Facebook just gave us one more reason never to trust it - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/4/10712026/facebook-android-research-trust <comment><USER2> It is sad that people even care or think that General Mills doesn't "experiment" on its customers by changing the amount of sugar or the size and color of packages or the flavor description or the premiums offered.

The author here appears to feel that Facebook should be regulated as a utility with an appointed oversight board :-) However, if you asked them "So you're suggesting the country nationalize Facebook and make it the 'US Social Network Service'?" they would probably sputter and cough and object, not understanding that what they want "a non-commercial entity to provide a service that costs millions of dollars a month to run for free" as just not being possible.

I think if someone can figure out a distributed social network where the cost of running it is born by the users explicitly then you'll at least have an alternative to suggest.

</comment><comment><USER3> Seriously, who cares about this? It's not like they blocked access to their services, you could still access Facebook via their website, it's just harmless A/B testing.

<comment><USER4> The overreaction of the title is just to pull in clicks. A friend of mine worked in the sensationalist world of internet publishing for years, and he eventually felt absolutely filthy from being forced to do this kind of thing dozens of times a day.</comment></comment>


The Science Behind "Having a Bad Day" (and how to solve it) - <AUTHOR> http://jangosteve.com/post/850643524/the-science-behind-having-a-bad-day <comment><USER2> I've never felt like I've had a "bad luck" day. Part of that might be not believing in luck or making my own. For me, bad days generally occur when my schedule is too tight and I have a cascading failure.

For example, I have a trouble sleeping so when I get up I'm groggy. That makes me late to leave for a meeting, which usually means I'll forget something or have another problem in my rush. I don't have time to stop for coffee, so I'm even less lucid than I usually am. In my grogginess and haste, I take longer to respond to emails and I spent less time mentally answering them before I had to, so that takes longer than I expected. Then I end up with a late lunch. etc.

I find the trick to avoiding bad days is generally just to give myself ample time to recover if something is putting pressure on my schedule.

<comment><AUTHOR> The fact that you never feel like the world is out to get you, or that things are beyond your control probably gives you a distinct advantage over 99% of people. It is easy for most people (including myself) to fall into that trap.

Then again, there's the study that shows that people who believe in luck tend to lead happier and longer lives. [1]

[1] [http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/raising- happiness/201003...](http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/raising- happiness/201003/happy-go-lucky)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> It seems pretty logical to me that one can't have good days without occasionally having bad days.

A flaw in American culture seems to be that negative feelings simply aren't acceptable: to anybody. Looking for reasons to be unhappy would be silly, but negative feelings do have to be safely processed and diffused.

The alternative is the observed rise in mental disorder and use of anti- depressants.</comment>


Star Trek-style force-field armour being developed by military scientists - <AUTHOR> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/7487740/Star-Trek-style-force-field-armour-being-developed-by-military-scientists.html

<comment><USER2> The article's rather nebulous on how the thing actually works; it almost sounds like an emf burst that detonates the incoming warhead early.

Either way, visions of nanotech-supercap-coated clothing are dancing in my head; I'll need to go give my kinetic barriers a workout in Mass Effect 2 to simmer down.</comment>


An Android browser for porn (Password protection, Porn-filter bypass, incognito) - <AUTHOR> http://jerkyapp.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi all,

I'm also the creator of Go away Cameron (bypass UK porn filter), Go away MDA (bypass Singapore's porn filter). Last week, I launched it on Reddit ([http://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/1xblv9/hey_reddit_s...](http://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/1xblv9/hey_reddit_so_i_created_an_android_browser_for/)) that went on to be #1 on /r/Android with some great discussions. Mostly because the browser is very much polished and everyone asked why was this not released as a full-browser, but rather, porn?

Let me know what you think of Jerky as a browser, and I'll be happy to answer any questions you have, cheers!</comment>


How Stable Are Democracies? 'Warning Signs Are Flashing Red' - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/world/americas/western-liberal-democracy.html?action=click&contentCollection=Food&module=Trending&version=Full&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article <comment><USER3> My current thought is that corrupted capitalism has corrupted democracies making them unaccountable to the majority of people, leading to a massive and still accelerating level of economic inequality. When this happens all sorts of bad things happen; political monsters, populist demagogues, racism, loss of faith in democratic institutions etc. Leading to people wanting to radically change the system to someone who says they will 'get things done', which has to be outside of the system.

These are truly concerning times; in America at least, no one in political power is discussing serious policy proposals to reduce the influence of money in politics and hence address the accelerating transition of wealth from the lower and middle class to a tiny fraction at the very top. This is not a stable course. Even the current president elect despite his populist slogans is going to increase the regressive tax rate based on debunked trickle down economics (what actually helped lead to the current inequality in the 1980s), and wants to eliminate the estate tax all together. Both of these will merely accelerate the current course. No light is visible at the end of the tunnel.

<comment><USER4> I think the recent election demonstrated that money doesn't matter that much. Voters actually have power. That's the silver lining to the depressing reality that voters don't care if industry writes regulations, the executive branch tortures people, and the rich pay even less in taxes.

<comment><USER5> > I think the recent election demonstrated that money doesn't matter that > much.

Can you elaborate on that? I'm unaware of how it was demonstrated.

<comment><USER6> I think he meant that despite all the big money and power behind the Clinton campaign, enough of the electorate chose to vote against the establishment to render it ineffectual.

<comment><USER7> Trump is a multibilionaire. Not quite the big money vs underdog story.

<comment><USER8> The Trump campaign as massively outspent by the Clinton campaign almost 2-1. It also received much less outside money - 60 million versus 190 million. [1]

According to OpenSecrets, Trump spent 56 million on his own campaign. [2]

In historical US election terms, that is quite the underdog story, even if it's still a lot of money.

[1] [http://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/](http://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/) [2] [http://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate?id=N00023864](http://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate?id=N00023864)

<comment><USER7> For me, an underdog story would be a common citizen getting elected with little money, and 100% crowd funded money from the people, at that. A billionaire heir getting elected by spending his millions, and "only" 60 million from someone else, leaves absolutely no sense of being an underdog, even if he did spend less than his rival (100mil instead of 200mil. Big whoop)

<comment><USER8> > A billionaire heir getting elected by spending his millions

I don't think that's an accurate way of describing his campaign. The campaign funding includes donations to the campaign in those figures. Only 22% of Trump's campaign funding was from himself, while 27% was from small individual contributors and 15% from large individual contributors. Clinton obviously had much less self-financing (0.27%), while 18% was small individual contributions and 53% was large individual contributions.

The 'someone else' in my post is money spent outside the campaign altogether from superpacs. SuperPACs are associated with 'big money' but to my knowledge there's nothing stopping normal people from donating to them.

Unfortunately, your underdog story is just not viable in a democracy of three hundred million. A common citizen, as you put it, simply has no means of getting the attention of enough people, and standing out from the crowd, without money, or to raise that much money. Even wealthy, well-known non- politicians have trouble with that - you see them pop up sometimes in the primaries. There's a reason most American Presidents were already politicians.

If you add your email to your profile, maybe we can talk about it offline? I'm interested but I have a hard time seeing how we can have national politics without money playing a big role.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I find the rather scant coverage of election topics on HN to be a glaring warning in its own right... if the technocratic class is focused on bricklaying (Go, TensorFlow, Docker, etc.), who is deciding what gets built at the macro level? Maybe it's time we all take responsibility for creating a fair, just, open, and economically robust society?

