Doing Windows, Part 5: A Second Try - <AUTHOR> https://www.filfre.net/2018/07/doing-windows-part-5-a-second-try/ <comment><USER2> The previous posts of this serie have been discussed on HN:

* Doing Windows, Part 1: MS-DOS and Its Discontents ([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17403351](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17403351)) * Doing Windows, Part 2: From Interface Manager to Windows ([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17423724](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17423724)) * Doing Windows, Part 3: A Pair of Strike-Outs ([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17470844](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17470844)) * Doing Windows, Part 4: The Rapprochement ([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17523926](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17523926))

<comment><USER3> There are a few blogs that HN should just scrape their RSS feeds and put on the front page, and this is one of that few

<comment><USER4> You weren't joking. Just skimmed through the rest of the blog and this is an absolute treasure!

Good place to start for others: [https://www.filfre.net/sitemap/](https://www.filfre.net/sitemap/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Excel installing a captive Windows, a technical detail they could have hid, was instead played up to demo the windowing GUI, in a better implementation of shareware than nearly anything that came after. This ingenious decision really ought to be more widely known and celebrated, but seems to have fallen out of the abbreviated narrative around Windows' (or Excel's) history, and it takes specialized sources like this one, or books by Excel gurus [1] to talk more about this fact.

[1] [https://books.google.com/books?id=3Uz7CAAAQBAJ&pg=PA8&lpg=PA...](https://books.google.com/books?id=3Uz7CAAAQBAJ&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8)

<comment><USER6> You could probably find this info in the trade press like InfoWorld, but yes, Microsoft was essentially giving-away Windows to get it catch on. 3rd party ISVs also used "runtime Windows", and you could get a full copy free with a MS mouse, or Visual Basic, or etcetera. You could also give copies to all your friends and coworkers, there was no copy-protection, and the software police didn't mind. Didn't really catch on until Windows 3 however.

<comment><USER7> I seem to recall reading that MS only started doing the activation thing in XP because the BSA threatened to throw them out.

Frankly MS has held that it is better, for them, that the public pirate MS software than switch to alternatives.

Also, private usage of MS software is seem by them as a sales pitch towards businesses. It allows MS to argue that potential employees already knows basic operations, so there is less required training for new hires.

<comment><USER8> > I seem to recall reading that MS only started doing the activation thing in > XP because the BSA threatened to throw them out.

I don't buy it. Microsoft was so huge that I don't see why they would care about the BSA. It seems more likely that product activation really has helped Microsoft make more money.

<comment><USER9> Microsoft _co-founded_ the BSA because the software piracy rent-a-cops of the day -- the SPA -- sided with the DoJ in the antitrust suit against Microsoft.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Two thoughts.

1\. I can't get over how primitive the Windows UI was compared to Mac years after Mac shipped. Apple began the Macintosh project in late '79 and by Jan '84 shipped both the Mac and the OS. Microsoft began Windows development in '81 and didn't really catch up UI-wise till Windows 3 in 1990. Meanwhile, Apple would squander its head start, not shipping an OS as technically sound as NT (1993) till OS X in 2000.

2\. I have yet to read a flattering portrait of Ballmer and here he almost kills Microsoft going all in on OS/2\. Was Microsoft successful in spite of him?

<comment><USER11> Was OS/2 tied to the PS/2 and MCA? In my first job out of school in the early 1990s, all the developers had OS/2 workstations. It was a good OS, stable, multitasked well, and from memory Microsoft didn't really equal it until Windows NT4 or maybe even 2000. From my perspective OS/2 didn't fail for technical reasons, it must have been IBM trying to recapture the PC as a proprietary platform when the market really wanted something that would run on any PC clone.

<comment><USER6> Not strictly, but the original plan was to have Microsoft market OS/2 2.0 to the clone makers. So when MS walked away, IBM didn't have a good story for 3rd parties. OS/2 2 had drivers for stuff with names like "IBM 3142" and you had to know whether that was the equivalent of an Adaptec SCSI adaptor or HP LaserJet printer. The association with PS2/MCA certainly muted OS/2's reception though.

