1 in 6 Russian entrepreneurs are in jail, 1 in 3 prisoners are businessmen - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13546177 <comment><USER2> _Then he bought two old Soviet dairy farms._

This sentence is the key to understanding why many Russians feel little or no sympathy for "victims" like him.

Soviet dairy farms once belonged to the Soviet people - in much the same way that, say, the Washington Monument, the US National Parks, or the US Army _belong_ to the people of the United States. How would you feel if the most hardened violent criminals came to power in the US, and arranged to have these properties turned over to private owners, to run for their benefit (or to pillage and destroy, as was the fate of most Soviet industry) ?

One can debate the practical merits of planned economies all day long but this does not change the fact that _privatization is theft._ The former owners of Soviet facilities - the Soviet people - were not adequately compensated for their loss. It is highly doubtful that fair compensation for the privatization of public property is possible _even in principle._ Do you dole out homeopathic-sized shares of stock? (Criminals buy them back for pennies-on- the-dollar from the masses in lean times - or at gunpoint...) What do you issue to the not-yet-born citizens who will no longer be heir to the means of production? (Answer in practice: zilch.)

Privatization is "what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine" writ large, plain and simple.

Russians who are not in some way aligned with the thieves' guild which has been running that country since the Soviet collapse by and large quietly recognize this fact. This is why sympathy and political support for the so- called "entrepreneurs" is and will continue to be thin.

<comment><USER3> > One can debate the practical merits of planned economies all day long but > this does not change the fact that privatization is theft.

No, it's not. Theft is theft. Privatization is privatization.

There's been some pretty poorly implemented privatizations in history, but also some decent ones. I'm in Mongolia now, and they did an okay job of it -

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongolian_Stock_Exchange>

Still imperfect, but much better than the clusterfuck that was communism.

Seriously, everyone remotely educated in an ex-communist country hates communism. I've been to most of them - Cambodians, Chinese, Mongolians, Ukrainians, Czechs... it's only people who live in the outstandingly, legendarily prosperous West that wax poetic about the horrors of that era.

Seriously, I've seen a lot of it firsthand. I've also been to still-somewhat- communist places like Vietnam, and they operate a hell of a lot worse than their neighbors.

Anyways. Generally speaking, trying to repair a massive, systematically flawed system is hard. It's like how the tax breaks on mortgage interest screw up American housing prices, making it so high earners have more of an incentive to buy housing, thus locking younger people, lower earning people, and senior citizens out of housing, or making them pay inflated prices.

It's screwed up. It's a bad system. But unwinding it now would cause a cascading set of problems in the housing market. Thankfully, that poor system of incentives is limited to one sector of the American economy, whereas communism pretty much systematically destroys innovation, free thought, invention, and any semblance of sanity and order.

Seriously, go compare equivalent communist and non-communist countries. West Germany and East Germany, Taiwan and PRC, Cambodia/Vietnam and Thailand/Malaysia/Singapore (not perfect comprables, but close-ish). Hong Kong and PRC.

Oh yeah, and North Korea and South Korea.

Communism sucks. Unwinding a broken system is hard to do, but thank god they're trying to move past communism.

Edit: Lots of upvotes and lots of downvotes. To the people downvoting, look - Hacker News is, what, 80%+ Western Europe, USA, and Australia?

If you're sitting at your computer in San Francisco, you've never been further out of the States than Cancun, and you've gotten your worldview from some professor of Postcolonial Studies that also has never gotten outside of San Francisco, then I don't know what to tell you. Seriously, stop and reflect for a moment. Communism actually fails in real life. And I don't mean fails the way AT&T's customer service fails. I know it's not a realistic short term suggestion, but if you get the opportunity, check out Cambodia, the Killing Fields, and Security Center 21. Check out Saigon, and note that much of the infrastructure hasn't been replaced since the Fall of Saigon in 1975 (the fire hydrants are still almost all American-made - when they've occasionally failed, they're just removed and not replaced). Compare West Berlin and East Berlin for a stark contrast.

Seriously. I don't know what to tell you. Communism is really, really bad. If you're in the West and have never left the West, you don't understand and can't understand. Go through a few of these countries critically, yes on paper, but also in the real world and see how bad things were, and how much better they are in sane places with private property and rule of law. I'm not writing this for my health - if you currently are sympathetic to forced- collectivism, I'd really encourage you to look at how it's turned out historically. If you're sympathetic to communism, I'd like you to stop that, because I think it's destructive the same way that believing in religious violence is destructive.

<comment><USER4> No offense, but you sound like a broken western propaganda record. Having been born in USSR, I know a lot of highly educated people that grew up, went to universities, and built various careers in the USSR. While none think communism is perfect, or even worked in that particular case, it has a lot of merits and these people recognize them.

As Putin said, (paraphrased) "anyone who doesn't miss Soviet Union doesn't have a heart; anyone who wants to bring it back doesn't have a brain." I think this reflects well people's feelings towards the regime. It didn't work in the long run, but it wasn't all bad - far from it.

<comment><USER5> I'm surprised Putin paraphrased Mussolini (anyone who isn't a socialist as a teenager doesn't have a heart, anyone who is still a socialist as an adult doesn't have a brain)...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> "1 in 3 prisoners are businessmen." Bullshit. The reporter probably misquoted his source or "Business Solidarity" is simply pulling numbers out of their ass for shock value- BBC has never been a friend of Russia so is happy to report non-sensical numbers without further elaboration.

While it is true that corruption is Russia's biggest problem, the numbers quoted make no sense. I know people on both sides of the coin- small and large businessmen, tech entrepreneurs and high ranking FSB/military officials, so I know a little bit about what's happening.

edit: Another piece of the article that screams of embellishment- "small flat"- no Russian businessman that owns a 300+ employee enterprise would be living in a "small flat."

</comment><comment><USER7> > Business Solidarity, an organisation that works to protect small > businessmen, estimates that one in six Russian entrepreneurs is in jail, and > that one in three prisoners in Russia is a businessman.

How on Earth did they come up with that estimate?

<comment><USER8> No idea, but after reading that article... I don't think the numbers really matter. If all the facts in the story are right, then one man will be away from his children for 5 years, just because he didn't want to be strong-armed out of his business.

That is enough for me to realize that something is very wrong with Russia.

<comment> guard-of-terra We have to look at numbers (and look at how these numbers are calculated) because else we're the are hand-waving and permanently-shocked.

It's obvious that you can find some atrociously bad things happening in any place on earth. The interesting question is the general quality of life.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> In a way, the same could probably be said of American entrepeneurs. Drugs is a business, an illegal one, but still business. Imagine the (potential) talent wasted, although perhaps the talented ones don't get caught.

<comment><USER10> Bullshit semantics. Drugs are not legal. They are in jail for breaking the law, and possibly destroying the lives of addicts. Not creating jobs, and resisting a corrupt shakedown.

You can run a legal business in the US with only a tiny chance of being imprisoned for it.

<comment><USER11> I'm not flirting with the "true Scotsman" here, but the problem is the definition of what is legal. I'm positive Dmitry Malov did break a number of laws - as an entrepreneur in an ex-communist country I understand very well that this is unavoidable. The problem is that the law is designed to be broken, in order to facilitate corruption - something no country is completely immune to.

This is not very different from drugs, either. I still have to see a clear study that marijuana is more harmful then either tobacco or alcohol, and that it's not merely an accident of history supported by commercial and political interests that it is now illegal and the other two aren't. Not as bad as blatant corruption, true, but not semantics either.

<comment><USER10> OK. But you do know that selling pot is illegal, right? As do other drug dealers. Businessmen in every country know they will inadvertently break a few rules, but try to avoid it.

As for the legality of drugs, while I'm anti-drug, I think they should be legal. At least then they can be controlled. Besides, enforcement is often too spotty. The last three Presidents most likely used drugs, but nobody seems to care. Just don't apply for a government job if you want to be honest about it :)

And then there's the difference between manufactured drugs, imports, and home grown; and the type of criminal organizations they support. I don't really care about some dropout growing herbs for college kids, but other drugs funnel large amounts of money to criminal organizations, who spend it on turf wars.

That's the question, isn't it? Are these "businessmen" just growing illegal plants in a greenhouse, or are they also shooting their rivals outside schools? I guess it depends on the case.

<comment><USER12> > That's the question, isn't it? Are these "businessmen" just growing illegal > plants in a greenhouse, or are they also shooting their rivals outside > schools? I guess it depends on the case.