<comment><USER10> I know its fun to think of us tech crowd as being somehow superior to the rest of the populace, but nothing could be further from the truth. We are just as ignorant and naive as the next set of folks down the line. Believing anything else is craziness.

<comment><USER11> I agree that it's a trap to think that working in tech makes us inherently smarter or more capable. But, I think our particular perspectives and biases are valuable to understanding the world outside of tech, if only because what we do has a significant influence on so many peoples experiences of the world.

Consider: Trump's campaign relying so heavily on social media; social media as a recruiting and organizational tools for extremist organizations; the issue of fake news sites; the role tech plays in enabling/accelerating globalization; tech as integral to global surveillance apparatuses.

> We are just as ignorant and naive as the next set of folks down the line.

Sure, averaged out over the variety of ways a person can be ignorant and naive (emotionally, financially, politically, etc). But nonetheless I think it would behoove us to stay engaged and reflective about our role in the world beyond tech, rather than saying "Nope, nothing for us to discuss, just keep laying the bricks".

<comment><USER12> Our perspectives are indeed valuable, but the problem is that here we are on Hacker News in our own little bubble, disengaged from the rest of society.

After Trump's election I came to the conclusion that I had let myself get sucked into a left-leaning filter bubble, which was why I was so surprised when Clinton lost. I realized I had no clue what really mattered to "the other half" of the country, and that terrified me. Equally terrifying was that there are (at least) two bubbles, neither of which comprehends the other, and very few central mediating platforms that connect these two worlds.

On Twitter I decided to follow Breitbart. Yes, Breitbart, the much-reviled bogey-man of the left. And yes, I find some of it objectionable. But really the surprise has been how not-totally-insane it is. It presents an alternate worldview which is in its own way coherent and (dare I say it?) legitimate. Maybe it's right, maybe it's wrong, it doesn't matter---the point is that without bringing these separate worlds into meaningful communication, America is in for some real turmoil. And HN is part of this. It's rare for me to see things here that really challenge the mainstream narrative. It basically all confirms what I already believe. That's what drew me here in the first place, and though many of us probably like to think of ourselves as free-thinking and willing to confront contrary evidence, I'd imagine that's why many of you are here, too.

<comment><USER13> From my perspective on the other side of the Atlantic, the result of the election is coming from deep division within America, with people on each side of the divide not communicating / understanding each other (hell, even Sam Altman wrote about this before the election).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> What I see nobody discussing is the very old concept of political cycles - <USER2> Greek the term was Kyklos (literally cycles).

It has been fairly well documented that societies undergo four distinct phases which repeat:

1\. Anarchy 2. Democracy 3. Aristocracy 4. Monarchy

This also matches up with the Strauss-Howe generational theory:

1\. High 2. Awakening 3. Unraveling 4. Crisis

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

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss%E2%80%93Howe_generatio...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss%E2%80%93Howe_generational_theory)

<comment><USER15> > _It has been fairly well documented_

Has it? Citing some ancient Greek philosophy hardly counts as good documentation.

You also have the cycle mostly reversed.

<comment><USER14> Yes, if you read Polybius and the source material for the fourth turning it's pretty well understood.

Cycles don't have a start/end...but I'd consider anarchy the starting point for humanity.

<comment><USER15> No, you're pushing these as accepted theories when they are not. Strauss-Howe has had quite a bit of criticism and so far as I can tell Kyklos/Anacyclosis seems to have little attention at all except from people interested in historical philosophy.

You're also conflating two different theories that don't mesh meaningfully. The Strauss-Howe theory is predicated on complete cycles of ~90 years. I'm utterly confident that the US has not cycled through anarchy, monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy twice.

<comment><USER14> Actually, they are so baked into economics that they are overlooked. Sismondi in his development of the business cycle theory, now a fundamental feature of economic theory and thus political theory, cited Polybius frequently. The point is that there are cycles of societal organization that can be demonstrated fairly unambiguously.

<comment><USER15> It's one thing to say that social structures show evidence of cyclic behavior. It's another thing entirely to say that it's an accepted fact that every democratic society will inevitably fall to anarchy and be reborn as a monarchy.

<comment><USER14> I mean history is pretty replete with examples...more than enough books have been written on this.

Note that the Anarchic period is usually very short and often accompanied by war because people can't figure out how to live without a ruler apparently.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> To coin a phrase, it's the income inequality stupid.

Current trends are inherently unstable. You can't have a workable political system when nearly all the economic gains accrue to a small group at the top.

This has been the fundamental tension in political systems since we've had political systems. Some have been screaming their heads off about it for years, but with minor exceptions there haven't been genuine working and middle class focused political movements in the west with actual power in at least a generation. This is what happens when you do that.

<comment><USER17> _Current trends are inherently unstable. You can 't have a workable political system when nearly all the economic gains accrue to a small group at the top._

I don't think that's necessarily true (unfortunately). There's probably a threshold where inequality becomes unsustainable, but it could be very high.

See Axelrod's _The Evolution of Cooperation_. It's most famous for the iterated Prisoner's Dilemma contest, where the simple "tit for tat" strategy beat all the others, but there's a lot more great material in there. "Tit for tat" is just one stable solution, but there are others.

Another stable solution is an unpleasant-sounding caste system, where everybody is nice to people of higher rank and nasty to people of lower rank. That system is self-sustaining and resistant to interlopers as long as it's self-policing, i.e. the insiders punish people who buck the system. Even people at the bottom of the pecking order are incentivized to play along and keep their heads down.

Similarly, I think extreme inequality could be stable and self-sustaining. I think it would require people to actively reject "government handouts", which is exactly what we see in a lot of political rhetoric these days.

Almost all large corporations have extreme salary inequality, but they're still relatively stable and successful entities. Why wouldn't the low-level workers demand more pay? Because it's a "meritocracy" \-- we need high executive salaries to attract the best people, and if you just work a bit harder maybe you'll get promotion and earn the big bucks for yourself.

<comment><USER16> > Another stable solution is an unpleasant-sounding caste system, where > everybody is nice to people of higher rank and nasty to people of lower > rank.

Yes, to some extent. I suppose there is an argument you can make that there's another Nash equilibrium at the point of extreme inequality, where a couple people are rich and everyone else is essentially starving. But that sort of seems besides the point, given how complex and interconnected our current economic and political structures are.

> Almost all large corporations have extreme salary inequality, but they're > still relatively stable and successful entities.

On what time scale? I would argue that if governments were even 1/10 as likely to fail as large corporations the world would be quickly reduced to rubble.

<comment><USER17> _I suppose there is an argument you can make that there 's another Nash equilibrium at the point of extreme inequality, where a couple people are rich and everyone else is essentially starving._

I meant more an equilibrium where there's a pyramid and everyone knows their place. (Maybe the lowest class needs to be small rather than large, I'm not sure.)

 _But that sort of seems besides the point, given how complex and interconnected our current economic and political structures are._

I don't understand this, can you elaborate?

 _On what time scale? I would argue that if governments were even 1 /10 as likely to fail as large corporations the world would be quickly reduced to rubble._

You're right, corporations are definitely shorter-lived on average (although there are some very long-lived ones).