<comment><USER12> That OS/2 2.0 debacle is one of my favorite topics BTW. It ended up in the end much worse than that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I never liked the PS/1 and PS/2 things IBM did.

It seemed like an obvious attempt to try to snare customers into a closed system. I never knew however that IBM tried to snare in Microsoft too.

An interesting read for sure.

<comment><USER14> Just the PS/2.

The PS/1 arrived several years later and was an attempt by IBM to reclaim some of the ground lost to the emerging "PC clone" architecture. It was an ISA bus machine with IDE drives -- the opposite of the proprietary MCA stuff going on in the PS/2's of the era (which by this point was largely regarded as a business failure).

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Interesting that Excel was developed first for the Mac. Excel also used p-code [1][2] for its cross-platform abilities:

"had a compiler which, back in the 1980s, generated pcode and could therefore run unmodified on Macintosh's 68000 chip as well as Intel PCs."

It would be interesting to see the first version of excel on Mac, the windows version in the article looks very familiar.

[1] [https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2001/10/14/in-defense-of- not-...](https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2001/10/14/in-defense-of-not-invented- here-syndrome/) [2] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9254060](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9254060)

</comment><comment><USER16> Ballmer could have sink Microsoft in 1986. Didn't knew that but makes sense. How many long term bids are we missing in 2018 because Ballmer-like executives are now in power ?

</comment><comment><USER17> I assume that some variant of "bundled Windows Runtime" is the reason why trial versions of various of various productivity SW that came with my first PC had MZ stubs, that didn't print "This program requires Microsoft Windows", but EXEC'd something like "%COMSPEC% /C WIN.COM PROGRAM.EXE"

</comment><comment><USER18> At the time, Lotus was faced with a choice on where to go with Lotus 1-2-3: OS/2, Windows, or text mode. They backed the wrong horse. They were a big company at the time, could have easily bet on all three, and stayed in business.

</comment><comment><USER19> As the years go by, and new stories like this come out, I find increasingly growing respect for Bill Gates.

</comment><comment><USER20> I love how un-apologetically "skeumorphic" this blog is. Ah, I miss the days...

<comment><USER21> I miss that skeumorphic design. I can't wait until this flat fad goes away.

It's like somebody hit the computer UI design world with a stupid stick. And all the designers woke up without the ability to see in 3 dimensions, and lived a life as Flatlanders.

Gestures are fantastic though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> How do you flag something as a dupe?

<comment><USER23> Just flag it, and make a comment pointing to the previous thread so other users and moderators can find it easily.

If there's no previous thread (i.e., a submission of that item in the past 12 months with a significant number of votes and of on-topic comments), it's not a dupe :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Odd, posted this yesterday: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17576304](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17576304)

<comment><USER25> HN is notoriously fickle. The same story can get 0 upvotes, then be submitted by someone else in a couple hours and then garner hundreds of points.

<comment><USER26> How? When I post something and it happens to be recently posted, it automatically becomes an upvote. I'm generally fine with it, except when it has 1-5 votes and will never see the front page.

HN has so many secret behaviour that it became boring by now. I don't think I will bother posting a story again, because it's very hard to get some discussion to happen around a post (which is the whole point of posting a link for me), whereas in most Reddit subs, even if your post is in the -1 to 1 votes range, you can still get useful answers or interesting comments.

<comment><USER25> > How? When I post something and it happens to be recently posted, it > automatically becomes an upvote.

It _seems_ that sometimes, high karma accounts can submit a dupe. But I don't think it always works. Maybe it's a lower dupe submission check timeout.

As for submissions, I'd recommend trying to land in the American morning/early European afternoon. That's when most people seem to browse and thus you have a better chance of getting upvoted to the front page.

You may also be interested in this: [https://github.com/minimaxir/hacker-news- undocumented](https://github.com/minimaxir/hacker-news-undocumented)

<comment><USER26> I'm in Turkey which is UTC+3, and I usually submit (well I don't usually submit, but) around noon or evening, which happen to be the moments when I usually check my feeds and my mail for newsletters. Strategical submitting seems too much to me, as if I was doing it for the karma points rather than the discussion.

