style of spending/ consumption. Less Starbucks, double edged safety razors instead of plastic, public transit and walking instead of car - but I am far from an example to anyone.

But the idea that "less is better than more" would almost seem anti-American up until the past few years. To me it always felt right. So many of our illnesses in the US are ones of over consumption - petroleum, hydrogenated oils, corn syrup, etc. It is hard for me to say if this is merely a aesthetic choice or also an ethical one. It seems to me that it is but I have a hard time formulating a convincing argument. I am not sure myself.

The impact of less and less consumption could hit the service industry and further reduce jobs. If we really lived within our means what would result?

On a tangent I saw a fun movie last night with James Cogburn and Rod Steiger - "Duck, You Sucker!" also called "Fist full of Dynamite" in Italian. Sergio Leone direction and Morricone score. Much of it corny and implausible but fun nevertheless. Steiger plays a semi-literate Mexican peasant who at one point blurts out "revolutions are started by those who read and the ones who dont read suffer through them..."

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm torn on the whole car thing. On one hand, I'm a born suburbanite who grew up with a car and have had one nearly my entire adult life. One the other hand, they are expensive and complicated and getting more so by the minute. I really don't want all that electronic baloney on my car. A car that relies on software - hmm. Not so sure about that. I'm looking for similar mobility and convenience offered by a car with less complication and expense. I wish carsharing was more widely available.

<comment><USER5> motorcycle / scooter? Or just a bike with panniers?

<comment><USER9> yeah, bike. should use it more.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Cycling culture is on the rise. Go to a place like Tokyo and you'll see men in suits biking, women in high heels biking, etc. There are massive bike parking lots and a wide array of bicycle magazines catering to different lifestyles.

</comment><comment><USER11> I still don't understand the hyperfocus on cost savings without looking to increasing income.

For a startup, saving costs allows you more time to try to develop product- market fit and thus increase income. In the long run I'd far prefer a $10m revenue, $1m costs business to a $100k revenue, $10k costs business, assuming I have the same percentage ownership.

Same thing with life -- if I can make much more money by living in a place like SF or NYC, it's more tempting than living in the midwest and making much less. iPods still cost the same in NYC and rural Iowa.

<comment><USER12> There's a recession on. For many people, cutting costs is _immediately_ do- able but making more money (ie getting another job after you lost yours) is proving not to be. You have to survive until that new job comes around.</comment></comment>


The Pentagon May Retire "Yoda," Its 92-Year-Old Futurist - <AUTHOR> http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/the-pentagon-may-retire-yoda-its-92-year-old-futurist

<comment><USER2> is there any objective measure of 'yoda's' efficacy? because going by the list of his 'star proteges': Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz...

<comment><USER3> We get a list of the things he got right - the "true positives." But no list of the things he got wrong, whether they are false positives or false negatives.

<comment><USER4> More to the point are the true positives even that impressive? People have been predicting the rise of China and the ascendency of drone warfare for decades.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The question is: did he see this coming?

</comment><comment><USER6> I wonder if he predicted the possible economic collapse of USA as well.

</comment><comment><USER7> You can't complain that someone planned for a war that didn't eventuate, that's the best outcome!

You also pay for the risk reduction, that if the war ever does unfold there are plans and strategies pre-thought out to inform generals in that fast-paced fog and confusion. If it doesn't all the better.

<comment><USER8> If their prediction was material in avoiding the war, sure, but there is no evidence to that effect.</comment></comment>


Announcing IPv6 Support for EC2 Instances – Regional Expansion - <AUTHOR> https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2017/01/announcing-internet-protocol-version-6-ipv6-support-for-ec2-instances-in-amazon-virtual-private-cloud-vpc-regional-expansion/ <comment><USER2> Note this is only IPv6 in VPCs, not in all EC2 instances.

EDIT: corrected, these _are_ Internet-routable

<comment><USER3> This is not true. "By default, every IPv6 address is public and internet- routable."

<comment><USER2> You are correct, I've updated my comment.</comment></comment></comment>