I guess there are some important differences between companies and countries, notably that countries are tied to a particular land area and population. And they're far less numerous than companies.

I still think my point is relevant and worth exploring, though. If democracy (or any other system) is so great, why don't companies tend to use it? Even companies that are worker-owned tend to be run in fairly traditional ways (see e.g. John Lewis in the UK).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Something I've wondered recently: in the past 10-15 years, how many functioning democracies have fallen apart vs been created?

I'm fairly ignorant about this, so please correct me if my perceptions ar wrong, but Turkey seems to have devolved to autocracy after being democratic for a while. I've heard scary things about Poland. Venezuela, as mentioned in the article, fell apart. Obviously there's Putin's Russia, though I'm not sure Russia was ever really democratic.

I can't think offhand of any new, functioning, democracies.

<comment><USER19> > _I 've heard scary things about Poland._

Poland is fine, don't listen to the bullshit in mass media. That was just some noise of little importance to anything whatsoever, perpetuated because the party that lost last elections wasn't too happy about that fact.

<comment><USER20> So the proposal to ban abortions was just a lie?

[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/05/polish- governm...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/05/polish-government- performs-u-turn-on-total-abortion-ban)

What about the story that Poland is one of the few European countries that want access to encrypted communications?

[https://www.euractiv.com/section/social-europe- jobs/news/fiv...](https://www.euractiv.com/section/social-europe- jobs/news/five-member-states-want-eu-wide-laws-on-encryption/)

<comment><USER21> How is any of it undemocratic ? If people elect candidates who are anti abortion and pro surveillance, then being democratic means those laws should happen.

"Democracy" doesn't mean "they do what you agree with" nor even "they do what's best for their citizen", it means the citizens elects the one they want, even if it's the guy whose policies are so bad he's going to send them backward 20 years.

<comment><USER22> > How is any of it undemocratic ? If people elect candidates who are anti > abortion and pro surveillance, then being democratic means those laws should > happen.

See, _this_ is why the US is supposed to be ruled by a constitution, rather than just be a democracy. The constitution says that there are things you can't do, even if you have a majority (unless you have enough of a majority to amend the constitution).

Now, granted, that's been eroded under the last few presidents, with (probably) worse to come under Trump. But this is why it matters that we have a constitution that limits what a president can do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I see this as part of the waning influence of the USA as a world hegemon. The USA and its allies, as a matter of foreign strategy, have propped up secular "democracies" since WWII. This has led to world-wide stability and peace (especially post-cold war, when its sphere of influence expanded into Soviet territory). But, this often involved supporting unpopular and/or autocratic leaders who would maintain a democracy as long as they could overthrow unsuitable leaders (often with covert American help).

I think there have been multiple backlashes to this in recent times. The socialist revolutions of central and south america, the arab spring, the rise of Putin's influence in the ex-soviet sphere of influence, and now the rise of nationalist anti-globalization leaders like Trump. A lot of people world-wide are deciding that America's place in world affairs is no longer tenable or desirable.

I'm totally mixed on this and consider myself fairly neutral. I appreciate the relative peace and stability that we've had, but I also think it's been untenable. A better world will likely come, eventually, from more distributed decision making that doesn't involve just a small % of the world's population.

<comment><USER24> That is a very optimistic view. What mechanism would ensure distributed decision making in a world where power is very unevenly distributed?

<comment><USER25> Seems like the U.N. is a crippled organization by the privileges that members of the security council have.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> "In The Demon in Democracy, Legutko explores the shared objectives between these two political systems, and explains how liberal democracy has over time lurched towards the same goals as communism, albeit without Soviet style brutalality. "

Unelected bureaucrats become nonviolent totalitarians.

The Demon in Democracy: Totalitarian Temptations in Free Societies

[https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1594038635](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1594038635)

<comment><USER27> _Unelected bureaucrats become nonviolent totalitarians._

I for once am grateful to the faceless bureaucrat at the FDA who demanded that Theranos submit their device to FDA for appproval. This unnamed fellow is the Stanislav Petrov of medicine.

<comment><USER28> On the other hand, you also have FDA certification process to thank for the Daraprim monopoly and its consequences (like the ability to raise prices 50x).

Which is to say, regulation can be good sometimes, and it can be bad sometimes, even when it's the same exact regulation. The trick is to find a balance that is beneficial to all of us overall.

<comment><USER27> It's unfair to pin Daraprim (and stock price movements when a candidate fails Stage 3 trial) on the FDA. They are tasked with safety. Pricing is an issue outside the remit of the FDA, one that most of the civilized world has dealt with successfully, usually through some form of centralized buying.

<comment><USER28> It is fair to compare FDA to similar agencies in other countries, and ask whether their focus on safety is too extreme, to the point where it hampers other issues of importance.

For example, is there any European country in which a generic alternative to Daraprim hasn't been certified yet? If there isn't one, then why is US special in that regard?

Centralized buying is only a partial solution to drug prices. Access to cheap generics is also a part of that puzzle. If FDA procedures get in the way of that, it may very well be that the net balance for us is negative.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> It seems simple -- progressive extremism and progressive supremacy is what threatens democracy in today's West. The obstinate and divisive leaders of neo-liberalism have made absolutely no effort to reach across the aisle and greet their political opponents midway, instead opting for tasteless attacks and tone-deaf dismissal.

Democracy involves meeting each-other half-way without exception and clearly the likes of Merkel and Clinton have shown no interest in budging on wedge issues, which only accelerates their fall from leadership. Clutching onto power through underhanded further ensures our dangerous position on the edge of a precipice.

<comment><USER30> Seems pretty ridiculous to assign blame for the lack of compromise to one side or the other. Where are the rightists "reaching across the aisle"?

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> How valid is this research? They seemed to have arbitrarily chosen factors that the researchers seem to feel is "essential to democracy" and then simply decide that these factors are in decline. Maybe I missed this but I didn't see the researcher list what the actual factors were that were "essential for democracy" and how these factors were chosen. It seemed as they just arbitrarily picked factors that they felt were essential for a democracy and then showed that these factors were experiencing a decline.

The countries chosen in the study, Poland and Venezuela are particularly poor examples as they were both countries that were under long periods or autocratic rule and then briefly attempted a transition to democracy which failed. To hold these up as examples of a general trend of failing democracy seems misleading.

What this really seems to me is people with a particular political bias sounding the bell of doom because a candidate they dislike won the election. Really they even mention Trump in the article and mention his election as a sign of failing democracy - you can't get much more biased than that.

<comment><USER32> Also Venezuela has the curse of easy natural resources it's generally awful for a functioning democracy. That really skewed things in my opinion and isn't very helpful in comparison to a nation like the U.S.

<comment><USER33> > Also Venezuela has the curse of easy natural resources it's generally awful > for a functioning democracy

Which democracies have been hurt by this?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> It's hard not to think that democracy could be on the way out. People losing interest in democracy qua democracy, rather than what they can get out of it; the hero-worship of entrepreneur barons like Musk and Zuckerberg. Maybe the best we can hope for in the future is a benevolent corporate-style government.

For all the current furore right now about whether we're "normalizing" fascism, note that communism (as practised in China) is already pretty well normalized. Other countries are judged on how friendly they are, not their political systems, so China and Saudi Arabia are okay.

