What every Web Developer should know about SEO - <AUTHOR> https://www.polemicdigital.com/2015/01/every-web-developer-know-seo/ <comment><USER2> For JavaScript-heavy sites, I still recommend following Google's AJAX-crawling guidelines, and supporting the pre-rendered view request variable _escaped_fragment_

[https://developers.google.com/webmasters/ajax- crawling/docs/...](https://developers.google.com/webmasters/ajax- crawling/docs/specification)

You can do a good enough job by sending such requests to a PhantomJS instance, waiting for the page to load, outputting the PhantomJS-rendered HTML to the browser, and saving the HTML to a cache for faster access next time.[1]

There are also plenty of SaaS apps that will handle the pre-rendering for you.

An additional bonus of doing this is that you can intercept requests from engines and services that don't support _escaped_fragment (e.g. Facebook external hit), and always ensure that you serve pre-rendered HTML to them. (e.g. by matching on the user-agent string).

[1a] One potential hitch is knowing _when_ a page has finished rendering. You could potentially set a variable in your code and have PhantomJS wait for that.

[1b] One other hitch is that it's possible for PhantomJS to time out e.g. waiting for an external JS library to load. It's sensible to check that your HTML output looks vaguely sane before sending to the browser (e.g. for Angular, make sure there are no {{ }} blocks in the HTML), and sending a temporary error code if something looks odd.

<comment><USER3> Another additional bonus of doing that is that you can serve "true" 404 pages (i.e. not soft 404) for invalid URLs when the page is requested with the _escaped_fragment_= query parameter.

<comment><USER2> _Another additional bonus of doing is that you can serve "true" 404 pages (i.e. not soft 404) for invalid URLs when the page is requested with the _escaped_fragment_= query parameter._

For one of our sites, the Angular router redirects the user to a "true" 404 page if the in-app page cannot be found, along with the troublesome URL.

For example:

[https://example.com/products/name-does-not- exist/](https://example.com/products/name-does-not-exist/)

Will do a JS redirect to:

[https://example.com/not-found/?url=/products/name-does- not-e...](https://example.com/not-found/?url=/products/name-does-not-exist/)

The /not-found/ URL serves a "true" 404 response.

We're still in early days, and have very little data to back up the pros or cons of doing it this way.

All I can say with any certainty is that for the several months now we have zero "soft" 404s listed in Webmaster Tools.

<comment><USER3> Interesting and good to know! I was actually wondering if a JS redirect would suffice.

<comment><USER2> _Interesting and good to know! I was actually wondering if a JS redirect would suffice._

Hehe, as I say, take it with a grain of salt, as I have very little real data to back it up with :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm coming to the conclusion that SEO does not matter anymore, at least not this basic stuff as everyone is doing this, including your rivals, so it is really not going to get you to stand out from the crowd.

Search engines make their money from advertising your site, _not_ from sending you free traffic via SEO. So fire up your credit card and buy some Adwords in key search terms for your business, that's want they want from you. I believe we are already in the post-SEO age of the Internet, maybe we have been for a few years now.

<comment><USER5> If you're in the app/startup world, it can seem that way. However I'm a web developer on Sears's e-commerce team. We focus a lot on SEO still, as the other options is paying money for search placement and traffic, and those payments are no joke. We have major business goals around minimizing the amounts we pay for traffic, so optimizing SEO is big for us.

<comment><USER6> This is o true. We get a lot more sales from organic Google search results than paid advertising. It's no joke when you start spending thousands of dollars a day on adwords and still get nowhere near the organic results.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Some additional info...

1\. Don't let the new HTML5 tags distract or confuse you. Google knows how to deal with traditional DIVs so only use the new tags (example: SECTION, ASIDE) if you know how to properly implement.

2\. Maintainability is a big one for page speed optimizations. You can easily get 95% there but that remaining 5% often comes at the expense of maintenance, and the ability to see/make changes easily.

3\. Can't agree more with the section on redirects. 301's are often forgotten and can cause issues down the road with SEO and site functions.

4\. The last tip I would add would be to monitor 404/access logs. Often times they will reveal SEO problems.

<comment><USER2> _Maintainability is a big one for page speed optimizations. You can easily get 95% there but that remaining 5% often comes at the expense of maintenance, and the ability to see /make changes easily._

Agreed. You might be able to gain a percentage point by inlining some vital CSS rules, but without hellish attention to details, that way madness lies.

<comment><USER8> Absolutely - it's also a complete waste of time from and SEO perspective, and represents a poor cost vs. benefit if your goal is to reduce bounce rate / increase conversion rate.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> There is some good technical execution advice here, but the basic premonition is wrong:

"From a development point of view SEO is the concern of how well a robot can read and understand your content. As we will see, a robot being able to read your content easily is normally a good thing for humans too."

I don't think we need different points of view of what SEO is. SEO is about getting your page ranked as high as possible for whatever keywords you're targeting. Technical execution is a tactic that supports that, not a different view of it.

</comment><comment><USER10> If you want to see how Google ranks your site speed and user friendliness check out google page speed insights. Very handy tool for guidance on what's slowing down your site.

A constantly updated and properly marked up site map is also good to have.

<comment><USER7> I have no affiliation but do use GTmetrix quite a bit when optimizing client websites: [http://gtmetrix.com/](http://gtmetrix.com/)

It works like an aggregator of all the existing speed tools and provides a nice speed testing resource that is outside my local network.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm surprised he didn't mention using kebab-case vs snake_case in his URLs section.

Google recommends kebab-case and will afford a small SEO bump accordingly.

<comment><AUTHOR> Author here: Good point, you are indeed correct. I will add it to my list of additions/corrections.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is all basic stuff, but won't affect your rankings that much. Yes, everyone should have it in place, but doesn't represent the state of SEO.

What you _should_ know about SEO, is that it's all about getting organic links to your content, and having content that has a semantic connection to the keywords being searched for.

<comment><USER13> but then where will the "SEO expert" scumbags make money?

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> This is also a pretty good set of guidelines by Google to follow: [http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/www.google.com/en/...](http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/www.google.com/en//webmasters/docs/search- engine-optimization-starter-guide.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER15> Where is the evidence presented that supports any of these claims? I realize most of the seem like common sense but as far as I know many are in fact false. In particular, the argument about semantic markup seems pretty dubious. Currently, I'm not aware of any search engine that cares about new HTML5 semantic tags.

On that note, is there even even one example of assistive technology that uses semantic markup? As I understand it ARIA tags are needed for this, semantic markup is irrelevant since most (all?) assistive technology is outdated as far as browser technology goes.

</comment><comment><USER16> For basic on page SEO when you are building a site, this is all good and useful information.

Developers should also know that creating good technical content and open source projects on your site will over time generate links and attention for your website. While those links aren't going directly to your product pages, the long term benefit of those pages linking back to your main company pages/products will help those pages rank, which makes you money. It's a bit indirect, but still is worthwhile.

</comment><comment><USER17> Does anyone have any real evidence to support higher rankings for an increase in speed? Like, if I increased my speed from 5s to 4s page loading, I saw X amount of increase on traffic.

Reason being - all too often I see SEO developers use this as a hook to sell their services to clients to be able to get into their codebase.

<comment><USER18> It's very hard to isolate any single ranking factor and attribute specific traffic increases to it, but overall what we know about load speed and Google rankings strongly implies a correlation there.

Moreover, Google has come out and said it's a factor. Not that we can always trust everything Google says, but in this case it aligns well with their efforts to optimise crawl efficiency. Faster loading websites means more efficient crawling, which helps Google.

And if Google recommends something it benefits from itself, it's a safe bet to assume it actually benefits your website's visibility in Google's search results as well. Google is, after all, very adept at the carrot & stick approach to making webmasters do what it wants them to.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> This talk makes so much sense. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1nNkS4SVRw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1nNkS4SVRw)

I first thought the article is written on similar lines of sarcasm.

</comment><comment><USER20> I have never seen additional semantic attributes done in json before. Json-ld seems kinda neat.

<comment><USER21> One handy use of it is inviting Googlebot to find your site search, like so: [https://developers.google.com/webmasters/richsnippets/siteli...](https://developers.google.com/webmasters/richsnippets/sitelinkssearch)</comment></comment>


Top Ten No Sympathy Lines - <AUTHOR> http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/nosymp.htm <comment><USER2> This kind of got preachy towards the end.</comment>


Ask HN : How do you measure success? - <AUTHOR>

One is successful if? <comment><USER2> You have a reasonable approximation of life security: food, shelter, health/healthcare, and financial flexibility.

You have a goal and are substantially achieving it.</comment>


Adventures in RISC-V - <AUTHOR> https://matrix89.github.io/writes/writes/experiments-in-riscv/ <comment><USER2> Thought it is about hardware but this first one only covers Qemu.

Trying to do it but you need instruction to setup the riscv64-unknown-elf-gcc Try the sifive one embedded version but it does not work.

Wait for the future post then. Or just try alternatives:

[https://theintobooks.wordpress.com/2019/12/28/hello-world- on...](https://theintobooks.wordpress.com/2019/12/28/hello-world-on-risc-v- with-qemu/)

or even

[https://github.com/adityashah1212/baremetal-riscv-qemu- virti...](https://github.com/adityashah1212/baremetal-riscv-qemu-virtio)</comment>


Ask HN: How can we stop the plan to end net neutrality? - <AUTHOR> In the following week the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is expected to roll out their plan to end net neutrality.
It appears that the public at large and even some internet stalwarts have become apathetic to the coming changes, which threaten to alter the internet as we know it going forward.
If this happens without massive public outrage it may indicate to other democratic nations that treating all traffic equally is no longer the norm, and they are free to enact their own "play-to-play" schemes in addition to those imposed by the U.S.
What can be done to reverse this course of action? <comment><USER3> First: Call your congress person. Right now. [https://callyourrep.co/](https://callyourrep.co/)

\----- Some students from Gonzaga Uni are trying to build something to help.