> It seems that sometimes, high karma accounts can submit a dupe. But I don't > think it always works. Maybe it's a lower dupe submission check timeout.

Yeah, yet another enigmatic "natural phenomenon" of HN. I appreciate the link you've given, but my actual point was that this sort of unknowable phenomena discourages participation. For example some time ago the [vouch] links disappeared for me. Some more time ago edits became impossible (2h is too short of a time, say I write something silly, 5h later I check back, and want to append an apology or a clarification; that's impossible, I need to reply to myself and hope people see that before scalding me). Also can not downvote after a day. What if I came across some misinformation that was older? Detaching threads is awful, because your words are removed from context; why not delete instead? Green usernames are an awful idea, most often I don't care about the poster, and why mark people because their accounts are new? Nobody needs that information. These sort of things prove to me that HN is not a "community", but more of an "order". We don't get to decide anything.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> There is literally not a single comment addressing the content here at this moment :)

Yes, I'm not helping

<comment><USER28> I read that yesterday and I found it interesting as an history lesson and for the strategic insights, but I can't say I'm familiar with any of that. I didn't even know than windows before 3.1 was really used, and not just test versions</comment></comment>


'Shark Tank' Host Kevin O'Leary on the Best (and Worst) Deals He's Made - <AUTHOR> http://www.inc.com/kevin-oleary/shark-tank-host-on-the-best-and-worst-deals-he-has-ever-made.html <comment><USER2> I randomly jumped to 7 minutes in, where he tells a story about a guy who has built a $5 million business (working 24x7 on it, no free time), and is forced to choose between his business and his fiancé.

Kevin asks him "which is easier to replace?"

</comment><comment><USER3> Best deals: ripping off Mattel, and cupcakes?

Worst: everything else.

This guy has had amazing luck ripping people off, but isn't nearly as good as he thinks.

</comment><comment><USER4> I'm always torn whether I'm expected to enjoy or hate this show. I personally find it very entertaining, as it exposes me to new, interesting products and business ideas, and I also feel like I'm learning a bit about business pricing and negotiation. But I don't really know how similar the show is to real life.</comment>


So, about our name… - <AUTHOR> https://blog.bodega.ai/so-about-our-name-aa5bff63a92d <comment><USER2> i don't have a dog in the fight, but I think the answer to this:

"Are we trying to put corner stores out of business?"

Was extremely unconvincing. The only thing I saw in your answer was that you're not competing head to head with bodegas (presumably due to the geographical location of your current machines).

I am willing to bet that in your pitchdeck to investors, in your TAM section, that you listed the size of the "bodega" market -- the obvious implication being that that is your ultimate target market. In fact, I will donate $50 to a charity of your choosing, all you have to do is comment that I am wrong and I will take it at face value.

However, even if I am wrong about the pitch deck assumption, the fact that you raised $2.5M, and will presumably raise more $ if you are successful, almost certainly dictates that you will eventually compete head to head with bodegas, and that if you are successful, you will put some of these people out of business (ie. not to state the obvious, but in order to generate a 10x return for your investors, you will have to expand and compete with the existing bodegas eventually).

I'm not someone that thinks you can put your head in the sand and technological progress will stop, and everything will be utopia. But I also think it does a disservice when you pretend like technological progress won't have winners and losers -- in your case, if you win, someone else will lose.

You saying your not competing with bodegas is like Airbnb saying it's not competing with hotels. Airbnb is obviously competing with hotels, the only difference is that its a lot more socially acceptable for them than for you, but it doesn't change the reality.</comment>


Ask HN: I need a rockstar game graphic designer. - <AUTHOR>

Hi. Does anyone out there knows a rockstart designer that is able to tackle a game design?
i'm willing to go to freelancing site, but i prefere to work with someone who have track record in this area. It is about yet another Sudoku Game, the graphics need to be of high level (see Sudoku2) http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/sudoku-2/id366247306?mt=8
If you advise me to go to a freelancing site, which one is best? how much should i plan for a high end designer?
It will be about 8 screens to design plus the game icon.
Thanks. <comment><USER2> _I need a rockstar game graphic designer._

