Default Alive or Default Dead? - <AUTHOR> http://paulgraham.com/aord.html <comment><USER2> In the world of high angle rope rescue, we have a concept called the "whistle test". The idea is that if someone were to randomly blow a whistle at _any_ point, and everyone let go of whatever they were holding, that no one would be dropped.

It takes a lot of thought and planning to make sure you're 'default alive' in all circumstances. It slows you down, and it requires you to think through the implications of every decision, big and small.

This sounds like a fairly similar notion...

<comment><USER3> Here's an interesting thought in response: (Keep in mind I know jack about rope rescue, so I'm making assumption as to what it is)

Imagine you had 100 people do a "rope rescue race". Half of them used all the safety mechanisms (they would pass the "whistle test"). The other half didn't use any safety/redundancy (they would fail the "whistle test"), but instead relied on their skill. In the end, it's likely that a few of the high-risk ones would die. But it's also likely that many of the high-risk ones would survive, and also that they would be the winners of the race. The safer, lower risk ones would eventually get there, but far behind the high risk ones.

Startups are the high-risk ones.

<comment><USER4> That's psychotic.

I don't rope rescue, but I sure do rock climb. You can rock climb with ropes or without. Ropes = a large safety margin, and the majority of people who climb, utilize them, as part of their safety system. Unless you're pushing your own grade level, the actual safety system isn't actuated - you're just using it "just in case" (like, "just in case you fall from a cliff, 500 feet up - gee it's nice I'm tied to something).

There are also those who climb without ropes. Perhaps you've heard of some of them [0], and most likely, because they actually climb without a rope. High Risk. Your idea of startups, let's say.

But that's just what the public sees. The free soloist has to be absolutely comfortable to go without the safety margin of a rope. Because of that, the majority of their climbing is done, still with a rope. When they go ropeless, the climbs they do are much, much easier. Yes, the risk is there, but also there is the understanding, clearly, what the risk is really about.

The death rate of climbers that are unwilling to _ever_ use a rope, because they find that high risk = high reward would be close to 100%. But those who do survive are not going to be doing too well - they're never going to progress.

So, perhaps startups have this illusion of high risk, but maybe also they're also kidding themselves. They're burning through their lives, and offloading the real risk onto their safety systems - whoever is putting up the money. And they can do that (the investors), as they've diversified their portfolio enough that risk is spread around.

[0] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SR1jwwagtaQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SR1jwwagtaQ)

<comment><USER5> Reminds me of this: Make the climb like the child did - without the rope.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXxw- zXRqOs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXxw-zXRqOs)

The rope makes you weak!

<comment><USER6> The same movie also lets the protagonist heal from a incapacitating spinal injury in a dusty pit -

So I'm not sure if this is a pro- or anti-rope statement :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > The startling thing is how often the founders themselves don't know. Half > the founders I talk to don't know whether they're default alive or default > dead.

This accurately reflects my own experience. Most common pitfall: converting VC capital to users at a rate that will not sustain the company once the VC capital runs out. So many companies fall into this particular trap that it should have a name of its own.

Bought growth is only worth it if the users remain long enough to make back the money you pumped into them at the time of acquisition _in net profits_ otherwise you might as well do without them.

I'm not sure if the reference to airbnb helps, whatever they did, they're an outlier and simply doing what they did without carefully evaluating your reasons is going to work about as well as any other cargo-cult strategy to success, it would be (a lot) more useful to see this point expressed in an alternate form, start-ups funded by YC in cohorts of months from when they started hiring besides the founders compared to their survival rate.

<comment><USER8> My suspicion is most founders actually do have a pretty good idea of the answer on some level of consciousness, but avoid thinking about because it's terrifying.

I'd lay heavy odd the subconscious thought process goes along the lines of "If I'm default dead I have no idea how to fix it and so I feel powerless about it and that terrifies me and so I don't want to think about it and so I don't know the answer."

Not that that's exactly a successful strategy, but people don't always lock on successful strategies.

<comment><USER9> As a founder, I know all too well how easy it can be to ignore these potential issues. The funny thing is when you actually confront them and analyze your situation, you _gain_ control. It's more relieving _knowing_ than ignoring (because you never really ignore something like this without knowing you're doing it).

<comment><USER7> That's very strongly tied into personal responsibility, if you identify a problem _and_ you tie it to your own performance you essentially look the problem in the eye and you say 'I can fix this'. If you ignore the problem or make yourself believe it is someone else's job or problem to fix this then you make it impossible for yourself to do something about it which hands control of your future to outsiders. The more problems you're willing to confront and analyze the bigger your chances of succeeding because all of those will be _your_ problems and therefore very likely fixable.

<comment><USER10> Success is more random than your suggesting. IMO, the goal is to take risks that are in your favor. The less you know the harder this becomes.

If your default alive then you should consider being somewhat conservative. But, if your default dead then you need to risk something because your already losing.

<comment><USER7> The randomness of luck only comes into play when you've done everything else right, it's one huge 'AND' gate with luck as one of the factors. If you mess up on one of the others you're still dead no matter how lucky you were.

So by improving the rest of the gate functions the importance of the luck element goes up because it may be at some point the only item between you and success and then if it swings your way you're suddenly doing very well.

See also: the myth of the overnight success. All that is is a ton of preparatory work and _one_ opportunity properly seized.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It's amazing to me how deeply ingrained software profit margins are into the start-up world. That calculator...we're an ecommerce company that holds inventory...I spent 30 seconds searching for how to set gross margins on the revenue then realized it assumes all revenue is 100% gross margin. In most businesses (read: anything other than software and maybe pharma), manipulating margin is one of the biggest levers (maybe THE biggest) you have to affect profitability.

Not to mention other big levers like working capital (and potentially running a business with negative WC and generating cash, a la Amazon). It's funny to be running a start-up in SF and still feel a world apart from a lot of the ecosystem.

<comment><USER12> Is there a better word? Net revenue? It should be the bottom line of everything that scales, while the red line is the bottom line of everything that's O(1), like engineering. GAAP doesn't seem to have a specific word for that.

<comment><USER13> Gross profits is the term.

Gross profits is net revenue minus cost of goods sold. Cost of goods sold is only the direct cost of goods, and does not include any operating expenses.

Net revenue is Gross revenues minus discounts, returns and allowances.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> > In practice there is surprisingly little connection between how much a > startup spends and how fast it grows. When a startup grows fast it's usually > because the product hits a nerve, in the sense of hitting some big need > straight on.

Perhaps the most important underlying point in the article.

It's easy to think that more people will make the company grow faster. Adding people actually makes it harder to tune a product's direction (and thus growth rate). Great to see another dense and on-point post from pg. Every sentence is worth several reads.

<comment><USER15> Well, this is mostly only true of the high margin, hoping-for-viral-growth so loved by the internet VCs.

There are a ton of highly profitable, relatively low margin businesses (at least compared to internet services), like consulting or something with high sales effort, like enterprise products. In those cases, you can easily imagine your growth limited by, and accelerated by, your ability to hire and grow the right talent.

<comment><USER14> VCs aren't merely hoping for hypergrowth, their business model demands it. The results for any given VC fund are dominated by 1 to 3 hypergrowth companies. Therefore, hypergrowth companies should be their sole focus.

You're right that consulting companies can be great businesses. A friend of mine sold a 5 year old consulting company for a good tens of millions last year. That's a stellar result for the founders. But few consulting companies are within a VC's "strike zone".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> > Instead you'll be compelled to seek growth in other ways. For example, by > doing things that don't scale, or by redesigning the product in the way only > founders can. And for many if not most startups, these paths to growth will > be the ones that actually work.

Or you could reconsider the size of your total addressable market (hint: it's probably a lot smaller than what's in your pitch deck) and give weight to building a smaller company that's sustainably profitable.

Note that I'm not suggesting growth isn't important. What I am suggesting is that a lot of founders seek "Silicon Valley growth" without considering the possibility that they have an opportunity to build a lasting business that doesn't need hundreds of employees, tens of millions of dollars in funding, hundreds of millions in revenue and billions in enterprise value to succeed.

<comment><USER17> TarSnap and Pinboard are my favourite examples of businesses that don't need VC to succeed.

<comment><USER18> Those are both essentially one person businesses as I understand.

There are lots of bigger ones, like imgur, Github, Atlassian (I think), 37signals, Fog Creek, etc.

<comment><USER19> Most of your examples have raised large amounts of VC funding. It's debatable whether they "need" the funding to success, but they certainly wanted it enough to eat the dilution.

<comment><USER18> They have raised, but they didn't raise until they were profitable -- that is, WELL past "default alive". They are remarkably different in this respect than essentially every YC startup.

Pretty sure Fog Creek has never raised either, while having 50-100 employees.

The overall point is that you don't have to be a one-person business to grow at a slower but "healthy" rate.

<comment><USER20> Interesting that Joel Spolsky himself wondered if this might be a bad thing: [http://www.inc.com/magazine/20091101/does-slow-growth- equal-...](http://www.inc.com/magazine/20091101/does-slow-growth-equal-slow- death.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> My inability to comprehend the idea that 8 or 9 months is "old" is probably the surest sign that I'm the one who's old.

<comment><USER22> Like most "new" ideas in the Startup world, what's new is old already. This is just people not understanding how their cash flows affect their balance sheet. Does the business turn a profit? Is the profit greater than their payroll? How many founders know their EBIDTA?