It would be great to see some real willingness to repair democracy in the US. Ditching the electoral college would be a small but significant step. Almost nobody likes it, after all! If we can just keep the discussion clear and calm, and separate the proposal to improve the system from the result of _this_ election, maybe we could make progress. I'm not holding my breath, though...

I would also love to see experimentation with really radical forms of democracy. For example, Arthur C Clarke's _The Songs of Distant Earth_ has a fun aside about random selection of leaders. The Venetian Republic apparently used multiple rounds of lotteries and nominations; incredible to think that such a complex system was used successfully for centuries. (Excellent writeup in the New Yorker: [http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/07/26/win-or- lose](http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/07/26/win-or-lose))

<comment><USER28> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_democracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_democracy)

Take this, and remove all references to "workers" and "proletariat", and it sounds like it could be a very workable system, more stable than direct democracy, but with a much faster feedback loop than any modern representative democracy (since any council can recall its delegate to the higher-level council at any point).

<comment><USER17> Yes, that's interesting! It failed pretty quickly in the USSR, though, so clearly additional checks and balances are needed:

 _Lenin_ […] _issued a "temporary" ban on factions in the Russian Communist Party. This ban remained until the revolutions of 1989 and according to critics made the democratic procedures within the party an empty formality._

<comment><USER28> In USSR, it was "workers' and peasants' councils" from the get go (so those not belonging to these two categories were excluded). And the real power was always in the hands of Sovnarkom. So I would say that USSR never really had council democracy other than in name - just like most "democratic people's republics" out there aren't democratic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> This reminds me Nick Hanauer video about the pitchforks that are coming. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbj6hIOMcSk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbj6hIOMcSk)

</comment><comment><USER35> One of the biggest irony is that a lot of dictators and there cronies are worried more then we are on democracy. Dislike it all you want- the day, your generals decide that you are no longer need - having money in a stable place half the world away, is a value for itself. Maybe those declining political party's could ask some African dictators for donation?

</comment><comment><USER36> There are currently serious discussions among the left as to whether or not protesters should 'Bundy up' to be taken seriously.

The last time we've seen something like this was during the heyday of the Black Panthers. Now, what does this say about trust in public institutions?

</comment><comment><USER37> What happened to that idea that Google wanted to create it's own country?

</comment><comment><USER38> The NYT were enthusiastic supporters of Fidel Castro, who was a communist. He visited their offices in person, mentioning that he couldn't have gotten into power without them. It could be that there is systematic bias at the NYT opposing democracy, except as a rhetorical technique to appeal to its readers. Castro's chief executioner had this to say:

 _A foreign reporter -- preferably American -- was much more valuable to us at that time (1957) than any military victory. Much more valuable than rural recruits for our guerrilla force, were American media recruits to export our propaganda._

They didn't seem to like Hugo Chavez(mentioned in the article, and a socialist) at the time, which is evidence against it being a general trend. I'd need to look at other leaders to see if it is systematic from the NYT. Maybe Hugo just wasn't as good at dealing with the media: [http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/venezuela/chavez2.htm](http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/venezuela/chavez2.htm)

There could be bias from this specific author, though. If this author was going to write any article at all, it was going to be about Trump destroying Democracy. The same author used to work at Vox and there are many other articles comparing him to a dictator: [http://www.vox.com/authors/amanda- taub](http://www.vox.com/authors/amanda-taub)

How much independence are NYT writers given? Does the company take a stance on certain issues? Is there selection bias for certain employees, even if there's no explicit company policy on politics? This could be measured to some extent by checking political donations from employees associated with the NYT. I think that data is public.

None of these necessarily oppose their argument, but good evidence and arguments subjected to enough selection bias can say any story you want it to. [http://lesswrong.com/lw/js/the_bottom_line/](http://lesswrong.com/lw/js/the_bottom_line/)

Does the difference correlate well with immigration patterns? A lot of the European countries are admitting many refugees and migrants from countries with a lot of corruption. The US might have many migrants from Mexico or other Central or South American countries with a higher corruption index. It could be that the migrants don't care about democracies, because they weren't raised in a culture that cares about democracies.

I'm 27 and prefer a Republic to a Democracy, since it keeps more power closer to the people governed. I haven't looked at their study to see if I would count as a younger person opposed to Democracy.

Sanders is a socialist and he seems to be pretty popular. It could be that people are warming up to socialism or communism. That's different from the system of government, but depending on how they did the study they could've said that socialists are not in favor of democracies.

</comment><comment><USER39> United States isn't a democracy. It's a republic

<comment><USER36> A republic is a country that is not governed by a king or queen.

Russia is a republic. China is a republic. Canada is not a republic. Japan is not a republic.

Describing a form of government as a republic is almost entirely meaningless. It's a split-hair thought-stopper that adds nothing to the conversation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Not to fear my fellow Americans! The U.S.A is a Republic not a Democracy. . . Although, many view it as a democracy. . .even president's do the same. [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13019834](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13019834)

<comment><USER28> The USA is a democracy under the 21st century dictionary definition of the word "democracy", which includes representative democracies like USA.

It is _also_ a republic.

To be very specific, it is a constitutional federal democratic representative republic.

Now, back when the Declaration of Independence was written, your statement was true - for the simple reason that the word "democracy" was very exotic then, as was the form of government itself. The people who used it then, used it more in a sense of Aristotelian dichotomy between demokratia and politeia (the latter word was later somewhat incorrectly translated to Latin as "res publica"), and generally implying direct democracy.

Since then, numerous new democratic states appeared, with various differences in their specific arrangements - and so there was a need for a word that would describe the things that are common to all of them, and distinguish them from states with other forms of government. "Democracy" happened to be the one that was already in use, but also rare enough that its evolution wouldn't be bothersome, and its etymology made it the perfect candidate; and so, here we are.

So, what you were really trying to say - assuming that you meant the original 18th century meanings of the words - translates to modern English as, "USA is a representative democracy, not a direct democracy".

Well, duh.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Wisefin – Turn messy bank transactions into beautiful data - <AUTHOR> https://wisefin.ai/ <comment><USER2> Great idea. For personal finance the problem I have isn't with things like Spotify but genuinely weird one off transactions from merchants that I bet wouldn't be in a db like this and it's hard to find out what it was. I'm not sure what the solution is except the banks sharing more metadata about the transaction with their users, it must be technically possible to trace it through somehow. I think it is worse when companies are small and group together or share company names t merchant accounts e.g. the local plumber runs a coffee shop too and so you'd see a completely different description.

Where you could solve this is to get so big that even those things will be in your db because you have so many users (ie most people are using this). But my problem is also solve by legislation about transaction descriptions that banks have to follow.

(I'm not in the USA)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Some background: initially, I started off working on a personal finance app and discovered that transaction info was in a terrible state, even with the big guys like Plaid.

Transaction names were a mess: "170220 SPOTI P23ZFA90EA", "SPOTIF" "AMZN 44237", "AMAZON.COM". And there definitely was no chance in hell I'd get something like a logo...

Over time, I developed an internal solution that really just blew everything out of the water. Slowly, by word of mouth, it started gaining some interest from direct and distant colleagues. Finally, I decided to test out the waters by creating an API for the internal toolkit I had already been using myself. This is the result. Cheers!