You want a designer who has an ego the size of Texas, binges on alcohol and drugs and destroys hotel rooms, urinates in fountains, bites the heads off of bats, has an insatiable appetite for sex and engages in indiscriminate sexual liaisons with everybody of the opposite sex who moves, and who is as likely as not to be found dead in a cheap motel room with a needle jammed in his/her arm?!??</comment>


Webserver Benchmark: Erlang vs. Go vs. Java vs. Node.js - <AUTHOR> https://stressgrid.com/blog/webserver_benchmark/ <comment><USER2> While the performance of Erlang was not the best between the contenders, I really like the behavior of Erlang here: load makes almost no difference in latency, so while you're serving less clients, you're guarantee to be serving them well.

This is a much better behavior than having random spikes in latency, which translates to a small but significative amount of users complaining about that your application is slow. Erlang is the contrary, every user should have the same experience, nonetheless of the load of the server.

</comment><comment><USER3> My understanding has always been that nodejs was ideal for high io workloads with a light cpu load.

Having it sleep for 100ms per request is a little strange for nodejs though because it is basically simulating cpu load, even though a node server typically hands off work to an optimized library that might be disk or network io bound instead of cpu bound. 100ms is a lot of cpu work per request, no? That is specifically the sort of task node is not recommended for, since it focuses on async.

Maybe I'm wrong, I need to work on larger projects to see what loads are more typical. At my last job, the entire focus was to use node to redirect work to c++ code, databases, etc, basically just request routing.

Still, this looks rough for node. 2x to 4x difference between it and the fastest is still a significant cost for such a nice backend to work with

<comment><USER4> Sleeping is done with setTimeout:

[https://gitlab.com/stressgrid/dummies/blob/b342b02407ce09cec...](https://gitlab.com/stressgrid/dummies/blob/b342b02407ce09cecbeac4c93260429e85371300/nodejs_cluster/node_dummy.js#L15)

This isn't busy wait. Instead it yields for specified time period, much like network request to the backend database would do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Unencrypted HTTP suggests post load balancer, would have been nice to see core loads as I'm betting Node would scale better if it weren't being it's own LB layer as well. RAM usage would still be garbage but I bet performance would hit about Go level.

Go's concurrency model really fits the task best though and it's easy to see that in the results.

</comment><comment><USER6> I don't believe the built-in Node.js http server implements backpressure or 503 errors out of the box. Do the other systems tested do so? Could that explain the poor behavior and out-of-memory crash?

<comment><USER4> None of the tested webservers were returning 503.</comment></comment>


Penny Dreadfuls, Juvenile Crime, and Late-Victorian Moral Panic - <AUTHOR> http://mimimatthews.com/2015/11/16/penny-dreadfuls-juvenile-crime-and-late-victorian-moral-panic/ <comment><USER2> Well, I'm glad we're not experiencing polarizing battles over moralization of popular fiction and the deleterious content of entertainment that young men consume. That must have been exhausting.

Thankfully, with the advent of modern communication, people can be informed that they are engaging in a moral panic and reacting emotionally to sensationalism by the more rational and wise leaders of our age.

</comment><comment><USER3> Every generation needs their war on teenage boys. Luckily for those brave warriors it's not too difficult to whip up a teapot tempest over bugaboos like penny dreadfuls or video games.

Of course, since it seems unlikely that the core warrior premise of media driving behavior is actually true, the core warrior desire of media censorship is not a price I'm willing to pay.

<comment><USER4> It's time we have a moral panic over moral panics.

<comment><USER5> I'm pretty sure we're already there.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> _" We are quite sure it is not to the interest of the nation that the rising generation should be nourished on the literary fare enclosed within the covers of a 'Penny Dreadful.' Yet we do not very well see how the reading of the people is to be supervised by the police. Reform, we fancy, must be left to that best of all detectives — public opinion."_

Not an attitude the current government or judiciary would appear to share.