And even more, when growing the business, are you growing costs faster than profits? Yes, this employee is necessary. But will they add more profit than they cost, at this stage in the business; or should we hire this person in a few months?

This is because many founders get used to being able to go back and ask for more money if things aren't going well...right up until they get turned down. I'm being unfair, but it's always seemed like investors play a parent, and the founder plays a child, and it's just a child asking their parent for more money. And I honestly believe this level of entitlement is necessary to be a successful founder.

<comment><USER23> > Does the business turn a profit? Is the profit greater than their payroll? > How many founders know their EBIDTA?

The first two questions are considerably more important than the third. That many founders do not know answers to the first two is less excusable than knowing a fairly specific accounting metric.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> There is a lot of truth in this essay but readers should know how to interpret it. When PG assumes stable revenue growth for "the last several months", even just revenue at all, for a startup that's been operating for not even a year, that already narrows down the set of startups for which his advice is applicable quite a bit.

What we're essentially talking about then is a specific breed of startup (a popular breed, but still a specific breed):

      - Pure software / probably SaaS or a website.
      - Margin close to 100%.
      - Essentially no R&D component, i.e. just wiring together existing technologies.
      - Perfect product distribution infrastructure, i.e. internet or mobile app company.

What readers should know however is that outside of this subset of startups there is a wide variety of flowers in the startup ecosystem that can all bloom in different ways and at different times.

And that early growth isn't the only metric that makes a startup attractive. Growth a powerful one that eventually will be more important than everything else, but there are other things -- such as strong core IP or having early product in a small but growing market -- that make startups interesting.

Then there's startups that require literally tens of millions of dollars of up-front investment and years of R&D before there even is a product. Are those all doomed? I guess not. Given the right execution and strategy and patient investors these companies can also be extraordinarily valuable. They are just a different kind though.

</comment><comment><USER25> _But as a founder your incentives are different. You want above all to survive._

This is a bit like in the early stages of a poker tournament, where you might fold even quite strong starting hands to all-in bets where your expected value is positive - because you're not just betting the number of chips in your stack, you're betting _the entire remainder of your tournament_.

<comment><USER26> Nice way of framing it, clicked a couple of things in my head.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I love that calculator. Picture is worth 1,000,000 words here.

</comment><comment><USER28> Why is there a shopping cart in the upper right hand corner of his website? What Is available for purchase from Paul?

<comment><USER29> Where did you see the shopping cart? I have never seen it and still don't even now (after looking for it)

<comment><USER30> It's in the upper right hand corner on mobile.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> It's interesting to see the tone change from Paul Graham and Sam Altman in the last couple of months, its almost like somebody finally bought them a calculator.

<comment><USER32> Doesn't seem that way to me. pg has been saying much the same things for years—e.g. this essay is obviously a continuation of [http://paulgraham.com/pinch.html](http://paulgraham.com/pinch.html), and that one continued from others I'm too lazy to look up. Sam has been saying the same thing about hiring for years. Trevor's calculator that the essay links to is old as well.

<comment><USER31> [http://blog.samaltman.com/](http://blog.samaltman.com/)

I'd say three of his last four posts are more negative than he has been historically. I've also observed an increasing number of articles about properly calculating financials, unit economics, and hiring "killer sales teams." I don't know that it means anything, but there does seem to more of that kind of chatter - and not from the buzzfeed "Bubble!!!!!!" kind of sources that its been pouring from for years.

<comment><USER33> Which seems like BS, since WhatsApp obviously didn't need strong financials to be acquired for an amazing amount.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> For the first dot-com boom, I did Downside's Deathwatch[1], which did exactly that for public companies. (Companies IPOed earlier in that boom, often before profitability.) For a public company, SEC filings give anyone enough info to make that calculation.

For a private company, it's much harder to tell from the outside. Any CEO who doesn't know how many months (days?) of cash they have left is hopeless.

[1] [http://www.downside.com/deathwatch.html](http://www.downside.com/deathwatch.html)

</comment><comment><USER35> I'm surprised it takes an interview with pg for this question to be raised. I would be asking it in an interview before I ever sign on as a new hire.

<comment><USER36> That's because it always takes some kind of "celebrity" to raise awareness :-) It's good for you that you are aware of this but a lot of people (sadly) aren't.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> I feel like having the mentality that you are always default dead is where your head should be as a founder.

That's how I run my company. Complacency kills, and prevents being able to be proactive in an ever changing market.

</comment><comment><USER38> If Twitter would have heeded this advice, it may not be in the bind that it's in right now. Four thousand employees! At Twitter! That's an order of magnitude more than they need.

<comment><USER39> I wonder what all these people are doing. Browsing HN, probably.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> What about "Default no progress forever."? Let's suppose someone is building a new airplane and has a hundred subscribers paying $10 per year for their newsletter. Nobody is funding this person, and the business is alive forever. Default alive or default dead?

It's alive until the founder realizes he will never raise a round capable of building an airplane, and pivots and does something cheap and easy online instead.

</comment><comment><USER41> > Say "We're default dead, but we're counting on investors to save us." Maybe > as you say that it will set off the same alarms in your head that it does in > mine. And if you set off the alarms sufficiently early, you may be able to > avoid the fatal pinch.

To make this alarm explicit: if you were that investor, would you save the company? I wouldn't.

</comment><comment><USER42> Bootstrapping attitude to the rescue: the more you do with little money, the more you can do when money is raised, and longer.

</comment><comment><USER43> Aren't most startups except for very very few super start top ones, default dead by definition, maybe until B stage?

</comment><comment><USER44> Reminds me of a great episode of Dirty Jobs: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ap3peqZ0RlA&feature=youtu.be...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ap3peqZ0RlA&feature=youtu.be&t=85)

</comment><comment><USER45> Despite this definitely being important for all businesses at some point, where does this come in when evaluating businesses like early Facebook and Google where prior to monetization, wouldn't they appear to be "default dead"?

</comment><comment><USER46> It feels like this post is somewhat also addressing the very high burn rates which companies have, and that you should have control over your trajectory before you begin burning all your money.

</comment><comment><USER47> This is effectively saying that these businesses don't have cashflow projections. Business 101 - should be taught by whoever the investors are that are "adding value".</comment>


Face-verify.js: Monitoring who is physically looking at a website - <AUTHOR> https://blog.machinebox.io/face-verify-js-monitoring-who-is-looking-at-a-website-for-additional-security-1d6025a8fedd <comment><USER3> Please, no. This _has_ to be a parody.

> Banks don't want private account details (like the user's current balance > and credit limits etc) being seen by anybody other than the account holder.

This is _exactly_ the kind of justification they'd use. And surprise surprise there won't be a box that says "I'd rather risk somebody seeing my account details than have a biometric model of my face stored in your database and given to whoever you give it to".

<comment><USER4> Do people really consider the ethics of introducing tech like this? I guess it just comes down to a consequentialism vs deontology whether someone thinks this is a good idea. And, obviously, if they don't do it, I guess someone else will?

<comment><USER5> The great irony is that often technological innovations are believed to be liberating and done with the motivation of improving the common lot of humanity.

Two examples:

Social networking - Enabling more meaningful and greater connection between people, leading to greater happiness and fulfillment? Or, fostering more divisions, balkanization into "like" echo chambers, promulgating fear and prejudice, leading to greater depression and mass manipulation?

Cryptocurrencies - Disintermediation! need I say more ;) All kinds of utopian views of how this is supposed to promote freedom, security and efficiency. But top of the wish-list for the most paranoid and repressive authoritarian tyrant would have to be a magical way to fully control and monitor all economic activity: A cash-less society where every single transaction is done with the government controlled digital currency, recorded on the government controlled blockchain.

<comment><USER6> > Social networking - Enabling more meaningful and greater connection between > people, leading to greater happiness and fulfillment?

I don't believe that this was a serious motivation for any of these companies for a second. That might have been in the press release, but most of these social networks were either born from Geocities-begets-Myspace incrementalism, or "watch these idiots give away their personal data" egocentrism.

An abridged survey of recent history:

Snapchat: it'd sure be easier to sext if these pictures disappeared

Instagram: it's easier to take a pic than write something

Twitter: pivot from failing product to internal tool

Facebook: privacy invasion as a service

Myspace 2.0: maybe we can make money off napster?

Myspace: Geocities clone

Geocities: AOL clone for the World Wide Web

AOL: Prodigy clone

Prodigy: Walled garden for selling Usenet access

Napster: OK, this one was probably the only one motivated to enable more meaningful and greater connections between people, leading to greater happiness and fulfillment

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Black Mirror predicted this in a much more realistic business case - <USER2> users to view ads.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QleMXX24v5g&t=52s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QleMXX24v5g&t=52s)

<comment><USER8> I think that is highly unlikely. If lots of people are not okay with watching ads, there would be economic incentives for people to create ad-free alternatives. Even now we have lots of such alternatives. If someone is not able to afford that alternative, it may actually be harmful to advertisers to spend their money on showing these people ads anyway.

<comment><USER9> > economic incentives for people to create ad-free alternatives

Yes, but they will have to fight a giant up-hill battle because ads exploit a quirk of human psychology, which is that most people strongly undervalue their own attention.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> There's something about software like this that really creeps me out, even though I realize it's not ridiculously advanced (i.e. it's way more common than I think) anymore. That might just be a personal aversion, though. I can imagine useful scenarios for this even if I get a bit of an icky feeling from it.