</comment><comment><USER3> Really nice idea, great execution. Also great to see an Edinburgh company :)</comment>


Help me out and test diystartupnews.com - <AUTHOR> http://diystartupnews.com I just uploaded a wordpress site hacked to be a User Generated content site.
The concept is simple, anyone can post a startup related article but there is a catch and it is the article can only be 240 chars long.
Its pretty simple and is really just a proof of concept. Any feedback or bugs found would be welcome.
Thanks Darren <comment><USER2> Hey DarrenStuart, I just checked out DiyStartupnews.com, and a couple of things come across -

1\. Nice layout. Clean, I like the layout and color choice. Nice site URL and catchy phrasing ;-). Very twiterrish... But I am not sure what your intention here is, which brings up point No.2

2\. The about page is empty. I can see that the home page pretty much says it all, but then either consider putting everything a user might need on the home page and get rid of the About link, or actually use the about link.

3\. If click the "Submit News" link without filling in anything, I get no error, but then nothing happens either. Same with filling out only some of the fields (there's nothing telling me all fields are mandatory, which I am assuming they are)

4\. The news story can have 240 characters. Maybe I dont see it, but is the intention here to provide just a gist of what the news is about? You also trim away anything more than 240 characters. This could be misleading because I might be copy pasting thinking that my content is going to show as-is, only to realize that well, it does not. I would rather have validation tell me I crossed the limit, than be surprised after posting.

5\. On the other hand, when I got to post a comment, leave all the fields blank, and hit Submit, I get a page with a "Wordpress error" on it.

Just my 2 cents. Good work, hope this helps.

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks for the feedback,

2\. There should be a page there but I just realised that I didn't port that page over from the development site.

3.odd you should get a message box telling you what fields you missed. what browser are you on? also if you have JS off it should just change pages and display a list of missing fields.

4\. Sorry yeah this is explained in the missing about us page. I did it because I wanted people to get to the point and make the site viewable in a mobile with no modifying.

5\. yeah thats standard wordpress funcationality I will fix it.

<comment><USER2> I am on FF 2 on Windows... I have JS enabled and did not get the pop-up (Tried it again...)

Just saw the About page, and yup, that does it for No. 2.

<comment><USER3> It'd probably be helpful if it worked _without_ javascript too.

<comment><AUTHOR> it does. I made sure of it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> That header font is dead ugly. Kinda reminds me of Comic Sans-ish or something.

<comment><AUTHOR> I am glad you got that, its meant to be that way for the DIY feel.

<comment><USER3> The font turned me off right away. Using a simple hand written font might look better and still get the point across. Also, the red on mint isn't so appealing. Maybe a graphite on mint, with darker green links for accent?

<comment><AUTHOR> Ok I have changed the colours now. I am not sure about the font at the moment.

<comment><USER3> I like those colors better. Can you make the logo link back to the homepage too? I've clicked on it at least 3 times thinking it should..

<comment><AUTHOR> sure I was being lazy :p</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Everything is Fintech, so now what? - <AUTHOR> https://astra.finance/blog/everything-is-fintech-so-now-what/ <comment><USER2> Thanks for posting my article! Happy to answer any questions you all might have on our take for fintech and what's next.</comment>


How We Went From Being Virtually Unknown to 3k Signups a Day in 5 Weeks - <AUTHOR> http://dshipper.posterous.com/how-we-went-from-being-virtually-unknown-to-3

<comment><USER2> I still can't work out what it actually does, and why I would want to join.

Is there information anywhere about why I should be interested?

Having visited <http://wheremyfriends.be/> I gues it draws an animated map of where it thinks my Facebook friends are currently located.

Is that it?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yup that's what it is. It's a simple app to draw your friends on a map.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> It's great to hear someone gets excited about being featured on Mashable but that's only a nice start. The press buzz quickly goes down and so does the fresh stream of users. Here is where the real test begins: if the startup is able to keep the users and make more of them sign up.

<comment><USER4> I agree that this coverage is only the beginning, but it seems that they're riding an extended wave of signups rather than just a quick burst. A week long stretch of 3k new users/day is an encouraging start. I truly hope that the virality they've built into the app will help sustain the growth a bit longer.

I don't think viral effects alone will be enough to turn the project into a sustainable startup however. The current value proposition of "see how worldly you are" doesn't have me reaching for my wallet anytime soon.

<comment><USER5> I would have to say Dan, Ajay, and I all agree. After reading blogs and articles (including a great one from Fred Wilson) we know growth comes in step-wise functions. Press coverage/big-story etc will spike growth, then it will level it down a bit. The better the value proposition, the less it will drop. Also we understand that sites with features get viral bumps, and it is up to the entrepreneur to keep building and keep them their for a sustained business (i.e. Instagram).

All that said, WhereMyFriends.Be was truly a fun web app that we wanted to put out there. We made it for ourselves to see if we could do it, then when we thought other people would enjoy it we started making it public and releasing it. As of now, we still have no intention of making it into a sustainable business [unless any of you have any suggestions...]. We are just looking to have a little fun, and give people a fun thing to play with.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> That's an interesting story, but it has little value to entrepreneurs, unless there's a lot more to the story. How did you go from unknown to 3K signups? You got listed on Mashable. That's it?

<comment><AUTHOR> While I can see where you are coming from I don't think that our success boils down to "just getting listed on Mashable." We didn't just snap our fingers and one day get on Mashable. We had to come up with an idea, design it, execute it and promote it. All of those factors played into our being featured. Once featured we also had to make sure the servers stayed up, deal with users and try to help spread the app further. And all of those factors will be described in detail in forthcoming posts - I thought it would be relevant and interesting to give some of the back story first.

<comment><USER6> I didn't mean to judge you precipitously. Will now withhold judgement until Part 2 ships. :-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> wheres the rest of the story? i was soo into in lol! really good writing

<comment><AUTHOR> Part two comes tomorrow!</comment></comment>


MetaLab launches Flow Concierge personal assistant service - <AUTHOR> http://www.getflow.com/concierge/

<comment><USER2> As an avid user and supporter of Flow I'm pretty sure this is a step in the wrong direction. The effort it takes to launch another offer in this already competitive market distracts them from some much needed updates to justify their price.

I was happy to pay the $10/mo for what looked like a promising service, but with other task management apps making real progress towards helping me manage my tasks and MetaLab focusing on monetization, I'm not sure I'll renew.

<comment><USER3> Hey Steve,

We view this as a business within a business. Nobody from the Flow development team is being distracted with Concierge, it's just another part of the MetaLab umbrella.

Also, I find it weird that you think us "focusing on monetization" is a bad thing. What's wrong with having a sustainable business?

-Andrew

<comment><USER4> Wow, no idea who's downvoting. Have a sympathetic upvote for answering honestly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is really exciting. If this stood alone as it's own service and paired with Siri, well... take my money! But something niggling with the banner: the strange depth of field, combined with the sheer size and incorrect angle of the laptop cannot be unseen.

</comment><comment><USER5> Nicely done. Really.

Nice way to differentiate and monetize yourself from the competition.

Would it not be good to be able to assign a one-off task to a concierge (a la Exec)? Alternatively, have a "roll over" for unused tasks.

</comment><comment><USER6> I wonder if they're using somebody else for the actual assistant. It seems like a big business to build outside your core competency, otherwise. Great feature regardless.