Are Cartier et al. just selling pretty rocks to vain women, or do their blood diamonds help fund militants in foreign countries? Pretty much any business, legal or illegal, can be construed to contribute or possibly contribute to some undesirable event. Most people don't care about Windows being used to look up cat pictures, but should we care about Windows being used to power nuclear submarines? How about all those "Wall Street folk"? Why are some businessmen in jail and others aren't, even for exactly the same crimes? etc. etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> it's always interesting to see non-Russians comment on this kind of news. for Russians well aware of rampant corruption in post-Soviet countries, it's more of an eye roll than anything else. Russia is infamously corrupt as a result of the legacy of Soviet mentalities that made free market enterprise inherently black market. until the justice system is cleaned up and held accountable, russian will remain a corrupt 3rd world country unable to compete in the global business rena.

<comment><USER14> So are 1 in 3 prisoners corrupt businessmen who have been jailed for their 'corruptness'.

Or are 1 in 3 prisoners businessmen unjustly jailed due to corrupt officials?

<comment><USER15> Can't there be a mix? Maybe each is 1 in 6?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The Transparency International reports on corruption are an interesting insight into how widespread these issues are. A lot of corruption grows on the 'everybody does it' mentality.

[http://transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/...](http://transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2010/results)

<comment><USER11> Please, please don't suggest it's the fault of the people paying the money. It's a system problem, and it's clearly encouraged from the top. I've seen it happen in many contexts...

<comment><USER17> In many instances, it's the cost of doing business or securing an otherwise legitimate service.

Of course, there are those paying bribes to trip up the competition or to secure protection from obvious crimes (like theft, murder etc). But for ordinary citizens, paying a bribe is an escape valve from an otherwise rigid bureaucratic dictatorship.

The solution is not to crack down on corruption (except perhaps those 'obvious crimes'), but to eliminate the bureaucracy fostering it.

Normally, bureaucracy was invented to ensure continuity of government even with changing political leaders. You need something to keep track of expenses and procedures on how to make decisions. But that creature grew like an octopus, engulfing ever greater portions of society. This stranglehold must be eliminated and not just reformed or offloaded into big web portals.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> guard-of-terra Does that mean that Russia has twice as much enterpreneurs as prisoners?

It's interesting how this article seem to already raise much more interest on news.yc that the recent russian IT IPO with 8B valuation.

I'd take it with a grain of salt if I were you. My mother owns a small cloth store in a town near Moscow and I'm positive that: \- She's not afraid \- She doesn't "share her profits with the police and people from the tax authorities" \- Still she blames the amount of paper she have to submit (taxes, pension funds etc) and how careless then they interpret those papers.

<comment><USER18> >She's not afraid - She doesn't "share her profits with the police and people from the tax authorities"

to say what you don't know what you're talking about would be underestimation. You don't _want_ to know, and as result you don't know. Like ostrich you like to keep your head in the sand and afraid to look around.

Several weeks ago you was claiming till foam in your mouth that your employer - Yandex - doesn't share personal email and other users' information with FSB. You called it "conspirology". Moron. A few days after that Yandex officially reported doing it so.

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13274443>

You're brainwashed by current Putin's regime, and as result your credibility about Russia is below 0, as i already told you so.

<comment> guard-of-terra First, you're doing an ad hominem attack right now against me - right now. This is sad.

"Several weeks ago you was claiming till foam in your mouth that your employer - Yandex - doesn't share personal email and other users' information with FSB."

Care to provide a link? Because if you don't, you have an acute case of lying, you should see a doctor for that.

I would even be so kind to provide a link to our previous discussion: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2452184> Quotes are welcome.

Overall, you're behaving like a bitter and unpleasant person. You know everything even when not been exposed to the subject for several years; I know nothing and is an ostrich and my experience does not really matter; And I am also a moron.

There is a word for your behavior, and it is "butthurt". <http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=butthurt>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> British understatement: "Doing business in Russia is notoriously difficult".

It will be interesting to see Russia's progress over the next couple of decades and see whether the problems with corruption get worse before they get better.

<comment> guard-of-terra Isn't it equally interesting to look at the two decades just passed? Nobody does. Of course, future is always more interesting because you can theorize instead of analyze, but in the next couple of decades it would turn boring past, too.

<comment><USER16> Of course we look at the past. But how would you summarise the last 2 decades in the ex-USSR region from the point of view of 'Business Friendliness'. Is it getting better or worse? Are our standards changing, I certainly hope they are.

<comment> guard-of-terra \- There is an actual economy (there wasn't after the collapse of USSR)

\- It is possible to run a "white" business paying taxes and social securities (During the 199x it was possible to add up all taxes on profit and get e. g. 102%, meaning that you have to pay 102 roubles in taxes for every 100 you earn:)

\- There were all sorts of organized crime. They are no longer. (At least they never intervene with the normal leagal business these days. Because I understand how "There is no longer any organized crime" would be seen as overstatement).

There are surely still many problems, but you just can't compare.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Corruption is the scourge of the developing world, there is a significant drive in India to try to stamp out the practice but they have a long way to go. Organizers of the Indian Commonwealth games are embroiled in corruption scandals that have greatly embarrassed the country.

<comment><USER20> Apples and oranges. We're talking about corporate entrepreneurs and you're talking about games organisers who are/were on government payroll. Corporate scandals in India are almost unheard of. (Satyam fiasco is an exception though)

<comment><USER21> What about the rumors that Monsanto bought its way into a near-monopoly there, with the consequent small farmers committing suicide in droves as they lose everything?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> If there's no safe harbor for legitimate businesses, then it makes sense Russia would be one of the world's leaders in cyber-crime.

</comment><comment><USER23> Funny conversation in the office:

"A combination of excessive bureaucracy and corrupt officials makes it a hazardous enterprise."

Isn't that the same in the US?

Yes, except - in America, the government bribes business; in Soviet Russia, you bribe the government.

</comment><comment> I-RIGHT-I "How on Earth did they come up with that estimate?"

What does it matter when the "interesting thing is the quality of life" and when "the same could be said of American entrepreneurs" who deal drugs? The truth of the matter and the logical conclusions drawn from the example are lost on the all to willing ignorant. Too many Americans are contemptuous of their own freedoms.

</comment><comment><USER24> In India entrepreneurs face similar harassment if you're not from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_caste> community

</comment><comment><USER24> Hope <http://www.fairtrials.net/> can help them out.

</comment><comment><USER25> actually it's the same situation in most (if not all) Post-Soviet countries.

<comment><USER26> With all due respect, if you truly believe what you're saying you don't know what you're talking about.

A good counter example would be Estonia. But what's a good argument without data, right?

<http://www.heritage.org/index/country/estonia> Ranks 14th on the Economic Freedom Index? Well, what about other European countries: Italy 87th (ALL the figures are more negative for Italy, including corruption, property rights, business freedom), Japan 20th, Austria 21th, Portugal 69th.

[http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/...](http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2010/results) The Corruption Perception Index puts Estonia above Portugal and Spain. Just for comparison, Russia has a score 2.1 out of 10, Estonia has 6.5.

I would've thought that on HN people give their arguments more thought, especially if it makes such strong accusations. These countries are advancing rapidly, the Post-Soviet countries have been independent for under 20 years. Yet they already surpass older EU members.

<comment><USER27> Estonia and Italy are indeed the exceptions that confirm the rule.

<comment><USER28> Italy was never a Soviet country....?

<comment><USER27> Exactly, they are both an exception in their respective group.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> > 1 in 6 Russian entrepreneurs are in jail, 1 in 3 prisoners are businessmen

The title is pure FUD.

<comment><USER30> _> The title is pure FUD._

Would you care to elaborate?

<comment><USER31> One Possible Elaboration, Part I: (without claims for the _absolute_ truth attached to it)

The biggest nightmare in the minds of the ruling class in the anlgo-saxon world (chief US and UK political and business powers) is that Russia might create an Eurasian political and economic union with Germany and France (and EU generally), with high mutual economic, political, military and cultural benefits.

That would mean huge loss of markets, power and influence for Washington and London. There are such tendencies, no matter how improbable in the short-term they look to the casual political observer who doesn't follow closely what's really going on.

So in a certain way the Cold War is needed (if not required) to continue, even after pretending it is something of the past.

One PR-related _nasty_ form of this war - only _bad_ news or _no_ news allowed from Russia in the _mainstream_ western media. The less people think Russia, Russian, (or even just Russians) are notions you could attach nice, friendly, good-minded connotations, the better!

The president Putin really pissed-off the western state and big-business powers that in a period of rising petrol/gas prices in 2000s they couldn't extract the tens of billions $ they used to do easily in the 90s - back then with the help of the local oligarchs enriched overnight by criminally grabbing ownership of state economic base and infrastructure they themselves had not built in the preceding decades.