My co-founder and I have talked about things like this as an "anti-cheating" measure (we developed a take-home assessment platform), but it always feels way too overboard and invasive for an exaggerated problem (and I'm just against it in pretty much every way imaginable).

Interestingly this somehow feels better than overt measures like ProctorU, but that's an emotional reaction and not a logical one. In some ways it's probably much worse.

<comment><USER11> Some more info about ProctorU (for others who haven't heard about it):

[https://www.chronicle.com/article/Behind-the-Webcams- Watchfu...](https://www.chronicle.com/article/Behind-the-Webcams- Watchful/138505)

> _Rather than one proctor sitting at the head of a physical classroom and > roaming the aisles every once in a while, remote proctors peer into a > student 's home, seize control of her computer, and stare at her face for > the duration of a test, reading her body language for signs of impropriety._

That article is from 2013, I wonder how much of this is now partially automated (i.e. relying on human remote proctors)?

<comment><USER12> Online proctoring is actually a really busy space in edtech. There are numerous companies with products deployed that are fully automated. They record videos of students taking the tests through a webcam, then send the analysis back to the instructors highlighting which videos are worth watching.

<comment><USER13> I never got the point of that. You can use a hdmi/dvi splitter to allow your accomplice to see your screen, and you can use your monitor's PIP function to allow your accomplice to send messages to you. both of which are totally undetectable to the student's computer.

<comment><USER14> It's security theater.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Am I the only one who doesn't quite understand the point?

I would assume you wouldn't _only_ use this tech to secure information. But I don't see really how this adds any security when software cams exist.

Plus you have other issues, like people like me who work in low light, or picture frames in the shot, etc.

Cool hobby project though.

<comment><USER16> Yeah, this whole thing seems a bit silly. You can't trust the webcam to be real or even functional.

And even if you could trust the entire website-to-webcam path end-to-end, you can't trust the image the hardware is reading. There's a reason that other face recognition systems like Windows Hello require that you have an IR camera, so that it knows it's not just looking at a photograph of a person.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> So what stops me from creating a device that registers itself as a webcam natively, but just puts a loop of a pre-recorded video that satisfies the face recognition software?

Stop trying to find solutions to problems that aren't real.

<comment><USER18> i.e. what people were doing on ChatRoulette for a long time (and probably still are).

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> If you can be prosecuted for storing someone's diagnostic medical images improperly under HIPAA law, this seems like a VERY risky thing for a company to implement.

</comment><comment><USER20> Coursera required face verification recently. Once I found out, I had my course fee refunded and have not signed up for another course.

<comment><USER19> The policy might have been changed? An article I just read says: "taking a photo via webcam, uploading a photo of a picture id issued by the government, and making a record of their typing pattern."

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Do people realy think identities are stolen by criminals peaking over shoulders?

And, if so, couldn't they use a camera, or mirror, or periscope to bypass this software?

<comment><USER13> or looking at the screen outside the camera's fov, which shouldn't be hard to do considering IPS have up to 178 degrees viewing angle.

<comment><USER22> For real, good grief. Telescopic lenses and office windows also exist.

<comment><USER23> Alright, it might be time to finally jump on getting a privacy filter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> No! No! No! How much more intrusive do we need to get seriously? This is a naive solution to the problem stated. And a bad one at it, too.

</comment><comment><USER25> > Banks don't want private account details (like the user's current balance > and credit limits etc) being seen by anybody other than the account holder.

Unless it's an in-person interaction, a face has little security value, because it's not a secret. Getting a photo, or even full motion video of someone often just requires finding their Instagram page.

</comment><comment><USER26> How much secure this will be ?

My concern is what if some one show my digital photo to the website, will framework detect it ?

Apple said that they over come this by using true depth technology (which i guess required specific hardware).

I like the idea thought, but there is a big reason people did not implemented this before.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I think this is really about having powerful machine learning tools like face recognition, image recognition, content personalization and recommendation etc. in the browser.

</comment><comment><USER27> Technologically speaking: Yeah, that's a nice feature. Real world: This will be awful, I really don't want any DB to have a photo of me associated with transaction or authentification. Yes, I do have profile pictures, but allowing a service to get a "stream" of your face will be way worse, and I cannot imagine what would happen if this DB get compromised...anyway...still a nice Black Mirror episode though..

<comment><USER28> "We noticed that you've looked away from your screen. Please continue watching the advertisement in order to continue!"

"Eye roll detected. Would you like to send feedback to this ad partner?"

<comment><USER29> "Thanks for watching! Please help keeping this channel alive and do not look away during the ads. Bye!"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> What happens if I do inspect elements and remove styling? :D

</comment><comment><USER31> We _obviously_ need to make this tech mandatory. You wouldn't want your children looking at harmful websites, would you?

</comment><comment><USER32> I see we will soon stop putting stickers on camera holes, but will use screwdrivers to pry them out and remove them. :)

</comment><comment><USER33> I can see from a privacy standpoint, this may cause some concern.

However, from a credit card processor point of view and combating "friendly fraud". This could be an excellent tool to prevent that.

For example. The scenario where a transaction has been processed and 6 weeks later, it is disputed because the card holder doesn't recognise the transaction. Perhaps the wife used the husbands card whilst he was in the shower, for [insert candy crush clone].

A capture of the users face would definitely help the merchant win the representment against Visa/Mastercard.

In a scenario where goods are being shipped cross-border. Lets say from China to the US and it's for a large amount. Then this could be an extra step, where the data hasn't passed a certain threshold and thus further information is required. Having a real-time snapshot and validation to prove the card holder is legitimate. Ensures the transaction goes through.

Ultimately, I do understand it's about weighing privacy concerns. But that doesn't mean some good can't come out from this.

<comment><USER3> No. I'm not having a photo of my face and the inside of my home associated with every online purchase. That's ludicrous.

<comment><USER33> I agree. From a consumer point of view, you are welcome to take that position.

However, my comment was purely from a credit card processor, acquirer or even bank.

At the end of the day, if something like this was introduced. You are free to not comply, pay with an alternative method or shop elsewhere.

<comment> wu-ikkyu >You are free to not comply, pay with an alternative method or shop elsewhere

You are increasingly _not_ free to choose an alternative, given the increasing centralization of the "too big to fail" finance and tech industries.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Curly Bracket: A Comic to Teach Children to Think Like Coders - <AUTHOR> https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1521238325/curly-bracket-the-hidden-code <comment><USER2> 84 Swedish Krona equals 9.40 US Dollar, according to Google and 169 SEK is 18.90 US Dollar.

Per the comment page, shipping is expensive outside of the US.</comment>


The decline of serial killers and rise of the sharing economy - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2013/8/28/4667738/the-decline-of-the-serial-killer-and-rise-of-the-sharing-economy

<comment><USER2> It's an interesting article, but the graph is puzzling. The Y-axis is labeled Killers/Teams. Teams? Given the title of the source was it teams of killers vs lone killers? Was there a drop in killers or rise in teams or both?

</comment><comment><USER3> I, for one, do Not believe this study. Decline of serial killers!? What would they say next? That Dexter is not real?

</comment><comment><USER4> Great! And very interesting. I wonder why there is a decline in the number of serial killers?

</comment><comment><USER5> With all the superheroes coming out, the killers should be scared!hehe!</comment>


Ask HN: How many hackers are also fighters? - <AUTHOR>

While I was at a Dog Brothers Martial Arts training camp last weekend I noticed that almost 70% (roughly) of the people there were involved in the IT industry in some way. Most of the people I talked to were programmers of some kind.<p>I'd be interested to see what the percentage is the other way. A lot of the martial artists I have met have been programmers, how many programmers are also martial artists? <comment><USER2> I do Movement Meditation in a class run by a seventy year old guy. I'm the youngest at fourty-five. It's an art, no violence or aggression, but intense training. I don't get injured - ever.

Previously kubatan, and some close protection training. I rate Systema very highly, but I still think running away is the best self defence. As I mentioned in a previous post, go surfing for the best exercise of mind and body.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm intrigued by the fact that you did close protection training, I've been looking into the same thing. I find the whole concept really interesting.

After seeing the damage the a knife-fight can do in very short order I agree that running away is the best overall tactic. I do martial arts for fun and for the situation where I run away and the guy chases me :-p

<comment><USER2> The training I did was based on 'Sudden Attack' principles, i.e. where you're being suddenly attacked. These are the most common forms of attack, and in most cases, no amount of martial arts training is going to help you, because you probably won't see it coming, or if you do, you have almost no time to react. I know lots will disagree with me, but that's my opinion. Most attackers are looking for an easy target, even they don't want to get hurt. Reading the situation, and getting away from it, is far more useful than fighting your way out of it.

If it does get rowdy, Systema or an improvised kubotan - a pen, dining spoon, memory stick, may help you. It's always better to get out of the situation in one piece though, and get back to some nice programming that will do some good in the world.

<comment><AUTHOR> No, I totally agree with you. Walking away is always the better option: that way there's no possibility of getting hurt!

I train for fun and for the rare situation where there's no other option but to stand your ground.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> The way you've phrased your question it's kind of hard to say that you're not.

So, I'm not :)

I don't like fighting, though I appreciate the discipline and control that goes in to things like karate.

