Court Rules That EFF's Stupid Patent of the Month Post Is Protected Speech - <AUTHOR> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/11/court-rules-effs-stupid-patent-month-post-protected-speech <comment><USER2> The company in question GEMSA Pty Ltd of Australia got a patent on "Storage cabinets" on a computer. Pretty much a patent on folders or directories. Now they are suing everyone.

According to the EFF: "As far as we can tell, GEMSA seems to think that anyone with a website that links to hosted content infringes its patent"

[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/06/stupid-patent-month- st...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/06/stupid-patent-month-storage- cabinets-computer)

<comment><USER3> How does this not get immediately dismissed by prior art?

<comment> Tuna-Fish In order for it to be dismissed as prior art, it has to make it all the way to court. The business model of patent trolls like GEMSA is that they get a bunch of obviously overbroad and spurious patents, and then they sue a lot of companies for them, offering to settle for less than the cost of defense. If a company actually puts up a legal defense, they drop the lawsuit.

<comment><USER4> I'm a little surprised that the courts don't get cranky at the firm that files hundreds of cases and then retracts pretty much all of them. It seems like red flag behavior that should be investigated. Is there just a lack of oversight on legal firms? It seems to take exceptionally egregious behavior before anybody steps in.

<comment><USER5> In some states for some actions there is a rule that disallows retracting a suit after an answer is filed. Might be useful for patents in federal law. That's for Congress to take up.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > any foreign order censoring EFF would be unenforceable in the United States > under the First Amendment and the Securing the Protection of Our Enduring > and Established Constitutional Heritage Act (SPEECH Act).

This way of naming laws is incredibly childish.

<comment><USER7> on its face it's pretty stupid: acronyms that are so contrived (or worse, misleading) that you have to shake your head when you hear them.

but there is at least a little bit of value to having a brief, specific name to use when referring to it that somehow relates to the topic at hand.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is good for the EFF in the short term, but what if the Australian court finds that the EFF is ignoring its order and so must pay fines?

Perhaps in response to US court saying "the Australian court lacked jurisdiction over EFF", the Australian court will say that the US court has no jurisdiction in Australia. The Australian court could conceivably force the EFF to change how its site is shown to people in Australia. Then after realizing that people in Australia can still access the US version of the EFF's site, force the EFF to change its site in all countries.

This sort of problem could become more common, such as the case that Google lost where the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that Google had to remove results in violation of Canadian law from all Google results worldwide.

<comment><USER9> countries' laws only apply within its borders. An Australian court cannot fine the EFF or force them to modify their website because it does not operate within Australia, they have no ability to "force" the EEF to do anything. Google only had to obey the Canadian Court because it has operates in Canada [0]

[0]: [https://www.google.ca/about/locations/?region=north- america](https://www.google.ca/about/locations/?region=north-america)

<comment><USER10> Countries laws apply wherever they say they do. Whether they are able to enforce them is a secondary issue.

Some countries do claim jurisdiction outside their own borders for certain types of cases.

<comment><USER11> Generally only for their own citizens. This covers, for instance, cases of sex tourism.

<comment><USER12> The German criminal law explicitly covers e.g. all cases of money counterfeiting, human trafficking, and war crimes worldwide regardless of nationality. They have given themselves some binding restrictions on what cases should be prosecuted. Of course enforcement is usually hard to impossible so it does not get used often. But just as an example, a German court has sentenced an Rwandan FDLR president for assisting war crimes even though there is absolutely no connection to Germany.

Germany is not alone in claiming universal jurisdiction for certain crimes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> _After its thorough analysis, the court declared "(1) that the Australian Injunction is repugnant to the United States Constitution and the laws of California and the Unites States.._

Wow, now that's a judicial smack down.

<comment><USER14> This is a term of art, defined in the relevant statute: [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/4104](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/4104)

> Any United States person against whom a foreign judgment is entered on the > basis of the content of any writing, utterance, or other speech by that > person that has been published, may bring an action in district court, under > section 2201(a), for a declaration that the foreign judgment is repugnant to > the Constitution or laws of the United States.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I suspect that the court in fact found the patent to be stupid (not merely "protected opinion"), but stopped short of writing that into the verdict. The EFF substantiate their "stupid" accusation with reason; it's not just schoolyard name-calling.

</comment><comment><USER16> But can EFF officials still travel to Australia now?

<comment><USER17> If they are fined or in contempt of court ... I would recommend consulting with an Australian lawyer and then the Australian embassy before boarding a plane to Australia.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> It's hard to even call that a legal system, when a court can find "stupid" to be a statement of fact.

</comment><comment><USER19> I'm certainly not familiar with Australian politics or law, but is it not surprising that the Australian court would grant the injunction in the first place?

<comment><USER2> Australia has some of the most draconian anti-libel laws in the English- speaking world.

A judge recently sent a blogger to jail for 4 months for "libel" even though the truth of the matter was not disputed.

A book on Chinese bribing of Australian politicians has been withdrawn after defamation threats from these politicians.

This was largely unreported in the Australian press, only in the New York Times: [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/20/world/australia/china- aus...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/20/world/australia/china-australia- book-influence.html)

<comment><USER20> Was on the front page of abc's news site... not sure how unreported that was : [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-13/academic-claims-hes- be...](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-13/academic-claims-hes-been- silenced-by-chinese-government/9142694)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Good but unsuprising. A much more newsworthy story would be if a US Court ruled otherwise.</comment>


Efographic – the startup that combines email and infographics - <AUTHOR> https://efographic.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Efographic is a web app for digital marketers and online content businesses to convert email newsletters (think mailchimp) into infographics. Hence, the name "efographic."

The startup plans to introduce "efographics" — a new form of digital media that combines the behavior of an infographic with the design of an email newsletter.

The web app creates image "snapshots" of an email newsletter resulting in one long, continuous image.

Once the snapshot of the email newsletter is taken, you're essentially dealing with an infographic because infographics tend to be long in length as well. But then we run into a problem: long images do not share well to social media… how do we fit a long image into a square box?

Efographic has a formatting feature that allows long content to fit into a box shape through columnizing.

The Fit-to-Box feature allows viewers to see the entire contents of an infographic or an efographic without scrolling. This is beneficial when sharing to social networks.

We have made a tool that can do in seconds what it would take Photoshop 20 minutes.

We think this special feature of Efographic will increase click through rates by 22.7% for digital content companies.</comment>


Finland will hand out cash to 2000 jobless people to test universal basic income - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/17/business/economy/universal-basic-income-finland.html <comment><USER4> If its only going to jobless people, not UBI.

This is not a meaningless distinction -- one of the features of UBI is that it is _universal_. If this just goes to unemployed people we cannot see the change in behavior with people who are earning close to their reservation wage. Do they stop working?

This is streamlined rebranded welfare. Not a paradigm shift.

<comment><USER5> I'm from Poland, where recently the government introduced a "500+" program, which means that every family in the country receives 500PLN per month, per child, from the day they are born to the time when they are 18 year old.

Now, my parents run a company which mostly has physical workers - and for a physical worker, in the "poorer" part of the country, 1500PLN/per month(after taxes) is an ok salary.

The day the 500+ program started, several employees left, literally saying that they have 3-4 children, so by just getting the money from the government they will be better off than working and they don't need a job anymore. They are all jobless and living off 500+ as far as I know.

I would say that's a pretty good indication what will happen with UBI - I'm sure there's loads of people who wouldn't leave their jobs because they like having more money(me included) but for a lot of people if free money is enough to get by then that's what they are going to live on.

<comment><USER6> And yet "Kindergeld" (same principle in Germany & Austria) is more money than that and has existed for decades, and neither country has a much higher unemployment rate than Poland (much lower than Poland in Germany, about the same as Poland in Austria). Furthermore they have fewer children per woman, so this apperantly did not spur a huge baby boom.

So not really sure what we can learn from that. Perhaps salaries are simply too low in Poland?

<comment><USER7> Kindergeld in Belgium (Flanders) is about 120€. That's a little over 10% of thr minimum wage. In this Polish story it was 33%, big difference. What ratio is it where you are referring to?

For reference, full time day care in Belgium will cost you about 500€ per month if you are not poor.

<comment><USER6> It's 190€ till age 26(!) in Germany but you get other benefits (most significantly a large income tax break, and 14 month parental leave).

Childcare is about 0-400 depending on your income but you have to be outrigh wealthy to get close to the latter (we pay 128€/m with a high 5-figures €/year household income).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Another limited duration trial (two years). What's the point? It's not going to measure the real effect. People will know it is going to run out and behave differently than if it was permanent.

<comment><USER9> So true, thanks for writing that!

Don't give them the money just for two years, but guarantee them the money over their whole life and you will see vastly different results.

Another "problem" with this kind of study is that they are giving money only to unemployed people. Because it would be also interesting to see what people with jobs would do. I suspect a lot of people would switch from full-time to part-time jobs (at least that's what I would do).

<comment><USER10> _Don 't give them the money just for two years, but guarantee them the money over their whole life and you will see vastly different results._

Since people born into wealth are "guaranteed money over their whole life", can't we study what they do with their life compared to what people who are not born into money do with their life? How or how not would this kind of study produce meaningful, legitimate results?