<comment><USER7> Wow, that does seem like quite a departure from the original business. And MetaLab pitches itself much more as front-end expert. Is it conceivable this is a front-end for some other virtual assistant service?

<comment><USER6> My first thought was FancyHands, but the pricing is different enough that I'm not sure.

<comment><USER8> The pricing is actually the same but TR said it is not backed by FH. [https://mobile.twitter.com/tedroden/status/20798591017065267...](https://mobile.twitter.com/tedroden/status/207985910170652673)

<comment><USER6> Ah, interesting. I was thinking that there was no $95/unlimited option, but I guess for a white label you wouldn't want it anyway.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> After using a few of these services, I realize why they're so useless: you never have a flow. You're interacting with a changing team, with huge time delays (hours in reality) in between request and response. In my experience it would be better placing the same email text in a search engine. Maybe they've cracked this nut though.

I can't help but wonder, why go so far out of their core competency? Maybe they've invested in a support team and hope to generate ROI? It just doesn't seem to make sense from a focus perspective.</comment>


What are common mistakes made in multithreaded programming? - <AUTHOR> https://www.quora.com/What-are-common-mistakes-made-in-multithreaded-programming?share=1 <comment><USER2> One mistake I see a lot is leaving debug that causes sleeps to occur during thread execution. So while it may still be faster than a single thread, the sleeps slow things down more than it could be.

I see this debug pattern in a lot of tutorials, but no explanation why they show it, and no guidance when to turn it off.

I have also seen bugs that rely on the sleep for functionality to work correctly and have had to fix logic to turn off the sleep. So it is good practice to test production release mode after initial development in dev release mode.</comment>


F*** You, I Quit – Hiring Is Broken - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@evnowandforever/f-you-i-quit-hiring-is-broken-bb8f3a48d324#.lobe5qw5y <comment><USER2> I work with a small Django team as part of a bigger organization. Our hiring process is pretty simple: we send the candidates a specification (that actually happens to be one of our open tickets!) and they build a simple Django app around it. Currently the specification is a simple inventory tracking system, complete with some anonymised (and inconsistent) data to import from a spreadsheet.

That, a phone interview and an hour-long face to face interview is all we need to figure out if the candidate is a good fit. The programming exercise can be done in good time by the candidate, using their tools and with no pressure. The resulting code is a great indication of how well they know Python and Django and gives us a lot to talk about in the face to face interview.

I'm not sure why some companies need a gruelling 4+ hour interrogation style interview process. Asking someone to code on a whiteboard would be as uncomfortable for me as it would be for them.

<comment><USER3> Why? There are so many candidates to chose from they might as well scare off people who don't want to do that for a job.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Lack of feedback is indeed the biggest problem with interviewing. I've been through interviews that I absolutely aced, followed by complete silence. It's probably a legal thing.

Keep in mind that it's not all about your coding ability, it could have been your smell, arrogance, the way you talk, etc (not saying any of it actually applies to the author, these are just examples).

</comment><comment><USER5> Previous discussion thread [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11579757](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11579757)

</comment><comment><USER6> Haha I can't even imagine the hubris necessary to claim that one would rather be homeless to do another interview at a technology company.

This post helps me sympathize with the angry SF-ians angry at all the techies.</comment>


Show HN: Checklister - Quickly generate checklists for printing - <AUTHOR> http://hellerbarde.github.com/checklister/

<comment><AUTHOR> This is yesterday's afternoon project. Because I think it could be useful for someone, I decided to share it with you. Feel free to judge me for my sub-par HTML/CSS/JS skills. They are what I'm trying to hone with such projects.

I should mention that I'm aware that I didn't need all of bootstrap and jQuery and Mousetrap to achieve the little functionality I have, but I am trying to learn to work with those frameworks, so for my exercise it was the right choice.

Edit: There is a Keyboard Shortcut: "Ctrl-Enter" adds an item and focuses it. Tab cycles through the items.

</comment><comment><USER2> Shortcuts would have been nice, so you didn't have to switch to 'mouse mode'

<comment><AUTHOR> Ctrl-Enter makes a new item and focuses it.

<comment><USER2> nice, tried every combination I could think of.</comment></comment></comment>


The Software Behind Frank Gehry's Geometrically Complex Architecture - <AUTHOR> http://priceonomics.com/the-software-behind-frank-gehrys-geometrically/ <comment><USER2> Interesting article, I had no idea Frank Gehry led the rise of BIM software.

Though the article didn't really go into it, there is a distinction between Building Information Modeling (BIM) software and parametric design software.

BIM programs combine the architectural model with the other elements of the construction - such as things like wiring, plumbing, etc - so that as one thing changes, everyone can be on the same page. They also have version control. The programs can also track construction timelines and costs.

Parametric design software is different - it lets you create more complex designs through algorithms. You can make small tweaks in the parameters of a design and see how it affects the final result, as everything is tied together. This is behind a lot of the crazy and organic-looking architecture you see today. To do that stuff by hand in a 3D modeling program could be quite painful. I know Grasshopper[1] is a well-known Rhino plugin for this.

(I don't know a ton about this stuff, as I switched from an architecture degree to CS after a year once I realized tools like Grasshopper existed. I decided I'd rather learn to program and apply it to architecture then learn architecture and try to pick up some programming)

[1] [http://www.grasshopper3d.com/](http://www.grasshopper3d.com/)

<comment><USER3> Thanks for the information on Grasshopper. I use other software for procedural graphic works, so I was wondering--does Grasshopper do any kind of structural engineering support work, or is it mainly for auditioning procedurally- generated shapes?

(BTW my CS advisor flipped his top every time he heard someone say they were studying CS to learn programming. I left CS after hearing that lecture a few times. :))

<comment><USER4> We use GH (Grasshopper) to generate fully attributed and restrained models for FEA packages and then pipe them over real time to visualize (in the FEA pacakage) and run solvers. It allows us to create complex and very large FEA models quickly and iteratively to solve some tricky engineering problems.

There are structural solutions on top of GH like Karamba [0] and interesting physics engines like Kangaroo [1].

[0]: [http://www.karamba3d.com/](http://www.karamba3d.com/) [1]: [http://www.grasshopper3d.com/group/kangaroo](http://www.grasshopper3d.com/group/kangaroo)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Here's an article on one of the Gehry's buildings designed from the crumpling paper technique as described: [http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/preview-of-gehry- opening-a-young-a...](http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/preview-of-gehry-opening-a- young-aussie-student-whose-design-features-at-the-business-schools-very- heart-20150201-132pxr.html)

It's 50m from my office and every time I walk past it I worry the metal frame of the glass windows is about to fall - in fact one corner is already damaged with a glass panel broken from what appears to have been a truck crashing into the bit of it that hung over the road.

</comment><comment><USER6> A believe the software is just a random number generator.</comment>


A bright future for Gnome(2012) and now? - <AUTHOR> http://www.slideshare.net/juanjosanchezpenas/brightfuture-gnome <comment><AUTHOR> What I see is, now we have tablet ready Linux DEs. But there is no proper production ready Linux tablets. But the worse part is sooner or later Android will support windowed applications, then what will be happen to Linux DEs?</comment>


Did Corkd Get Hackd? - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/01/07/did-corkd-get-hackd/ <comment><USER2> LOL, I have to know, did TC actually have it like that when they first published? My comments are in [ ], this is the text FTA

"If you try to visit the URL for wine review website Corkd [<\-- this was a link], you'll automatically get rerouted to porn site Adult Friend Finder (obviously NSFW) [<\--- and this, later on, was their warning]"

I can just imagine people clicking it, curious to what the hack is, and then learning that they shouldn't have ;)

</comment><comment><USER3> The video response by Gary Vaynerchuk was amusing.