When I was a kid and in high school I fought my lifes share of fights and since then I've worked hard to stay away from violence in any shape or form as much as I can.

<comment><AUTHOR> Fair enough! If you have a suggestion for an alternate title I would be open to it!

I know what you mean about staying away from violence.

I was on the receiving end of a lot of bullying in High School, I guess in the end I've gone the other way in trying to make sure that if any violence occurs, I'll be in control of myself and, as much as possible, of the outcome.

<comment><USER3> Well, I wasn't in one case. That was enough of a lesson for me, even though I was completely in the right. 3 months or so suspension, one guy in hospital, not a good idea.

I've gotten a lot more mellow over the years though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Five years in muay thai (MTA in North Hollywood) and blue belt in brasilian jiu jitsu. Lots of concussions, broken hands, messed up hips and tendons ;)

Seems like hackers are more into martial arts rather than MMA or muay thai or boxing, BUT I've met some guys that are engineers and programmers.

Fighting takes a couple years to get good at and keeps you goal oriented and focused under extreme stress and failure.

The first round is all hype, but when the third bell rings you feel like shit getting ready to go out there. That's when doubt creeps in. Killing that doubt in your mind or staying attacking even when you're losing is what makes a fighter a special breed of person. Lessons are learned the hard way, but they stick with you.

<comment><AUTHOR> I like what you're getting at in the last sentence, it really resonated with me.

I think almost as importantly fighting (in a sport context anyway) teaches you that there's a time when it's best to let things go. Learning to tap when you recognize that someone really has something locked is an important skill!

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I used to fight Aikido but now it is hard to find time for it since I work far (and by far I mean 2h30 each trip). Also, I recently suffered an accident (read, nearly broke my feet) that left me with a permanent damaged tendon on my left feet, rendering me unable to kneel down properly, which rules out the Shi-ko exercises that are paramount on the practice of Aikido.

And yes, I miss it. Every day. Martial Arts is not called 'Art' without a reason and I like to agree with pg that hacking is more closely related to the artistic field than the engineering one.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry to hear about the foot. Not being able to train because of an injury is terrible...

I damaged the tendons in my knees a while back quite badly, there was a 3 month period where I couldn't walk properly at all. In the end I found that exercising my legs with slowly increasing intensity and taking ice baths after every training session has put them about 90% back to what they were, and they're still getting better!

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Considering how uninteresting "no" is as a response, I think this thread will tell you precisely nothing.

<comment><AUTHOR> The fact that there's already been a strong response tell me that it's at least somewhat common...

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Systema, Silat, and Xingyi. I've noticed a lot of graduate students in the sciences out rock climbing, too.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a good mix, I don't even know what Xingyi is, I'll have to look that up!

I've been doing Jiu-Jitsu, Boxing, Airsoft and I've just started Kali, JKD and DBMA.

I notice a lot of martial artists like rock climbing too... I guess the challenge appeals!

<comment><USER8> xingyi (aka hsing-i) is one of the three general internal chinese styles along with taiji and bagua. if you've seen jet li's movie "the one", you've seen xingyi (and bagua). its the only pop culture reference i can think of.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> When I did ju-jitsu in university, everyone there studied physics, chemistry, engineering or computer science.

I found it slightly surprising at the time, but I suppose the arts and humanities students had better things to do.

<comment><USER5> Get drunk, I guess.

<comment><USER9> Oh, we did that too, we just waited until after training.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Eskrima (filipino martial arts) here. In addition to being fun, it also gives you strong and flexible wrists.

<comment><AUTHOR> I just started Kali, which depending on your point of view, is very similar to Eskrima. It's fantastic!

If you haven't heard about the Dog Brothers you should definitely check them out! Full-contact stick fighting!

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Krav Maga, Kali, boxing, and bits of Muay Thai and Wing Chun; Python, BASH, and a bit of C.

</comment><comment><USER12> Karate in while studying computer engineering in University.

The Sensei was a trained mechanical engineer, and about half the group either had iron rings (which they all took off before fighting) or were in the process of getting them.

<comment><USER13> (Canadian Engineering graduates wear an iron ring) <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Ring>

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Hapkido consistently for a few years, also started some Krav Maga just a few weeks ago. Some Taekwondo and Aikido in the past. Haven't used any in RL yet and hopefully never will. :)

</comment><comment><USER8> i used to be a professional martial artist until i killed my knees. now i fence.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah I hear you on the knees. I managed to give myself severe tendinitis in both knees about 1 1/2 years ago, luckily I was able to slowly get rid of the pain and get my strength back, but it's been a long road.

Do you enjoy fencing? Do you think a lot of the footwork stuff would be useful in other martial arts? I've been wanting to try it for a long time now...

<comment><USER8> yeah, i still have knee problems with things like running for more than 15 minutes. they're better now, but i doubt they'll ever be "good".

i definitely enjoy it, for a lot of reasons. been doing it for a while now. the transition from what i was doing to fencing was pretty smooth because of the established general body kinesthetics and concepts you've probably picked up along the way. they translate well. it doesn't make you automatically awesome, but it helps you become competent quickly.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's great! I always find it really interesting how much of the basics from one martial art can be applied to another. It seems to me that a lot of times the differences are in the details.

What did you fight when you were doing it professionally?

<comment><USER8> definitely. after having fenced for a little while and then testing the martial arts waters again, i found that i'd gained a lot of interesting, useful insights. the commonly pointed out anecdote is that bruce lee was a fencer, and it influenced his philosophies and development as a martial artist.

my bread and butter was teaching. the money and opportunity wasn't around for me with respect to fighting or tournaments or anything else to warrant seriously focusing more on them than i was.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I've done karate and shaolin kung fu and wushu.

</comment><comment><USER16> Having noticed a slight trend along these lines, I tend to avoid people who are violent and have under-developed social skills, as poor anger management strategies seem to ride along in the same bucket.

<comment><AUTHOR> I really don't think that I would classify too many of the people I train with, or even fought, as 'violent'. 99% of them will avoid any fight that is not in a controlled environment as much as possible, and anyone that is quick to anger generally finds going to a martial arts school a very frustrating experience. They get angry, then they lose control, then they lose. Badly. They don't seem to hang around for more than a couple of classes.

I would also say that most people I train with have very good social skills!

The people you have to worry about are the ones that _aren't_ doing martial arts classes, because they're just sitting in their garage, cleaning their guns, by themselves.

<comment><USER17> I agree. I've been practicing judo for 14 years (I'm an assistant coach at the nearby college) and BJJ for 4. And would pretty much everone I know would avoid a street fight.

You learn pretty fast in the dojo that you really have no idea what someone is capable of until you take your grips. Outside the dojo, that maybe too late

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a very good way of explaining it. There's no point taking the chance that the person you're messing with is willing and capable of hurting you very badly or killing you...</comment></comment></comment></comment>


OpenCV for Secret Agents - <AUTHOR> http://opencv.org/opencv-for-secret-agents-2.html

<comment><USER2> The book title is confusing; that's the subtitle:

 _Use OpenCV in six secrete projects to augment your home, car, phone, eyesight, and any photo or drawing_

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm a Packtian. We're having fun with the title, and we hope the book will help people have fun with OpenCV and learn some useful CV techniques along the way.

</comment><comment><USER4> Nice, looks like a fun book!

</comment><comment><USER5> Those Amazonian women are sending me this book as we speak...

<comment><USER5> Translation: I ordered the book from Amazon.

[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazons](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazons)</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Documentation before starting a software project? - <AUTHOR>

How much up-front documentation do you write before starting a software project?  Do you do any tradeoff studies or analysis, and if so, of what? <comment><USER2> I find whiteboard and or Visio diagramming pretty useful (both high level, and more fine grain).

However aside from in school I've never documented, designed, developed in the waterfall model style. I've never seen anyone else work that way either in "real life."

Most places either officially use agile-style development or unofficially do (i.e. claim they use the waterfall model, but in reality are going back and updating the requirements/design throughout development).

Something can be said for Unit Test-first development. However you really need to have good tooling, mocks, and so on before that is viable (otherwise you burn too much time getting even basic unit tests off the ground).

<comment><AUTHOR> What do you diagram on the whiteboard/Visio? Class hierarchies?

<comment><USER2> Sometimes. Sometimes a database hierarchy (if we're doing an API to a data source). Sometimes a UI concept.

It really depends on the project and where the main complexity occurs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I'm a big believer in "Readme driven development" [1]. It's critical you go through the exercise of 1) explaining what the software will do and 2) how it will be used with concrete examples. The value of this documentation will always outweigh the time spent writing it.

[1]: [http://tom.preston-werner.com/2010/08/23/readme-driven- devel...](http://tom.preston-werner.com/2010/08/23/readme-driven- development.html)

</comment><comment><USER4> The minimum needed at each stage to get buy-in, inform, and help plan.