 _Another "problem" with this kind of study is that they are giving money only to unemployed people. Because it would be also interesting to see what people with jobs would do. I suspect a lot of people would switch from full-time to part-time jobs (at least that's what I would do)._

There is some aspect of this kind of experiment/study to find out how individuals would perform if they didn't have the guaranteed income in the past but then suddenly do, but that's only meaningful for the transitional generation. If UBI were truly universal, it would need to be multi- generational. And how would those born with it, never having known anything else, treat/understand work? There's no such thing as "switching from a full- time to part-time jobs" in this context, or at least the impact and meaning of doing so is different than those who have a concept of what not having the guaranteed income means.

<comment><USER9> That study wants to shed some light on whether UBI is viable or not, but limits UBI for two years. I suppose people are then less inclined to change anything in there life and just see UBI as a nice, not-life-changing win in the lottery. People are not behaving as with a "real" UBI. Can we agree on that?

 _There is some aspect of this kind of experiment /study to find out how individuals would perform if they didn't have the guaranteed income in the past but then suddenly do, but that's only meaningful for the transitional generation._

IMHO you can't ignore this that easily. When more people are quitting their jobs or switch to part-time jobs from full-time jobs due to UBI, the government loses taxes but now needs to pay for UBI. This is super-important to see if this whole thing is financially feasible.

IIUC you are arguing that people that grew up with UBI would behave differently compared to people that just switched to UBI? To be honest I don't feel this particular convincing, why should this be the case? There probably isn't any data on it either. Even if it would, the government/state still has to get through the transition period. One could with the same right claim that future generations are less inclined to work/educate than the transitional generation and thus make financing UBI even more difficult.

<comment><USER10> _IIUC you are arguing that people that grew up with UBI would behave differently compared to people that just switched to UBI? To be honest I don 't feel this particular convincing, why should this be the case? There probably isn't any data on it either._

No, I'm saying that this is worth studying, exactly because (I agree) there isn't any data on it.

One problem, as you point out, is the ongoing cost. Socialism works better when there is a capitalist system, externally, to set the prices and help determine demand. The Eloi need the Morlocks to provide for them. The monetary cost for any UBI _experiment on individuals ' actions_ is, by definition, being paid for by something outside that experiment. But that's fine, this experiment is meant to answer the question of how the recipients respond to it, not how/if it is or is not long term viable (however the results of this experiment would eventually need to feed into that). And my point is we can start to answer this experiment by examining what people who are born into money do. What kind of jobs do they take? How do they act when they have a guaranteed complete safety net? There is a lot of data available on this, and it is not time limited like a two year study would be.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> What's to stop UBI from "cancelling itself out" due to inflationary effects?

Prior to UBI, the lowest possible income is zero. After UBI, the lowest income is X. The poorest people in the nation will have an income of X, so X becomes the new relative zero, the new baseline. Prices of everything (food, housing, whatever) will reset relative to X. So uni will become worthless shortly after it's introduced.... but only if it is truly universal.

Someone feel free to tell me if I'm missing something.

<comment><USER12> Say you have $0 income. A new policy comes into force that gives you $500 a month basic income. Even if prices increased 10x you would still be better off than before. Prices would have to increase an infinite amount for you to be able to afford the same amount of goods as before (zero). Even if you had $500/month before, you'd still be better off as long as prices don't increase more than 2x.

I don't know enough to advocate for or against basic income, but I'm pretty sure that it doesn't amount to a no-op. Whether it's done through printing money or taxation, it ends up redistributing wealth from wealthier people to poorer people.

In the case of printing money, the resulting inflation would cause everyone's money to be worth less: rich people, having more money, would end up losing more. In the case of taxation, the redistribution is more direct.

<comment><USER13> Sure, but if hyper-inflation results in that USD 500 buying me a loaf of bread each month, I think 'better off than before' is kindof irrelevant. There have to be tangible benefits to the recipient over and above, say income from finding pennies in the street...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> _Jobless people generally cannot earn additional income while collecting unemployment benefits or they risk losing that assistance._

Worst. Idea. Ever.

I know -- it's a common feature of income support systems, including here in the US.

I don't know whether UBI is going to prove workable or not. But even if it doesn't, if we could just redesign the systems we do have so they never give recipients a disincentive to work more, that would be a huge, huge improvement.

<comment> k-mcgrady Is there any data backing up the idea that it actually is a disincentive?

1\. Anyone I know that has received benefits for being unemployed desperately wants to be employed again.

2\. In the UK, unless things have changed, you can work up to 16 hours per week while receiving unemployment benefits and I believe the benefits you receive gradually falls with the amount of work you get paid for.

3\. If you suddenly lose your job benefits aren't built so that you can maintain your current life style. You likely have car, insurance, and mortgage payments to make and the benefits you're receiving either just get you by or you have to renegotiate some of that debt. Not a situation you want to be in long-term.

<comment><USER15> I mean, if I was offered half of my current salary (which is, admittedly high, as a software engineer) for free under the condition that I don't work, I'd totally take that deal.

<comment><USER16> And you can, if you get fired.

<comment><USER17> Uhh I think to get unemployment you have to be laid off (fired through no fault of your own). I'm not sure how you think he's getting paid 1/2 his current salary if he's fired, that sounds like $0.

<comment><USER16> Not true. If you get fired for not attending your job, you don't get unemployment. If you get fired for performance reasons, you get unemployment. My father got fired for "insubordination" aka his manager not liking him. He still got unemployment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> >It will give them benefits automatically, absent bureaucratic hassle and _minus penalties for amassing extra income._

That last part is huge. A disincentive to work by cancelling benefits is a feature of nearly every current system. It is extremely important that someone test a system without this in it to see how a people react.

This looks like a very important test for the viability of UBI.

<comment><USER19> > _A disincentive to work by cancelling benefits is a feature of nearly every > current system. It is extremely important that someone test a system without > this in it to see how a people react._

One example we can look at are university students in Finland. They get 340€ per month student benefit plus €200 student rent support, a total of 540€ per month.

This student benefit is not decreased as long as a student earns less than 1000€ per month from other income. And yes, the students are quite eager to take part-time and short-term jobs.

<comment><USER20> Except you can just barely live on student benefit. Either you take debt or work, so I don't think the two can be compared.

For me I was bumping on the limits while on receiving student benefit, so it made no sense for me to work any more hours than I did. Had I worked any more, the pay would have been effectively zero, which is crazy in my opinion.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Why don't we just cover everyone's basic needs and be done with it?

This is a pointless discussion. Just give everyone enough food, shelter, and free access to medicine. It'll create a society where we don't stress over losing a job because we don't know how we're going to get our food tomorrow.

The reason that some people think this "disincentiveces" people to work is that they'd have to pay higher wages and wouldn't be able to exploit human beings, as all capitalist systems do. That's it. That's their whole argument. The rest is just dressing it up with empty moral questions about "giving away the fish instead of teaching how to fish".

<comment><USER22> The problem with your thinking is that it ignores that it takes "work" to get people those basic necessities you refer to. So there absolutely is a danger in disincentivizing people to work, if people contribute nothing, but consume even these basic needs.

I'm not against basic income, but there absolutely is risk to society.

<comment><USER23> Worth noting that less than 100 people on Earth have the net worth of half of Earth's population; half of the world's population is 3.5 billion people.

Notable source: [https://theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/18/richest-62-bill...](https://theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/18/richest-62-billionaires- wealthy-half-world-population-combined)

<comment><USER24> Do less than 100 people on Earth have taxable monthly income (which can be used for UBI) same as half of world's population? Or same income as UBI for half of world's population? Net worth is irrelevant.

<comment><USER21> It's far from irrelevant. It's the core of the problem.

I don't give a c __p about taxable income. They should not have that much power. Period. Take it away from them and put it to good use.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> How is it "universal" if recipients are required to be jobless?

<comment><USER26> So UBI is fundamentally a safety-net; insurance, if you will.

The "universal" quality is that all people will be eligible for UBI. Everyone will receive the difference between what they make and what UBI guarantees.

It's sort of like the popular phrase in the U.S. - "everyone is guaranteed the same opportunity but not the same outcome". Thus, while all will have access to UBI, the payout will be determined by individual circumstances.

Regarding Finland's program, it's likely they had to choose a group of individuals who were easiest to justify paying UBI under current popular- thought. Therefore, they chose a group already receiving or eligible for unemployment/assistance and argued they were simply replacing one for the other. That is of course just an educated guess on my part.

So, yes, UBI itself is in fact universal although the initial rollout, or test, is highly compartmentalized.

Edit: As someone pointed out, I'm probably confusing UBI with GMI - <USER2> Minimum Income.

It's starting to feel like we're discussing rules on laying a foundation while others are already fast at work on their fourth and fifth floor, i/e, what's the point of giving everyone a ladder if the roof is consistently growing out of reach?

<comment><USER25> _> Everyone will receive the difference between what they make and what UBI guarantees._

This isn't UBI either.

UBI would simply give everyone the same income without subtracting the difference for extra earned income. You could earn millions and still receive your basic income.

<comment><USER27> As you define it.

I define UBI as having a floor on people's income, where the government ensures everyone is above that floor. So it's universally ensuring everyone had a basic income.

<comment><USER28> Your definition is not the usual one, I think.

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

[http://basicincome.org/basic- income/faq/#income](http://basicincome.org/basic-income/faq/#income)

<comment><USER27> If I'm understanding it correctly, what I may be thinking of is partial basic income (as defined by Wikipedia). Maybe.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> From a first cross-read, this article is bluntly discrediting UBI.