Putin even had the temerity to use the extra-profits for increasing the country's living standard and modernizing the armed forces - one of the 3 to 5 really formidable military organizations in the world.

And he started doing the really unthinkable - gently probing EU, Asian and African (think Libya) countries for this disgusting idea of selling energy resources for currencies other than the $. (And this in times of this self- inflicted financial crisis.)

On the [re]New[ed] Cold War - just a few points of thought or questions for someone to ponder over, if really interested:

How come NATO still exists when its mirror-antagonist military organization of the former socialist EE-countries from the soviet block has gone to history, dissolved peacefully and voluntarily?

Why are there still US military bases (old and new) across the EU-countries today since Gorbachev retreated back the Russian/Soviet armed forces from East Germany and Eastern Europe?

Why was the Gorbachev's 80-year jubilee held in London? If he was uniformly acknowledged as such a good doer to humanity and democracy why wasn't that an event held in his home country and among his own people proud of him?

What does the average ordinary Russian think of Gorbachev? Actually who was robbed and who profited from the neo-liberal economic policies he had been instrumental to be installed in Russia?

(continues...)

<comment><USER32> russian army is not formidable military organizations and hasn't been since 1970s, may be earlier. the only thing formidable is the level of corruption. There was an article few days ago that they feed dog food to their conscripts. The only thing that keeps them being taken seriously is the nuclear threat, which they parade (literally) every single opportunity they get

<comment><USER6> the not formidable Russian army made mincemeat out of the US backed Georgian army a few years ago.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> TL;DR - According to Business Solidarity, one in six Russian entrepreneurs is in prison, with one in three total prisoners being classed as a businessman.

One example is a dairy farmer who refused to sell his thriving business to an unknown buyer at the request of Russia's interior security service. After repeated threats, he was accused of fraudulently using a bank loan and sentenced to five years in prison.

Not all businessmen end up in jail, as an estimated 60-80% don't complain, share their profits and bribe officials.

<comment><USER34> Wait... is this a _novelty account_ on HN? I feel like I've just seen the first horseman of the apocalypse.

<comment><USER35> But... it's useful. :o

<comment><USER36> But there's a high cost to this kind of "usefulness".

<comment><USER35> I don't even know anymore.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The feminist failure of "Silence of the Lambs" - <AUTHOR> http://qz.com/615568/the-feminist-failure-of-silence-of-the-lambs/ <comment><USER2> > [Lecter] calls [Clarice] at the end of the movie, relaxed, content and ready > to murder (and eat) his psychiatrist. He promises her that she's safe from > him and hangs up to follow his prey, while Clarice remains on the phone, > repeating his name. The movie gives Lecter the last word...

> [Clarice is] a reminder of just how timid mainstream film can be. In > exploitation slasher films, at least the Final Girl gets to kill or castrate > the bad guys.

So, let me get this straight - Silence of the Lambs isn't "feminist enough" because Lecter survives? Even though Clarice _does_ kill Buffalo Bill and rescue the Senator's daughter?

The entire premise of this analysis is absurd because Clarice isn't meant to be invincible. Silence of the Lambs is a scary movie, so it needs characters to be vulnerable... Characters that are afraid when a sociopathic killer escapes, knows where they are, and calls them. Also, it would be rather hard to write the sequel "Hannibal" if Lecter doesn't escape.</comment>


Magnitude 6.5 earthquake hits off Northern California coast - <AUTHOR> http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-earthquake-northern-california-20161208-story.html <comment><USER2> I'm here in SF and didn't feel a thing. I see some people on reddit felt it a little bit, and that it lasted quite a while.

I'm not seismologist, so I have no idea if this is possible, but I hope it doesn't jolt anything closer to the city loose.

Good time to remind everyone to have an earthquake bag available and a plan with your family, and be prepared for -=The Big One=-

<comment><USER3> I am in SF and felt it. I live on the 9th floor of an 11 story building. The building swayed just enough to notice it. If I didn't know what an earthquake is, I may not have realized it was one. Had I been asleep, the quake would probably not have awakened me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> There should be a mass exodus away from seismically active areas. "The big one" is guaranteed to happen, not if, but when. Maybe this is too political for this week?

<comment><USER5> And to where do you suggest I move? Everywhere has something that can kill you in spectacular fashion. Indiana, where I grew up: tornadoes and cold that can literally kill if underdressed. Hurricanes and trigger-happy residents in Florida. You get the point.

Or I can stay in Washington where "the big one" or an eruption of Mount Rainier _might_ happen in my lifetime. In the meantime I won't be shoveling snow, watching my roof torn off, or shuttering my windows every other year.

<comment><USER6> I agree with your sentiment, but cold isn't a natural disaster; it's predictable and you can prepare for it systematically and people have been living through it just fine. And it doesn't destroy your entire life like an earthquake does.

<comment><USER7> Tornados do destroy your entire life though and they are quite common in the Midwest.

<comment><USER8> but unlike earthquake, you have ample time to at least save yourself, no?

<comment><USER5> No, at least not sometimes (for non-trivial amounts of "sometimes"). Take my anecdata in another comment on this thread. Partly cloudy day, something blows in from the west. Dad and I decide it's going to rain soon enough, we should head to the house. About halfway between the house and the barn, Dad says "run!". That sound of screeching metal and shredding wood? Yeah, that would be the entire roof structure of the barn being lifted up and deposited in a neighboring field. We're talking a building that has more square feet than your average McMansion. And that was a small tornado. The only mitigation for the big, freight-train-sized tornadoes is that there's usually some harsh weather to go along with it to warn you that something _might_ be coming.

Okay, so you're not outside. You're sitting cozy in your living room watching _Orange is the New Black_. Tornado warning on the news, but tornadoes are very localized and you don't have a basement in your manufactured home. So what are you going to do, run to the neighbor's _again_ to huddle in their basement for what probably turns out to be a non-event? Nah, it'll be fine. Until it isn't. And by the time it looks like you really ought to be knocking on the neighbor's door, you sure as hell don't want to be caught outside.

Now, the weather services are usually good about a heads-up, with tornado watches (could be a tornado) and warnings (confirmed sighting). A lot of towns have a siren that's goes off on a sighting. But it is quite possible to be caught unaware, and there isn't a lot of time before that giant sucky thing moving at 35mph gets to where you're at.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Grow a Backbone and Ditch Corporate - <AUTHOR> http://www.thebradlazarus.com/grow-a-backbone-ditch-corporate/

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi All. I love HN and want to share - sorry in advance for my obnoxious opinions, but just sharing my thoughts on corporate dronism & the glorification of long hours.</comment>


Yahoo Open Search Platform Launches Into Private Beta - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/04/24/yahoo-open-search-platform-launches-into-private-beta/ <comment><USER2> This is pretty exciting stuff, I can't wait to get my hands on this.</comment>


Movie Shaker iOS app is designed to find a great film to watch in 10 seconds - <AUTHOR> http://givemearandommovie.com/

<comment><USER2> This needs a web version too.

<comment><AUTHOR> @benologist, well, maybe one day it would) thank you for your feedback

<comment><USER2> I have some more specific feedback. Some of this might already be in your app but I don't have an iphone, like about 90% of movie watchers. :P

\- a kids movie option

\- amazon/itunes affiliate links

\- chromecast integration, maybe netflix but I think I read they killed their API so I don't know what's doable there

\- recommendations based on what's on tv, then you're making something a billion people could use not just the ones who stream movies

\- Reddit-powered recommendations would be great too + help drive downloads if you can tap that community, doesn't even need to be a recommendation could just be a list of recommended stuff

I'd also ditch the pricing, every single recommendation can make you money so charging for it is probably going to lose you money overall.

Then when you get this perfect do the same thing for tv shows, movies, books and games!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you a lot for such a great feedback!

I have been thinking a lot about almost every point here and I am going to implement some of them.

You said you don't have an iPhone, do you use an Android smartphone or something else?

<comment><USER2> Yes Android mostly, we have an iPad Mini but don't use it as much. But "Android too" isn't a great solution - movies are so universal you'd just be excluding slightly fewer people.

If you don't incur costs per recommendation then I would make it as easy as possible for everyone to access it.