Right now we're trying to build a site that will let folks send a physical letter to your congress person. Letters in bulk may be effective alongside calls.

Demo here: [http://savethenet.today/](http://savethenet.today/)

# We need help!

Github here: [https://github.com/gu-app-club/save-the- net](https://github.com/gu-app-club/save-the-net)

## Programmers

There's a few bugs need to be sorted Built in React/Nextjs

## Designers

We would love a design review <3 Please please please, all criticism and PR's are welcome.

## Non-profits and Biz folks

We're trying to launch this week, (hopefully tomorrow) but in order to take money with Stripe (to pay for postage), we need a EIN. That means we'll either need to register as a non-profit or partner with one. Expediting seems to cost a fair amount of money that we don't have. (We're just uni students) So we're looking to partner. If this is something you could help us with, please please please reach out (@flaqueeau on twitter): [https://twitter.com/flaqueeau](https://twitter.com/flaqueeau)

(Also, if we're doing the non-profit thing wrong, please let us know)

<comment><USER4> Honest question: is it worth calling my Congress person if they are already vehemently against repealing the current net neutrality rules? Does it count for anything?

<comment><USER3> Yes. If nothing else, it removes their political capital. Politicians are weighing which unpopular things they can do while still maintaining their donor base.

Make this cost them. Even if they vote for it. Even if they've supported it all along.

Make this cost them.

<comment><USER5> And encourage all your family and friends to call, too. The tipping point for getting a representative to change their mind might be smaller than you think, just like how lobbying dollars required to get a vote for a law are smaller than you may think.

I don't have numbers for how many calls might be needed to flip a vote though. Does anyone have experience with this?

<comment><USER6> Exactly... most pro-proposal folks are not going to call in asking them to support (since it benefits industry). So as many anti-proposal folks that can call in, the better. Also document their response for the next election cycle - pro Trump, pro cable company, anti internet freedom, etc.

If a scenario is possible under the new proposal, point that out =>

"Soon, your cable company can intentionally make your Youtube/Pinterest/Facebook slow. Ask your congress man/woman why they are willing to support this? <Congress contact info> <Website to protest>"

or

"Are you ready for slower Youtube? You can upgrade for $X to make it normal again. Your friendly ISP/Cable company. Ask your congress man/woman why they are willing to support this? <Congress Contact Info> <Website to protest>"

You have to use simple language in terms people understand, and provide a number to call.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> A small counter suggestion. I know we all tend to be introverted but...go visit your reps. Visit them in DC, visit them in their offices in your area. Most will be home this week for thanksgiving and almost all will be home over the holiday break. Email them to schedule a meeting or call. Make them explain this to your face.

I tried this and after five emails have meetings with my rep and both my senators scheduled less than a week out.

<comment><USER8> This is a great idea. I wasn't able to easily find scheduling contact information for John Cornyn, but my representative and other senator, Cruz, have an email published to get scheduled. I'll dig more for Cornyn tomorrow.

If I do get on their calendars, I hope I can articulate my reasoning well. I doubt I'll be given much time.

<comment><USER9> I've read that Cruz only takes meetings with representatives of formal groups.

<comment><USER8> I'll find out soon enough!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> What's going now with Net neutrality is a symptom of a bigger problem. We need to repeal Citizens United[1] and make the government less corrupted to prevent cases like this.

But in narrower scope, the best way is to support the inevitable court case against FCC that will follow their expected decision. That will prompt politicians who are backed by ISP monopolists to propose a "solution", i.e. legislation that will supposedly address Net neutrality.

That's where the real fight will begin. They'll try to push a fake law that won't protect anything but will make it even harder to ever change things for the better. The public will have to put a lot of pressure on their representatives to voice interest in a proper law.

Another part of the solution would be pushing for more municipal networks and for ending of the obnoxious monopolistic grip of Comcast and Co. That also requires repealing a lot of anti-competitive state laws (so again, put pressure on your representatives if you live in one). Real (not fake) competition will naturally prevent many of the issues that Net neutrality tries to address.

1\. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC)

<comment><USER11> > What's going now with Net neutrality is a symptom of a bigger problem. We > need to repeal Citizens United[1] and make the government less corrupted to > prevent cases like this.

Your error is in assuming that this is due to corruption, rather than due to Republicans' philosophical belief that minimal regulation and free markets are better [1]. The Republican position on net neutrality is consistent with, and entirely predictable from, their positions on internet and telecommunications regulations going back long before Citizens United.

> But in narrower scope, the best way is to support the inevitable court case > against FCC that will follow their expected decision.

Will there actually be a serious court case? There were court cases when the FCC made net neutrality rules, in both 2010 and 2015, but _making_ a rule requires exercising authority, and so the question of whether or not they exceeded their authority can arise, and be litigated.

In the case of _repealing_ one of their prior rules, instead of _making_ a rule, is there really a plausible litigable issue? Since there is nothing that requires them to have a net neutrality regulation, it is hard to see how they could be exceeding their authority by dropping their net neutrality rules.

As long as they don't make a procedural mistake, it is hard to see what grounds they can be challenged on.

[1] Yes, I know that ISP markets are usually not competitive, which is one of the requirements for a free market to work well, but that's not relevant since I'm not saying that Republicans are _right_ that minimal regulation and markets will protect the internet. I'm just saying that this is what they believe.

<comment><USER12>
      You error is in assuming that this is due to corruption,
      rather than due to Republicans' philosophical belief that
      minimal regulation and free markets are better [1].

I think people find this hard to believe, as it requires one of two things; either (a) they _are_ aware of the impacts of giving monopolies expanded powers to extract economic rent without productive action, _but_ they believe repealing net neutrality will be good for the country; or (b) they have somehow got elected to public office without knowledge of that impact, despite the fact I've seen it taught to first-year undergraduates in economics, politics and history courses; and they will have received briefs and letters informing them about it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I have a recommendation, and it's going to sound scary at first so please read all the way through.

We should convince the firearms industry that Net Neutrality is in their interest. They benefit heavily from an internet presence, and recent actions on Youtube related to demonitizing firearms content have already affected the community.

Firearms related content is absolutely an easy target for ISPs to block and censor.

And if there's anything the firearms industry is good at in the US, it's fighting tooth and nail and using their reps to get things done.

I realize it's an uncomfortable and unlikely alliance, but it could be a powerful one.

<comment><USER14> The NRA would be all behind this the first time someone reports a 'suboptimal experience' when trying to access their site to become a member, or order ammo from some random M&P gun shop.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I don't usually like to be political, but it has become quite evident that the US government is a true oligarchy. Even if the entirety of the US population were to petition against this, Mr. Pai would do the bidding of those he serves, which is, hint, not the general US population.

<comment><USER16> He's looking forward to his cushy job at some telecom after his term is over.

It's an odd bird these types of positions when they are handled like this. To Illustrate how odd they are, imagine you apply for a job which a friend helped discover for you, then that friend recommends you to his manager. You get hired but instead of taking orders from your managers you ignore them, and you work for your friends instead.

<comment><USER15> Except that by definition his role is to serve the greater good of the population, not special interest groups. The FCC is a government agency, not a private corporation in which case your argument might apply. Their entire mission is provide reliable, fair, reasonably-priced access to all forms of communication, including broadband. Their own mission statement for broadband states "Regulatory policies must promote technological neutrality". How sadly corrupt our government must be if an entire agency can't fulfill its own basic mission because of ridiculous nonsense like this.

<comment><USER16> Trump decided to appoint the guy who is pushing this to the head of the FCC. The FCC as an institution didn't decide this. The administration did.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Vote out your Republican rep and vote for Democrats that vocally support Net Neutrality.

That is literally the only thing that can be done. This would not be happening if Hillary Clinton was President.

<comment><USER18> Neoliberals like Clinton aren't looking out for the consumer either.

<comment><USER19> They were very invested in the status quo of net neutrality, regardless of what you think about their sincerity.

<comment><USER10> It didn't help, since Republicans made it a point to oppose it out of spite. Overall it became a partisan issue, instead of a normal common cause.

<comment><USER20> "a normal common cause"

For better or worse, those no longer exist. Everything is politics now.

<comment><USER10> Which is why we have such dysfunctional results.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I wrote my congressman and senators about this issue, both "libertarians". Here were their responses: 1) Its not the executive branch's job to legislate. 2) The ISP's know whats best for innovation and serving their customers.

Number one is like saying "I see the iceberg ahead, someone else on board steered the ship away, but its my job to steer the ship so I'm putting it back on course for the iceberg".

Number two is just laughable given the lack of competition in my area.

I do not believe either of them will change their stance, so I asked a friend that works in politics to do. He recommended: \- Write an op-ed in the local papers. These are surprisingly effective because it reaches senior citizens as well as the politician in the form of daily briefings. \- Get involved in voter participation initiatives. In my area turnout is super low, and we need a more diverse viewpoint voting to potentially unseat officials that do not serve the public interest.

<comment><USER22> > 1) Its not the executive branch's job to legislate. 2) The ISP's know whats > best for innovation and serving their customers.