Starting with numbers: about 204M working age population in the US - hence the USD10K to each of them example would just make somewhere what is spend yearly for military and banks - the 8 times numbers cited in the article of what is spent today does not make any sense.

The linked article does not mention any amounts that Finland wants to provide to the 2k people - instead it is referring to Swiss calculations - <USER3> numbers I've heard with Finland were on par with current social security / poverty level pays (~EUR600 p/m) - this of course does not enable most of the key effects intended with an UBI (money into spending, freedom of choice for work etc) - it only continues the current system (with some potential savings within the administration).

To get a better understanding we have to at least repeat the Canadian experiments from the 1920s (proven that it is substantially beneficiary for the economy overall) - more money than poverty level, people must gain freedom by the possibility to live.

Given that soon a large proportion of people will not have a chance to find a job that will allow them to survive, we either go back to lords and serfs or actually look into potentially sustainable solutions.

</comment><comment><USER30> I agree with basic income, but most analyses of it are backwards.

For most of history, governments addressed unemployment by starting wars. By shipping off to war, the unemployed temporarily get a job. They either come back dead or ready to take a new job in an economy revitalized by the stimulus of government war spending.

John Maynard Keynes noticed this pattern, especially during the Great Depression and WW2, and made a brilliant suggestion: continue with these government interventions, but keep the government spending and drop the war part. We call it "Keynesian economics", but really, what Keynes invented was capitalist peace. And guess what, since then, no two countries that both had McDonald's had fought a war against each other since each got its McDonald's. [1]

We need a Keynesian boost today, not because of technological progress, but rather the contrary: the rapid technological progress of the 20th century that brought tremendous economic prosperity to humanity has finally come to a grinding halt. Let's stop denying this. The stream of lifechanging breakthrough inventions of the 20th century, from A (antibiotics) to Z (zippers), have ended. As a result, we now suffer from secular stagnation, something Keynes understood very well back then, and Larry Summers understands in the present. [2]

It's especially absurd to claim that automation is the cause of this. Automation has already upended society: it was called the Industrial Revolution and happened 200 years ago. The upheaval caused then to human lives and employment was far more dramatic than anything happening today.

And basic income is simply the most fair way to apply Keynesian policy. It is more fair to split the money up and distribute it equally to every individual than it is for the government to buy things on their behalf. Highly distributed spending will also avoid creating market distortions and liquidity traps. [3] And the resulting economic boost will lead to increased tax revenues and, who knows, maybe more jobs -- this time not subject to labor market distortions caused by people being desperate for work.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lexus_and_the_Olive_Tree](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lexus_and_the_Olive_Tree) [2] [http://larrysummers.com/2016/02/17/the-age-of-secular- stagna...](http://larrysummers.com/2016/02/17/the-age-of-secular-stagnation/) [3] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidity_trap](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidity_trap)

<comment><USER31> Keynesianism is like making waves in a pond and pointing out how much higher the water has risen.

It ignores where the resources come from and the jobs being performed in other parts of the global economy that must be cut, often in some other country, because the resources are being used for something else.

If a country is going into debt to stimulate, its pulling resources from other countries where jobs have to decline. But perhaps those declines are more spread out and harder to measure and understand. So we can make the mistake of thinking they don't happen.

But what if a country stimulates by printing money, not borrowing? Money is only a medium of exchange, not an actual resource. Creating more of it just means more it has to be used to get the same result, if you look at what really happens over time, as opposed to comparing prices the day before you print with prices the day after.

<comment><USER30> It's totally misleading to think of the economy as a pond holding a fixed quantity of water. The water level does change, and sometimes you need to make waves to do it.

For this, you should read Paul Krugman's babysitting co-op analogy, a basic description of how an economic depression functions: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill_Babysitting_Co- op](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill_Babysitting_Co-op)

<comment><USER31> At any given moment, the available resources ARE fixed. They aren't increased by moving them around.

If you increase the amount of money available, that bids up prices for the existing resources.

If low skilled labor is already fixed at an artificially high price (like a minimum wage), a general price increase will reduce the value of the fixed wages paid under these arrangements and increase employment.

But you could accomplish the same thing by lowering the minimum wage.

No additional value is created by stimulus. The extra money is just undermining the effect of things that have been hobbling the market all along.

But creating more money has other destructive effects and causes people to make unsound investments. It creates bubbles. These bad results can take years to develop.

All the quantitive easing the Federal Reserve did after the financial crisis has helped re-inflate the housing bubble. Rising rents that also cause people to have to move or suckers them into buying into the bubble. A replay of earlier stimulus.

While all the churn in the economy benefits some industries, it destroys wealth for all income levels in the long run. It puts the country in further debt and makes us weaker.

Instead of resources flowing to industries that make the country more prosperous in the long run, we over-invest in real estate.

Without all the subsidies, both direct and indirect, real estate would be a much smaller part of the economy and there would be more capital for investments that actually create more wealth, instead of things that merely appear to do so in the short run.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> tl;dr

Finland is going to selecting 2,000 unemployed individuals, at random, and offering them cash without strings. Current unemployment schemes, they believe, hold back individuals from finding part time work / any work because the benefits outweigh the job opportunities. They hope that this new scheme promotes people to take work and have an adequate safety net to prevent homelessness and hunger.

<comment><USER33> I wonder why the participants couldn't be chosen from the whole working-age pool. Unless, the final system is not meant for working people at all, going against everything the universal welfare meant to solve. Doesn't surprise me one bit.

<comment><USER34> If it works well, I suspect they'll widen trials.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> What's the evidence that results of such study could be generalized to the entire population? I mean, yeah, 2000 people seem like a big group, but one might have different ideas about what to do with free money if the society around stays exactly the same vs when everybody else is also entitled to UBI. When I'm unemployed and look around and see all my friends work I might feel quite ashamed of myself and willing to change, but if all of them "retire" at 30 instead this might not be exactly the case.

</comment><comment><USER36> This reminded me of the Y Combinator Basic Income project. The last I read about that was this: [https://blog.ycombinator.com/moving-forward-on-basic- income/](https://blog.ycombinator.com/moving-forward-on-basic-income/) I wonder what the status is?

</comment><comment><USER37> What is that gonna achieve exactly? Aren't prices gonna just inflate upwards and things become less affordable?

If you just pay everyone X amount of money every month for whatever, it just means that in order to produce something you'll need to pay someone a lot more than that X amount in order to work and produce it and also it means that that item is gonna increase massively in cost in order to pay the items production itself.

I am highly against that idea.

You want to solve issues? Give free food/water and shelter for survival, thats all a human needs. It doesn't need to be a food from a chef or Evian water or a house with even an internet connection. All it needs is just to provide some safety that that person is not going to die of starvation or weather. Other than that if you want to have a better have and lifestyle well you have to work for it.

<comment><USER38> > What is that gonna achieve exactly? Aren't prices gonna just inflate upwards > and things become less affordable?

It is a try to save capitalism from itself. You see, today's tech is turning entire sectors obsolete (e.g. self-driving cars). In a standard capitalistic economy, you work at XCorp who pays you (the employee) in order to be able to buy their products. This model worked in the 20th century where industries (e.g. Ford) had thousands or even millions of workers all over the place. Now we have 5-member companies running startups with millions in turnover.

Today average Joe has a very hard time finding a job that will allow him to create a family and live well and no, not everyone can become an engineer, lawyer, doctor or banker.

So, we either find a way to re-distribute wealth or we're up for a bumpy ride that will end bad for everyone...

Universal income is an idea that is making rounds and is generally accepted by modern economists (left, right and liberals) in various forms of course. The idea is that someone with rather basic needs, will spend all his income in food, shelter, clothes, etc. So, since it's nearly impossible for them to find job, just give them money to spend buying stuff, even iPhones if possible...

I believe that we're in a phase of uber-consumerism. To sustain this kind of unnatural growth, capitalism needs to find virtual ways of creating demand or we need to start exporting to mars.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Implemented on a big scale it'll lead to higher inflation and ultimately will increase stratification.

</comment><comment><USER40> I could relate to the article. I'm currently living in Oulu, and was also working for a Nokia contractor until 2011. Unable to find work, I went back to polytechnic college for 3.5 years to update my skills and perhaps wait out the recession. Unfortunately, the situation hasn't gotten any better and my new bachelor's degree doesn't give me any advantage.

There are plenty of entrepreneurs requiring people of various backgrounds, but these are generally unpaid positions. I am currently writing a web-app for a charity, and have just launched a customised wordpress site for a new business. These are of course unpaid, and like the article states, it's not worth the risk of starting my own business (being a freelancer for example) as it would mean coming off benefits completely and hoping you'll make enough to pay for everything you need to pay for. UBA would suit me great. I could become that freelancer instantly, and with no fear. That company, who's website I just launched wanted to pay me, but legally it was impossible due to the reason I just mentioned (freelancing).

I'm also currently writing a language learning app, a mashup of my favourite features of DuoLingo and Memrise in my free time. Perhaps monetising that in some way may lead me out of this stagnation.

</comment><comment><USER41> This is not UBI (universal basic income), this is re-branded welfare.

<comment><USER42> Not exactly. While it's initially only being offered to unemployed people, it will have reduced bureaucracy and won't be withdrawn if people start earning.

It's by no means a perfect test of UBI, but "re-branded welfare" isn't really fair either.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> Instead of just giving people money our governments at federal / state / local levels should become employers of last resort for everyone who has exhausted their welfare or unemployment benefits. Guarantee 30 hours / week at minimum wage to anyone who wants to work. Even if it's just trail maintenance or graffiti cleanup they will at least be maintaining basic employment skills, and have enough spare time to retrain for something better.