If you do incur costs per recommendation I'd lock the fancy stuff up behind some kind of paywall and use naive recommendations for the free people so you can still target everybody economically.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


AWS Lambda vs. Fargate: cost, performance, ease of use - <AUTHOR> https://www.trek10.com/blog/fargate-lambda-comparison/ <comment><USER2> I wonder if as the platforms merge, if AWS will make Fargate into a Google Cloud Run competitor, or if that'd take away too much from Lambda</comment>


Pathfinder: A first look at the best fonts and vector graphics on VR/AR - <AUTHOR> https://blog.mozvr.com/pathfinder-a-first-look/ <comment><AUTHOR> Take a look at the side-by-side screenshots in the middle of the article, and the way that Pathfinder renders text sharply and smoothly even when viewed at an angle. That's incredible, and makes reading non-trivial amounts of text _usable_ in VR/AR.</comment>


SF vs. Uber Eats: Service stops food delivery to Treasure Island citing fee cap - <AUTHOR> https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/sf-vs-uber-eats-service-stops-food-delivery-to-treasure-island-citing-fee-cap/ <comment><USER2> I don't use Uber eats, or any other service. How does it work? Does the restaurant pay the full cost? I would have assumed it was free to the restaurant and the customer pays the delivery free. If that was the case, then why is there a cap? But I'm assuming that isn't the case... Then how did deliver services ever get to charging the restaurant?

</comment><comment><USER3> > They are upset about regulation, so in the middle of a pandemic, they are > retaliating by punishing and redlining Treasure Island residents who live in > a food desert. That's actually despicable

Does anyone find this kind of rhetoric convincing?

<comment><USER4> Any company is free to do business wherever and with whomever they want to.

<comment><USER5> That is not true. At certain points in history, e.g. WWII, rationing was in effect wherein the government forcefully replaced the market with rationing stamps and created limits on how much each family could consume to ensure there was enough for the war effort and each household [1].

It's crazy to me how quickly people forget such interventions and then think that any government action of such a nature is unprecedented. It's not.

If, for example, we start to have COVID decimate migrant farm labor who pick our crops and often live in very tight quarters, then we might end up in a situation with systemic food insecurity. At that point, it might be become more reasonable for more extreme interventions to happen.

Similarly, society would be better served if people who are under forced quarantine orders due to exposure COVID were provided meal delivery services so they don't have to leave their house (ideally designed to minimize moral hazard or cheating). Providing those services will most likely come through governments using market services. But we shall see.

[1] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationing_in_the_United_Stat...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationing_in_the_United_States#World_War_II)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I suspect it's a longer drive to other points in SF, like the Candlestick end of Bayview or up in the hills.

</comment><comment><USER7> Could someone with knowledge of SF explain what Treasure Island is, and who lives there?

<comment><USER8> It's an island between SF and Oakland. Some people live there, probably in the few thousand I'd imagine. Very few businesses on the island.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Can't ubereats set a $200 minimum order or similar?</comment>


Ask HN: How did you settle on a Linux distro? - <AUTHOR> I've tried about 20 distros or DE's of various flavors (or sometimes just the same distro with a different DE) and have discovered that the vast majority of them are surprisingly good. This then leads to the "blinded by choice" conundrum that there's no clear "best" in my mind. I've tried Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora, and ArchLinux, and within each one various flavors of Gnome, KDE, XFCE, Cinnamon, Pantheon, etc. With exceptions, most of have been largely usable, with some perhaps having more "wow" factor than others (KDE Plasma 5 and Pantheon currently lead with the "wow" factor, while Cinnamon has the current lead with "least amount of time required to setup what I need to get going").
I'm just curious what you guys use and why you chose what you did.
Please include: - distro - desktop environment within the distro - length of time on current setup
And consider including what drove you to this decision. Aesthetic? Ease of use? Configurability? Philosophical alignment with the distro? Fondness for a particular package manager?
Thanks in advance for all replies.
NOTE: Mostly aimed at Linux users, but anyone regularly using FreeBSD and a desktop environment is welcome to chime in as well. <comment><USER2> Arch - OpenBox - been usin this for about two or three years. Gaming too, support from Steam is on the rise

<comment><USER3> Elementary OS, based on Ubuntu [[https://elementary.io/](https://elementary.io/)] Apricity OS, based on Arch [[http://www.apricityos.com/](http://www.apricityos.com/)] Antergos, based on Arch [[https://antergos.com/](https://antergos.com/)]

DistroWatch always help [[http://distrowatch.com/](http://distrowatch.com/)]</comment></comment>


You've Never Heard of Tech Legend Bob Taylor,But He Invented 'Almost Everything' - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.parc.com/2017/10/youve-never-heard-of-tech-legend-bob-taylor-but-he-invented-almost-everything/ <comment><USER2> Having also chaired Engelbart's Core planning Committee (2001-2004), co- organized the 40th anniversary of the MOAD and the gathering 1 week after Engelbart's passing - I was there some of the time. I also got Bob Taylor's advice when we were organizing the www.TCPIP40.com 40th celebration. Sponsoring and funding and articulating the vision within the larger context of DARPA is what Bob Taylor did. He was only one of 2 psychologists who were the pivotal DARPA program managers for the most game changing funding by DARPA - the other was JR Licklider. Both understood the promise, and nurtured the "people centered" approach that allowed all who encountered it see the possibility of technology that could be of the people, by the people and for the people. It took 100's of 1000's of people to believe in this possibility of what computer networks could enable. All deserve credit, and Engelbart always freely acknowledged this.

</comment><comment><USER3> > In 1961, as a project manager at NASA, Taylor directed funding to computer > scientist Douglas Engelbart, who used the money, in part, to invent the > computer mouse. Five years later, at Arpa (now Darpa), Taylor kick-started > the internet when he convinced his boss to invest $500,000 of taxpayer money > to build a computer network.

So they are giving him credit for everything Engelbart did? I wasn't there but sounds fishy.

<comment><USER4> [https://www.amazon.com/Dealers-Lightning-Xerox-PARC- Computer...](https://www.amazon.com/Dealers-Lightning-Xerox-PARC- Computer/dp/0887309895) is a much better account. Great book.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How can young adults reduce their risk of serious illness or death? - <AUTHOR> What are the most effective things people under the age of ~35 can do to reduce their risk of death or serious illness?
Inspired by this post http://lesswrong.com/lw/awm/how_to_avoid_dying_in_a_car_crash/
I'm guessing things like:
- Follow steps to reduce risk of dying in a car http://lesswrong.com/lw/awm/how_to_avoid_dying_in_a_car_crash/
- Don't be obese
- Perhaps reduce sugar (and high GI carb?) intake to reduce risk of metabolic disease
- Exercise
- Avoid binge drinking
- Stocking canned food in case of a pandemic? http://lesswrong.com/lw/awm/how_to_avoid_dying_in_a_car_crash/62eq
In an ideal world, there'd perhaps be a list of all of these things, ranked in order of importance or grouped by magnitude of importance.
What else?
Which things might be most important?
Are there any good resources that attempt to tackle this question, with a focus on effectiveness? <comment><USER2> \- Being a part of a community (family/stable work/physical friends) around you. \- Find a good compromise between taking opportunities and not taking too much risks.

</comment><comment><USER3> Guns, ammo, medicine and few good friends to survive if society collapses...</comment>


Tesla factory workers reveal pain, injury and stress - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/18/tesla-workers-factory-conditions-elon-musk <comment><USER2> Some surprising evidence. Per the article, the factory employs ~10,000:

> Ambulances have been called more than 100 times since 2014 for workers > experiencing fainting spells, dizziness, seizures, abnormal breathing and > chest pains, according to incident reports obtained by the Guardian. > Hundreds more were called for injuries and other medical issues.

EDIT:

I wonder how it compares to other factory workers. To what extent is the problem factory work (which so many are anxious to bring back) and to what extent is it Tesla's factory.

And Musk seems to have a bit of a tin ear, which is surprising:

> The CEO said his desk was "in the worst place in the factory, the most > painful place", in keeping with his management philosophy. "It's not some > comfortable corner office."

> In early 2016, he said, he slept on the factory floor in a sleeping bag "to > make it the most painful thing possible". "I knew people were having a hard > time, working long hours, and on hard jobs. I wanted to work harder than > they did, to put even more hours in," he said. "Because that's what I think > a manager should do."

> He added: "We're doing this because we believe in a sustainable energy > future, trying to accelerate the advent of clean transport and clean energy > production, not because we think this is a way to get rich."</comment>


[video] The Brother IntelliFax 2800 App Store - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=120R2-phK0U

<comment><AUTHOR> Winner of "Worst Website Ever" at SXSW 2011</comment>


EU approves 3.2B euro state aid for battery research - ga-vu https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-batteries/eu-approves-3-2-billion-euro-state-aid-for-battery-research-idUSKBN1YD0WJ <comment><AUTHOR> So I guess the big 3 Germans are over the "they laugh at you" phase and now they're in full "they fight you" mode.