For example:

1\. At inception, a one-pager to make the business case and get funding/backing/ok/whatever. Audience: executives

2\. Before starting, the end-user perspective on what is going to be done. Get feedback, use for sizing/scheduling. Audience: other departments

3\. Before too much construction (after a proof-of-concept), an overview of the basic architecture and sketch of a plan. Audience: other developers.</comment>


NCSA Mosaic 2.7, one of the first graphical web browsers - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/alandipert/ncsa-mosaic <comment><USER2> Have their been any updates to this repository since the last time it was posted to hn?</comment>


Ask HN: Downgrading my Internet speed to match the Speed Test and save money? - <AUTHOR>

I am in the SF Bay area, customer at Comcast. I pay for 150mbps (download) each month, but speed tests show my current download speed to be around 25mbps.<p>If I downgrade my Comcast plan to something like 75mbps, do you know if it will have an impact on my current speed? <comment><USER2> I was in a similar situation with Time Warner; I have a 160 Mbps modem and was on a 100 Mbps plan but was only getting 50, so I downgraded to the 50 plan. You should probably downgrade and investigate whether the bottleneck is your modem or congestion.

</comment><comment><USER3> Just out of curiosity, did you call Comcast to ask them about the problem? I would think you'd want to see if they could repair something to get the speed up to 150 Mbps.

</comment><comment><USER4> I don't see why you want to _downgrade_ your connection speed when you only have millibits per second, when twenty years ago it was already kilobits per second.

In case you simply can't use proper units, you need to ask yourself: do you even use that 25Mbps? For what?</comment>


France's Zone Rouge – Land Poisoned by War - <AUTHOR> http://www.messynessychic.com/2015/05/26/the-real-no-go-zone-of-france-a-forbidden-no-mans-land-poisoned-by-war/ <comment><USER2> In my family there's a story about some relatives who lived in a village near Ypres. Their living room had a big iron stove. When the Germans invaded they they hid some jewelry in a hole under that stove, and fled like everybody else. After the war they returned to the village, wanting to retrieve the jewels. Not only were they unable to locate the stove, or the house. They were unable to locate where the street had been.

</comment><comment><USER3> Wow, I was just in France last month and visited the Douaumont ossuary near Verdun. The whole area is eerie. The landscape is just as shown in those photos. It looks like a moonscape. Just driving along, you see craters and hills on both sides of the road. Metal still sticking out randomly. Decaying bunkers all around.

The ossuary itself was an incredible place (120,000 buried there). For those of us not from Europe, it was a lesson in the horrors of WWI that was present for the residents of the continent that has no equal in the US.

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

<comment><USER4> I think you might underestimate how bloody the American Civil War was, especially since it was 50 years before the improved killing technologies of WW1.

<comment><USER5> American Civil War: Total estimated between 625,000 and 850,000 dead

World War 1: 8,528,831 killed.

I know we could account for relative population, but in absolute there is just no possible comparison.

Relevant source: [https://www.pbs.org/greatwar/resources/casdeath_pop.html](https://www.pbs.org/greatwar/resources/casdeath_pop.html)

<comment><USER4> That's total killed for all combatants during WW1 though. American casualties during the Civil War were comparable to European countries individually during WW1.

<comment><USER4> Its especially impressive when you consider WW1 had a 50 year advantage in perfecting the art of killing people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I find it fascinating how prevalent chemical warfare was in WWI, and then it mostly stopped afterwards because everybody realized it really sucked and nobody wanted to trigger another round.

I think it underscores how fortunate the timing of the development of nuclear weapons was not too much later. They were developed _just_ in time to be used in the waning days of WWII, and as such were only used twice in combat, which seems to have been enough to convince everyone to try not to use them again. Imagine if they had been developed before the war, with all the major powers exchanging atom bombs once the fighting started. Or imagine if they had been developed after the war ended by conventional means, and WWIII developed between the US and the USSR because nobody really realized how terrible atomic warfare would be.

</comment><comment><USER7> Are the red parts inhabited? It seems strange to me, I've never heard that there were still no-go zones, although I'm French (from the south).

<comment><USER8> The red zones can be inhabited but most of the ground is either polluted either completely destroyed. And as the boards said some zones still have armed explosives in them. I went there once. It's pretty beautiful when you forget it has been caused by a useless and slaughtering war.

<comment><USER9> I thought it was pretty common knowledge in France that live ammunition for the Great War are still found in this part of the territory and should one find such a device they should immediately contact the Gendarmerie.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I highly recommend Dan Carlin's Hardcore History podcasts. He recently just finished a 6 part series on WWI titled Blueprint for Armageddon. He tries to convey what it was like for the people involved. [http://www.dancarlin.com/hardcore-history- series/](http://www.dancarlin.com/hardcore-history-series/)

Reddit's AskHistorians also have two podcasts of discussion #35 & #36: [http://askhistorians.libsyn.com/](http://askhistorians.libsyn.com/)

</comment><comment><USER11> Wow, go Team Humans :'(

Very moving images.

</comment><comment><USER12> Have a Google to gouffre de Jardel too.

</comment><comment><USER13> The story and pictures were intriguing, but then at the end: "There's a true story for you, FOX News." Wat? That's jarringly out of place w.r.t. the rest of the article, and leaves an unpleasant political aftertaste for something that would have been fine without it.

<comment><USER14> Following the Charlie Hebdo attack, FOX was reporting that certain areas of Paris are "no-go" zones for non-Muslim French people.

[http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/12/paris- lawsuit-f...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/12/paris-lawsuit-fox- news-reporting-no-go-zones-non-muslims)

So the title "The real no-go zone of France" was already a reference to the controversy they mention.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How Relevant Is a Technical Degree/Exp to Get a Job as a Software Engg? - <AUTHOR>

I did my Bachelors Degree in Arts. I got interested in Computer Science/Programming and enrolled myself in a Object Oriented Certification program at a local community college. In this program I learned VB, C/C++, Java, Android Development, Javascript & HTML/CSS. I also picked up PHP & SQL for a personal project. After completing my OO Certification I got this job where I am working on Wordpress (mostly) and sometimes VB/HTML/CSS. I am in this job since March of this year but I don't think I am learning anything. I feel as if I am wasting my time and my knowledge. I wanted to work in Java as I really liked it during my academic program at the community college. Also I would like to work on Programming projects but wherever I apply either they are asking for 2-3 years of relevant experience or a Masters/Bachelors in Computer Science. Do I had to have a degree for sure if I would like to get a job as a software engineer/programmer? I am thinking of getting a Masters in Computer science, but again it will be an investment of both time & money. I guess I have the basic platform to start as a programmer.<p>Please suggest what should I do ? <comment><USER4> Half of our engineers did not go the academic route. A few went through intensive programs such as hacker school and a few were self taught.

There are definitely jobs out there that look at skill and experience over a degree, but on the flip side there are companies that do look for degrees or rather look for knowledge that you might not get going the non-academic route.

Have you thought about attending an intensive program? If you're looking for a quick and cost effective way to get in the industry it might be a great alternative. If you're self-driven, you could go the self-learning route, but there is something to be said about being with other students, having teachers, and being focused on learning.

Wish you well, always glad to hear of people that go the non-traditional route.

</comment><comment><USER5> I went back to school when I decided to switch careers (I was a banquet manager at the time) and my experience was that a relevant degree will make it easier to land interviews, but doesn't matter much beyond that. Interviewers were far more interested in things like side projects I did for fun or how well I whiteboarded than my education.

So your real hurdle (assuming you're at the skill level of an entry- level/junior developer) is landing interviews. If you're not interested in going back to school I'd suggest reaching out to recruiters. Work with several, try not to be too picky, and most importantly, be patient. With an unconventional background getting your first offer will not be easy - <USER2> after that you're set. [Or at least, that was my experience, your mileage may vary].

Lastly, you mentioned you picked up PHP & SQL for a personal project - <USER3> sure that's on your resume and make sure to bring it up in _every_ interview you have. It shows a genuine interest both in writing software and in learning as well as demonstrate you're capable of learning outside of a classroom.

</comment><comment><USER6> Experience beats certification when it comes to job-hunting hands-down. The trick is being able to demonstrate that you actually _do_ understand the technologies you listed. Set up a Github account and put code in there. I've literally gotten job offers on that alone.

Another tip is that you should avoid applying through the company website - hundreds of people do that. They have software which will automatically filter out people without the correct keyword.

Instead, meetups and user groups have been more fruitful for me. You want to work in Java? Chances are, there's a Java User Group happening in your area, and chances are, there are people attending those meetups to source local talent. Attend them, network, collect contact cards, and bypass the HR process altogether.

<comment><USER7> I agree with this. If you're passionate about it then going out and actually meeting people will help you a lot. That's what I did.

At the very least attending meetups/user groups will give you a feel of where you are relative to everyone else. It'll help you find out what you actually need to know.

Recruitment costs can be pretty high so small and medium sized companies are more likely to give you a shot if you go out and find them. But you won't find them looking exclusively online.

Searches are basically a popularity contest, and by definition companies that aren't as established aren't as popular yet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> A technical degree can land you interviews, but how well you code is what matters the most at the end of the day.

Experience matters the second most to actual ability.

My own experience has been while I have a technical degree (B. S. Math & Physics, M. S. Math), even those degrees weren't enough to land me interviews most of the time. I had to teach myself programming to land interviews and my first job with the help of a recruiter.

</comment><comment><USER9> I got my first programming job with 0 years of professional development experience and no degree. Honestly, the key is to get yourself the interview. In your cover letter explain that you have taken the Certification course. Explain your motivation and passion. Once you get in front of the interviewer you can show yourself off.