Ran that through congressman/senator double speak to english translator and got this:

1) You're unable to offer us election funding and/or a high paying job after we leave office so we're not going to do anything. 2) The ISP's know whats best for themselves and screwing their customers.

<comment><USER21> I understand that libertarians believe the free market should determine winners and losers, and like any viewpoint, there's truth in it when not taken as an unwavering silver bullet with no exceptions.

What bothers me so much about this is that net neutrality should be a no brainer when it comes to "maximize political freedom and autonomy, emphasizing freedom of choice, voluntary association, individual judgment and self- ownership." (wikipedia). Why is corporate control of our daily lives so acceptable but government control opposed indiscriminately?

<comment><USER22> I all for the free market at the ISP level if and only if the last mile is run by neutral third party with equal access to all ISPs.

As for corporate control is so acceptable and government control isn't is because the corps control the media and the government. Anytime someone in the government tries to control the corps there's a big media backlash against it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> If net neutrality was ended, would ISPs actually charge incrementally for website access?

Websites like savetheinternet.com seem to argue that if net neutrality is ended, only major websites will be offered. They say "And without Net Neutrality, millions of small businesses owned by people of color wouldn't be able to compete against larger corporations online, which would deepen economic disparities."

Why are ISPs going to targets people of color? I don't understand..

How will ISPs decide what websites I can not visit? Will they have a whitelist/blacklist?

Will there be ISPs that offer packages that we have now? (I.E bandwidth only restriction)

I've seen good arguments both for and against net neutrality and I really don't know which would be better.

<comment><USER24> They won't, because they've seen what happens when they do that. People are leaving cable TV because it is a selected menu of channels. No choice. ISPs who attempt to limit choice will find themselves without subscribers. If Comcast decided I can't access Netflix on my internet plan, I'm gone.

<comment><USER25> Except where I live, I do not have any other ISPs besides Comcast.

<comment><USER26> This is the crux of the issue. Without consumer choice, an ISP can target whatever local regions it wants with specific, anti-consumer plans. Unless there is an regulation to keep them in check..

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Donate money to causes that support Net Neutrality:

[https://indivisible435.org/](https://indivisible435.org/) [https://supporters.eff.org/donate](https://supporters.eff.org/donate) [https://contribute.itstarts.today//2018](https://contribute.itstarts.today//2018)

And make a point to try to either call or directly visit your representative.

</comment><comment><USER28> I hate how everyone on hn and reddit just accepts "nn is good" unconditionally.Beleive it or not, if it were such an open-and-shut case, it would not be an issue. You don't see anybody trying to legalize murder, do you?

So at the risk of repeating myself, I want to know what is the problem with the current internet that nn will solve, and why do you consider it to be such a world-ending issue, above things like "hundreds of people being regularly murdered by some random gun-toting lunatic".

I present to you my arguments why nn is bad, just as a thought exercise.

1\. The company that builds and operates the network has a right to charge for it as it sees fit.

2\. If competition is limited in the ISP space, that is due to over-regulation like granting monopolies. Instead of piling on more regulation, we should solve the root cause and do things that promote more competition. NN doesn't do that in the least.

3\. Internet infrastructure is expensive to build and operate, especially wireless networks. And bandwidth and capacity is not unlimited. If Verizon thinks they can provide a better service by limiting 4k streaming over LTE, let them. If you don't like it, switch to an operator who provides a better service for you.

I would prefer to see arguments for NN, not responses to my arguments. My arguments may be poorly thought out, but my main point is we need solid discussion on this topic and I have only seen vague bullshit till now.

<comment><USER29> I agree with all your points, but:

1\. ...but why give them ability to charge based on _what_ you're doing with access they give you? It's like your electric power provider would charge you more if you have a blacklisted freezer...

2\. ...but maybe let's start by lowering the bar for new ISPs and getting rid of monopolies instead of giving them more means to squeeze more money? How getting rid of NN helps with that? Google couldn't get into that market.

3\. ...but what if my provider throttles wired network, not wireless, and not 4k, but full HD? What if they throttle my twitch, because they got a deal with google to serve unlimited access to Youtube Gaming at the cost of limiting access to twitch? Sure, change IPS! Whoops, there's no competition in my area. What now?

<comment><USER28> > 1\. ...but why give them ability to charge based on what you're doing with > access they give you? It's like your electric power provider would charge > you more if you have a blacklisted freezer...

The electricity analogy doesn't work because the electricity company literally cannot figure out what brand of appliance you're using. Again, if you enter into a contract with your electricity company locking you into only running apple chargers, that's on you. No regulation needed.

> 2\. ...but maybe let's start by lowering the bar for new ISPs and getting > rid of monopolies instead of giving them more means to squeeze more money? > How getting rid of NN helps with that? Google couldn't get into that market.

Makes sense. Except nobody's getting rid of nn. They are trying to prevent nn from being introduced. Till now, there hasn't been a concept of nn enforced by the regulatory authority. So no change in status quo, as far as nn is concerned. And Google _did_ get into the market without over-reaching regulation like nn. It seems logical to me to continue the current state, it has allowed much innovation to occur.

> 3\. ...but what if my provider throttles wired network, not wireless, and > not 4k, but full HD? What if they throttle my twitch, because they got a > deal with google to serve unlimited access to Youtube Gaming at the cost of > limiting access to twitch? Sure, change IPS! Whoops, there's no competition > in my area. What now?

Fully agree. This indicates the actual problem with ISPs today. They are operating as monopolies or duopolies or I'd even say cartels. This monopolistic behavior must be tackled. But enforcing nn will be like throwing the baby out with the bath-water.

As I said earlier, my points are not very well thought out. I really want to hear about problems that will get solved by enforcing nn. Thanks for responding, and not just downvoting.

<comment><USER30> > electricity company literally cannot figure out what brand of appliance > you're using

That's a technological limitation; I know various companies that have half- working solutions for discriminating what _kind_ of appliance you're using from a smart meter, based on its consumption profile and noise profile. Nobody's yet attempted plug-level DRM but it's not technologically impossible ...

Really what America needs is "local loop unbundling" _in addition to_ net neutrality. But we're in the realms of what's politically achievable.

<comment><USER31> > Really what America needs is "local loop unbundling" in addition to net > neutrality.

If we have local loop unbundling, NN will come on the backs of meaningful competition it would ensue (as opposed to Pai competition).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Contact your congressional representatives. Resistbot makes this easy:

[https://resistbot.io](https://resistbot.io)

It's free, and will fax/write your House rep / Senators on your behalf with your own message. Call them, too. It takes just a few minutes to tell the staffer that answers that you want your congressperson to protect net neutrality. Just your name and, usually, zip code (to confirm that you're a part of their constituency) gets your quick opinion tallied.

<comment><USER33> Congressional staffers don't pay any attention to faxes any longer. The likelihood that your member of Congress pays attention to your contact is proportional to the amount of work you put into it. Faxes used to be good, but Resistbot changed the dynamic due to making sending one frictionless.

Source: A Senate staffer I had drinks with a few months ago.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> It's a good question. As tech folks, we're first in line to see this wonderful dream we have crumble, both from government and private actions. (I'm looking at you, Facebook)

In my opinion the only hope we have is to eliminate anything looking like a Democratic or Republican talking point from our language. We live in an age of people forming up into these two groups and yelling at the other one. If we play that game, then it's much more profitable for the politicians to keep the debate alive than settle it.

Our model should be the temprance movement which ended up outlawing alcohol in the early 1900s. They didn't care which political party you were in, as long as you voted the same way on a very simple proposition: should alcohol be banned or not. (Making it simple prevented politicians from playing weasel- word games)

They were effective. Politicians feared them.

I don't see this happening with tech issues, sadly. Instead, I see the big tech players setting up lobbying firms and the troops all rallying around one party or the other. That's a strategy for a long, losing battle, not a winning one.

<comment><USER30> I don't think it can be simplified enough for that approach to work. There's also limited room for single issue votes - you can't be a single issue voter on multiple issues! And a big part of American politics is people being single issue voters on guns or abortion regardless of how corrupt the candidate is otherwise (see Alabama).

Maciej ("idlewords" on HN) has started [https://techsolidarity.org/](https://techsolidarity.org/) as one possible solution.

<comment><USER34> I'm not a single-issue guy myself, but the question was something along the lines of "How can we make this happen?" and the answer is "focus". Otherwise you're just going to be another special interest group in a vast sea of special interest groups. The American political system has an entire machine dedicated to folks like that. I don't see that as being worthwhile.

But admittedly, I'm just random-internet-dude. If somebody can start something I think has a chance, I'm happy to help out in any way I can. It's an important (critical) issue.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Why is it considered a foregone conclusion that removing net neutrality will change anything in the first place? I mean, we're talking about rolling back the clock to the situation as of ~2 years ago. Which was just fine. I would prefer net neutrality to stay in place, but it's intellectually dishonest to make claims about the internet as we know it coming to an end within minutes of the repeal.

<comment><USER36> No, the FCC has been trying to pass NN rules for many years. The courts kept striking down their common-carrier-lite rules so they finally acknowledged reality.

Prior to that many people were still on dialup and the fight was to get people to sign up for broadband. Now the market is saturated so it's time to seek as much rent as possible.

They successfully squeezed Netflix. You don't think they see dollar signs?

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> How hard is it to build a non-profit Internet infrastructure?

We can already do last mile ISPs quite easily. How about we start connecting them together?