I think as recent as one year ago there still were German car executives that were touting their hard-won experience of making cars for 50+ years, not realizing that EVs are mostly batteries + accompanying software that happens to have some wheels attached . Making excellent inline-six engines or quite crazy V10 diesel engines has almost no connection to all that.

<comment><USER2> The use cases for long lasting and energy dense batteries are much more diversified than just cars.

<comment><AUTHOR> The "coincidence" between VW announcing that they'll go "all in" when it comes to EVs and this EU announcement is too big, of course this is meant to help the German (and partly the French) car manufacturers. When your industrial output suffers the biggest blow since 2009 [1] you have to be seen doing something (as a politician, I mean) in order not to let the bad people from AfD get a hold on the reins of power.

[1] [https://www.ft.com/content/a1a14220-1801-11ea-9ee4-11f260415...](https://www.ft.com/content/a1a14220-1801-11ea-9ee4-11f260415385)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Don't know for others, but Solvay S.A seems to be getting a fair share of the funds while being mostly a financial institution. It's been a few dozen years since they operated actual production plants.

<comment><USER4> State aid is notoriously hard to distribute in an 'efficient' manner (ie. eventually providing a positive economic return on investment to the state).

The EU is IMO even worse than your average state at it. They throw a _lot_ of money away.

<comment><USER5> The EU isn't funding it, the seven states involved are.

The EU has quite strict rules around state aid to stop a race to the bottom amongst individual states. This ruling is making an exception to that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> That's a bargain compared to what patented tech costs.

</comment><comment><USER7> Finally, some hope.</comment>


Interview with Patagonia founder Yvon Chouinard - <AUTHOR> https://www.fastcompany.com/90411397/exclusive-patagonia-founder-yvon-chouinard-talks-about-the-sustainability-myth-the-problem-with-amazon-and-why-its-not-too-late-to-save-the-planet <comment><USER2> In some, ways, it seems like Yvon's trying to undo the damage Patagonia did in its earlier days. Like... some sort of good act to absolve it and him of his "environmental sins".

But, this is too shallow, and too pessimistic, to be true. YC is a bouldering and climbing luminary. He put up some hard climbs and boulder problems, some right in LA (Chouinard's Hole at Stoney point comes to mind, but it's an easy, fun one). His attitudes have permeated down into the bones of climbing culture today. It's a "nut up or shut up" kinda sport. Maybe that's why it attracted him.

As another commenter said, he smithed his own tools and hardware. Little known fact: the company Black Diamond was created by a group of people that bought the department from YC/Patagonia as it transitioned to soft goods more.

It's awesome that he's still around, fighting the good fight, trying to save our little globe. It's awesome that he's transitioning his company to ever more sustainable practices; and pushing suppliers to do the same. I can see it in other outdoor gear companies, too. They've seen what Patagooch is doing and they're jumping on the bandwagon. Sustainability has never been sexier. Just check out REI's website. They're hardcore pushing these principles, too. Interesting, too, that the outdoor industries are rapidly growing.

I also think it's great that YC and Patagonia are unabashedly involving themselves in politics. It's great to see a company...well, "nut up or shut up" regarding climate change. Glad they're putting money where their mouth is trying to oust climate-change-obstructionist republicans.

If only they still made climbing hardware. I'd buy it just to see my money go towards good causes, like getting republicans out of office.

<comment><USER3> > In some, ways, it seems like Yvon's trying to undo the damage Patagonia did > in its earlier days. Like... some sort of good act to absolve it and him of > his "environmental sins".

I don't know too much outside of reading his book (which is, of course, biased), but it sounds like very early on (before Patagonia was founded) is when he had a change of heart. Wikipedia quotes, "Around 1970, he became aware that the use of steel pitons made by his company was causing significant damage to the cracks of Yosemite. These pitons comprised 70 percent of his income."

Unless you're talking about something else?

<comment><USER2> No, not talking about pitons. That was what climbing was. When climbers like Yvon realized the damage it was causing, new forms of protection were invented, like spring-loaded camming devices and metal chocks that could be removed and caused almost no damage.

Him pivoting when he learned is the only thing he could do. I was talking more about building products from petroleum based fibers and whatnot. Calling them a "sin" is a stretch, but I couldn't think of another phrase.

<comment><USER3> Thanks for clarifying. I'm not sure if there was a specific incident where he changed, but he does seem well aware any company with millions in revenue isn't without blame. He also recognizes that preserving the environment is in the best interest of Patagonia.

In the book he contrasts the culture of US climbers with European ones back then; Europeans focused on conquering nature (climbing tall mountains), while the US had advocates like John Muir, Ansel Adams, and Robert Frost focusing on being in nature.

It does seem like his awareness of the long-term damage has been long- standing. Patagonia started with importing rugby shirts because of their durability, environmental tithing started in the 80s, and the push for more sustainable materials in the 90s (with the realization it takes heavy involvement in the supply chain to carry out and enforce). Along the way he talks about repurposing old buildings instead (and adopting their quirks) of building new and actively encouraging repairs instead of replacing garments.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Chouinard has long been something of a personal inspiration.

\- Early advocate of Clean climbing

\- All around dirtbag hero and hardman (numerous FAs in the valley, the bugaboos, patagonia, the gunks)

\- blacksmith, who made and used his own tools to climb.

\- by all appearances a bullheaded guy on ethics and best practices: " The whole purpose of planning something like Everest is to effect some sort of spiritual and physical gain and if you compromise the process, you're an asshole when you start out and you're an asshole when you get back."

As it happens, the companies he founded or was involved in make very nice gear and i'm happy to own an ethically appropriate amount of it. Preferably preowned, and repaired instead of replaced.

<comment><USER5> Also, avid fisherman and, previously, active hunter and proponent of naturally raised or wild caught meat.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Good excerpt below on interplanetary travel:

FC: What do you think of Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk pursuing interplanetary travel and Mars and moon colonies because they don't seem to believe that we can save our home planet?

YC: [Laughs] I think it's pretty silly. And not just silly, but it's really a shame. The monies that are going to space exploration should be used to save our own planet right now. We're in a triage situation. Things are so grim. It's World War III. I lived through World War II, and I remember what the country had to do to mobilize. You couldn't buy sugar. You couldn't buy meat.

<comment><USER7> Good thing those companies are private, so that those of us who want to are free to pursue this venture with money earned "saving our planet right now."

<comment><USER8> They are private, but I believe SpaceX depends heavily on government contracts, so the fact that they're private isn't terribly relevant.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> 1% for the Planet is an incredibly positive and powerful collective of businesses.

If you own a business, please join. If you're an employee, please share it with your leaders. It's a small cost in the grand scheme of things, especially for a crucial cause. B-Corp is another group I strongly suggest looking into.

1\. [https://www.onepercentfortheplanet.org/](https://www.onepercentfortheplanet.org/)

2\. [https://bcorporation.net/](https://bcorporation.net/)

<comment><USER10> I certainly applaud business leaders who are willing to make commitments like this - though is it just me, or is it kind of sad that in the current business environment, a 1% pledge is considered ambitious?

<comment><USER11> I think Patagonia actually still does max(10% profits, 1% revenue) which is where their 1% project came from. For a retailer, 1% of gross can be huge. I agree that in other industries with high margins, 1% (even of revenue) is pretty small.

The FAQ says that:

> Our members have given more than $225 million back to environmental > nonprofits since 2002.

which I think agrees, as that's under $15M/yr average (though I assume heavily weighted towards recent data).

<comment><USER10> Yeah, that's a fair point - for high volume/low margin industries 1% of revenue is quite a bit of profit. I'm much more impressed by a pledge to give 1% of revenue than, e.g., [https://pledge1percent.org/profit.html](https://pledge1percent.org/profit.html) which commits to 1% of profit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I can highly recommend NPR's How I Built This. They have an episode with Yvon, among many others, [https://www.npr.org/2018/02/06/572558864/patagonia-yvon- chou...](https://www.npr.org/2018/02/06/572558864/patagonia-yvon-chouinard)

</comment><comment><USER13> I love Chouinard and Patagonia. Chouinard is one of the early heroes and giants behind the rock climbing scene in Yosemite.

That being said Patagonia is as a company that manages to perfectly brand itself as a sustainable company in order to get all the PR and hype coming out from it. They are surfing on the climate change and greenwashing wave more than ever. Yvon has been out of Patagonia's management for a couple of years now.

<comment><USER14> > _" That being said Patagonia is as a company that manages to perfectly brand > itself as a sustainable company in order to get all the PR and hype coming > out from it."_

If a company is doing good, should they be allowed to let people know about it? Do you think they're doing this for craven purposes only? Or might they be putting their money where their mouth is and are proud of it? That it might encourage others to make similar decisions in their own lives, both personal and business? I'd like to think that people (and that's what a company is, a group of people) are capable of doing things for reasons other than pure greed or profit.