</comment><comment> Warewolf-ESB Unfortunately all the knowledge in the world will never replace experience. As a fast way to catch up on experience you should participate in open source projects. You will learn a lot, be able to do what you enjoy and it will look great on your CV.</comment>


The Work Required To Have An Opinion (2013) - <AUTHOR> http://www.farnamstreetblog.com/2013/04/the-work-required-to-have-an-opinion/

<comment><USER2> Reminds me of how professor Leonard Susskind closed a talk on his friend Richard Feynman. Instead of trying to honor him with a TED talk, which Feynman would not have enjoyed, we can best honor Feynman by 'getting as much bologna out of our sandwiches as we can.'

I admire people who challenge their own certainty.

'See, I have the advantage of having found out how hard it is to get to really know something, how careful you have to be about checking the experiments, how easy it is to make mistakes and fool yourself,' said Richard Feynman. 'I know what it means to know something and therefore, I see how they get their information and I can't believe that they know it.'</comment>


Net Neutrality: FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai's Dissenting Statement [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2014/db0515/DOC-327104A5.pdf

<comment><USER2> Good on you Ajit!</comment>


Today's Firefox Blocks Third-Party Tracking Cookies and Cryptomining by Default - <AUTHOR> https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2019/09/03/todays-firefox-blocks-third-party-tracking-cookies-and-cryptomining-by-default/ <comment><USER2> Sounds like a nice feature, but why, oh why, is there a distracting animation for it in the URL bar?

<comment><USER3> Oh my, I just noticed that. Please tell me it can go away</comment></comment>


Anyone with a smart cover can break into your iPad2 - <AUTHOR> http://9to5mac.com/2011/10/20/anyone-with-a-smart-cover-can-break-into-your-ipad-2/

<comment><USER4> This is getting silly. Lock screens are the security equivalent of having a screen door. They exist to keep the mildly annoying things out, but they're not designed to prevent the _real_ baddies.

Breaking with metaphor, I don't consider it much of a security flaw if step one is the other person has to have physical access to the device.

<comment><USER5> I think there is still a difference between circumventing security, circumventing security without any tools and circumventing without leaving traces.

I can't see why you can't make an iPad everything-but-screwdriver-proof.

<comment><USER4> I'm not sure you'd want to.

Okay, let's say it's now true. So if you forget your lock screen password, that's it, you're SOL. You bring it to the Genius bar at an Apple store. They inform you that you're SOL and you'll need to pay $600 for a new one. Yes, this would happen, so it's a terrible idea.

Okay, so relent a little, and let the people at the Genius bar send a special override command that enables them to unlock the device. This would be special in the sense that you couldn't do this at home with iTunes.

But eventually someone would reverse engineer what, exactly, that special command is, and then regular users would be able to unlock devices on their own. We're no longer everything-but-screwdriver-proof, but we're more secure than before.

My question: is it worth it? I don't think so. We're still in a situation where this is only going to be a concern when you lose your device - <USER2> because you left it somewhere or it was stolen. But we've now introduced lots of potential headaches for the user, for very little practical gain.

<comment><USER6> Not necessarily. There could be a unique code for each device stored at a central location. That way unlocks could be tracked and audited.

<comment><USER4> And those codes could leak, at which point we're back to the beginning.

But let's assume it doesn't leak. Is it worth it? Consider the enormous cost that would be required for this: every new iPad that is manufactured would need to be recorded in this central database. Secure access to it needs to be set up and maintained from all Apple stores around the world. Is that worth it for a rarely needed feature that most people don't care about?

If you instead try to do a secure hash of, say, the serial number, that's much less cost to maintain, but that hash will almost certainly leak. (Think DeCSS.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I just tried on my iPad2 and the hack works.

</comment><comment><USER8> Isn't it trivial to "fix" this by just disabling smart-cover unlocking? Isn't that exactly why this is a user-enabled feature of the smart cover?

It isn't that I oppose viewing this as a "bug" (obviously the user is led to believe that a password in and of itself would prevent this), but I would think that anyone security-conscious enough to have a password _should_ be disabling smart cover unlocking anyway...

<comment><USER9> I largely agree. That said, it is a weird default, as if you've never owned a smart cover, it might not occur to you that there is a setting relating to it you don't want that is defaulted to on. I mean, it seems fair to me that someone who is "security-conscious" shouldn't be forced to examine every single option on the device looking for a painfully insecure default.

This is typical of Apple, though: it is also fun to carry around an Apple Remote if you know people with MacBooks. You walk up behind them, hit the menu button, and yell "FRONT ROW!", at which point their computer (default setting: accept any random remote) will /slowly/ fade to black, and then /slowly/ fade into a TV-like UI the user has probably never seen before.

<comment><USER10> > This is typical of Apple, though: it is also fun to carry around an Apple > Remote if you know people with MacBooks. You walk up behind them, hit the > menu button, and yell "FRONT ROW!", at which point their computer (default > setting: accept any random remote) will /slowly/ fade to black, and then > /slowly/ fade into a TV-like UI the user has probably never seen before.

It's /more/ fun to walk around with a defcon 2008 badge hacked to mash the "menu" button ten times a second rolling through the different pairing codes :)

<comment><USER4> Oh, thank you. Now I'm going to do this after telling my coworkers that Siri has been silently integrated into OSX.

<comment><USER10> Lion removed Front Row, so you'll just mess up their music.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Oh snap, that's bad. Given dbtc's comment, can anyone clarify if this is 4-#-bypassing or password-bypassing? Horrible either way, but wow.

<comment> X-Istence The attacker has physical access to your device ... you have bigger problems to worry about.

That being said, just disable the unlock with smart cover and problem solved.

<comment><USER12> The speed with which the attack can be done is really the key here. This is less an issue of someone stealing your iPad2 and then getting access to your personal data. This is more an issue of someone having physical access for a couple of minutes and being able to get into and out of the device without being detected.

<comment> X-Istence If they have a smart cover around (if you don't own one), and if you have the "unlock with smartcover" feature enabled.

<comment><USER13> The feature defaults to enabled. If you don't own a smart cover, would you really look through the options for something like that and change it? Would your Joe Average consumer?

An insecure default shouldn't be excused because you can change it - <USER3> default configuration should be secure against such an attack.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I couldn't get it to work on an iPad 2 that was locked with a character password (the qwerty keyboard pops up).

<comment><USER15> Worked on my iPad 2 wifi with character password.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Because the defaults allow no passcode, somebody could carry a SmartCover with them, and break in to any iPad they "borrow" for a few minutes.

</comment><comment><USER17> So let me straight, being the first one a setting it wasn't a vulnerability, instead this one is. I can't see the logic behind their reasoning, in my opinion they are both superficial security policies (ie. badly set defaults)

</comment><comment><USER18> How many people start the shut down process and then close their cover? Kind of a lame hack

<comment><USER12> What's to stop an attacker from opening the smart cover, starting the shutdown process, closing the smart cover, and then opening it again?

<comment><USER18> you are completely correct (if it works that way, I'll have to try it later)</comment></comment></comment>


From 10 Hours a Week, $10 Million a Year - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/business/13digi.html?pagewanted=all

<comment><USER2> There are a lot of similarities to Craigslist. The lesson here is that while marketplaces are very hard to start, they are also very hard to kill.

<comment><USER3> What is your position on investing in marketplace startups, i.e. all other things being equal is a YC application describing a marketplace idea disadvantaged in anyway or scrutinised any harder than an idea not predicated on marketplace economics or the network effect?

<comment><USER2> If we love them if the founders have a plan to beat the chicken and egg problem, and not if they don't.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> 1\. Article 4 years old

2\. 20 employees no, not one

</comment><comment><USER5> I checked out this plenty of fish website. It is amazing because most dating websites cannot get people to upload pictures of themselves. Plenty of Fish has broken the personal photo stigma.

The odd thing is that, according to their website, Plenty of Fish is actually hiring despite what is printed in the New York Times.

On face value, Plenty of Fish is a standard dating website (compare to OKCupid) which makes its success more impressive.

<comment><USER6> When the site started there weren't very many competitors. They were also unique in the fact that they are absolutely free.

Sites like match.com and the other dating sites at the time (most were bought out by match.com) allow you to search, but messaging costs money. It was the standard model of the dating site for many years.

<comment><USER7> I don't know how you can say there weren't many competitors. There were tons. You're right about the business models though. But they were all created before Google and similar ad networks. Perhaps that is the major distinction with PoF.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I used to hangout with Markus in the old webmasterworld forum. Yes, POF site was a one man show until 2008 but not anymore. The last i heard POF has around 20 employees and generate $30 million revenue!...BTB, POF's initial growth was mainly from SEO especially ranking for 'free dating' related keywords.

</comment><comment><USER9> Here some more information on their architecture: <http://highscalability.com/plentyoffish-architecture>

</comment><comment><USER10> I can't imagine that there are interesting women on this website. Are smart+goodlooking women not actually interested in the dating site fees, because they want to find men who are willing (and able) to spend some money on their relationship?

<comment><USER11> I used OKCupid (free) to give more spontaneity to my dating and the vibe I get is that nobody identifies with it as a serious pursuit. Paying for a site can seem try-hard if you aren't one that feels very invested in it (despite how invested you might actually be).

Whenever OKCupid itself comes up in conversation with a girl I hang out with from there, they always say that they registered to just see what it was like -- "might as well". No perception of personal investment that would validate spending money. If it comes up, girls even mention that premium membership comes off as sorta tacky/corny and that's my feeling as well.

I have no idea how PoF works, though.