<comment><USER44> What's the point of making people do stupid ass jobs?

Now I'm all for spending money on the commons in ways the private sector is too petty to address, but do this for the results of the investment, not just for employment.

I'm more OK with adjusting UBI to cancel out fluctuations in infrastructure spending.

<comment><USER43> There's nothing "stupid ass" about cleaning and beautifying our public spaces.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> _Now, the Finnish government is exploring how to change that calculus, initiating an experiment in a form of social welfare: universal basic income. Early next year, the government plans to randomly select roughly 2,000 unemployed people — from white-collar coders to blue-collar construction workers. It will give them benefits automatically, absent bureaucratic hassle and minus penalties for amassing extra income.

The government is eager to see what happens next. Will more people pursue jobs or start businesses? How many will stop working and squander their money on vodka? Will those liberated from the time-sucking entanglements of the unemployment system use their freedom to gain education, setting themselves up for promising new careers? These areas of inquiry extend beyond economic policy, into the realm of human nature._

I am not a fan of the idea of _universal_ basic income, but I would love to see the existing social safety net system get tweaked to be less retarded. I hope this experiment goes good places.

</comment><comment><USER46> It seems like we can learn so little by selecting only for jobless people. The best way to do a BI test seems to me to get a random sample so we can test how it affects people in various circumstances. Selecting a specific demographic like this seems more a political move than a scientific one.

</comment><comment><USER47> A country with very good welfare like Finland is the worst place to test UBI, which is supposed to replace welfare.

</comment><comment><USER48> I feel like we're creating a new government program to counter the failures of an existing one: education. If people had marketable skills, it would be a lot easier to find work. Perhaps tax revenue should go to education and training, instead.

I think we're a long way off from total automation of most industries.

<comment><USER49> Or perhaps we should drastically reduce government's role in education altogether. After all, we were doing fine before the Department of Education opened in the seventies!

<comment><USER48> That would be ideal. Government-run education does not respond to market forces, so I don't trust them to produce skilled graduates.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> The model selected maybe problematic. A) There are additional benefits for helping to pay rent which are income dependent. B) There are special circumstantial increases to benefits replaced by basic income, that state has to pay inorder to fill its constitutional equality requirements. For instance increases in unemployment for dependent children, expenditures for education program participation for unemployed... Now testsubjects get them by applying for them. Whats potential problem is what it takes to LOOSE them, its a risk factor on every action to earn temporarily, or taking a risky move to try to start a business. Latter causes also a high risk at the end of experiment, unless you have folded it long before end of experiment.

</comment><comment><USER51> > jobless

> universal

Doesn't sound very universal. One of the big factors that make it a good idea is that receiving the basic income shouldn't make you disincentivized from doing more and getting a job, etc. Otherwise, how is it different from existing welfare programs and such?

</comment><comment><USER52> As many have noted, this is _not_ UBI; full stop. Also, you can't "test" something that is supposed to be universal by definition, on a micro scale and to a selected subset.

</comment><comment><USER53> I fully expect someone to claim this is completly different because of detail xyz, but this has been done before. It worked out better than expected.

[http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/10/25/240590433/what-...](http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/10/25/240590433/what- happens-when-you-just-give-money-to-poor-people)

</comment><comment><USER54> And like all UBI experiments it will ultimately fail because UBI is essentially a form of theft.

Hiding behind the money illusion doesn't fool anybody for long.

[https://medium.com/modern-money-matters/is-basic-income- basi...](https://medium.com/modern-money-matters/is-basic-income-basically- theft-a95eeedb5aad#.1xcz4nzwk)

</comment><comment><USER55> Finland's population is 5.439 million, It may work for 2000 people but will it be workable and scale up to 10-million, 50-million or 100-million people? I believe the "square cube law comes into play.

Square cube law: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square- cube_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square-cube_law)

<comment><USER56> Why would the square cube law come into play here? I don't understand how it's related to this context.

<comment><USER55> Ooops. I should have referred to the Economies of scale rule instead. Perhaps 10-people could manage 2000 payouts whereas as the population grew to 200,000 or more regional offices and support staff would grow and inefficiencies would become more expensive.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> What's stopping people from taking their universal income and moving to a different country with a lower cost of living. Do you you have to collect it in person? A UBI of $1-2K/month isn't that much in the western world but you could live like a king[1] in the third world.

[1]: _Okay maybe not a very rich king but but you 'd definitely be doing more than fine._

<comment><USER58> Assuming that recipients are also taxed on their world income there is little difference between someone not working and living somewhere else or or not doing it without the country. It might be something unfair but i cant fathom it being significant at scale.

The problem is the people coming in: how do you stop high levels of immigration from people that would not be as productive as finnish people and hence would quickly become a drain on the state. The greatest single enemy of open immigration is welfare.

<comment><USER59> Don't give it to the people coming in?

<comment><USER58> Theres something uneasy about 2 people doing the same job at the same gross salary, but different net salaries.

<comment><USER57> Uneasy to you maybe. If the immigrant has it worse not coming to the land of free money and jobs (even if they're not getting the free money), they're still better off than not coming.

Separately, in a way we already have that uneven net for the same work. If you work two jobs you get paid less (net) than one person doing either of your jobs (for that job, not total). That's what's what a progressive tax does.

<comment><USER58> > Uneasy to you maybe. If the immigrant has it worse not coming to the land of > free money and jobs (even if they're not getting the free money), they're > still better off than not coming.

Its a market distortion that could create all kinds of problems.

You could argue that's discrimination( there are equal pay and equal wages laws around employment).

You would not be allowing immigrants from doing a wide range of jobs that are desirable (and hence pay less) and 'condemn' them to do the worse jobs that pay more. So for example, immigrants will be less represented in arts, journalism, administrative work. Low paying jobs in general will not be living wages without UBI. Think that minimum wage is likely to drop considerable if you have UBI.

It undoubtedly creates an "US vs them" gap measurable in money.

> Separately, in a way we already have that uneven net for the same work. If > you work two jobs you get paid less (net) than one person doing either of > your jobs (for that job, not total). That's what's what a progressive tax > does.

UBI is very likely not going to apply to most workers, _maybe_ minimum wage and down. You dont really need much of a minimum wage if you have an UBI, which means many pleasent low skill jobs would pay very little (clerical work for example). So immigrants would be barred from such jobs without UBI.

Also its true that taxes make 2 people get different net income but that comes from their wealth, not their nationality. Someone with a house and a mortgage might get more income than an immigrant that has nothing. That makes it a regressive tax (the immigrant pays taxes that goes to the richer guy).

<comment><USER60> I'm curious in what universe clerical work is considered pleasant?

In a world with UBI, I'd be very tempted to pack it in and go do some rewarding, enjoyable manual labor, like farming or forestry or carpentry or improving hiking trails.

<comment><USER58> In comparison to janitorial, customer service, retail sales, garbage disposal, truck driving, etc etc.

There are waves of people that would quit their job for a cozy clerical/administrative work that was cost-effective for their suffering. HOw much I dont know.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61>
        Voters in Switzerland recently rejected a basic-income scheme

I can't understand why the Swiss politicians wanted to ask the general public for a permission to do an experiment. How can the Swiss population be sure universal basic income will not work when no nation has yet implemented it yet across the whole population?

</comment><comment><USER62> For a good idea of what this type of program can do to a society, take a look at the native Americans. The monthly allotment received by most only perpetuates very serious social problems. I know that most who will push for these types of programs have good intentions, but the outcome will probably prove to do more harm than good, generally speaking.

<comment><USER63> Yeah there's definitely nothing else to explain why Native American nations are doing so poorly.

Edit: This was too snarky but also the parent comment is such a bold claim with no evidence justifying it. Counterclaim: Canada and the US have done plenty to destroy the fabric of native societies since their inception. As an example, the residential school system of Canada[1] which ended in _1996_. History is so forgettable isn't it?

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> Curious thing, Kela (who handle the benefits, among other things) made their sampling code public[0]. The code doesn't really tell me anything though, except that the random seed is taken from wall time.

[0] [http://www.kela.fi/perustulokokeilun- otantakoodi](http://www.kela.fi/perustulokokeilun-otantakoodi)

<comment><USER65> Same as github link; [https://github.com/kakoni/otantakoodi/blob/master/otantakood...](https://github.com/kakoni/otantakoodi/blob/master/otantakoodi.sas)

</comment></comment><comment><USER66> Why not universal basic housing. universal basic internet. universal basic food. universal basic computer. Make it illegal to sell them on the open market.

Anything except universal basic income. You want cigarettes / alcohol? do some work on the internet. Amazon mechanical turk.

</comment><comment><USER67> Personally, I think this a great thing for creatives and researchers, knowing they can spend as much time as they need to create real value for people without having to think of revenue or investors profits.

I heard/read Swiss denied this proposal though, what a shame.

</comment><comment><USER44> Wow, everyone is complaining about the misleading headline rather than reading the piece.

Oh, and this is the most positive non-opinion piece I've seen on UBI in a major publication, people! How's that?

</comment><comment><USER68> I hate being "that guy" but am I the only one who expects this particular brand of communism to not be any better than previous attempts?

Somebody's going to have to pay for this...