</comment><comment><USER7> [https://bklyn.newspapers.com/search/#query=penny+dreadful](https://bklyn.newspapers.com/search/#query=penny+dreadful)

I like looking at the original responses. The Brooklyn Newspaper archive is a great way to investigate 1850-1925 history.

</comment><comment><USER8> Well I'm going to have to read these now :-)

[http://halfpennydreadfuls.com/penny- dreadfuls/stories](http://halfpennydreadfuls.com/penny-dreadfuls/stories)</comment>


Why Linux has no viruses - <AUTHOR> http://librenix.com/?inode=21

<comment><USER2> Linux has no viruses because not a whole lot of people use it as an end user operating system.

If only we could say Linux has no exploits... ah... now that would be truly remarkable.</comment>


All People in Canada are the Same Age (1997) - <AUTHOR> https://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/falseProofs/sameAge.html <comment> cf-d-ycom So this article shows that you can infer S(n+1) from S(n) for n > 1, and a base case of S(1) is true.

However, you can't infer S(2) is true from assuming S(1) is true in the same way, ie. a group of 2, could be represented as two groups of S(1) and S(1). You can't claim these two S(1) groups share the same age.

This means that the base case and the inductive step are not connected, which means the proof is invalid.

<comment><USER2> It's simpler than that -- the "proof" of the inductive step is just incorrect. It wouldn't be a theorem in a sound logical system.

<comment> cf-d-ycom Potentially. However, I believe the inductive step is correct. I could be wrong though.

ie. If you assume S(2) is true, lets prove S(3), consider a set of 3 people, {a, b, c}.

apply S(2) to {a, b} are therefore the same age, apply S(2)_ to {b, c} are therefore the same age, this implies a.age == b.age == c.age, there for S(3) is true. The inductive step is done.

Thats what I thought made this a mind bender.

<comment><USER2> Right, it proves S(2)->S(3), but induction asks you to prove S(n)->S(n+1) for n in general, and not just for _some_ n. The inductive proof doesn't work for S(1)->S(2), so it clearly can't work for the more general n->n+1.

<comment><USER3> The inductive step is fine, but it only works for n >= 2. The issue is a disconnect with the base case n = 1.

However, if it were possible to prove the case n = 2, we would have a valid inductive proof for n >= 2.

<comment><USER2> > it only works for n >= 2

Right, so it doesn't work -- either it's a correct proof of a non-sequitur ("true for n implies true for n+1, provided n meets some criteria"), or an incorrect proof of an inductive step ("true for n implies true for n+1").

Because it's claimed to be proof by induction, it's meant to be the latter -- the person doing the proving claimed to have proven the inductive step, and their proof of it was incorrect.

<comment><USER3> "True for n implies true for n+1, provided n >= 2" is a perfectly good inductive step.

However, it must be coupled with a base case >= 2, which isn't the case here. The only base case proven is 1.

See also "Induction basis other than 0 or 1" [0].

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_induction#Inducti...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_induction#Induction_basis_other_than_0_or_1)

<comment><USER2> Sure, their mistaken proof of the n->n+1 implication could be taken for what it _does_ prove, and such a theorem could be used in other circumstances to prove different things, but that doesn't really bear on any of the claims in the original context.

Nobody was trying or claiming to be doing any other kind of induction. They said they had the base case and the inductive step, and they were clear about the base case and the inductive step. Their proof of the base case was correct, and their proof of the inductive step did not prove what they said it did. It doesn't matter what it _did_ prove.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Fun stuff, there's a few more on this page:

[https://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/falseProofs/fallacies.h...](https://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/falseProofs/fallacies.html)

The last one in particular I thought was interesting

<comment><USER5> The ladder problem is one that I seem to remember was in our first-year classical mechanics text back when I was in grad school, and caused a _lot_ of debate... it's a good one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> If it were true that all groups of two people were the same age, then it would follow that all groups of any number of people are the same age, since any individual could be pared with any other individual to form a group of 2. But of course it is not true.

</comment><comment><USER7> Reading this "proof" gave me a headache, and at first I thought it's because I'm not familiar enough with formal inductive logic to precisely follow the conversion from statements of reasoning to shorthand notation.