<comment><USER7> _they always say that they registered to just see what it was like_

Yeah, it's just an amazing coincidence that they ended up going on dates, with people they discovered on a dating site. Maciej Ceglowski (idlewords here) once commented that part of OKCupid's strategy is to give you other things to do on the site, like quizzes, for plausible deniability.

But you're right, being identified as a premium member is probably bad social signalling, too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> 1500 days ago discussion about the same article: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=97709>

</comment><comment><USER13> Completely irrelevant, but I thought it was "Plenty Offish" before reading this article. Never did get the name :P...

</comment><comment><USER14> "Mr. Frind says that close to 50,000 new photos come in every day, each one of which needs to be checked to verify that it is an actual person and that it does not

not contain nudity."

Double negative split over a line-break :)

<comment><USER14> (info for downvoter: point being, that's an actual quote from the article; its been sitting there in the article for years)</comment></comment>


Anti-Glossary - <AUTHOR> https://stallman.org/antiglossary.html <comment><USER2> 's/obeissance/obeisance/' 's/neutraity/neutrality/' 's/resticting/restricting/' 's/kidnaping/kidnapping/'

<comment><AUTHOR> :) email sent!

<comment><AUTHOR> And typos fixed. We didn't get to discuss much of the Anti-Glossary, but hey, RMS sent me an email!</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Getting interested in DevOps, question on certifications - <AUTHOR> I have lately gotten interested in DevOps.  The fun of working with bare metal boxes and automating a lot of workflows seems tempting.
Is it worth to take up the related certifications like AWS Solutions Architect or Chef certification partnership program or DevOps Foundation certification?
Where should I concentrate my efforts to learn DevOps/Cloud/chef ?
Thanks. <comment><USER2> To me, the advantage of a certification is that it is independent of a person's current job. For example, a front end developer could use certification as a tool toward work in dev-ops.

Of the listed options, anything to do with AWS is likely to have the most widespread appeal to employers. I'm not sure the DevOps Foundation has the same sort of century based clout as an organization like the American Bar Association or the Royal Institute of British Architects.

Good luck.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks</comment></comment>


EM Drive is still producing thrust after another round of NASA testing - <AUTHOR> http://www.sciencealert.com/the-em-drive-still-producing-mysterious-thrust-after-another-round-of-nasa-tests <comment><USER2> From the article:

> _But here 's the catch – so far none of these results have been peer- > reviewed, and it can't be ruled out that the thrust isn't the result of some > type of experimental error. So for now, we remain skeptical._

Previous discussion of the same forum comment, fro a different URL: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10496638](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10496638) (85 points, 2 days ago, 35 comments)</comment>


This problem (reportedly) took Don Knuth, 24 hours to solve - <AUTHOR> http://keithschwarz.com/interesting/code/?dir=find-duplicate <comment><USER2> I don't know what was Knuth's solution, but it's trivial:

       (- (reduce '+ vector)
          (let ((n (- (length vector) 2)))
            (/ (* n (+ n 1)) 2)))

reduce is O(n) time and O(1) space. length is O(1) time and space.

Notice also that if there are no duplicates, this formula will give the maximum element (- (length vector) 1).</comment>


Microsoft HoloLens: One Step Closer to the Ideal AR Wearable Display - <AUTHOR> http://www.zappar.com/blog/hololens-microsoft-augmented-reality-wearable/ My take on Microsoft HoloLens and how it compares to Magic Leap's proposition <comment><AUTHOR> This blog is my take on Microsoft HoloLens and how it compares to Magic Leap's proposition. I'll keep checking this thread and try to respond to any comments.</comment>


Why I'm Leaving Medium - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/loud-journal/why-i-m-leaving-medium-976f83fcd5c1 <comment><USER2> Medium is a magazine with unpaid writers. You create the content, they get the brand equity and readership.</comment>


Ask YC: Javascript and server-side programming, which is harder for you? - <AUTHOR>

I work as a django/python programmer by day, although I do my fair share of front-end work (mostly template building/cleaning and ajax/javascript/jquery.)
Although I've been programming for over half my life, I find that of all the things I do on a regular basis, it's doing DOM manipulation post-ajax call that forces me to do the most mental-judo.
Does anyone else find js work more difficult, relatively speaking, than typical server-side work?
(And yes, I use jquery.) <comment><USER2> I've done both and front-end work is definitelly harder. If you do RIA with a lot of ajax updates, need to keep state and handle events, it becomes even more complex.

Historically, backend work has always been a piece of cake for me: receive data, persist it, return updated data, start over. This is way simpler.

I've yet to encounter a project where the inverse will be true. End-Users are so ingenious!

</comment><comment><USER3> Javascript tends to be harder to debug. It's pretty rare that it takes me more than a few minutes to figure out why a sever-side error is occurring, even if it takes longer to fix the problem.

<comment><AUTHOR> The lack of good debugging tools continually stymies me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> What about JS server-side programming? ;)

I imagine if you were a front-end JS programmer by day but doing your fair share of Python / Django then the JS would be a bit easier.

<comment><USER5> I split 75/25% client/server (Python/Pylons/Django) and find the server stuff easier. The thing about doing server development is that once it's working, it's working. On the client side, once you get it working you're only halfway there unless you're doing boring stuff.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> For me javascript is harder. Actually server-side is javascript too. Client- side js is harder because of browser issues, and the fact that client-side js I worry about more things like performance because the client can have a piece of shit pentium 4 workstation with ie6.

<comment><AUTHOR> We don't do a lot of flashy animations or anything like that at my place of employment, so generally it's a, "get it working, get it working reliably" priority order.

Server-side js is something I'd like to do more of, but I rarely have an excuse to whip it out, at home or work. I'm in the process of learning rails with an old friend at home, simply for a change of pace.</comment></comment>


Example of when Mathematics 'accidentally' discovered something about the world - <AUTHOR> http://math.stackexchange.com/q/1808523/264808 <comment><USER2> I think Planck used discrete states for blackbody radiation just as a mathematical trick to make some observation work out and that led to quantum mechanics</comment>


Ask HN: As an investor where do I start to invest in companies on YCombinator? - <AUTHOR>

Who do I meet, is there any form to fill, stuffs like that. <comment><USER2> If you mean companies we've funded, you can reach them by emailing them individually or by coming to Demo Day. Unfortunately the next Demo Day (on tuesday) is already full. But there will be another in March.

<comment><AUTHOR> If I want to invest in start-ups, is there a list that I can add a company or is it walk-in?

<comment><USER2> You email email@example.com to get an invitation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> [https://wefunder.com](https://wefunder.com) is raising money for some of them if you have the money to be a certified investor. Likewise [https://angel.co](https://angel.co) (Angel List) or Funders Club.

They all do more crowd sourced investing, but until next year if you're not a certified investor you won't be able to participate.

</comment><comment><USER4> Angelist? [https://angel.co/](https://angel.co/)

Also in the coming weeks/months the SEC ruling that's coming down in relation to funding startups should change a bunch of stuff also (lifting the ban on general solicitation).

</comment><comment><USER5> Check AngelList?

</comment><comment><USER6> WeFunder.com</comment>


Why business is so difficult and unpredictable - <AUTHOR> https://www.younglingfeynman.com/essays/artofbusiness <comment><USER2> That's an interesting but pretty academic view of innovation I think.

From my own observation there are only a few markets that really seem to reach a Nash equilibrium and drive prices to the minimum sustainable value.

A great example is the mattresses business. You would think that there's not much room for high margins there since it's such a commodity technology. Good foam based mattresses for example can be mass-manufactured for around 30-50 $ according to industry sources. Shipping is also easy and cheap as they can be vacuum-packed and shipped as regular parcels. Yet, the top selling mattresses cost around 200-300 $. How can that be? I think there are multiple reasons for it but the gist is that price alone does not determine which product wins, psychological aspects play a central role as well. And while in the long run a Nash equilibrium can be reached in practice it's often the case that the manufacturers in the market don't compete too strongly on price since they understand the meta-game and know that they might ruin the market for everyone including themselves if they compete too strongly on price alone.

<comment><USER3> For markets like mattresses I think it's due to low rate of buying. You only get there once a decade, the salesman can pull all the old tricks to take as much money as possible.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think that behavior is few and far between because asymmetrical information flow doesn't exist in the same way it did 2 decades ago. Especially as older people are dying and younger ones are replacing them, they naturally google everything. So when you're using sleazy sales tactics, you'll burn your reputation.

(You don't even see it as much in the tourist restaurant business anymore because of things like Tripadvisor.)

We already know from things like Yelp, Airbnb, Uber, eBay etc. that a minor drop (say 4 stars vs. 5 stars) translates into a huge drop off in clientele.

In a world where every Uber driver has 5 stars, having 4.5 practically means you're a maniac in the eyes of the consumer.

(Not entirely unjustified since 5 stars means 'average' for most people, and not 'outstanding'. So to give less than that is actually quite a hurdle for most people.)

<comment><USER3> young users won't google that

young users will react to ads, feel they should spend money to feel they got something of value, get in the store on "super hot deal day" to get conned (like their parents were the first time?)

I'm exaggerating a bit, some cultures put a lot of pressure on being financially responsible. But for the rest I saw what I described with my eyes.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't have evidence to back this up, but anecdotally it does seem to me that younger people (Millenials) tend to use google to compare/look for reviews when it comes to purchases that fall outside of the impulse buy category.