Do you fault people for making purchasing decisions based on the actions of a company in addition to the products or services they provide?

Sometimes I wonder what drives people to apparently only see the most cynical view. In my more uncharitable moments I think that's because they can't imagine others doing things because they think they're they right thing to do. And if they can't extend that to others, what does that say about themselves?

But perhaps it's just that they've been burned too many times in the past. Whatever the reason, I choose to embrace actions of others that are good. I believe I'm capable of doing good, and that others can, too. There's so many things we need to do _together_ , and cynicism gets in the way of us trusting each other to do it.

<comment><USER13> You seem to have misunderstood that I meant it as a bad thing: Not at all.

I think that Patagonia is 100% committed to being sustainable because it is in their value but also and mainly because it is their market niche and what brings them business. still think it is part of a market strategy. I'm happy that they managed to combine ethics, value and business. It is of course extremely convenient for them that being so ethical is also what makes their business so lucrative.

Most companies don't have the luxury to fit a market niche where the target customer are the top 1% of the world (like Patagonia does).

<comment><USER14> In that case, I'd shy away from using language like

> _" in order to get all the PR and hype coming out from it."_

> _" surfing on the climate change and greenwashing wave"_

and

> _" It is of course extremely convenient for them"_

These are all phrases often used to signal that their primary motives are something other than what you are claiming to praise them for. (Indeed, you say as much: _" mainly because it is their market niche and what brings them business."_)

Yes, they're a business and to stay in business they to be profitable. What people choose to do to be profitable makes a difference.

[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/greenwashing](https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/greenwashing)

> _" green· wash· ing ... expressions of environmentalist concerns especially > as a cover for products, policies, or activities"_

[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hype](https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/hype)

> _" hype: ..._

> _1 : DECEPTION, PUT-ON_

> _2 : PUBLICITY, especially : promotional publicity of an extravagant or > contrived kind "_

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The HN title doesn't really reflect the article, there's just one answer about Amazon but it does have some insight into how he is trying to run a business focused on sustainability over everything else to try to save the planet.

<comment><USER16> We've taken that bit out of the title above.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> The outdoor wear companies have a micro-plastics problem. They tried to fix it by using other materials, but failed - the products were just not as dirt resistant or water repellant.

Patagonia introduced in the end a special washing bag for catching these micro-plastics. The problem seems to be currently unsolvable.

<comment><USER18> It says in the article that Patagonia is investing in companies researching making artificial fibers out of plant materials. That's probably the answer.

<comment><USER19> There're wool and cotton that are not artificial fibers. Other companies sell fleece and other gear without artificial fibers using those. May be those fabrics are hard to scale to Patagonia numbers, but there're alternatives.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Podcast with him, from a few years ago: [https://www.npr.org/2018/02/06/572558864/patagonia-yvon- chou...](https://www.npr.org/2018/02/06/572558864/patagonia-yvon-chouinard)

</comment><comment><USER21> Relevant interview with Yvon - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHS2X-KoN_w](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHS2X-KoN_w)

I really admire his philosophy.

</comment><comment><USER22> The company founder sounds cool, and what he says makes a lot more sense than the general corporate discourse on the same topics, yet his company ends up selling recycled plastics. Not sure how great that is, to be honest.

<comment><USER23> They have displaced a meaningful chunk of an industry that mostly sells virgin plastics. They were early pioneers in developing recycled-plastic clothing. I still have a jacket of theirs made in about 1995.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I highly recommend Chouinard's book _Let My People Go Surfing_. It's part autobiography, part a history of Patagonia, part an explanation of his business and management philosophy.</comment>


Spammers Use The Human Touch To Avoid CAPTCHA - <AUTHOR> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130594039

<comment><USER2> Does this mean that future CAPTCHAs will have questions like, "What is the type of bird whose name is the same as an American Vice President's?"

<comment><USER3> One math-based comic strip I read uses a math question (very simple calculus) as its CAPTCHA.

Another option is to give english-language instructions on how to fill out the CAPTCHA. For example, "type the characters in reverse order".

You could make these more complex, like "remove the third, fourth, and seventh character and then unscramble the remaining characters to spell the name of the object pictured to the side".

As the article mentioned, this will not 100% stop spammers, but it will make it a bit more costly to them, probably stopping those whose margins can't handle the financial hit.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Best iPad annotation app/combo? - <AUTHOR>

I spend a lot of time reading/underlining/note taking on printed out PDF files (mostly research articles). I would like to move all of this workflow to the iPad to help preserve these annotations without having to reenter them manually through Acrobat Pro or other such tools.
What do you use?
What are your preferred apps for this task?
Is it worth getting a stylus? <comment><USER2> I don't know if this helps. Don't have an iPad yet myself:

[http://matt-welsh.blogspot.com/2010/04/reviewing-papers-on-i...](http://matt- welsh.blogspot.com/2010/04/reviewing-papers-on-ipad.html)</comment>


Wrte.io – email paywall - <AUTHOR> https://wrte.io/ <comment><USER2> Interesting concept. Are you able to whitelist domains?</comment>


SpaceX is worth so much money right now - <AUTHOR> http://bgr.com/2018/04/13/how-much-is-spacex-worth-valuation-funding/ <comment><USER2> Or may be for now.</comment>


Mortgage delinquencies will exceed Great Recession levels - <AUTHOR> https://www.marketwatch.com/story/mortgage-delinquencies-caused-by-the-coronavirus-will-exceed-great-recession-levels-according-to-this-forecast-2020-05-13 <comment><USER2> I stopped paying my mortgage 14 days ago for the first time in my life. I was lucky enough to get a deferral, and I now have the massive triple payment due date looming in August with no idea of how to pay it.

Best job currently seems to be delivery driver at $16/hr. There is absolutely no way I will avoid homelessness unless things change significantly, and soon.

I have an engineering degree from a good school, I played by the rules, I worked hard. Doesn't seem to matter much. The joke around here is that the $1200 check is enough money to buy a really nice shotgun to kill yourself with.

<comment><USER3> From this response it seems like one big problem for most people is a lack of clarity around and education for what options are really available to us. I consider myself pretty educated and even I can't figure out that the mortgage loan may be deferrable or extended to end. It was refinanced before, but is it federally owned? Can it be extended after the 3-months or is it all due at once? IDK. Where do I go to find out? Is it an online forum like this one, and if so, why is it that hard? Most people wont have that luxury.

<comment><USER4> I've been thinking about building a "what are my mortgage options" type of tool for this reason. I'm a banking attorney who can code enough to be dangerous but I worry there are too many variables for my self-taught coding skills to handle. If anyone with a complementary skill set would be interested in building it with me (free, open source, no data harvesting, etc.) I think it could be useful to a lot of people.

Edit: I'm decently knowledgeable with MEAN/MERN, Django, and Swift. I'm less practiced but still (mostly) capable with Rails and Go. SQL and I are frenemies but I'm working on it.

<comment><USER5> Just creating a decision tree based on your understanding would help a lot. A programmer would need this anyway. This can be in text format

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> For decades, lenders have been preaching "don't pay off your mortgage, borrow against your house, its the best terms you can get". Now we see how that backfires. If the mortgage is never paid off, the house is always at risk.

I know, most young people have decades to go on their house. But even _some_ equity can help if times are tough.

<comment><USER7> Even with a paid off mortgage you are still going to owe property tax. Not paying that ends in the same way as not paying the mortgage. So I wouldn't say home owners with a paid off mortgage are in a zero risk situation.

<comment><USER8> Yes, my property tax is roughly 9-10k annually.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The problems here are many.

There is no consistency in how loan forbearance will be addressed with customers.

Allowing someone to not pay their mortgage for three months and then requiring a balloon payment isn't really a solution for the crisis, and will just kick the can down the road.

</comment><comment><USER10> I wouldn't be surprised if citizens sue governments for loss of housing. I am not saying it was unwanted but if people are forced to shut down their businesses, it is obvious that many of them will eventually default.

</comment><comment><USER11> Might mean nothing, about 90% of mortgages are backed by Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac (govt). The govt is now buying bond EFT so definitely will be buying Mortgage Backed Securities and Fannie & Freddie are fine with tacking all deferred payments to the end of the loans instead of requiring a lump sump payment. It will take people losing their jobs and not being able to pay for this to matter. If there's a fast V shaped recovery like some expect, then we can expect a blip at best in the RE market.

<comment><USER12> I'm trying to follow why this is fine. I don't know much about this stuff.