Of course this is not a short term solution but this is what we need to accomplish in the long run. Infrastructure should not be in private hands because of reasons like this. They will never stop trying, because of the innate perverse incentives.

<comment><USER38> Muni/Public broadband has already been limited in 20 states.

[https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/isp-lobby-has- al...](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/isp-lobby-has-already-won- limits-on-public-broadband-in-20-states/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> this episode of Radiolab More Perfect actually convinced me the court decided that case correctly (as much as Radiolab clearly tried to push to opposite opinion)

I don't like the results but the solution has to be something else IMO

[http://www.wnyc.org/story/citizens- united/](http://www.wnyc.org/story/citizens-united/)

<comment><USER40> Part of the problem is how little people understand or think about the basics of the relevant body of law. "Corporate personhood", for example, makes perfect sense when you consider that generally we want people to be able to start businesses, and the business needs to be able to, say, own property or enter into contracts (and potentially use the courts to have them enforced). It means nothing more than granting corporations some of the rights of humans, in order for corporations as legal entities to be able to fulfill their function.

The issue then is not things like "corporations are people" versus "no they're not"; it's to what extent the rights of a corporation should mirror the rights of a human. And generally, the argument people should make to fight _Citizens United_ is one of granting only those rights which are necessary for a corporation -- an artificial, legally-created "person" \-- to fulfill its designed function, and avoiding those which are problematic.

Once you reframe the argument that way, you get to talk about how it's useful to have some corporate speech rights for purposes of advertising, but _political_ speech isn't necessary or useful, and may even be self- contradictory. Consider that unlimited corporate political speech also opens the door for forced corporate political speech: if a shareholder can make an argument that, say, Candidate A's positions will increase shareholder value while Candidate B's positions will decrease it, then the shareholder now also has an argument to force the corporation to "speak" on behalf of A and against B as part of the corporation's responsibility to shareholders. So granting "free speech" to corporations could well lead to _compelled_ speech. And it's probably not in the interest of public policy to clog up courts with those kinds of arguments, which then gives you the way in to restricting corporate political speech.

<comment><USER41> >how it's useful to have some corporate speech rights for purposes of advertising, but political speech isn't necessary or useful, and may even be self-contradictory.

Most mass media speech is corporate. Banning corporate speech would mean shutting down every for-profit news paper and tv station in the country.

Is the Washington Post putting out a story any different than Amazon putting out a story?

<comment><USER40> You seem to think it's impossible to craft a ruling that allows, say, a newspaper to exist at all without also having exactly the current system we have. It's not impossible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Here is the number for the congressional switchboard: (202) 224-3121

Googling your reps by zip code is also helpful (direct lines).

Call them and let them know you want _legislation passed to guarantee title ii (2) net neutrality_. Title 2 is the "internet as a utility" provision.

Title 2 is important because opponents are claiming they are for "net neutrality" too. Title 2 is the "treat it like a utility" neutrality that has been in place since 2015.

If you're making less than $75k you may want to mention that you don't want your taxes to go up while you're at it.

<comment><USER43> > Title 2 is important because opponents are claiming they are for "net > neutrality" too.

The opponents on the FCC (well, the 2 of the 3 that were on the FCC then) voted against the most recent proposal under Title I that preceded the current Title II reclassification. Insofar as they claim to support net neutrality, they oppose _any_ regulation, regardless of basis, that would enforce it.

> If you're making less than $75k you may want to mention that you don't want > your taxes to go up while you're at it.

From my experience in a legislative office, for anything short of an in person meeting with someone you have an established relationship with, you want to keep any contact to a single subject: if you want to address two issues, make two separate contacts.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> Today? You can try calling your congress person. In ops terms, this is like 'service httpd restart'. It may or may not help, but you'll feel like you did something.

Long-term? You need to vote in every election, for every human candidate position. Study the candidates in your local election and vote for one in every category that is _not_ loony and disconnected from reality. It'll take _hours_ of work. Like choosing a vendor, only you don't get paid. If you want to save your friends time, post the results of your research on Facebook and talk them down or unfriend them if they're mean instead of curious/rational about discussing it.

(Actually, you would get paid, long-term, because all the access fees for "HD video" would be made illegal, because you took the time to speak up for your interests and statistically that works out at scale.)

Also if you're rich, donate money. Use lobbying in plain view, and say that you're doing so after you do it. It only takes a million bucks to buy a senator for a year. If you're going up against Big Telecom, you might need ten million bucks. Consider it angel investing in the nation's infrastructure.

</comment><comment><USER45> The best way would be to destroy Comcast with community networks. Get fiber and provide free wifi to your neighborhood. Drive them bankrupt.

<comment><USER27> In several states, lobbyists from Comcast and Verizon are working to make it illegal for community owned ISPs. Their claim is that this is essentially the government participating in free trade and that it gives those communities an unfair advantage.

<comment><USER45> For one, this doesn't need to be provided by the government. We have community wifi in Prague run by hobbyists and volunteers. For two, isn't the freedom of democracy (aka, the freedom of the people to have their government do what they want, such as provide community wifi) even more fundamental than net neutrality? Doesn't it make sense to fight the monopoly than to regulate it?

<comment><USER27> That works in a large hub like Prague, where fiber is present. In the US, NYC Mesh would be one. The issue is that for many communities within the United States, fiber is not available at all. There is a single ISP, usually Comcast or Verizon, and they have implemented data caps. The cost of running fiber would be prohibitively expensive even for a group of people, and you can be sure Comcast would use every legal tactic to fight, like they did with Google Fiber.

Your latter sentence is a great idea, except that in the US, we had a court decision known as Citizens United (notorious Republican double speak) that essentially made money into speech. Many of these issues now pit small communities with limited funds versus large internal companies with nigh limitless resources.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> If you really want to stop it I think we're all going to have to call our reps and become single issue voters.

</comment><comment><USER47> In addition to contacting your gov representatives, apply economic pressure on the companies who seek to profit from this bass-ackwards legislation, namely Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T.

If you are a Comcast, Verizon, or AT&T subscriber contact your respective provider and tell them you will cancel your service (or if under contract, not renew) if they continue to support the FCC's plan. Find friends and family who might also be current customers and ask them to file complaints with customer service.

Appealing to heads and hearts is certainly worthy, but when we grab them by the financial balls we will have their undivided attention.

</comment><comment><USER48> I feel like we need a permanent solution to this so that we don't have to panic and raise awareness every year. If we create a fund to protect Net Neutrality and "out-lobby" the ISPs in Washington would be great. If we just donate 10% of our internet bill every month we can definitely become a force they can't out-lobby without going bankrupt.

</comment><comment><USER49> Use cryptography to solve problems not legislation. Net Neutrality means nothing on Tor because nobody can be identified via their link connection.

<comment><USER50> If lots of ordinary people started using Tor, then perhaps this would solve something. Until then, ISPs will just throttle "unidentified" connections along with anything not coming from Netflix, Amazon etc... .

<comment><USER49> Properly configured Tor connections look like regular HTTPS connections on port 443 otherwise most who need it couldn't use it without getting thrown into "re-education camps"

Also I'm not talking about using Tor to connect to "regular HTTPS" sites like Amazon or Netflix where they see you as some special citizen of the Internet (one they don't like) I'm talking about things like Hidden Services where there is no external gap between networks being exploited.

<comment><USER50> I wonder if one or both of us is missing the point here.

The concern is that ISPs will throttle all traffic which they don't recognise as being served from a big-name domain (Netflix, Amazon, Facebook...).

In such a situation, if I use an ordinary https connection to watch my favourite Netflix shows, then they won't throttle me. But if I do _anything_ through Tor, then they will.

<comment><USER49> My point is that on a network with onion routing you have nothing to block. You are mixing the two networks that's a separate issue.

<comment><USER50> Based on this and your other comments, it sounds like you're suggesting running the entire Internet on a cryptographic protocol like onion-routing. Am I right?

This still isn't a practical solution to the problem at hand. Most people want to watch a lot of streamed video, which isn't doable over a Tor-like network in the foreseeable future. Also, it would be impossible to get the support of the internet giants, without which I don't know how you could do this. They've invested a lot into being able to see and analyse almost everyone that's using their service.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Wont this create a massive demand for VPN services? How can they stop/throttle VPN'ed access?

<comment><USER52> your vpn is not on the whitelist of ips that they allow large bandwidth for because you paid extra. Throttled.

That's one way and there will be variants on it, other methods, bait and switch etc. etc.

<comment><USER51> I can't see ISPs doing whitelists (that would almost certainly become a public court document). I can't see just banning vpns (due to work etc), I _could_ see them charging for a VPN line. At that point they have accomplished nothing?

<comment><USER30> > that would almost certainly become a public court document

Why?

> I can't see just banning vpns (due to work etc), I could see them charging > for a VPN line. At that point they have accomplished nothing?

They've accomplished quite a lot: getting you to pay extra for a service that was previously included.

There are also technological solutions that detect video streaming within a VPN (by size and frequency of packet), so you might find that you still can't watch Netflix unless you pay the extra Netflix ransom to the ISP.

<comment><USER51> > that [ip white list] would almost certainly become a public court document > >> Why?

If a medium sized company and was excluded, I imagine a law suite would be filed within hours. Any internet company not on the list would be in court just to survive. The first document in question would be the white ip list. That white ip list would never leave the courtroom (international headaches, federal districts courts, county courts then all the one offs: schools, .govs, .mils! -- ugh what a mess). This isn't a plan.

> They've accomplished quite a lot: getting you to pay extra for a service > that was previously included.