</comment><comment><USER4> Why isn't Corkd more successful. In the comments, Gary said he's been putting on the back burner. If it was more successful he'd give it more of his time, no? Why would you do to make Corkd more successful? It's a great concept.

<comment><USER5> I initially interpreted that comment to mean corkd.com at this point runs itself(code wise at least), so the developers are working on other projects. But you raise a good point, and I surely do not have any knowledge to say otherwise.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> The news isn't massively interesting but Gary is excellent as ever. I'd recommend watching the video response because this is the reason Gary has such a crazy following.

His personal hands on style has really helped Winelibrary.tv upscale their business. In terms of tips for promoting your business Gary is definitely someone to keep an eye on.

</comment><comment><USER7> _the site now reads a message that they'll be back shortly, so it was definitely a malicious act._

How does this make sense?

There didn't seem to be any hard damage done to any part of the site, as the comments said it looked more like an injection attack, so what's malicious? Looks to be more of a prank than anything.

<comment><USER8> I'd say it could be described as "malicious" to redirect a site's traffic to another site, especially an adult one. It's not "good, clean fun", that's for sure. It has consequences for people.

<comment><USER7> True points, I was more commenting on how the connection between an admission that 'the site was compromised, we're going to take some time to fix things' resulting in a _definite_ conclusion that the attack was malicious worked.</comment></comment></comment>


Yahoo Homepage – Now Featuring Extra-Scammy Scams - <AUTHOR> http://politicsjunkie.com/yahoo-homepage-now-featuring-scams/ <comment><USER2> Just want to point out that AdChoices is NOT owned by Google, and they do NOT serve any advertising.

It's a program organised by the DAA (Digital Advertising Alliance) which is itself formed of several other advertising associations, the goal of which is to be a self-regulatory program allowing to opt out of online behavioral advertising, so that you do not have to see any behavior targeted ads if you choose not to.

Google's display network is a part of the AdChoices program, but not every ad showing that icon is a Google ad. In fact, from the yahoo.com homepage, only the banner ads seem to be served by Google, sponsored articles are being served by Yahoo! directly. If you click the AdChoices button it will actually tell you who is placing the ad.

I'm not the biggest paladin of Google, but in this case everything points to the ad being served by Yahoo!

EDIT: From what I could find, it's likely the ads are being served by the Yahoo! streamads[0] self-serve platform.

Programmatic is always tricky to properly validate, because it's expensive to fact check every single creative that comes through. It's likely that, if reported, Yahoo will ban the advertiser from their platform.

Facebook uses a whitelist approach where they'll manually validate your first few creatives and then whitelist you for automatic validation, not sure if Yahoo employs the same method.

[0] [https://streamads.yahoo.com/](https://streamads.yahoo.com/)

<comment><USER3> You wrote "it's expensive to fact check every single creative that comes through"

I'm surprised they fact check _any_ ads. Many publications don't have the budget to fact check their news, features, or editorials, never mind the ads.

<comment><USER4> I worked at Earthlink in the mid nineties, and happened to sit next to the girl that approved all the ad placements on the site's (yahoo-like) start page. She would casually lean over and ask me if this or that medical claim seemed plausible. I typically said no. The claims were often so snake oily even the most modest biology background, or just common sense would refute them. Thankfully she had the sense to ask.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> 99% of online advertisers give the rest a bad name.

Not only is this why online advertising is ultimately doomed, but it's why we hugely and desperately and badly need to find another way of paying for content.

The alternatives for the moment are gratis, patronage, "native advertising", and subscriptions. Few of these strike me as ultimately scalable.

I've been a fan of Phil Hunt, of Pirate Party UK, and his broadband tax proposal after more-or-less independently coming up with the same idea myself. Hunt's proposal was principally aimed at music. I see no reason why it cannot apply to _all_ content published and distributed online.

[http://cabalamat.wordpress.com/2009/01/27/a-broadband-tax- fo...](http://cabalamat.wordpress.com/2009/01/27/a-broadband-tax-for-the-uk/)

My own sketched proposal: [http://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/1uotb3/a_modest...](http://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/1uotb3/a_modest_proposal_universal_online_media_payment/) [http://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2h0h81/specifyi...](http://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2h0h81/specifying_a_universal_online_media_payment/)

<comment><USER6> > Not only is this why online advertising is ultimately doomed, but it's why > we hugely and desperately and badly need to find another way of paying for > content.

Another viable option is letting a lot of the content die. I'm sure we can all live without knowing that one neat trick that you won't believe.

In your proposal:

> ... constant challenge for any creative type is making a living.

Well perhaps if that's the case what you do is not valuable to anyone. Over time economic cycles destroy things that were once valuable. There used to be whole industries selling ice from icebergs in London. I bet they were rather upset when domestic refrigeration became popular.

Music as a physical medium is no longer very valuable due to a nexus of the proliferation of arbitrarily reproducible data systems and a decrease in the perception of value of non live performance music.

The suggestions of a broadband tax etc are insane and the work of lobbyists and other socially destructive parasites.

<comment><USER7> _... constant challenge for any creative type is making a living.

Well perhaps if that's the case what you do is not valuable to anyone._

People have trouble coming to terms with the fact that they don't necessarily deserve to earn a living because they're doing something they like. It's like people are incapable of growing up anymore.

<comment><USER8> Something tells me that you benefit daily from the efforts of people who had difficulty earning a living from their craft at some point. Do you listen to music, watch television or movies, appreciate art, read books or web content? The creators of those things didn't all start out as highly acclaimed millionaires. Most of them spent years making things that weren't valuable to anyone.

There are an abundance of people who are capable of earning a living through a variety of work. There are very few people who are capable of consistently providing you with a few hours of diversion or entertainment. Do you really think that the world would be a better place if all of those lazy creative people got jobs at mcdonalds instead of making things that bring small moments of joy to billions of people? There would be no books for young children to read, no songs for teenagers to get excited about at their first dance, no movies for old people to be nostalgic about. It takes a lifetime of work to hone the skills necessary to create those things, and a lot of financial and personal risk that most of us aren't willing to assume. I don't know if a 'creative tax' is the right solution, but we could all be a little more understanding.

<comment><USER6> And yet, despite this apparently dire situation, their output still exists.

<comment><USER5> But who is benefiting from its existence? The creators or the current license holders?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I was originally against ad-blockers, because it provides me with an incentive to look for alternatives and I also want to reward websites that don't do this shit.

However, it's because of scams and malware pushed by means of ads that I started using ad-blockers myself and I recommend it to all my non-technical friends.

It's also the reason for why on my Android I'm now using Firefox. For Google to not provide at least a glimpse of a plan for Chrome's add-ons support on Android is unacceptable, for one because I now expect my browser to have add- ons support and I originally started using Chrome based on this expectation and because on mobile these websites are even more aggressive in pushing their ads. And with Firefox I can use AdBlock Plus on my Android, with uBlock coming soon.