If you lose your job for 5 months, but get your loan deferred, won't you just need to 6x the the normal payment once you get your job back? Granted most loan terms won't end right when you get your job back, but I feel like many individuals will not be able to keep up with their debt if they lose several months of income. Is this fixing a problem or just delaying the realization of losses so people don't go bankrupt right now?

<comment><USER13> That's the issue, while a lot of people are saying "Oh, you can get your mortgage modified", a lot of lenders are saying "We're giving you three months deferment. At the end of that three months, the next mortgage payment is due, plus the three deferred payments".

<comment><USER11> You have to make sure to ask for it to be added at the end of the loan and not a lump sump payment due after the deferral. The interesting thing is that these mortgages are parceled up and sold as bonds. So the investors require payments. If I bought a 4% bond, I expect my 4% no excuses. I believe this is why the govt is going to start buying bonds. There really is no such thing as a free lunch.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Sick systems: how to keep someone with you forever - <AUTHOR> http://issendai.livejournal.com/572510.html

<comment><USER2> Acute analysis applicable to a lot of industries based on low-wage jobs, e.g. NYTimes on nail salons: [http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/10/nyregion/at-nail- salons-in...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/10/nyregion/at-nail-salons-in- nyc-manicurists-are-underpaid-and-unprotected.html)

<comment><USER3> quite astute I agree. i wonder- how does the author come to command such an understanding of human behaviour, needs and wants?

maybe as a commenter below suggests, the author is sociopathic and that enables deep detached thinking.

<comment><USER2> It reminded me of Cialdini's "Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion." I'm curious if it's also the work of a similarly calculating social psychologist.

<comment><USER3> the four strategies also reminds me of the pressures facing those living on low incomes in the USA, not just those working in salons.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Seems to me that keeping your employee or lover happy might be easier than any of these strategies.

<comment><USER5> I would think so too. The mentioned strategies seem sociopathic.

<comment><USER6> People can employ sick systems techniques without being aware of how harmful they are.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Wow, this is a great article!

<comment><USER3> i particularly like how the rules contradict each other for the most part.</comment></comment>


LA Times: Problems with the Princeton HFCS-weight gain study - <AUTHOR> http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2010/03/high-fructose-corn-syrup-hfcs-sugar-princeton-study.html

<comment><USER2> This post title is highly deceiving, the blog post's title would be far more accurate. I wonder what the motivations of the poster were in choosing thia title. There are no problems addressed, other than the obvious mouse vs. human differences.

Given that we do know that fructose and sucrose deliver different hormonal responses, it shouldn't be suspicious that HFCS and other sugars mixtures have different weight gain pricked, but we should be careful to jump to conclusions about humans based on mouse metabolism.

<comment><USER3> No, the title is fine. There are problems addressed, for example the LA times states:

 _In another phase of the Princeton study, the researchers found that rats allowed to drink the HFCS solution gained more weight over six months than rats with no access to a sweetened beverage. The difference was dramatic: rats with 24-hour access to HFCS gained 27% more weight than the rats stuck with chow only. But the researchers didn't include a third group of rats with access to sugar, so it's impossible to say whether HFCS was worse than regular sugar._</comment></comment>


Dark Patterns - User Interfaces Designed to Trick People - <AUTHOR> http://darkpatterns.org <comment><USER2> It's interesting to talk about the ethics of this sort of thing because the rabbit hole is very deep.

I think it was P.T. Barnum who can came up with the idea of making customers walk though the gift shop to exit his circus. I think of that every time I walk though an airport that does the same thing on entry or exit from its international flights area. That's an example of user interface design, isn't it?

And, what about the process of automobile sales? For nearly a century buyers have gone through the ritual of negotiating with a sales person who goes to the back room for 15 minutes at a time to "talk the manager" only to slurp on a coffee cup. That's a user interface as well.

I'm not defending the patterns in the presentation, but I don't see them as anything new. The medium is just different. Some businesses are just particularly shameless, and that's a problem.

<comment><USER3> As someone who spent 10 years selling cars, the salesman really is "talking to the manager". There is just incompetence and slow workers everywhere. Also, often times that manager has 5 salesmen in line wanting an offer to give their customers. Throw in folks who need the dealership to get financing, etc and it is just an inefficient bottleneck. Lots of companies have tried changing it, but it seems the old school method keeps being the best way to maximize profit.

<comment><USER4> It's a negotiating tactic called "higher authority" <http://www.negotiationdynamics.com/Authlim.asp>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> For a shining example of dark patterns, simply try to book a flight on Ryanair _without_ accidentally opting in to their upsell products.

Try to continue without insurance? Massive popup. "Last year X,000 people lost $$$... can you really take the risk?"

And two buttons. One big green one, "Continue with insurance" and one, tiny, non-button text link saying "No thanks, _I'll take the risk._ "

That's one example. There are dozens.

<comment><USER6> I dont have much money , but i'll never fly with these punks. I did it once in 2002 to go to Eire , thought the plane would crash.

<comment><USER7> Much as I hate Ryanair, they have never had a serious accident in their entire history, and they have a LOT of planes...

<comment><USER8> Ryanair does not only have dark patterns on its website, but also within the company.

Two months ago there was a program on Dutch TV where a couple of Ryanair pilots anonymously stated that Ryanair flies with dangerously low fuel to keep costs down. Here is the video with english subtitles:

[http://reporter.kro.nl/seizoenen/2012/afleveringen/28-12-201...](http://reporter.kro.nl/seizoenen/2012/afleveringen/28-12-2012/extras/mayday_mayday_- _international_version)

While this hasn't lead to an accident yet, it has lead to several mayday calls when planes had to fly to another airport due to weather conditions or had to wait in the air because the airport was busy. The airport had to let Ryanair land before its turn. If the other firms that had aircraft landing at the airport had been flying with similarly low fuel it would have been a crash.

and part 2:

[http://reporter.kro.nl/seizoenen/2013/afleveringen/03-01-201...](http://reporter.kro.nl/seizoenen/2013/afleveringen/03-01-2013/extras/mayday_mayday_part_2_-_english_version)

This part is partially about the fuel issue but also about other issues, such as pilots being pressured to fly while ill or very tired.

<comment><USER9> > The airport had to let Ryanair land before its turn.

"Ryanair: Getting you there _faster_."

<comment><USER10> Well, getting you _somewhere_ faster.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Regulation can help.

A good example is 3rd party marketing opt-out dark pattern. It is already legislated in a number of countries; and if a local business puts in an opt- out checkbox instead of opt-in ? Blam; this contact info is considered obtained without consent, please delete it and here is the invoice for your fine, thank you very much.

Another pattern that can be eliminated is hidden costs - i.e., in EU, you have to advertise the full cost, including the tax and "mandatory convenience fees"; so for some costs you can't hide them away.

And of course, the most effective tool is legally mandated rights for returns and cancellations - it gives actual teeth to angry customers, since if you succeed in tricking them, they can just cancel the deal [not neccessarily through a process that the company prescribes] and get full returns.

</comment><comment><USER12> Is it a dark pattern when companies like Dwolla walk you through a multi-step signup procees involving a significant amount of info and an email verification, then ask for ultra-sensitive info like SSN only at the very end?

Clearly this is done to prevent some abandonment that would occur upon seeing the SSN on the first step of the process. Their idea is that you are already so invested by the end that you are more likely to give up that sensitive info. But, whether it is technically a "dark pattern" or not, it feels really, really slimy.

<comment><USER13> I like the one that Flickr (Yahoo) is now using where you can "log in with Facebook!" only to have it take you to a page where you still must have a Yahoo ID to continue.

I took some screenshots of the process: <http://imgur.com/a/TPdYb>

Yahoo ID registration requires your DOB, full name, gender (of which only M/F are options), and postal code. Mobile phone / alt e-mail are the only non- required fields in the screenshots I linked.

<comment><USER12> Yeah, I guess it's easier to fit "log in with Facebook" on a button than it is to fit "let us hijack your FB feed, then sign in with Yahoo".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> If you wouldn't do it to your mother, it's not ethical.

So, most marketing isn't ethical at all.

But that doesn't stop most marketing.

<comment><USER15> Not allowed to down-vote, but this is using a very large brush to paint a ton of people the same color as bad apples.

Most marketing around you is perfectly ethical with no desire to trick you into buying things you don't want. Most sales people you meat are perfectly ethical. There are, of course, some idiots, but that is about as productive and narrow-minded as saying that since some small percentage of programmers are misogynist, all programmers are.

<comment><USER16> As an aside: down-vote on HN isn't for disagreement. It's should be used when you think a post doesn't add to the discussion. The fact that you are giving an interesting counterpoint, I think, shows that the post isn't worthy of a down-vote.