Really? They win an extra fee of $10 on 0.5% of users? They can't do that now - just raise it now $10? Sure make it $20? I guess they can try to tell if you use a video source over a VPN - and haggle customers over video usage. Have millions of false positives. Ugh. ISPs shudder when you say "add more call centers." SO --- Hiring expensive tech fluent english customer service teams to hunt down VPNs (at $10 a pop) - sounds like a plan a board will almost certainly _ditch_. A call to my mother about her VPN using video traffic would take 17 phone calls and over 200 man hours. I don't think any of this is a money maker plan.

Yeah when you logically break down the parts, I don't see ISPs gaining a thing but headache. But I do see ISP losing almost all their influence to VPN services.

<comment><USER30> On what grounds would you litigate? We're not talking about a _ban_ here, it's just that if you're not part of the ISP "partner programme" you wouldn't be included on low-tier subscriptions and connections to your website would be either unreliable or get an ISP upsell banner.

> haggle customers over video usage

Just degrade it, enough to stop working. Have the connection dribble to a halt. All automated. Tech already built for China's Great Firewall. And obviously you don't call the customers, you have them call you, at which point you upsell them.

<comment><USER51> > "On what grounds would you litigate?"

Thousands of companies couldn't do business and no lawsuit? I don't see this happening. I could see everything from freedom of speech issues (newpapers, churches, private schools.. ), to freedom of commerce, Antitrust issues (my competitors blocked internet to), to political parties worried about their sites service, -- I would really need 10 white boards and 4 lawyers to map out thousands reasons.

"The Antitrust Movement".[i]

A more interesting current issue related(ish): [ii]

[i] [http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in- action/bria-16-2-b-...](http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in- action/bria-16-2-b-rockefeller-and-the-standard-oil-monopoly.html)

[ii] [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-microsoft-linkedin- ruling...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-microsoft-linkedin-ruling/u-s- judge-says-linkedin-cannot-block-startup-from-public-profile-data- idUSKCN1AU2BV)

> Just degrade it, enough to stop working.

Ok let's say we go as far as 'China's Great Firewall'. I worked with may chinese crews they just use VPNs through "ok'ed" lines just furthering my point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Can DNSSEC ensure net neutrality? Seems to me if an ISP can't see what domain you're visiting, they can't stop you from visiting it. Is this correct?

<comment><USER54> Does DNSSEC provide encrypted queries / answers?

I was under the impression it only provides authenticity and integrity for answers. (I am by no means an expert, though!)

<comment><USER55> > Does DNSSEC provide encrypted queries / answers?

No, it doesn't.

<comment><USER54> In retrospect, I could have just asked Wikipedia or a search engine of my choice instead of asking dumb questions. ;-)

Thank you very much!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> From the official Republican Platform adopted in 2016 [1]

        The survival of the internet as we know it is at
        risk. Its gravest peril originates in the White
        House, the current occupant of which has launched a
        campaign, both at home and internationally, to
        subjugate it to agents of government. The President
        ordered the chair of the supposedly independent
        Federal Communications Commission to impose upon the
        internet rules devised in the 1930s for the
        telephone monopoly.

This was the position of almost every contender for the Presidential nomination during the primaries in 2016, it is the position of the one who won that nomination and went on the win the Presidency, and it is the position of almost every Republican in Congress.

Most of them openly promised during their campaigns to repeal the Open Internet Order of 2015. Before that, they had openly fought the earlier Open Internet Order of 2010 (the FCC's first net neutrality rule--the one that was struck down by the DC circuit due to a lawsuit from Verizon, which is what lead to the 2015 order to reinstate net neutrality in a way compatible with the court's ruling).

Since Republicans won with this as part of their platform, and openly campaigned on it, they take winning the Presidency and a majority in both houses of Congress as a sign that the voters agree with them on this.

Making noise now is probably not going to change their minds. They see that as just the usual whining from people whose side was rejected by the voters. The noise that will matter is the gentle scratching of a #2 pencil filling in an oval [2] next to a candidate who is in favor of net neutrality in 2018 and 2020.

(It also doesn't help that many of the people making noise to save net neutrality are making exaggerated arguments that undermine their creditibility. I've seen many that are predicting that repeal of the 2015 order will almost be an extinction event for the internet as we know it...yet all this will be doing is taking is back to what the rules were at the start of 2010, and the internet worked quite well in 2010, and so it is hard to take these people seriously).

As a practical matter, at this time, that probably means saving net neutrality requires voting in Democrats. A lot of Democrats.

This could be a problem for those who support net neutrality, but on other issues support Republicans. For example, if you are strongly against gun control, and against abortion, but in favor of net neutrality, you will probably find voting for Democrats unacceptable because you probable think those first two issues are more important.

If voting for a Democrat is not acceptable, then consider getting active in Republican primaries and caucuses. There ARE Republican candidates who support net neutrality, but they usually lose in the caucuses or primaries because the kind of moderate Republicans who would support them are not as active in the primaries and caucuses as are the far right Republicans.

[1] [https://prod-cdn- static.gop.com/media/documents/DRAFT_12_FIN...](https://prod-cdn- static.gop.com/media/documents/DRAFT_12_FINAL%5B1%5D-ben_1468872234.pdf)

[2] or whatever noise the voting mechanism makes in your district...

</comment><comment><USER56> I have a question on this subject that I've been wondering about for a little while now. The following could fairly be argued to be a a crazy theory, and there may indeed be conclusive proof that debunks it, which I wouldn't mind hearing. This is basically a "what if..." borne of lack of information, and I recognize this as potentially a bit "out there".

I live in Australia. I'm admittedly completely ignorant of the laws here, but I don't think we have anything resembling net neutrality locally. This has not really had a impact, but it did allow mobile operators to structure their offerings in specific ways. I'm not sure if the way everything worked here was done similarly in the US.

Back in 2006-2007 when I had a phone with '3' (I stopped in ~2008 for variety of unrelated reasons), I could open the web browser on my feature phone (an SE K608i) for free but by default it would only allow me to access an extremely limited range of websites. By buying a "data pack" for $5/mo I would be given a fixed data cap to use to access the general Internet. To do this I'd need to switch the phone's APN (Access Point Name) from "3services" to "3netaccess".

There were other data packs available; the "news pack" would let me get access to pre-curated news segment recordings (as cute-bitrate .3gp files :P) and the like, for example. I'd need to be on the 3services APN to be able to access this.

Generally speaking, what US ISPs want to do nowadays is honestly not _toooo_ much different from what I experienced literally 10 years ago. An ISP does a deal with Netflix, then I install today's equivalent of the "movie pack" and I can stream as much Netflix as I want. Cool; that honestly doesn't seem that radical. The practical advantages make a lot of sense to me technically and I see the whole thing as pretty benign as I've experienced it and I'm still alive to tell the story. Hollywood loves big fat contracts so they'll likely always play the game this way.

Here's the "....?!" that I'm getting at.

What if, _this whole Net Neutrality scare is actually a careful act of social engineering_?

What if, someone carefully started up hype about _everything_ being the end of the world - being able to restrict access to websites unless we pay, etc - ?

Bam, you kill two birds with one stone: you've gotten legal approval that ultimately just allows you to shift bandwidth costs around a bit, but you've convinced the people that this has also given you permission to do a lot more. So when it comes time for those extra things to be convenient, you've already dealt with the resistance/backlash that would have come up anyway.

_IF_ I'm right, that turns the "support" of net neutrality into a giant conspiracy ring instead of a freedom-fighter sort of thing.

This is an idea that popped into my head after I remembered my days of having a cellphone years ago, when I stumbled on an imgur post highlighting a recent ad from a random ISP in a different country that offered something that was exactly like what I'd used.

This tiered internet approach isn't a radical idea, and I used it myself to great effect. So I'm kinda suspicious. Maybe this suspicion is out of order and I'm barking up the wrong tree. Or maybe this was a social backlash test.

<comment><USER57> > There were other data packs available; the "news pack" would let me....

Consider a hypothetical situation where you are talking with your friend and they tell you about a wonderful blog that they read recently. You get very much interested in the idea that as soon as you reach home you want to read them all. Unfortunately you own a "video pack".

What you mentioned about the data packs make sense for many people. People who spend most of the time on Netflix, Facebook etc. But that is not what internet is all about. Internet is not Facebook or Google or Netflix. What makes internet great is the fact that any random unknown person can host any idea that they want to share with others and I can find that note and read it from other part of the world.

<comment> blubb-fish Well, sorry to break it to you but for most people the internet is FB, Google and Nf ...

And if you want to take a look at a blog and you have the video pack - <USER2> get the blog pack or ask a friend - or maybe your other friend can just download it and send it to you?

<comment><USER56> "Nf"?

<comment> blubb-fish "N(et)f(lix)"!

<comment><USER58> I know this is a little off track from the pertinent argument, but why abbreviate Netflix? You aren't saving any time in typing out your response and it can only serve to confuse the reader (I also had no clue what Nf meant).

<comment> blubb-fish the parent explicitly refers to nf.

<comment><USER58> The parent explicitly refers to Netflix, not "nf" or "Nf". You might say it was clear from context, but for at least two people that read the comment it was not at all clear. It's not a big deal, I'm just always curious about everyone abbreviating things.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> Is there anything I can do to help as a Canadian?

</comment><comment><USER60> Unionize the internet

<comment><USER61> im confused, both by what you mean, and how that would help?