Then I realized the aim is to trick you by playing a bit fast and loose with that convention, and hoping you don't notice. e.g. I stumbled at Step 4, and if you click on the details for it the authour admits k is ill-defined. That comes back to bite you when you hit the fallacious step.

I'm fascinated how some very old works by ancient physicists and mathematicians are written using plain (if verbose) language and diagrams, and you didn't need to learn a bunch of shorthand conventions specific to the field in order to participate. Does anyone know any good books on Quantum Mechanics that don't require you to learn Dirac notation first?

<comment><USER8> Many books that just give an overview of QM don't use dirac notation; look for books with "Modern Physics" or "Introduction" in their names. However, Dirac notation is used so ubiquitously in QM that your question is a bit like asking if there are linear algebra books that don't require you to learn matrix notation. Sure you can do linear algebra without matrices, but that would be a bit eccentric today.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Step 9 doesn't work because it introduces a third person, and so fails to demonstrate S(2)

<comment><USER10> Isn't it Step 4, which uses as a premise what the whole thing is supposed to prove?

"in every group of k people, everyone has the same age"

You can't use your conclusion in your assumption!

<comment><USER11> You're right if we were speaking normal English, but "assuming" doesn't mean the same thing in math jargon. In math, you would say, "Assuming A, then B", to mean, "If A is true, then B is true."

It's way more confusing than simply "If A, then B", and I'm not sure why the wording hasn't fallen out of favor, but that's what it is.

<comment><USER12> In what way is that different from 'normal English'?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I heard this in the "All horses have the same color" version.

<comment><USER14> The version I had come across was "all billiard balls have the same color" in Liu's Discrete Mathematics [1]. It is an exercise problem in one of the chapters.

[1] [https://www.amazon.com/Elements-Discrete-Mathematics-C- Liu/d...](https://www.amazon.com/Elements-Discrete-Mathematics-C- Liu/dp/0071005447)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Another simple way to see this is to reverse the usual order of steps, starting with the induction step.

The author shows that S(n)->S(n+1) and that proof is correct if n is at least larger than 1. The hidden assumption of n>1 is the "gotcha" moment, but that part of the proof is still valid as induction step. Imagine starting with this and amending the instructions with "given that n>1".

However, for the purpose of showing that all Canadians are the same age, we now need to find a base case - the first (and now second) step of induction. And here, we see that while n->n+1 holds (for n>1), there simply isn't any n>1 for which S is true! The case of S(1) is irrelevant, since it's not included in the assumption of the induction step.

If we would have started with the induction step, and concluded that our argument holding for n>1 is good enough, we would have then clearly realized that there is no base case and therefore we can not complete the induction proof.

</comment><comment><USER16> A similar conjecture:

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

"In other words, we could assume that we could be 95% certain that we would be within the last 95% of all the humans ever to be born."

</comment><comment><USER17> I don't understand some things regarding the resoning:

If you assume S(n) is true, n being any natural number, what good does it to to prove that S(n+1) is also true since it is included in the initial assumption imho.

If you define "P and Q are any members of G" then "everybody in G except P" can only mean to me an empty group. Also "Let R be someone else in G other than P or Q" can only mean R must be outside the group.

Can somebody explain these to me?

<comment><USER18> > If you assume S(n) is true, n being any natural number, what good does it to > to prove that S(n+1) is also true since it is included in the initial > assumption imho.

Read the explanation on induction at the bottom if you haven't yet[1].

This is induction. The idea is to prove that for any 'n' for which S(n) is true, S(n+1) is true also. I'm guessing Step 4 is where the wording tripped you up?

> Step 4: We can do this by (1) assuming that, in every group of k people, > everyone has the same age; then (2) deducing from it that, in every group of > k+1 people, everyone has the same age.

Maybe its meaning is more clear stated this way:

Step 4: We can do this by showing that (1) for any k where it is true that "within every group of k people everyone has the same age," then (2) showing that it necessary follows that "within every group of k+1 people everyone has the same age."