<comment><USER69> It isn't a brand of communism. It doesn't involve any nationalization. Also, no communists have ever implemented basic income. It isn't even an exclusively left wing idea. Milton Friedman supported it, Charles Murray supports it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER70> Thrilled that the idea that ones basic needs be met as a basic human right is gaining traction. Granted, in the form of our most common commodity- abstraction apparatus (cash).

</comment><comment><USER71> If it is given to jobless people then its not really _universal_ basic income. Its just removing bureaucracy from the current system.

</comment><comment><USER72> Somewhat off-topic but wouldn't it be cheaper and better to test the basic income in a country with low PPP (i.e. poor countries).

</comment><comment><USER73> Wouldn't a better idea be to give it to people with lower middle income which is more indicitive of the average household

</comment><comment><USER74> It's not ubi if it is not universal.

</comment><comment><USER75> I'm, that's not universal if it is restricted by means test or employment status.

</comment><comment><USER76> I'd assumed that Finland had a really strong welfare system like Norway and Sweden.

<comment><USER77> It does, it's just structured badly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER78> Well, from my experience in France, most of them will stay jobless.

<comment><USER78> Still, the article make an interesting point. And their agenda is clear.

</comment></comment><comment><USER79> How is this a test of UBI? It's just a welfare system.

<comment><USER80> If you want to really test UBI and not have critics point out some stupid difference between the test program and real UBI you need to implement a permanent, world-wide, basic income. Other wise "it's not UBI."

So it's not UBI, it's a test.

</comment></comment><comment><USER81> Why not tax accumulated wealth and assets?

</comment><comment><USER82> This is not UBI

</comment><comment><USER83> we have unemployment cash benefits in the usa. its quite similar in most regards.

</comment><comment><USER84> I want to be on record here. Today, December 17, 2016, I predict that this will fail. And by "fail", I mean that this will not become a universal entitlement in Finland.

<comment><USER59> Of course this "test" will fail, they're giving it to a group of people who already have a specific state of employment. It won't be seen as a safety net to follow their ambition because of its temporary, non-universal nature. It might make sense for them to hoard the cash until the test is over or spend it lavishly as a temporary reprieve from poverty.

I hope this won't create material to make a case against basic income in future.

<comment><USER42> While I'm not particularly optimistic, I could imagine it succeeding by temporarily eliminating poverty traps and providing stability for the beneficiaries, allowing them to gain experience or pursue training and end up in a much better position in two years time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER85> Will Finland admit publicly when it fails or will they just hide their idea as if it never happened?

Remember Bio-Fuel? How progressive and wonderful it was suppose to be? Until it caused a global food shortage and suddenly none of the media ever talked about it again.

<comment><USER86> Global food shortage? If you're talking about ethanol from corn, that doesn't sound correct. Corn-based foods are dirt cheap

<comment><USER87> Yep, the current prices of commodities are pretty low to the point it was a campaign issue in farm country.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER88> UBI is a terrible idea. Anyone who thinks that the government handing out money to everyone is a good idea needs to snap out of the propaganda machine. Those who fund you, control you. There is no way around that. When the people funding everyone is the government, and the people do nothing in return, that places huge amounts of power in the hands of a single entity, and removes all power from the people.

Large companies are getting larger. There are only a couple of choices in any category, and single companies own many different markets. When you combine that with UBI, you have the government handing you a check, and then you have a choice of a couple of companies to spend that money. The difference between this world and communism is almost nothing.

I have never heard of any group of people who were happy on government welfare. Whatever the supposed problem this is supposed to address, it is not a solution. People who are not working at all are not happy.

If I were to guess, I would say the real problems that need to be addressed are:

too many extremely large companies, often supported by laws they lobbied to create.

corrupt government that has no interest in its own country

population increases.

I mean, many of these people proposing UBI are living in countries where they are actively increasing the population. If you have an unemployment problem, why are you increasing the population?

<comment><USER44> Wat.

\- UBI's lack of criteria is supposed to remove distortions. The population is minimaly incentivized.

\- Employers loose leverage with UBI; large companies are major employers.

\- Everybody loves to hate on population size, but shrinking/aging populations are dangerous for the economy. It's a much more complex problem.

<comment><USER88> You are just replacing one leverage with another (employers with government). In most places, the employers own the government anyway as they provide the revenue.

I don't know what your first point means. Your last point, you are just repeating what you have read somewhere. Population increases do not change the aging population. The new people also age believe it or not.

Also stop being childish with your "wat" bullshit.

<comment><USER44> > In most places, the employers own the government anyway as they provide the > revenue.

[http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-are- source...](http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-are-sources- revenue-federal-government-0) corporate tax is only 10%. They are far to influential, but not because this.

> You are just replacing one leverage with another (employers with > government).

> I don't know what your first point means.

This I believe is the misunderstanding. UBI is designed so _nothing you do_ will affect your basic income; there are no conditions. Yes, on the meta-level the UBI policy itself could be changed, but assuming it won't the government has no extra leverage over the citizens.

> Population increases do not change the aging population. The new people also > age believe it or not.

I meant:

\- Slowing population growth and longer life expediencies (Europe, Japan, US might catch up a little bit) together result in more old people as a portion of the total population. Some argue this is dangerous for the welfare state.

\- More population growth crates more demand and helps economy grow.

You can similarly argue growing economies are bad for human and environmental health because more economic activity conventionally means pollution. For example, [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/10/14/resea...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/10/14/researchers- have-debunked-one-of-our-most-basic-assumptions-about-how-the-world-works/) (sorry for the sensational headline). But growing economies are also very good in other ways.

It would be great if we could have "barber poll" economies and populations that always grow yet stay the same size, but calculus does not allow for this.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Taiwan's Top Military Official Killed in Helicopter Crash - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/taiwans-top-military-official-killed-in-helicopter-crash-11577950359 <comment><USER2> Paywalled

<comment><USER3> Search for the news title on google news, click on the wsj link, et voila, paywall gone.

<comment><USER4> This didn't work for me.</comment></comment></comment>


37signals selling Sortfolio on Flippa for 480k - <AUTHOR> https://flippa.com/2739829-sortfolio-com-web-design-marketplace-w-220k-annual-revenue

<comment><USER2> Why (to me) sortofolio is a bad investment for a buyer:

1) They made a big deal about the sell. "We are selling it within x days and if no one buys we will be shutting it down" because apparently its not worth their time; but at the same time, according to them it takes zero involvement from their part. Doesn't sell it in x days but makes it available at flippa.

2) Doesn't answer any important questions regarding the sale on flippa. Either its not worth their time or they are not telling the whole story.

3) As someone who would use sortfolio this looks like a complete lack of confidence on the business/platform by their owners and has unstable future as a product, so why bother using the service?

4) Sortfolio almost definitely exist as a platform and makes money simply because of its association with 37singnals. The product is nether impressive or unique.

To me the whole "will shut it down in x, if not sold" not only leaves a bad taste towards sortfolio but also its parent company 37signal. I am not sure exactly why.

<comment><USER3> Not to mention the people who've paid $99/month for a service. Surely if they're going to shut it down they need to sunset it properly.

It's always interesting when the hype meets reality, and it seems that the users of flippa are far more astute and deserve more credit than they're often given. They're asking the right questions and getting no answers. Clearly 37signals may price it at $250,000 but doesn't value it as such.

EDIT: Changed to $99/year. Thanks for pointing that out melvinram.

<comment><USER4> It's $99/month, not $99/year.

<comment><USER5> On Flippa they say "The premium membership is sold for $99/month. This is how we generate revenue."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Now, I understand DHH's resentment (or envy) against Pinterest, Instagram and Quora—everbody's raising money like shit while Sortfolio stays unsold for weeks. This shows one more time in which league 37signals actually plays.

Doing scalable business isn't 37signals' strength. And selling, networking and dealmaking neither => Flippa is generally for smaller sites/SEO stuff for low prices. This size of sale is better done through contacts or just a good seller who has these contacts and gets a commission. Otherwise you risk reputation damage and external effects on your other brands and entire group if offering your products/companies directly on Flippa or eBay (which feels just desperate).

Anyway, they had to raise funds and put a dedicated team on it when Sortfolio/Haystack was at its peak. Now, it's too late looking at Sortfolios decreasing traffic on Alexa. Nobody will buy it and that's something DHH never will get: it's not about your _current_ revenues or status, it's always about you _future_ expectation when valuing assets/companies/startups/businesses _and that's how you sell_

<comment><USER7> Yes, it's always struck me that many 37signals posts are lathered in passive- aggressive envy regarding other businesses rather than just getting on with their own. The only good 37signals post I can remember that wasn't of that kind, or just trite advice, was the nice photos of their office environments. It constantly amazes me how much coverage they get on HN. But I guess a lot of people use RoR as a breadwinner and have a connection in that way to them.

If you look at another "builder of tools the community uses" like, say, Linus it's different. His blog doesn't really make it onto HN, as it's often personal, whereas his G+ posts sometimes do. His G+ posts are usually about something specific though rather than recycled trash from popular business / personal wealth books - not looking at anyone in particular - with some added passive-aggressive venom towards the more successful.

<comment><USER8> I don't think it's actually envy, it's simply making some noise, which gets them more attention and thus more business.

<comment><USER9> The irony, of course, is the name of their blog.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Been listed for 20 days already, all questions remain unanswered in the comments, no analytics/data provided, listed profit == listed revenue.