</comment></comment><comment> blubb-fish I'm not even convinced that an end of net neutrality would be such a bad thing. Less bandwidth? What specific activity would be impaired by that? Wouldn't it maybe even be a motivator to waste less of it to annoying advertisement? And the hackers of the world will simply come up with a new digital web solution - no doubts about that - wouldn't that be exciting and maybe even spare me the crappy consumerist parts? ig, fb, sc etc. and realistically a governance of web content and behaviour is overdue. I can't just run around outside and shout insults at random people, as well.

<comment><USER62> Less web startups, less innovation. Sorry, I can't be more specific about the future. But I can be about the past:

Google probably would not have taken over search with its better ranking if AltaVista could just buy being much faster.

Social networks probably would not have overtaken Orkut (culminating in Facebook after may interactions) if Orkut could just buy being much faster.

Reddit (and Hacker News), if slow as molasses, might have lost to traditionally curated news sites (this one is a stretch).

Stripe wouldn't seriously compete with PayPal if it was much slower when it was starting.

So, what giants of the future will we be drowning on birth tomorrow? Specifically? No clue. But I'm very confident that they exist.</comment></comment>


New chip reduces neural networks' power consumption - <AUTHOR> http://news.mit.edu/2018/chip-neural-networks-battery-powered-devices-0214 <comment><USER2> Correct me if I'm misunderstanding something, but won't this chip need a ton of ADCs to process these computations?

<comment><USER3> DACs on one end and ADCs on the other, yeah. I guess though, it may be possible to hook analog inputs directly to it in some way, such as a camera or mic.

<comment><USER4> But if it's one-bit values, they're simple and fast -- ADC is just a threshold, and DAC is a step function.

<comment><USER5> This guy studied signal processing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Uses less power to do less useful work (binary weights)…

<comment><USER7> Right, they need to compare it to the same algorithm running on a conventional computer (or GPU or whatever they compared to). Math like that can run faster and more efficiently on a regular CPU too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> It seems to target mobile phones. Does it come anywhere near close to the ML processor IP Arm has just announced? (4.6 TOPs at 2W).

</comment><comment><USER9> Where is the paper? How can you write about research news without at least linking to the actual research?

</comment><comment><USER10> Compared to what? Seems like the fairest comparison point would be Google's TPUs.

<comment><USER11> It's not really comparable to TPU. The MIT chip uses analog tricks to perform binary neural network operations. It's probably directly comparable to FPGA DNN, I think.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Do read the whole thing, but here's the quick summary of most important parts:

 _[neural net] "nodes" are just weights stored in a computer's memory. Calculating a dot product usually involves fetching a weight from memory, fetching the associated data item, multiplying the two, storing the result somewhere, and then repeating the operation for every input to a node...

In the [new] chip, a node's input values are converted into electrical voltages and then multiplied by the appropriate weights. Summing the products is simply a matter of combining the voltages. Only the combined voltages are converted back into a digital representation and stored for further processing.

The chip can thus calculate dot products for multiple nodes — 16 at a time, in the prototype — in a single step, instead of shuttling between a processor and memory for every computation...

One of the keys to the system is that all the weights are either 1 or -1... Recent theoretical work suggests that neural nets trained with only two weights should lose little accuracy — somewhere between 1 and 2 percent.

Biswas and Chandrakasan's research bears that prediction out. ... Their chip's results were generally within 2 to 3 percent of the conventional network's._

<comment><USER13> If the weights are only 1 or -1, and each neuron can only get 16 inputs, then this is more similar to neuromorphic systems like IBM's True North than regular neural networks.

And True North consumes on the order of 70-100 milliwatts.</comment></comment>


Introduction to Erlang Features (Slides & Demo Screencast) - <AUTHOR> http://kirindave.tumblr.com/post/63237966/erlang-slides

<comment><USER2> Urk, I'd love to watch the screencasts but sadly can't open your Keynote file on my defiantly un-Mac Ubuntu box. Little help?

<comment><AUTHOR> I've provided links to the raw screencast quicktimes.</comment></comment>


VC 2006-2011: $136 Billion In, $146 Billion Out  - <AUTHOR> http://chrisyeh.blogspot.com/2012/06/vc-2006-11-136-billion-in-146-billion.html

<comment><USER2> This post points out the declining VC industry as we understand it today, but they are reinventing themselves (markets are not static). the proliferation of seed funds and the consolidation of LPs into a few outstanding firms is an example of the industry changing how it invests.</comment>


How Jane Jacobs saved New York City's soul - <AUTHOR> http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/cobblestone-conservative/

<comment><USER2> "But for Jane Jacobs, Greenwich Village, Soho, and the Lower East Side would all have been reamed by a 10-lane, double-deck superhighway."

</comment><comment><USER3> I actually read this from pg's twitter link.

What I actually find fascinating in all this is the NIMBY attitude which is supposed to have come from this movement.

At one level, we all hate NIMBY attitudes, but at the other level, we all embrace it when it means a change in our living standards imposed by others. This inherent hypocrisy on all our parts makes it hard to have a valid conversation on the topic.

But I think the point about preserving cities as they are is well made. I mean, in all but a very few cases, if people are living in an area, that should be sufficient evidence that the current model is on the right track. As long as people are free to move - by this are not allocated their living space by a higher authority - then at some level those people have accepted whatever tradeoffs were involved.

The problem with this is that a discussion of crime intersects discussions of housing, and it gets messy. Ultimately you can't unpick design completely from other social trends/problems, as it is all woven together. Good urban design should blend together flexible use with a minimum aesthetic, and leave the rest to the people who want to live there.

However, the inarguable result is that centrally planned land use is a disaster, and the near-misses of the 40's, 50's and 60's will stand as a testament for the dangers of central planning in all respects.

The best example of this is a visit to Prague, where a haphazard but charming inner city survived the planners, but the ugly and brutal outer suburbs are a charmless collection of concrete structures flowing from a planning pen.

</comment><comment><USER4> There's a great new movie about the design of cities called Urbanized and it has a section on New York, Jane Jacobs and her fight with Robert Moses:

<http://urbanizedfilm.com></comment>


First Downloaded and 3D Printed Pirate Bay Ship Arrives - <AUTHOR> https://torrentfreak.com/first-downloaded-and-3d-printed-pirate-bay-ship-arrives-120205/

<comment><AUTHOR> These 3D printers can even print out other 3D printers. I kid you not! [http://blogs.wsj.com/tech- europe/2011/06/10/the-3d-printer-t...](http://blogs.wsj.com/tech- europe/2011/06/10/the-3d-printer-that-prints-itself/)</comment>


New Airline Restrictions: No Moving During Final Hour - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/27/us/27security.html

<comment><USER2> More security theater that inconveniences everyone and fails to catch the next act or creative stupidity: blow up the plane 70 minutes out. I have some, but not a great deal of experience with explosives and I dont believe what you can put in your shoe, along with your foot, can bring down an airliner.</comment>


Why I DON'T Care About Statistical Significance - <AUTHOR> http://bits.shutterstock.com/2013/03/14/why-i-dont-care-about-statistical-significance/

<comment><USER2> bonus points for referencing the Higgs boson in a post about A/B testing.</comment>


Ask HN: How do you hire people who get equity - <AUTHOR> I seem to have horrible judgment in partners.  I've now had 2 partners that I brought in and gave equity to.  I thought they hung the moon and then stuff went south.  One thankfully quit in a blaze of glory and forfeited any equity.  The other one was like a freight train until the vesting cliff kicked in and then he started asking for cash out of the business and stopped calling on customers (he was BD).<p>So HN how do you do this better than me? <comment><USER2> As Paul Graham said, find people who are animals. The kind who aren't simply talented. They do it because they need to. It's in their base instinct, to build, to sell, to do whatever they need to.

Also since this has happened to you twice, you might also want to look at yourself and see whether the problem lies with you. A lot of charismatic people actually have others flocking to them instead of trying to pull away once the vesting cliff kicks in. You might want to upgrade your leadership skills or at least your mission.</comment>


Show HN: Hooked.io – Instant Stripe Notifications - <AUTHOR> https://hooked.io

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi,

We're two young guys in Scotland who made this over the summer. In brief, you connect your Stripe account and get notifications via email (push, sms, Hipchat, Slack and others coming soon) of important events that occur.

We'd really appreciate any feedback or opinions on it: [https://hooked.io](https://hooked.io)

(reposted thanks to the advice of dang)

Thanks!

<comment><USER2> I'm not sure who is this for. It just seems redundant to functionality that is natively present in backends that integrate with Stripe. I mean, if someone's checking out on my site and a Stripe charge fails, the checkout code knows that, it logs the event and dispatches the alert. There is absolutely no point in funneling this through some 3rd party paid service. That's not even venturing into the area of confidentiality issues of letting some random service full access to our Stripe activity. In fact, privacy and confidentiality considerations is _the_ major killer of any 3rd party Stripe extension service.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi,

A lot of people are using Stripe just with the checkout snippet offered in the documentation. Others are using integrations which don't necessarily send alerts. If you use the code that Stripe provides then the charge fails and the event is logged, but no notification is sent.

In terms of privacy and confidentiality, we're read only and have a privacy policy which you're welcome to read.

Thanks for the feedback though :)</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: For who is Stripe Atlas? - <AUTHOR> I'm based in the EU. In my country, the government considers the organization's place of doing business (and thus the place where to pay tax) to be where the director actually does business and where his social/family life is.
So I could open a company anywhere in the world but if I still work here and my family/social life is here my company is still considered to be here.
My question is why would Stripe Atlas be useful for me? <comment><AUTHOR> Bump</comment>


Reckless Loans Devastated a Generation of Taxi Drivers - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/19/nyregion/nyc-taxis-medallions-suicides.html <comment><USER3> As of 2012 (the last year for which I have data, fewer than 88% [EDIT: 80%] of taxi medallions were owner operated [1]. (A declining fraction.)