<comment><USER3> well maybe my entourage is too keen on impulse buy (plausible)

<comment><AUTHOR> It's certainly likely we're both victims of selection bias here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I tend to believe that business isn't difficult, but _modern_ business is difficult. If by business we mean "selling goods or services at a profit", then the type of cut-throat competition that exists today didn't exist historically (or did so at a much lower intensity).

If you were a grocer, a butcher, a book binder, farmer or blacksmith from say, three hundred years ago, your business would have been established decades ago and would remain in a relatively steady state. If it made the same amount of money year on year (inflation adjusted), it would be considered a success. The current _growth at all costs_ paradigm did not exist.

<comment><USER5> I do not see cut-throat competition (I wish since that would lead to innovation).

I see only monopolies.

<comment><USER6> Monopolies are the entities that can afford R&D, dynamically, outside of government.

Citizen science is cool, but doesn't extend outside of incremental value add domains. Fusion and more will almost certainly be from monopolies or monopolistic competitors.

<comment><USER7> No. Groundbreaking innovations like that have and will continue to come from basic research; the type that's really only done at universities.

<comment><USER8> So, say, the iPhone was not a groundbreaking innovation since it didn't come from an university?

<comment><USER9> The iPhone is not a groundbreaking innovation, it's a product. Like many modern products, it is extremely complicated with thousands of different components. Did Apple invent all of those components from scratch? No. Did Apple invent the key components that made the iPhone different from its competitors at the time? No.

The capacitive touch screen was invented by Bent Stumpe at CERN [1]. The software technology that arguably made the iPhone possible, multi-touch, was developed by U of T, Bell Labs, and CMU. Steve Jobs visited CMU in 1985, though that obviously didn't translate into much back then.

The actual multi-touch software that went into the iPhone was developed by FingerWorks founders John Elias and Wayne Westerman at the University of Delaware [2]. Apple bought FingerWorks and incorporated the technology into the iPhone.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi- touch#History](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-touch#History)

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

<comment><USER3> I think it's too strict of a definition. Assembling a tons of known knowledge into something that wipes a market (and zero history in it..) is not a normal event either. Maybe it's innovation at the consumerism layer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> _This problem is further exacerbated by the fact that we go through traditional education by default. A system that's not designed to teach independent thinking but rather to reward obedience and implementing rules._

Not only this, but it baffles my mind that most (high-) schools put (interesting but almost completely irrelevant) subjects such as literature, comparative studies, dead languages etc. above skillsets with _massive_ real- life relevancy such as financial literacy, programming, psychology and leadership.

The world's school system is completely and utterly broken but everyone's just too busy with their own BS to change it. It's heart-breaking.

<comment><AUTHOR> I completely agree. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find people that disagree. The thing is, we can't agree on how we should do it instead.

Some people argue that there are 2nd order effects one needs to take into account, e.g. abolishing grades; what would be the impact on the hiring market, where grades often are a proxy for discipline, work ethic, etc.?

I think Sal Khan was on to something when he hypothesized that we should do homework at school, and the lectures at home. Essentially flipping the model.

Most of these big problems haven't been solved in 1 fell swoop but by many people nibbling on the edges. I suspect this will be no different. In large part due to the inertia of culture.

<comment><USER11> > I think Sal Khan was on to something when he hypothesized that we should do > homework at school, and the lectures at home. Essentially flipping the > model.

I think that works better for at least some people. I'm pretty sure that it works _worse_ for some people, too. What it does is _change_ which group is more successful. That might be nice, in promote-equality kind of way, but it isn't necessarily progress.

Actual progress would be figuring out which people do better in which kind of educational approach, and putting each person in the environment where they do best.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for adding the clarification. That was actually what I meant but I should have been more precise in my communication.

Anytime we try to force a sufficiently large group of people into one system, we're bound to create artificial distortions as a result of sanding down the rough parts, i.e. the outliers.

Part of the solution will have to be the offering of multiple paths toward becoming a productive/successful citizen.

There's a second problem here as well, the status quo problem. When a sufficiently high percentage goes through university (and all in the same age bracket as well.), you create a signal that if you don't go through traditional education, you're somehow defective. Thereby, removing the option of choosing a different path because of the stigma (e.g. starting university at 36 instead of 18).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I feel like the Groupon example could have been solved with science, too; it doesn't require art.

You just have to analyze the data for the long term, not just the short term. If your unsubscribe rate increases, but purchase rate increases more to compensate, that makes sense for the short term but not the long term. Long term, churn is going to cost more and more, since it persists, and you will eventually run out of new subscribers to add. Retention matters more in the long term, and that is not 'art', it is science.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a very fair critique. I have this discussion often with colleagues.

But I can't help but feel like it's cheating a little bit. Because you can call anything rational (including irrationality) in hindsight, provided you simply expand what you deem to be rational post-facto.

For example, increasing price to increase demand would seem irrational and receive a lot of push back in most companies. If you pull it off and it actually works, people can claim it was rational all along.

(This has been my experience with mathematics vs. psychology too. In psychology, people always claim what you say is obvious even though it isn't. Probably because the problems can be stated in plain English. In math, it's the opposite. People find everything incredibly difficult, even though it's super obvious. Probably because mathematical symbols are a little intimidating at first.)

But I get your point of view and I agree. Maybe some day we'll have enough data, or the right kind of models such that we can pretty much always know what the right thing to do is with absolute certainty.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Business is difficult because it involves people, who make decisions based on feelings, which vary wildly and depend upon many many factors, including the weather.

Every other field involving manipulation of people is difficult, because people.

If you want answers, fund and study the brain.

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree with this so much!

In some weird sense, I feel like mathematics is way easier. I often half- jokingly say that but there's an element of truth in it.

All your definitions are painfully clear. (How often do you see people disagreeing, only to, later on, find out they actually mostly agree but were operating under different definitions.)

You control every single variable. If I want to create a 'lab' to constrain a variable, you just write down 'Let n be an element of Z' or something like that. Tada, now you're only working in Z. Try controlling variables in business haha.

I'm glad to see behavioral economics and psychology are slowly starting to take off more in business.

Thanks for reading btw.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I don't get the impression the author has much experience scaling. The problem with modern business is it's dynamic and chaotic so a comparison to academic studies isn't fair.

Imagine trying to predict who's going to be relevant on YouTube in 5 years. In my eyes the problem is creators dynamically adjust their content based on their viewers and what other creators are doing. Then the recommendation algorithm introduces randomness. And finally any growth that does happen rapidly compounds. As a result it's a chaotic system and trying to predict it on any longer timeframe becomes impossible. Similar concept applies to modern tech businesses.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for your comment. I think we're fully in agreement here. Maybe I didn't do a good job but that was the point I tried to make. It's precisely because in business, degrees of freedom are high, and it's a dynamic and complex environment where butterfly effects play a significant role. This means that trying to outthink the market will likely fail and you just have to try different things and iterate based on the feedback the marketplace provides.

I wrote this essay about that specifcally: [https://www.younglingfeynman.com/essays/physicsenvy](https://www.younglingfeynman.com/essays/physicsenvy)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> People and nature are unpredictable and so is the world. Businesses don't exist in a vacuum. What's valuable to a specific person is tied to their current environment and their location in space and time. A business that satisfies such a need and is discoverable from such a demographic profits.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah that's probably true provided they can get the unit economics to work, and there isn't anyone who does a better job of addressing their needs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Biggest takeaway from this post: Don't be a parrot, think for yourself before you spread other peoples truth. Especially if they say what you want to believe.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm glad it has had a positive impact on you. Thank you for taking the time to read it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> What is the connection with feynman? For me, I didn't read the article, I found the website to be unbearable. Also couldn't find an "about" section about the team behind this website. Feels like an ad for their "double your revenue, pay nothing up front" service.

<comment><USER18> I would guess "Feynman" is RJ Youngling's partner: [https://www.linkedin.com/in/rj- youngling-1a4546171](https://www.linkedin.com/in/rj-youngling-1a4546171)

No connection to the physicist.

Not sure what about the site was "unbearable". It's just text. There weren't any banner ads or taboola chum. I guess I have low standards for what constitutes a decent site.

The writing was a little growth hackery, one weird trick to supercharge your business, with a dusting of math theory. It was definitely an ad, but in the sense of "write compelling content and they will come to your site", as opposed to spray-and-pray low rent banner ads.

<comment><USER19> It's REALLY BIG TEXT saying very little of interest by making some hand-wavey references to math that is interesting but irrelevant.

How many business domains end in a Nash equilibrium? How many end up with a monopoly or a small number of cartel players? How many businesses really only compete on price? How many try to inflate perceived value with branding and narrative management? What does "invent" mean in the context of a company like PayPal, which essentially just copied and repurposed one part of the banking system?

"Business is hard" has nothing to do with the replication crisis. If your business is succeeding, you're reading the market correctly by definition. If it isn't, there may be other reasons besides not reading the market correctly.

It's hard because the number of failure modes is bigger than the number of success paths. And the success paths are culturally disguised and non-obvious. (E.g. hard work, VC finance and advice, a good company culture, and so on are not a success path. Ferociously trying to monopolise a market while paying your employees as little as you can get away with and producing minimally competent products boosted by PR, ads, branding, and aggressive sales tactics is far more likely to lead to "success.")

What is the point of this article? It's certainly not to offer actionable strategic intelligence.</comment></comment></comment>