</comment><comment><USER11> The way Sortfolio works is that designers and agencies pay to be listed on the site. But if you build a good following on Dribbble, you'll start receiving new job offers every week. So why would you pay $99 a month for Sortfolio?

This means Sortfolio doesn't include the best designers, since they don't need the service it provides. There are still some good design agencies on there (because they can afford the price), but I'm not sure how long that will remain a viable market.

The bottom line is that if your barrier to entry is money instead of talent, it'll be hard to reach the best people.

<comment><USER12> This is one of the fundamental things 37signals doesn't seem to understand. In a winner-take-all market, which includes any market with strong network effects, you want to get as big as you can as fast as you can.

Charging for the product makes that harder and opens you up to having someone compete against you for free while monetizing indirectly (via ads, affiliate revenue, secondary services, whatever).

See also: about.me vs. flavors.me

It's like they're constitutionally incapable of recognizing this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Outside of the tech echo chamber, selling a profitable business that isn't integrating well with your core direction is pretty common. Jack Welch of GE was famous for selling off any business that wasn't--or couldn't quickly become--#1 or #2 in its market, no matter how much cash it was throwing off.

You're doing well if you're creating new businessses, trying them out, closing the losers, keeping the winners, and selling off the decent-but-not-fabulous rump to other people who can make them even more profitable.

</comment><comment><USER14> This was covered a few weeks ago. A lot of info in the thread with input from Jason.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3941230>

</comment><comment><USER15> On the face of it this doesn't sale make a lot of economic sense, so this says to me that _signalling_ to customers and employees that 37 signals is serious about focus is worth $18k a month to them. Viewed from this perspective the decision makes a bit more sense.

</comment><comment><USER16> There's one major problem for the new owner: all paying customers will need to re-sign up for a new billing plan.

</comment><comment><USER17> Auction ends in a couple of hours. No bids. I wonder if they'll really shut it down.

</comment><comment><USER18> I wonder if original domain name haystack.com is also included.

<comment><USER19> it isnt

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Wow, this whole thing -- which first I read about here, <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3941230> and in which that blog entry itself had said "A year ago we put Sortfolio up for sale..." -- is turning into an extremely instructive example of how _not_ to flip a web service (or maybe anything). Looking at all the comments, it's obvious that you can't even get pocket change for a mature site with paying customers, by saying what 37signals is saying about sortfolio.</comment>


Crash: how computers are setting us up for disaster - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/11/crash-how-computers-are-setting-us-up-disaster <comment><USER2> This is an excellent article.

The notion of "mode" is explicitly mentioned by Jef Raskin in his book "The Humane Interface" while discussing radio-controlled model aircraft.

It is sobering to see it mentioned here as "mode confusion", in the context of a commercial aircraft which led (directly or indirectly) to the death of 228 people.</comment>


How the Recession Will Change University Financing - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-24/how-recession-will-change-university-financing.html

<comment><USER2> Some sobering numbers, but I really dislike it when articles like these group "science and engineering" as an afterthought, especially in reference to prosperity.

I'm an engineer, but have known a number of scientists, and the employment scenario is no cakewalk. Engineers have it much better all in all.

Someone is always quick to point this out when someone in a position of leadership grouses about the 'shortage' of scientists, but one need only look at the number of positions and the pay associated with them to realize the actual shortage is in our preconceptions of how much demand we _ought_ to have.</comment>


Low Earth Orbit Visualization - <AUTHOR> https://platform.leolabs.space/visualization <comment><USER2> Zoom in. Jaw-dropping.

Can't imagine what Starlink will do to this...</comment>


She Was Harassed By A Games Reporter. Now She's Speaking Out. - <AUTHOR> http://kotaku.com/she-was-harassed-by-a-games-reporter-now-shes-speakin-1510714971 <comment><USER2> What the hell is wrong with some people? This is the 21st century; not the 12th.

Also, his 'apology' is anything but. He blames alcohol and depression instead of making no excuses and taking the heat that he deserves.

The only thing he's sorry about is that his behavior blew up in his face.</comment>


New Report: Snowden Revelations Hurt U.S. Companies - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/07/30/new-report-snowden-revelations-hurt-u-s-companies/

<comment><USER2> what a joke. its the us government to blame for it's unconstitutional and unlawful activities that snowden simply released (at the risk of his own life mind you...). Entrepreneurs more than anyone else should realize the value of ones individual rights to pursue his or her passion to the fullest. When are entrepreneurs going to unite to bring an end to big government and support Free Market Capitalism?</comment>


Mark Twain's Get-Rich-Quick Schemes - <AUTHOR> https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2017/10/25/mark-twains-get-rich-quick-schemes/ <comment><USER2> So it says $450k then is equivalent to about $11M now, a multiple of about 24. So scaling up.. the coal miner's daily pay was about $36 in today's money and monthly rent about $144. A 3 bed NYC apartment, on the other hand, was about $1920 in today's money. Seems the gap between poor and the 'typical' rich has come down a lot, even if it doesn't feel like it.

<comment><USER3> Not to mention the quality of life of the poor now, vs even the 1980s, let alone 1880s, has significantly improved. The poor didn't have smartphones, flat screen TVs, and broadband internet plus quality/variety of food.

In the rush to close a largely abstract gap (as it is by nature entirely relative to some previous, also unique, point in history) I worry we risk losing touch with the practical day-to-day gains/costs. Especially as the controls often end up pushing down on the work class rather than the intended targets at the top. Such as shifting operations and taxable revenue overseas.

Not to mention how individual morality is always pinned to it when it's often the side effect of much higher level systems (the rise of globalism [1], regulatory-heavy states vs tax shelters dynamic [2], growth of the financial industry [3], etc, etc). Then "fixing" becomes a vindictive pursuit rather than for the benefit of everyone.

Quality of life of the general population should be the primary measure in this conversation. Merely focusing on a single metric, such as closing some gap between two relative ends of a spectrum, could very easily lead to bad policy making that does little to help those on the other end.

[1] [https://news2-images.vice.com//uploads/2016/11/chart-41.png](https://news2-images.vice.com//uploads/2016/11/chart-41.png)

[2] [https://i.imgur.com/R6SWilB.png](https://i.imgur.com/R6SWilB.png)

[3] [http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra- klein/financial_servic...](http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra- klein/financial_services%27_share_of_us_gdp%2C_1947-2009%284%29.png)

<comment><USER4> Are iphones, TVs, and internet the measure of "quality of life" we want to settle on?

<comment><USER5> What's great about this country is that America started the tradition where the richest consumers buy essentially the same things as the poorest. You can be watching TV and see Coca-Cola, and you know that the President drinks Coke, Liz Taylor drinks Coke, and just think, you can drink Coke, too. A Coke is a Coke and no amount of money can get you a better Coke than the one the bum on the corner is drinking. All the Cokes are the same and all the Cokes are good. Liz Taylor knows it, the President knows it, the bum knows it, and you know it.

— Andy Warhol

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Lovely article. Best piece imho:

>And Twain wasn't born "around the year 1835," but during it—a strategic decision of the utmost significance, suggesting an alert and eager business mind operating even in utero.

<comment><USER7> The following line (in the next paragraph) is good too :

"Unfortunately, Twain was not so astute in his choice of parents."

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I expected discussion of his investment in a typesetting machine. They have one in the Mark Twain museum in Hartford. Its a big machine:

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

"The Paige Compositor typesetting machine that drove the family to the brink of bankruptcy, forcing them to leave their Hartford home."

[http://www.marktwainhouse.org/museum/our_collection.php](http://www.marktwainhouse.org/museum/our_collection.php)

<comment><USER3> Seriously, how could they not mention this? The headline really has nothing to do with the article...

<comment><USER9> From TFA:

 _Excerpted from_ How Not to Get Rich: The Financial Misadventures of Mark Twain _by Alan Pell Crawford. Copyright © (2017) by Alan Pell Crawford. Reprinted by permission of Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved._

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Nice article, but what do the title and text have to do with each other?

Spending ~30+ years learning to write and sell books doesn't look like a Get- Rich-Quick scheme to me. His father also bought land so that his future generations could become rich. That's not quick either.

<comment><USER11> I had the same thought. I think I would have enjoyed it more if I didn't expect it to turn into stories of crazy business ventures.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Regarding the point about his good fortune of being born in 1835, I wonder what the date is for new tech billionaire CEOs. The article made me wonder if we are in our own little gilded age now.

Mark Zuckerberg: 1984

Larry Page: 1973

Sergey Brin: 1973

Elon Musk: 1971

Michael Dell: 1965

Jeff Bezos: 1964

Jack Ma: 1964

Masayoshi Son: 1957

Steven Ballmer: 1956

Bill Gates: 1955

Steve Jobs: 1955

Paul Allen: 1953

Larry Ellison: 1944

The median of this list (which I compiled with no particular methodology or criteria) is 1964. The mean is 1962.

<comment><USER13> Maybe you're already aware of this but being in a gilded age would not be a good thing. The gilded age described a society where serious problems were masked by a thin veneer of gold.

<comment><USER12> I've never read the book, but am aware it is a satire. Given your description, I think my word choice turned out to be apropos. Though perhaps "thin veneer of gold" should be modernized to "tacky stucco facade" or "parallax hero background."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Mark Twain's financial struggles and goals were never framed or discussed in my American school education. Wonder what the children of our poorest families would aspire to given the truth of business? God forbid they try to emulate Mark Twain's path.

</comment><comment><USER15> There seems to be an error: "The family's annual food bill was $80 a month." For a person earning $1.50 per day, that would have been a whopping monthly food bill.