These loans were taken by financiers, not drivers. The anti-ridesharing messaging is predominantly funded by corporate medallion owners, not by drivers.

TL; DR This is a co-ordinated media campaign. You have better things to pay attention too.

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

<comment><USER4> I think you mistyped the "88%". The quoted article says, "As of 2012, about 18% of all taxis were owner operated."

<comment><USER3> > _you mistyped the "88%"_

Correct; thank you—fixed.

<comment><USER5> What exactly did you fix? Now it says "EDIT: 80%", while it should say 18%

<comment><USER6> It's the difference between "taxis" and "taxi medallions".

<comment><USER7> "Fewer than (a high percentage)" is a really weird sentence construction

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> People blame Uber & Lyft for the current condition of Taxi drivers, but the blame falls solely on the medallion system. Simply a corrupt, greedy and exploitative industry eating itself out of existence.

</comment><comment><USER9> The street food vendor market in NYC is also really screwed up. [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/18/dining/halal-cart-food- ve...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/18/dining/halal-cart-food-vendor-new- york-city.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur)

<comment><USER10> Agreed… I live in NYC, and in general when I travel to other cities you can see how much better the food cart situation in other places (for example, if I travel, I often see food carts that are closed so the operators can take time off).

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> > If Mr. Hoque gave him $50,000 that day

That's really all I needed to read: "that day". If someone is putting pressure on you to buy something "that day" \- it's likely a scam. I am not sure how this guy didn't read the loan docs.

<comment><USER12> It's a hard sale tactic even at $20, but seems especially obvious when asking for 1.67x your annual income.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I bought a house recently and learned how in Canada you literally cannot buy a house you can't afford if your finances are stressed. They test your income for a hypothetical rate hike and your payments must not exceed a certain percentage of your income. There's other safeties too, such as requiring 5% down but significantly incentivising putting >= 20% down.

Can we not have the same kind of thing for all loans? Ie. It becomes illegal to lend money with terms that the borrower cannot reasonably afford?

On another note:

"Over 10 months, The Times interviewed 450 people, built a database of every medallion sale since 1995 and reviewed thousands of individual loans and other documents, including internal bank records and confidential profit-sharing agreements."

From this I finally grokked what I'm paying for, and just subscribed to my first periodical.

</comment><comment><USER14> The political machinery in America receives a tremendous amount of input from private industry, which in turn influences how things are regulated. And then when things go bad, everyone can say it was just a big mistake. Maybe it'll end a few careers, but that's about it.

The immigrants in this story had no input in any of this. They had no representation, no influence. They're among the poorest and least influential people in our society, and the finance industry just ran roughshod over them.

This will keep happening as long as "we all made mistakes" remains a viable out for these institutions.

<comment><USER15> I'm not sure having input into government regulation would have helped as much as just having someone more knowledgeable look at the terms of the loan?

Maybe there should be a limit to how big a loan you can sign without getting some kind of legal help?

<comment><USER16> The thing is, if you run the numbers cab drivers have made this investment and it _has_ been a great investment for a long time. But on 10-20 year timelines who can account for way Uber/Lyft changed everything?

I'm not that familiar with the regulations and history around medallion systems, but I can see what the parent post is getting at:

Why does a taxi driver need to take out a loan/risk to work?

When I take a job, there's risk with options or shares maybe, but I don't incur literal debt to begin work. It's the legal framework around medallions and private contracting that even put that risk on individuals.

<comment><USER17> > Why does a taxi driver need to take out a loan/risk to work?

This isn't about a taxi driver... it's about owning a taxi medallion. You don't need a loan to drive a taxi. If you want to just drive the taxi, you can work for an existing company. But the company does need a medallion for your taxi.

This is much more like starting your own business. With a medallion, you can work your own taxi on your own time schedule - which is the main benefit to the owner. It's also an asset that you can rent out to others when you aren't using it.

So, taking a new job isn't the right analogy. Think more like starting your own company (or more accurately, borrowing money to start your own company). There is significant freedom in that, but it also carries risk.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The NYT has written about taxi medallions for many years. The contrast in their writing on them is pretty striking:

[https://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/20/2-taxi- medalli...](https://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/20/2-taxi-medallions- sell-for-1-million-each/)

I had more boosterism bookmarked back in the day but lost it.

This is a special case of Michael Crighton's amnesia, where even the NYT forgets how incompetent the NYT was at getting this story right.

<comment><USER19> Relevant Michael Crighton quote:

[https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/65213-briefly-stated-the- ge...](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/65213-briefly-stated-the-gell-mann- amnesia-effect-is-as-follows-you)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Looking at the data in the graph of medallion prices is very interesting. They do chart the main line and the 60 day moving average, but it looks like there's an interesting secondary trend in the data, where there's another line of sales that looks fairly contiguous but is lighter which seems to be about 25% or maybe 33% of the higher line. Also it looks like there are some higher lines that look stair-step (probably using round numbers for the prices). I wonder if these are other sellers or groups, but it seems like the lower line might be the actual value of a medallion in a not ridiculous price inflation way?

</comment><comment><USER21> The fact that the ability to drive people about in a car became subject to a financial instrument as a barrier to entry is the real story here.

There are other cities in the world which don't have such an absurd system and they seem to be doing just fine.

Uber may be outcompeting them, but they haven't taken on mortgage levels of debt.

<comment><USER22> This. The government artificially restricted supply, driving up demand, and then pulled the rug out from under taxi drivers by refusing to regulate ride hailing in a similar manner.

At least there are buybacks happening in some countries now to try and fix the whole mess: [https://thewest.com.au/news/wa/government-to-introduce- taxi-...](https://thewest.com.au/news/wa/government-to-introduce-taxi-plate- buyback-scheme-ng-b88433015z)

<comment><USER23> >then pulled the rug out from under taxi drivers by refusing to regulate ride hailing in a similar manner.

Did the government make any express guarantees that for-hire vehicles would be regulated like taxis? If not, I'm not sure how this is any different from any other type of regulatory risk.

>At least there are buybacks happening in some countries now to try and fix the whole mess

That seems like the wrong solution to me. It's basically a scheme to socialize the losses.

<comment><USER24> From my perspective Uber _are_ taxis, and it seems very strange that they weren't regulated as such from the beginning.

(Regardless of whether the way local government regulated taxis was good or not)

<comment><USER6> Because they were more like chauffeur services, which existed even before taxis.

If those were not regulated, neither should Uber.

Taxis are hailed from the street, everyone is isn't.

Even before Uber you could call limo firms, that actually just used regular cars, and have them drive you, and those were not regulated either.

<comment><USER24> Ah I see. In my country (New Zealand) the primary way of getting a taxi is to ring up the taxi company and get them to send you one.

<comment><USER25> You can also do that and the system is awful across America. Not dependable at all. Customer service and support is usually awful too.

<comment><USER24> The system seemed _relatively_ alright when I used them before Uber was a thing. Using an app is easier than calling a taxi company though - <USER2> the main difference is just that Uber and co are _much_ _much_ cheaper than the taxis used to be. (I can only assume taxi companies must have lowered their prices to compete by now, but I'm not sure).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> > Over 10 months, The Times interviewed 450 people, built a database of every > medallion sale since 1995 and reviewed thousands of individual loans and > other documents, including internal bank records and confidential profit- > sharing agreements.

This ... is so great. I'm glad the NYT continues to do real journalism instead of succumbing to the Buzzfeed/Social Media whizbang latest breaking news that the TV media has become.

<comment><USER27> Oddly, Buzzfeed News also does some pretty in-depth reporting too. They were Pulitzer finalists (i.e. , runners up) in 2018 for reporting on Russian assassinations in the US and UK, and in 2017 for something about trade agreements(?).

<comment><USER26> I think an apology is in order. They have a reputation for crass reporting on certain things, but have done some pretty great things otherwise. I guess I kinda bought into the meme of buzzfeed news not really being news.

<comment><USER27> The rest of Buzzfeed is incredibly....frivolous, but I think the news department is an under-appreciated gem. I almost wish they had given it a different name.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I suppose it's nice to hear that Uber is not uniquely exploitive of drivers - or even the worst, if I'm understanding things correctly.

<comment><USER29> I always wonder how it is "exploitation" of drivers to bring them customers and pay them _at a loss_ , thanks to venture capital. Can you explain this to me?

<comment><USER14> Because once rideshare companies corner specific markets, they're no longer incentivized to keep paying drivers competitive rates.

A few years ago, Uber and Lyft left Austin, which in turn created a local, non-profit MVP rideshare app called RideAustin that worked OK. It wasn't perfect, but it covered the bare necessities of ridesharing fairly well.

The drivers I spoke with were pretty happy with RideAustin because they made more money than they had been using Uber and Lyft since RideAustin took a smaller cut.

When Uber and Lyft returned, they enticed drivers with rates that RideAustin couldn't keep up with. Within a few weeks, it became a lot harder to hail a ride through their app. And within a month, I couldn't get a ride consistently from my apartment in north Austin. If I wanted to get a ride, it had to be through Uber or Lyft.