[1] [https://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/falseProofs/sameAge.htm...](https://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/falseProofs/sameAge.html#1)

<comment><USER17> I understand (at some level) what induction is. But the example given in the explanation of induction in the bottom is fundamentally different in that it does not assume anything. It simply calculates the formula for 1 and n+1 and both fit it.

> Step 4: We can do this by showing that (1) for any k where it is true that > "within every group of k people everyone has the same age," then (2) showing > that it necessary follows that "within every group of k+1 people everyone > has the same age."

Try as I might this only looks like circular reasoning to me.

<comment><USER18> Let me try again. Think of Step 4 like this:

\---

STEP 4 REDUX RELOADED

Imagine a powerful argument. Let's call it "The Decider." "The Decider" is a series of logical steps that allows us to go from A to B, where A is a certain set of assumptions or facts that we know to be true, and B is a conclusion that we can demonstrate must be true if A is true. We can use the metaphor of a machine. "The Decider" is a machine that takes material in on one side, and spits out a product on the other. The input material is facts or assumptions, and the output is new facts or assumptions that logically follow from the input. For now, let's not worry about how "The Decider" works. Let's just imagine that there is in fact some way to fabricate such a logical apparatus that works the way we need it to work.

Now, suppose that the kind of fact "The Decider" ingests is a very special kind of fact. If you tell it "the sky is blue," the metaphorical gears within "The Decider" grind to a halt. It doesn't know what to do with this kind of fact. Instead, it requires a fact of the following form:

IN: "Within any group of k people, everyone has the same age."

So for example, you can tell "The Decider":

IN: "Within any group of 1 person, everyone has the same age."

And "The Decider" will grind away until it spits out a shiny new assertion that must be true if your input was true. In fact, let's suppose that the shiny new assertion "The Decider" would produce in this case would be:

OUT: "Within any group of 2 people, everyone has the same age."

You could tell "The Decider,"

IN: "Within any group of 9 people, everyone has the same age."

and it would work, too.

OUT: "Within any group of 10 people, everyone has the same age."

In fact, "The Decider" follows a pattern. Whatever value k is in the input, the number in the output will be k+1. In other words, for any k that is a positive whole number, "The Decider" can turn "within any group of k people, everyone has the same age" into "within any group of k+1 people, everyone has the same age."

If "The Decider" actually existed, if there was a general pattern of reasoning that could be used to go from A to B in this way, we would accomplish the task set out for us in Step 3. Namely, we would prove that, "whenever S(n) is true for one number (say n=k), it is also true for the next number (that is, n=k+1)."

END STEP 4 REDUX RELOADED

\---

Steps 5 through 13 then proceed to describe how "The Decider" actually works. Or at least they try to. That is, they describe a general pattern of reasoning that purportedly can be used to show that if "within any group of 9 people, everyone has the same age," then it must also be true that "within any group of 10 people, everyone has the same age." It can also show that if it is true that "within any group of 2 people, everyone has the same age," then it must also be true that "within any group of 3 people, everyone has the same age." In fact, Steps 5 through 13 endeavor to create a logical argument so powerful that it can take any statement of the form "within any group of k people, everyone has the same age" and demonstrate that if that is true, it's also true that "within any group of k+1 people, everyone has the same age." This is "The Decider" I describe above.

 __ _Spoiler_ __

The argument ultimately falls down because "The Decider" has a fatal flaw. When k=2, the logical machinery chokes. It implicitly relies on k being greater than or equal to 3.

Is that helpful at all?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This reminds me of a Buddhist game/tradition(?) of debate where you try to get the other person to admit to a logical fallacy and sway them to your belief.

</comment><comment><USER20> For a mathematical fallacy, see the appendix of Charles Seife's book "Zero", proving that Winston Churchill is in fact a carrot!

</comment><comment><USER21> The link to the answer: [https://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/falseProofs/guess27.htm...](https://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/falseProofs/guess27.html)

It took me a couple visits to realize that each `Step 1` `Step 2` heading is a link to an explanation for why that step holds true.

</comment><comment><USER22> I also think step 10 is wrong because it assumes that P ≠ Q.