<comment><USER16> Historically, the price of food was much higher than it is now. Thank our farmers for operating more efficient year after year.

[https://mjperry.blogspot.nl/2010/07/as-share-of-income- ameri...](https://mjperry.blogspot.nl/2010/07/as-share-of-income-americans- have.html)

<comment><USER17> You are right that modern technology has figured out how to turn energy into soil (way oversimplified!), and that probably 80% of the nitrogen in the bodies of any of us reading this came from the Haber process.

However, it still sounds bizarre that about 90% of their expenses was food.

<comment><USER18> It isn't totally off-base. Even today, the poorest consumers in middle-income countries spend 70-80% of their income on food.

[http://www.hindustantimes.com/interactives/how-do-people- in-...](http://www.hindustantimes.com/interactives/how-do-people-in- developing-countries-spend-money/)

<comment><USER19> In the UK I'd be suprised if like us most of the income of other poorer people didn't go to landlords/banks through rent/mortgage payment?

It may appear for those in state housing that food is their greatest outlay but that would only be if accommodation provided by welfare wasn't classed as "income".

In Twain's position, and time, would food have certainly been the greatest outlay?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_confidence_tricks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_confidence_tricks)

</comment><comment><USER21> Nice introduction, but I admit I was a bit disappointed to not get even one "get-rich-quick scheme".

<comment><USER22> Right. Clemens put large sums into a typesetting machine project, but it was a dud.[1] One of the prototype machines still exists.

[1] [http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi50.htm](http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi50.htm)

<comment><USER21> Link doesn't seem correct, but I would guess that a typesetting machine project wouldn't be categorized as a get-rich-quick scheme. This sounds more like a (risky?) business venture.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> "and for settlers trying to persuade Indians to abandon tribal lands that these newcomers wished to inhabit."

Ah - they persuaded them. What a lovely euphemism.

<comment><USER24> You have taken it out of context, where it was ironically written about the most common uses of revolvers, so it was clearly a joke (the whole article was written in humorous manner, for those who didn't read).

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Am I the only one getting fake amazon popups on that page?

<comment><USER26> I get a fake iOS security warning. Quick rich scheme indeed.

<comment><USER27> There's an add-injection infection going around today. A lot of sites are getting this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> is it just me or is the font really hard to read?

<comment><USER10> It's on the harder side, I also have to say so.</comment></comment>


Visual Studio Code Will Replace Visual Studio - <AUTHOR> https://movingfulcrum.com/visual-studio-code-will-replace-visual-studio/ <comment><USER3> I haven't tried to do any serious .net debugging in vs code, but I'd be shocked if it has capabilities anywhere near vs. Heap snapshots, garbage collection stats, attach-to-process, click to evaluate enumerable in watch, first chance exceptions, break in "just my code" off the top of my head.

<comment><USER4> It already has attach-to-process and just-my-code.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> VS has alot of stuff which is missing in Code, so Code has of course new shiny features every release. I mean just the XAML development is missing (as far as i know). That was also the point why they released VS Community, to allow Independent developers to develop for there UWP Platform. Also MS uses VS in several other Products, like sql management studio (they releases a cross platform tool lately), or Blender. Both are just VS with a bunch of other Plugin/Projekt Templates. I also know some Companys who uses VS Shell - <USER2> striped down Visual Studio - for there own internal software.

Also, if i'm not wrong, VSCode is electron based app. If VSCode will have the same amount of fearures as VS, i think they will have Performance and Memory issues. Just a few weeks ago they published a blog post, how they improved the performance of the editor for large files (fun fact, Atom had the same problem and they solved it by implementing a native Textbuffer, no JS). So adding new features to VSCode will bring new challenges to performance and memory consumption. And don't forget, there are people out there complaining about why the slack app needs so much memory....

So all in all, yes maybe Vscode will replace VS but this is a really long road to go.

</comment><comment><USER6> John Gruber has a theory about why Apple will never completely eliminate macOS and go iPad-only: "The Mac being heavy allows iOS to be light". That is, iOS can be free of a bunch all the cruft that comes with the long history of desktop operating systems because the Mac has that for the people who need those scenarios.

I think there's a similar dynamic at work here: full Visual Studio has a lot of powerful capabilities that are only used by 1% of its userbase, but each person needs a different 1%, and much of it is legacy Windows stuff. VS will continue to bear the burden of having all that so that VSCode can continue to be reasonably lightweight and updated quickly.

</comment><comment><USER7> VS Code is great but will never replace Visual Studio. They are different beasts. I could see the two gravitating towards each other but I never see the one winning outright. There are a vast spectrum of developers out and its okay that there is no single IDE that fits everyone perfectly.

</comment><comment><USER8> From Microsoft why VS won't go 64 bit.

[https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/ricom/2015/12/29/revisiting...](https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/ricom/2015/12/29/revisiting-64-bit- ness-in-visual-studio-and-elsewhere/)

Then his own rebuttal to himself...

[https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/ricom/2016/01/04/64-bit- vis...](https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/ricom/2016/01/04/64-bit-visual- studio-the-pro-64-argument/)

<comment><USER9> They desperately need to. It is absurd for VS to be thrashing disk so much when it starts touching 2 GB of RAM usage, when I have 32 GB sitting mostly unused on my workstation.

As JetBrains Rider 64-bit becomes more mature, it's harder not to switch.

<comment><USER10> 3rd party options outside official platform tooling are always a bad option in the long run.

They never move beyond being a 2nd class citizen with their own set of issues and development problems.

<comment><USER8> It's an IDE. Every language for every platform has different IDEs that people prefer.

<comment><USER10> It is a _3rd party IDE_ , less capable and will always be catching up with the official language vendor IDE features.

<comment><USER8> If anything, Visual Studio is trying to catch up with Visual Studio + Resharper made by the same people who make Rider.

Which first party IDE do users of Python, Java, Go, Node, etc. use?

<comment><USER10> > If anything, Visual Studio is trying to catch up with Visual Studio + > Resharper made by the same people who make Rider.

I never needed to use Resharper.

Resharper might offer better refactoring tooling, but it doesn't offer anything else over what it means a full Visual Studio experience.

> Which first party IDE do users of Python, Java, Go, Node, etc. use?

I though we were speaking about .NET here, and other languages offered by OS vendors.

From your list only Java fits this description.

So to answer it, Java main IDE, the one pushed by Sun and used as basis for Solaris development was Netbeans, which incidentally still has features not offered by InteliJ and Eclipse regarding GUI designers, visual editing for Web development and mixed debugging between managed and native code, including directly visualization of native code generated by the JIT.

Visual Studio has quite good support for Python and Node as well.

<comment><USER8> _Resharper might offer better refactoring tooling, but it doesn 't offer anything else over what it means a full Visual Studio experience_

R# doesn't offer anything but better refactoring, better navigation, a better unit testing interface, better code analysis, more shortcuts for taking care of boilerplate code like creating an equality override for classes, better Nugget integration (Find this type in Nuget) - ie everything a developer does on a day to day basis...

<comment><USER10> R# also turns an useful PC into an airplane, increases the typing delay, does not offer UML modelling tools, database integration, database modelling tools, Windows Forms, WPF and UWP modelling tools, enterprise code navigation tooling, mixed mode debugging between native and managed code, code generation templates, GPGPU debugging, services and drivers debugging, profiling tools, task and threading debuggers with selective control with graphical visualization,...., what a Windows developer actually needs.

<comment><USER8> I'm assuming you mean Rider since R# is a part of VS. But Windows Forms? Microsoft basically abandoned that years ago. The writing is on the wall as far as the .Net framework, MS is showing no love for classic .Net. All of their energy is toward .Net Core. I jumped off of that train a year ago and don't plan to look back. I'm a big fan of Core but classic .Net?

<comment><USER10> Yes, Forms. It is legacy, yet loved by many enterprise customers, lots of gigs available.

.NET Core will be relevant for our customers when it finally achieves 1:1 parity with .NET Framework features, until then not many will bother to rewrite their applications, they already have Java for non-Windows platforms with better libraries.

I had to port an application from .NET Framework to Java, because customer wanted it to run on Linux and .NET Core wasn't up to it, regarding the necessary features.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Not possible due to established C/C++ Windows codebases.

</comment><comment><USER12> Visual Studio is vastly more capable than visual code. It won't be going anywhere anytime soon

<comment><USER13> I use vscode (primarily because I don't have sudo rights to install visual studio) and I've researched the difference between the two and have never found a more concrete explanation of the differences than a vague "Visual Studio focuses on the entire lifecycle of the software".

<comment><USER14> Summary: Visual Studio has 20 years of features. Code has 3.

Those numbers cut both ways, as programming today isn't close to what it was 20 years ago. And choices / features that seemed critical then seem archaic now.

On the other hand, you can't instantly catch up on 20 years worth of good ideas.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> _" No 64 bit support for Visual Studio

The very first sign was when Microsoft refused to port Visual Studio (VS) to 64 bit. "_

MS purposely chose to forego 64 bit in favor of 32 bits for performance among other reasons.

</comment><comment><USER16> > Visual Studio was always paid software. But in 2014 MS introduced the > Community Edition.

Visual Studio has had a free Express edition since 2005. The only difference I ever noticed between it and the Pro version was the lack of plugin support. They modified the license slightly and called their new free version the Community edition, but not much has changed.