Once they regained the market, they cut the rates to drivers, who have no rights to negotiate pricing since they're contractors. Rideshare drivers are essentially a captive labor force that must accept all conditions to work without really any say over what they're paid.

<comment><USER29> Wait, you didn't finish the story. Now that RideAustin is once again (presumably) paying the better rates, why don't the drivers just switch back? Did RideAustin go out of business?

> Rideshare drivers are essentially a captive labor force that must accept all > conditions to work without really any say over what they're paid.

They clearly aren't "captive", otherwise they couldn't have just switched to RideAustin in the first place. Nothing stops them from becoming completely independent drivers either, but then they need to find their own customers.

In the end, they are getting paid _market rates_. Maybe those rates are really bad, but that's just what happens when supply is far larger than demand. Prices are always driven down by the people at the bottom, how can Uber/Lyft be faulted for that?

<comment><USER30> Except that the market effects of Uber/Lyft's network, coupled with their cash reserves, allows them to potentially distort the free market in such a way that they can push out the competition until they have a dominant position, and then it's no longer a free market economy.

As far as what happened to RideAustin, from last year:

> Uber and Lyft's brand recognition, as well as discounts the companies were > offering when they returned to Austin, made it difficult to compete, > RideAustin's Tryba said.

<comment><USER29> > Except that the market effects of Uber/Lyft's network, coupled with their > cash reserves, allows them to potentially distort the free market in such a > way that they can push out the competition until they have a dominant > position, and then it's no longer a free market economy.

This is the argument against "price dumping", but that strategy doesn't work in the long run. These companies are burning through their cash reserves to achieve that "dominant position". Once they're done with that, they will have to raise prices and competition is viable again.

<comment><USER30> Sure, in the abstract, but it's not purely about prices. If I'm a business traveler who uses Uber in 90% of the cities I visit, I'm not going to price shop when I visit Austin - a) it's not my money and b) the friction about downloading a new app, creating a new account, etc. is probably not worth it.

Secondly, it's not enough to look at Uber's price manipulation, it's necessary to look at the opportunities that the small, local startup lacks. Even if their prices are competitive with Uber's, they likely don't have the cash to do what Uber did, namely subsidize/incentivize drivers to drive even when there are not enough customers.

It becomes a trap: Uber artificially lowers prices, boxing out the smaller players. Once the market is cornered, raise prices. The smaller players are now price competitive, but the two-sided marketplace has already been defined. The passengers are already in an app with their preferences, and the small percentage who are comparison shoppers might fire up the startup app, only to find that there are not enough drivers - why? Well the drivers don't have enough capacity to keep them busy, so they drop off the startup app to focus on the big guys.

Free markets are fine and good in a vacuum, but the equivalent to a truly free ride sharing market would be where there was only one app, all the platforms put their inventory on it, and users could decide where to put their money, based on price, luxury, ideals, whatever. To claim the current system is free market is to willfully ignore the other dynamics at play.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> It's interesting that the graph of taxi medallion sales seems to show a trimodal distribution: most sales are close to the market price, but many are consistently at half the market price, and others are much higher, especially during the bubble years.

What could be the meaning of this pattern?

<comment><USER32> I think that's a indicator of an illiquid market, where sales are so few and far between that sale prices are dominated by the specifics of the situation (eg if you can buy three at once, if you can buy that specific day, etc).

Like you might see in rare collectibles eg baseball cards.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> This is one reason powerful interests came out of the woodwork against Uber and Lift in New York. Ridesharing services blew the whistle on how grotesquely distorted the taxi market was before the corporate vampires were done sucking the blood out of vulnerable marks.

</comment><comment><USER34> How many times do we need to see this repeating pattern of debt bubbles to address the rigged game?

Remember the concept of indentured servitude? Outrageous debt is the continuous (non-discrete) version of slavery. Yes, there is always implicit debt for many transactions. And yes, there is a level of healthy debt that allows one to purchase a productive asset which pays back its own loan, rather than needing to sharecrop it. But we're at the level of long term loans never intended to be paid back, rather to collect a steady steady of rent from those who produce. Facilitated because the capital being put up is ultimately not theirs (it comes from public markets because it has nowhere else to go), but the fees and a portion of the income stream is.

So what we're seeing is that anything that can be titled, abstracted, and traded ends up heavily financialized. As funny money bids up the underlying asset prices, more people are pushed into needing loans, furthering the cycle. And the people who've bought into the bubble want to see it continue to inflate - it's the only way their rentloan can possibly work out!

Until some underlying factor causes the whole thing to come tumbling down - limits of financial modeling, too many people going to college, or a hack to get around taxi supply constraints. By that point most of the loans have been sold off to dumb money investors, and Wall Street is already working on the next bubblelicious sector.

The straightforward answer for sustainability is to raise interest rates, _significantly_. This would reduce the amount of dumb money seeking any place to go, increase the ability to pay off loans early by making higher than the minimum payment, as well as shortening the timeframe of most loans in general.

We've been running near zero since Bush II needed a bunch of free money to act out his daddy issues. The fact that we're looking at banks paying a few percent as something novel really just demonstrates how warped our perspective has become. We're repeatedly told that rates must be kept low, and volumes of new money/debt issued, to assure inflation. Yet in a technological economy, we should be seeing natural _deflation_! But rather than the gains of technology, productivity, and outsourcing being seen by the middle class, they're being funneled upwards by this debt treadmill.

</comment><comment><USER35> Lenders say they thought medallion prices would keep going up, but I don't see how that is possible. At the end of the day, a medallion is a license to charge a set rate per mile (or minute) in one car. There's a limit to how much you can make from a medallion. Any lender who isn't a moron knows that price can't keep going up.

</comment><comment><USER29> The article focuses on the "predatory lending" narrative, but only briefly touches on what enabled all of this: Government regulation.

Like most professions, Taxi drivers lobbied for regulation to keep the inflow of competition down. They got it in in the form of the taxi medallion: No one shall be allowed to drive without it - and the supply is fixed.

Around the inevitable shortage that ensued, a cottage industry of medallion- hucksters emerged, driving the price to insane highs in places like NYC.

Drivers who didn't see (or understand) the risk were brought to "mortgage" these medallions at inflated prices, but with the emergence of Uber/Lyft the value of those medallions dropped. The government, scrambling for a scapegoat, then tries to ban Uber/Lyft.

</comment><comment><USER36> Let's see really the story here is:

asset class [X] declines in value due to [new market entrants] - those that purchased this asset on a levered basis were hurt the most

</comment><comment><USER37> It's times like this that I'm really jealous of the foresight of the likes of Norway.

Norway as we know has massive oil reserves. Most other countries (I come from Australia where digging stuff up from the ground and selling it Asia is in our DNA apparently) would for a small cut make some small number of companies and the individuals who control them mind-bogglingly wealthy. Norway, on the other hand, created a state majority owned company and taxed it highly, largely for the benefit of its citizens.

In this case, NYC created the taxi medallion system ~80 years ago to limit the number of cabs on the road. This made sense at the time but why sell off the right to drive that taxi essentially in perpetuity? It makes no sense.

Why not instead have an annual auction based on how many taxis you want on the road where whoever pays you the most gets allotted a license? The city would get income in perpetuity and financial fuckery like from this post just couldn't really happen. Hell you could even have a spot market for your license (for the remainder of the year) to allow people to get out from under it.

But no, instead we have human vultures preying on the uninformed and desperate. Another win for capitalism.

</comment><comment><USER38> Interesting how the dominant narrative in NYC a year ago was "Uber is making taxi drivers commit suicide", and now we're seeing that revenues are down only 10%, and the real grift is from the finance guys extracting all the value in the medallion/transpo market.

I think we're seeing a huge confluence of relatively independent factors coming together through the form of "private equity" that are going to make like much more challenging for the bottom 80% of the population. PE fueling a boom and essentially usury in taxi medallions. Firms like blackrock and other large REITs buying up an insane amount of homes, jacking up rents and evicting people. Essential services like 911 dispatch and ambulances being taken over by PE firms and squeezed to the point of either uselessness (dispatch) or usurous practices (ambulance billing). I believe in markets and capitalism, but it's hard for me to see these changes and not sympathize with the new wave socialists in the US.

<comment><USER39> The sad part is capitalism can probably help solve these problems, but the professed "ardent free market capitalists" are too devoted to the religion to consider it. They conveniently ignore that unconscious people can't perform price discovery, forget that one of the core tenants of a functioning free market is free flow of pricing information, deny the very existence of externalities. Essentially, there is a list of conditions required for the invisible hand to function well, but they seem uninterested, even hostile, to attempting to establish those conditions.

I struggle to understand how they get so out of whack with even the very basics. Do they chose their preferred outcome and work backwards? Are they beholden/captured? Did deifying the free market close the door to tweaking markets to adjust outcomes (a deity is _always_ right)?

<comment><USER26> > I struggle to understand how they get so out of whack with even the very > basics. Do they chose their preferred outcome and work backwards? Are they > beholden/captured? Did deifying the free market close the door to tweaking > markets to adjust outcomes (a deity is always right)?

It isn't that surprising when you see that the people that usually espouse such views aren't doing it from a good faith perspective, or are simply hopelessly naive. The people that do benefit from such policies (namely the companies that benefit due to regulation) then fund these people, leading to narratives that are totally out of whack with reality.

Free market capitalism is great when you don't have control over a market and want a fair chance to take over it. Once you do control the market, it becomes your most dangerous foe (any group of smart enough people with enough seed capital and more efficient production has a chance of destroying the company you built over lifetimes).</comment></comment></comment>