<comment><USER10> I am thinking, maybe I should get an ad-blocker. Not tu reward the webistes, but stop punishing poor folks who buy ads and then waste money showing them to me, because I never click them…

<comment> saiya-jin ads are paid by click, no? so if you don't click, no harm done

<comment><USER11> Some are CPM/RPM, some are CPC and some ultimately require an arbitrary "action" which can sometimes be a conversion.

There are plenty of ad networks that will pay you some nominal amount just to display an ad to 'users.'

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Adwords is becoming increasingly bad with these kind of ads lately. Yahoo are lucky that they don't have the automatic redirecting version that simply takes visitors away from your site onto these fake landing pages. Most of them seem to be coming from compromised adwords accounts.

As a publisher it's very difficult to do anything about this since Google apparently let adwords publishers insert arbitrary javascript into their ad code. This makes it so the ad creative and "destination domain" in the review center mean absolutely nothing, and since the JS won't execute from the review center you have no idea which ads are responsible.

<comment><USER13> I have no idea why ad networks don't have two fields for advertisers: a plain PNG image and a URL to link to. I guess the answer is somehow "money," but I feel like client websites would have enough incentive to switch to the network that works this way to avoid this BS for their users.

<comment><USER14> Most ads use multiple tracking pixels for various 3rd party analytics and measurement. Some of these analytics require runtime inspection of the page to confirm things like domain, viewability, height and width, page language,etc. So your average ad requires loading a dozen empty images ("pixels") and running a bit of JavaScript.

<comment><USER13> And people are baffled when they learn I use NoScript.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This is the dark side of the massive shift to programmatic ad buying and selling which nobody wants to talk about. Compliance has largely been tossed aside in search of maximum yield. Sad but definitely the trend for the future.

<comment><USER16> Do you have any citation for this? I am not seeing more bad actors when working with various programmatic ad exchanges.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> > "[...]I ordered one bottle of Brain Storm Elite, entered my payment and > shipping info, next thing I know, I have been charged $144 for another > product "The Memory Plus". I NEVER gave "MP" any CC information or anything, > when I called BrainStorm about this, they say they are affiliated but do not > have access to Memory Plus accounts, I asked how Memory Plus got my credit > card information because the only website I was on was for BrainStorm. Big > Surprise, someone else would have to get back to me on that. Filed report > with BBB."

How do these companies survive having their merchant accounts closed after all the inevitable chargebacks?

<comment><USER18> All they do is rebrand and start up another company under another name.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> My favorites are Taboola and Outbrain who basically do this as a turnkey service. They've both received $99m+ in funding...

As as a user, I've never seen these as remotely valuable.

[https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/taboola](https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/taboola)

[https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/outbrain](https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/outbrain)

<comment><USER5> "Favorites" in what sense? As in "favorite to hate"?

I block both within CSS (I use a stylesheet manager) and may well block the hosts / domains they feed from.

They're absolutely worthless.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> This kind of thing is, frankly, yet another reason why I employ an adblocker.

<comment><USER21> That is why I don't mind almost all current advertising, my ad blocker (disconnect.me) does a fantastic job.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I've worked primarily on the publisher side and observed such advertisements, but where to point the finger can be really difficult. There are so many affected parties here.

Should Yahoo be held at fault by the consumer? What does that even mean, a boycott? Does Yahoo have a direct relationship with these scammers, or how many connections away are they? Is this a network or programatic placement? Do discovery magazine and CNN go after this company for trademark issues? Does this former homeless man go after them for endorsement issues? Does it even have a US point of presence at all?

</comment><comment><USER23> This is great detective work, and hopefully Yahoo steps in and fixes this.

Online advertising has become and more vicious - on all my computers, I run adblock/no script, etc, but on my phone, browsing sites like retractionwatch or theatlantic, I've been redirected to full page ads for subscription services where the automatic subscription button is about 1mm where the 'close window' button appears.

<comment><USER24> > and hopefully Yahoo steps in and fixes this.

and Forbes, CNN, Discover Magazine, etcetera sue both the company for plagiarism, as well as copyright and trademark infringements. They should probably sue the advertising company behind it too, those organizations have the moral obligation IMO to ensure the quality and legitimacy of the companies that buy advertising with them.

<comment><USER25> All shell companies I bet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Hm, now the link in the article (www.discoverpresentsonline.com/david- brain/report.html) just redirects to the real discover magazine.

<comment><USER27> In the article it mentions it only lets you see the article if you have the tracking cookie from the ad

<comment><USER28> That part made me scratch my head a bit, because they shouldn't have access to Yahoo cookies.

I think the article meant the http referrer needed to be yahoo?

<comment><USER13> Possibly. Can you set cookies over JavaScript? Ad networks allow ad providers to inject arbitrary JavaScript into their clients' websites.

<comment><USER28> You can set and read cookies using Javascript, but due to same-origin policies that are present in all modern browsers, it shouldn't be possible for a non- Yahoo domains to read cookies set by Yahoo.

There might be some exception that I'm not aware of, but that would seem like a pretty serious browser security issue.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> It has been way for a while, but it has gotten worse.

I used to check out Yahoo Finance once a day because it used to have real financial news but now if you look at the front page template about 60% of it is allocated to the same scam ads that run over and over and less than 40% to real content.

Needless to say I don't use Yahoo Finance regularly anymore.

</comment><comment><USER30> Seems like branding is the way to go on the internet, rather than throwing crap in peoples faces.

Example: Yahoo News, brought to you ad free by Nationwide Insurance

Then people think "I like Yahoo News, I like Nationwide Insurance" instead of "I hate that scummy ad, I hate Yahoo News".

<comment><USER31> personally, if I see something branded, then of primary concern to me is if their opinion is compromised.

That said, I wouldn't expect much that is trustworthy coming from yahoo anyway.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Anyone have experience blocking ads at the firewall level? Possibly too many URLs to block? Also, what's Yahoo? ;) DDG FTW

</comment><comment><USER33> That is quite disturbing.

</comment><comment><USER34> >Do companies like Brainstorm Elite ever pay the price for wholesale fraud and the theft of brand identities?

Yes, they do. The FTC takes them for every penny they got. At least the big ones.

[http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/01/the- dark...](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/01/the-dark-lord-of- the-internet/355726/)

<comment><USER35> Whereupon their creators it seems walk away and start the next dodgy company. Glancing at the Atlantic article "Jesse Willms is doing just fine financially—and he has a new yellow Lamborghini to prove it" and is advertising "just $1 for a vehicle-history report" and then billing $199 to peoples credit cards. Methinks the laws could be tightened a tad.

<comment><USER34> Internet sarcasm fail. I'm sorry.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Shame on Yahoo!

</comment><comment><USER37> This makes me want to puke. Nice one, Yahoo.... makes you look GREAT.</comment>


Verizon.com is down - <AUTHOR> http://www.verizon.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Coincidentally I was trying to cancel my telephone service. Was told last night I need to create a whole new account to just have internet, they couldn't remove the phone.</comment>


Which one cost more in development : Android vs iOS - <AUTHOR> http://pixelstech.net/article/index.php?id=1332524388

<comment><USER2> Java developers make less than "other developers"? This is news to me. Also: This is news to me.

</comment><comment><USER3> What if platform x costs 1.5 times as much to develop for, but then sells 3 times as many copies? (Assuming the same app price across platforms.)</comment>