<comment><USER10> Community is much more than the former express versions, it is the Pro version with another license.

<comment><USER16> Was there something missing that was important for .Net developers? For C++, there was practically no difference aside from the aforementioned plugin support.

It's long been the case that businesses buy the pro version and hobbyists use the free one. Now it's because of license restrictions rather than because of missing features, but the end result is basically the same.

<comment><USER10> Yes, for starters you would need to install separately one express version per language and workflow.

Meaning something like Express C++, Express C# Desktop, Express C# Web development.

Then many plugins for SQL, GUI design, static code analysis, debugging were not available.

Even C++ had language features not enabled on Express versions, and if I recall correctly it did only 32bit code generation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I wish. The VSCode editor is years ahead of VS, but it's not happening. You don't have to only compete with Microsoft's out-of-the-box experience, but also VSIP - that includes Resharper (which I don't use, but it's reality).

> 64-bit

I've never experienced an out-of-memory with VS, so that whole argument is moot.

<comment><USER18> You'll find a much different experience with OOM exceptions for developers working on large solutions, especially ones that contain a lot of test projects and small test assets. They've improved on it in 2017 but it's still pretty bad, OOM full crashes multiple times a day.

<comment><USER17> We're at 25mloc, things can be sluggish but not _broken._

<comment><USER18> I think it's less a LoC thing than it is a number of symbols/files thing. We have some 900k+ tests with an accompanying large number of test asset files. That means 900k public methods that test discovery has to process in realtime.

It's partially on us to move away from the antipattern of solution monoliths, and to nugetize crap that doesn't need to actually be in the solution. But it's also on Microsoft to lazily load projects that aren't being used.

<comment><USER17> > on us to move away from the antipattern of solution monoliths

We started that about 6mo ago. It's worth it but good luck. Spend a lot of time understanding your codebase. Spend more time understanding DDD (there are great courses on Pluralsight). You're going to learn a lot and it's going to be both rewarding and hell.

> But it's also on Microsoft to lazily load projects that aren't being used.

They have that fast solution load thing in 2017, I'm not entirely sure what it does but maybe it's worth a shot.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> It might, but only after catching up with Visual Studio features, and there is a long path of a few decades before it ever happens.

This statement can only be said by someone that hasn't actually used Visual Studio beyond editing text.

</comment><comment><USER18> I get the impression that the author of the article hasn't used a debugging feature any more advanced than breakpoints before. I don't want to stick up for Visual Studio because it has so many issues, but it's an incredibly powerful debugging tool with tight source control integration, and isn't going away any time soon. Visual Studio Code just doesn't provide the toolset needed by a team of 500 developers working on a monolithic software project, and it shouldn't, that isn't what it's intended to be. It's good at what it is already.

<comment><AUTHOR> you are right sir, what could I possibly know about debuggers. I only created this after all.. [http://chrononsystems.com/products/chronon-time- travelling-d...](http://chrononsystems.com/products/chronon-time-travelling- debugger)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I think you're under the impression that VS is stagnating and VSC is active because VSC has to catch up to 20 years of features. Even just a few months ago VSC was missing a ton of features, but every release brings more advanced IDE features. Only recently has it replaced Sublime Text as my default __text __editor. That's just simply editing text.

VSC still hasn't replaced PyCharm for me when I want to make large scale edits to python code.

</comment><comment><USER20> I'm a linux user, sysadmin with very light scripting and I normally use Sublime or VI. I tried Code out last year and been using it for all kinds of things, markup files, python, css files.

Gotta say, Code is pretty nice for free and very multipurpose.

Kinda worried after seeing that article today that bing search cant be turned off in Code, no idea whats thats about.

</comment><comment><USER21> Until VSCode is as easy to use GUIlike paint your own forms etc, I remain skeptical.

Visual Basic when it first came out, made it easy to program and create forms and controls.

</comment><comment><USER22> I'd believe it, if somebody can show me windows 10 core product which clearly has electron inside. Or, if you can show me code pointers to 'developed in- house, in VSC'

I am in OSX, without access to W10 so its conjecture for me.

</comment><comment><USER23> _No 64 bit support for Visual Studio_

What? I've used Visual Studio to work on 64-bit applications.

 _Thus comes in VS Code, a free, cross platform IDE that supports all modern languages._

It's only "free" because you're paying for it in other ways than money:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_Studio_Code#Data_collec...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_Studio_Code#Data_collection)

Quite frankly I find it disturbing --- what used to be software you paid for and then you would be left alone to, is now "free" pseudo-SaaS that is funded by the collection and sale of user data.

<comment><USER24> VS itself isn't fully 64 bit. All the important bits are (like the compilers and such) just not the main VS app.

Also they aren't very good at the collecting part if they let you just disable, and make it known that you can, while also providing versions (the OSS version) that don't even have the data collectors.

<comment> cup-of-tea What kind of shoddy programming means it can't just be compiled for 64 bit? Why would they bake the word size so deeply into a program like that?

<comment><USER25> Last time i checked c++ debugger still used 16 bit line numbers. My attempts to make a plugin for vs also left an impression that it contains large amount of modules glued together using various technologies. Things like 5 layers of c# API wrappers named api10, api20, api30 on top of some c code communicating using COM objects. I wouldn't be surprised if they still had some third party libraries for which they only have a binaries and vendor doesn't exist anymore.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


GitHub Checks API - <AUTHOR> https://developer.github.com/changes/2018-05-07-new-checks-api-public-beta/ <comment><USER2> These look really nifty. I'm hoping GitLab will add similar. I particularly like that the build can be failed due to a specific line. I've noticed that all of the CI output can be confusing for some, and it becomes difficult to suss out the specific error messages amid all the other output.</comment>


The European Commission is preparing a frontal attack on the hyperlink - <AUTHOR> https://juliareda.eu/2015/11/ancillary-copyright-2-0-the-european-commission-is-preparing-a-frontal-attack-on-the-hyperlink/ <comment><USER2> This battle might be fought with the dwindling pockets of old media, but it seems to miss the fact that _everything_ created by _anybody_ has copyright. A permission based culture won't just create a minefield around old media, it will mine everything.

This comment is licensed under the Linking Commons 2020 Open License, which permits anybody to link to it just like you used to on the old Internet.</comment>


New References to AMD Processors Discovered in macOS 10.15.4 Beta - <AUTHOR> https://www.macrumors.com/2020/02/07/macos-catalina-amd-apu-references/ <comment><USER2> Wait for the Arm more.

But this makes a lot of sense as AMD is cheaper in medium to high end on non- data centre machines. And Apple not only is in that niche it used amd card exclusively.</comment>


What's Happened Since February? - <AUTHOR> http://www.oilshell.org/blog/2019/06/13.html <comment><USER2> Seems like a very confusing name for a shell, seeing this without knowing the context I saw 'Oil', 'Shell' and assumed that it was about some oil spill or event with Shell Oil that happened in February I was unaware of. Looks like an interesting project regardless.

<comment><USER3> I wrote a FAQ answering this: [http://www.oilshell.org/blog/2019/06/17.html#toc_0](http://www.oilshell.org/blog/2019/06/17.html#toc_0)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Oil is a promising attempt to make a backwards-compatible but progressively better and more sane unix shell. I look forward to trying it out!

<comment><USER5> I use unix (linux) every day, what does Oil fix that is wrong with bash/shell? (I am not a power user per se, so genuinely curious what I am missing out on)

<comment><USER6> "Why Create a New Unix Shell?": [http://www.oilshell.org/blog/2018/01/28.html](http://www.oilshell.org/blog/2018/01/28.html)

If you want just one example, automatic completion in bash uses a bash parser written in bash, incompatible with the bash interpreter's own parser. OSH uses the same parser for both the interpreter and the completion engine. [https://github.com/oilshell/oil/issues/208#issuecomment-4496...](https://github.com/oilshell/oil/issues/208#issuecomment-449658088)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The most interesting part for me is MyPy to C++ conversion. I understand it's easier that way. It certainly makes it easier to package Oil. It's a necessary step to bootstrap all the work. Certainly such a conversion tool would be in interests of wider community, so I wonder is there any more movement in the area.

I have a small hope that it will eventually go off C++, because it may be impossible to change mind of significant part of Unix community. But it's all good, because work involved is outstanding already.

</comment><comment><USER8> A slight tangent: I discovered the Zephyr ASDL ( _Abstract Syntax Description Language_ ) by looking at the oilshell blog: [https://www.oilshell.org/blog/tags.html?tag=ASDL#ASDL](https://www.oilshell.org/blog/tags.html?tag=ASDL#ASDL)

There are interesting posts about the ADSL, as well as about implementing interpreters in that blog. Definitely piqued my interest as someone passionate about language design.

</comment><comment><USER9> The "Oil Project" was an open-source education initiative run by Marco De Rossi in Italy, ~10 years ago. It turned into WeSchool, a successful education business in Italy.

</comment><comment><USER10> Why is that website so narrow? It only takes up about 20% of the width of my monitor

<comment><USER11> mobile first! :D

<comment><USER12> I think that's actually mobile only</comment></comment></comment>


Unlimited API access to 1.2M CC0 images and videos - <AUTHOR> Free Pixabay API now alive on ProductHunt https://www.producthunt.com/posts/pixabay-api <comment><USER2> CC0 is Creative Common 0 license. This API is a WordPress add-on that lets you give credit to the photographer for stock images.

</comment><comment><USER3> Why does this show up in "ask" ?</comment>