<comment><USER17> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171>

PG: "I think it's ok to use the up and down arrows to express agreement. Obviously the uparrows aren't only for applauding politeness, so it seems reasonable that the downarrows aren't only for booing rudeness."

<comment><USER16> I stand corrected.

<comment><USER18> It may be pg's site, and he sets the rules in the technical sense, but I feel like a majority of the users of the site agree with your position, and would discourage people from downvoting simply out of disagreement. The "rules" are one thing, the "culture" may be different. In this case, I think the cultural norm is in favor of not expressing disagreement through downvotes. But that's just me. _shrug_

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> There weren't many patterns presented, so here are a few of those and some more:

Some evil UX patterns are:

* Opt-in: Prepopulating option with more expensive or recurring payment. (example was a donation, but Amazon does this when not defaulting to free 5-7 day ground shipping _after promising free shipping prior to putting it in cart!_ which is much worse since they are bait and switching)

* Opt-in, part 2: Making changes subtle changes can be evil. By switching around buttons, etc. after having it work a certain way a long time and not changing the interface enough, you trigger muscle memory to do the wrong thing. Amazon has exploited this as well with the (not) free shipping option.

* Difficult to quit/cancel: also mentioned in the OP's linked presentation. In addition to more steps or having to email, etc. they don't even give you a documented option, e.g. you have to email them so they will delete your account and they say that nowhere in the site.

* Glossing over legal: Small text or less readable font to hide details is evil.

* Hiding legal: putting legal disclaimers in an area of the site that is hard to get to is evil.

* Unnecessary login: making the user login because they _might_ want to retain info about something, when really the site owner is getting more benefit (selling email address or lead info, mining it themselves, etc.).

* Asking for more than is needed for user to accomplish what they want: asking the user for more info than they need to provide in order to get lead info _when they are not aware you will contact them_ is evil.

* Unintended use of data: Worked for a telecom that had page to get phone# to look up service availability and then they would use that for lead info.

* Easy to determine security questions: this is just stupid. Many are easy to find out and they do little more than make the uninformed user feel more secure. Examples: birthday, street you grew up on, etc. that can be learned even without social engineering.

* Passwords: one of the most archaic and stupid constructs ever. Passwords encourage people to use the same password across sites, so if one is compromised, they all are. An autogenerated passkey and a more secure way to reset it with a new one if your passkey was lost or stolen would beat passwords anyday. SSO only compounds this idiotic UX we can't get rid of. (And we put abusable/hackable cameras in every laptop instead of adding retinal scanners or thumbprint readers in every laptop, which could be viable alternatives.)

<comment><USER20> _Passwords encourage people to use the same password across sites_

I've heard this said about _difficult_ passwords, but I think this is putting too fine a point on it. Passwords don't encourage anything on their own, except perhaps a consciousness of the basics of security. It's akin to saying that pizza encourages eating it for every meal. I don't think we've yet seen a gene _that_ selfish.

<comment><USER21> > It's akin to saying that pizza encourages eating it for every meal.

I am also fine with passwords, but I really dislike useless parallels:

Passwords have to be remembered and therefore having many different passwords cause inconvenience. How does _this_ apply to pizza?

<comment><USER22> I don't know 95% of my passwords. Opera does, though, and so does a little encrypted text file somewhere on my harddrive. And neither of the two mind if my passwords are all of the form GgSGlIXrPE1IrbhgWFBU.

Of course, I only use one computer rather than five different laptops, three tablets and fifty-two smartphones, in which case I imagine it to be tedious to sync them (unless you trust Opera enough to use Opera Sync or some such thing).

<comment><USER23> Off topic but 1Passsword is cross-platform, syncs via Dropbox and has browser extensions for auto-filling passwords.

<comment><USER24> 1Password is cross-platform in the sense that it works on Windows, OS X and mobile phones but it doesn't support Linux.

Since I need Linux support I use KeePass 1.x [1] on Windows and KeePassX [2] on Linux and Mac OS X. Both versions are free software. They store password entries in a single AES-encrypted container, use in-RAM encryption and allow you to attach a file with arbitrary binary data to each password entry (handy for key files). While there is no single Firefox extension that works across all the platforms they both can emulate typing for password entry. For synchronization I keep the encrypted password file in my Dropbox. If your use case is similar to mine I can highly recommend this solution because it behaves consistently across the platforms I've tried it on [3]. There's also KeePassDroid for Android that supposedly works well with Dropbox but I haven't used it.

[1] <http://keepass.info/>

[2] <https://www.keepassx.org/>

[3] The most exotic one being Debian PPC. Sadly, it didn't last since while KeePassX worked fine on it there was no straightforward way to get Dropbox running on non-x86 Linux and using a workaround like rsyncing with an x86 Linux machine running Dropbox or a VM introduced a large extra breaking point to the system.

<comment><USER25> With Dropbox, you get 1password on linux via their html frontend (I use it all the time)

<comment><USER26> You can view -- which I do appreciate -- but you cannot edit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> No it's not ethical. When I see it as I'm checking out I CANCEL MY ORDER AND LEAVE! I'm not going to do business with a company that is trying to scam me.

<comment><USER28> I've started doing this whenever a company pulls a bait and switch (pet hate of mine). I got an email offer saying a site was $9.95 for 1 year, limited time only... ok sure, big savings and I had been thinking about signing up. Click through and get £9.95. Not cool.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Nice redesign! It took me a while to find the actual patterns. Shouldn't the list of patterns be visible on the home page or at least accessible from the menu?

</comment><comment><USER30> The worst I've encountered recently was Mastercard. They call thanking you and your family for using their service. They say as a thank you they give for free, card protection services, by accepting their thank you/free gift your opting in for a reoccurring service that will charge you next month. Its the devil's wording.

<comment><USER13> As a general rule, almost nothing "FREE!" ever is in the strictest sense of the word.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Requiring the user to watch a Flash video is a dark pattern.

<comment><USER6> requiring anything from the user is already.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Once you "trick" anyone to do anything, it is not longer ethical.

</comment><comment><USER33> The slide cast doesn't show up in mobile safari. But, there is a link on the page to a list with detailed descriptions and examples: <http://darkpatterns.org/what_is_a_dark_pattern/>

</comment><comment><USER34> I think this is the 6th time this link has been posted here. The site is 4 years old already.

<comment><USER35> And I don't think the site has improved in any meaningful way. Someone should fork it and make something better.

(Also, the headline should be 'Dark Patterns: Are They Ethical?' not 'Is It Ethical'.)

<comment><USER13> Meh; it's just "begging the question" (the popular use of the phrase, not the pedantic "correct" use of the phrase [quotes because language evolves IMO] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question> \-- more info if you're interested)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> When your dark pattern attracts the attention of the FCC you know something's wrong.

([http://transition.fcc.gov/transaction/aol- tw/exparte/nationw...](http://transition.fcc.gov/transaction/aol- tw/exparte/nationwide3_exparte110600.pdf))

</comment><comment><USER37> I'm very disturbed. The only reason you've got job and work for a company is that the company expects you can help it to make (more) money.

The things you've mentioned do help boosting income, for some companies only in short-term, for other companies even in long-term.

If your personal ethics are not OK with it, there are only two ethical things you can do about it. Either you design a UX that is equally efficient in terms of KPI, but conforms to your ethics, or you quit the job.

Remaining employed, receiving your paycheck, but working against the company and waving ethics codes around or quietly sabotaging boss' decisions is NOT ethical.

</comment><comment><USER38> Privacy Zuckering -- so perfect that it doesnt need an example.

</comment><comment><USER39> I'm not sure if anyone else feels this way but I think this information would have been presented way better in a video or an article.

I was hard to connect the meaning between some of the videos and I feel like there was some dialog I was missing. I hope the trend of just releasing slide shows in lieu of articles or videos does not become a trend.

<comment><USER40> I agree. This seemed to be a lazy or "less competent" way of presenting the material.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> +1 for Reynholm Industries in the slide deck.

</comment><comment><USER42> Perhaps this is obvious, but this affiliate marketing in a nutshell - that is, the heavy usage of "dark patterns".

</comment><comment><USER43> Thanks for posting this, I'm going do try writing a NLP bot that identifies some "dark patterns"

<comment><AUTHOR> Wound love to see it when it's done

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> Will someone please recommend some (academic) books on the subject closest to "Dark patterns?"

<comment><USER45> Read this last summer: [http://books.google.ca/books/about/Exploitation.html?id=2eyH...](http://books.google.ca/books/about/Exploitation.html?id=2eyHV0r7J64C)

Thought it was good because it doesn't give a lot of attention to purely economic stuff.</comment></comment>