<comment><USER23> There's an imprecision here, but that doesn't break the proof. Note that from step 6 on, all it needs to show is "if P and Q are any members of G, then they have the same age". If P = Q, this is trivial, so we really only need to consider the P ≠ Q. This probably should have been stated, though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> People is a group of more than one. So S(1) is invalid case.

<comment><USER25> That's not the problem at all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> They just forgot to define age as:

"born after 1800"

</comment><comment><USER27> In 2003, I remember studying fallacies in English class. I literally had an outbreak of laughter during an exercise where the prompt was: "vote for me or admit you're racist".

It seemed so ridiculous to teenage me that such a thing could be said. In 2020 it has been said. I'm no longer falling out of my seat laughing.

<comment><USER28> One part of mathematics that I rather like is figuring out how to phrase a statement as precisely as possible. (For me, this is also what differentiates good philosophy from bad philosophy.) I've been struggling with the best way to interpret the 2016 election results, especially with the 2020 election coming up. The most precise way to phrase it is as follows:

For each person who voted for Trump in 2016, at least one of the following statements is true. (A) The person was uninformed as to Trump's character. (B) The person was actively being misinformed as to Trump's character, in such a way that correct information was not believed. (C) The person did not believe that racism was a disqualifying factor for office.

Whether this statement reduces to the "vote for X or admit to being racist" depends on several additional statements that I don't think can be entirely stated. First, it asserts that (A) is false, that the amount of media coverage in an election is enough that no voters are uninformed. Second, it asserts that (B) is false, that there was no active misinformation being spread during the 2016 election. Given what we know now, (B) is most certainly true in some cases. Third, it asserts that (C) is equivalent to a person being racist, which is a valid position, but one that is harder to discuss without getting into the nuances of systemic racism.

<comment><USER29> The primary fallacy is that racism is a Boolean value of some sort.

<comment><USER28> I agree that racism is a spectrum, spanning anywhere from microagressions that contribute to systemic racism, to overt dismissals of human rights. Generally, the term "racist" is used to mean "exists further than X on the scale of racism". Whether or not somebody is racist by virtue solely of voting for a blatantly racist candidate is a matter of discussion for where that line of X is, and is covered under my comment about option (C).

This also gets into the point where racism will continue to exist so long as "not racist" is seen as one end of the spectrum. Rather, in order to be appropriately egalitarian, one must be anti-racist wherever society is racist.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I disagree with the take here

The fallacy is assuming that a group with more than 1 person has the same age.

It would be ok to assume this if we were looking for a proof of contradiction, but this statement is never challenged nor contradicted

This sounds very much like those "gotchas" that confuse more than help

<comment><USER31> That is not the fallacy, that is the wrong conclusion.

The fallacy is in step 9 combined with step 1. Step 9 requires at least 3 people to exist - P, Q, and R. So, step 9 only works for k>=2. So, we have proved S(1),S(k>=2) => S(k+1), but we haven't proved S(2).

Of course, S(2) (in any group of 2 people, both people have the same age) is not true, so the whole conclusion is false.

In inductive proofs you always need to prove some rule that says 'for any k [with some property], assuming case k is true, then case k+1 is true as well', and then you also need to prove that, for some k [with the given property], case k is actually true.

Restating the proof in the article in these terms, step 9 correvtly proves that, for any k [greater than or equal to 2], if S(k) then S(k+1). But there is no proof given that there exists some k>=2 for which the statement actually holds, and in fact it can proved that NO such k exists. So overall the proof doesn't hold.

<comment><USER30> I see your point, but I kinda disagree, and again, that's why this is more confusing than helpful.

You're taking a false premise and running with it, then tripping far ahead and saying that's the fallacy.

> but we haven't proved S(2).

Well, not surprising you haven't proven it, because you're already deep down in the mud on steps 7 and 8

> Step 7: Consider everybody in G except P. These people form a group of k > people, so they must all have the same age

> Step 8: Consider everybody in G except Q. Again, they form a group of k > people, so they must all have the same age.

Given that

> Let G be an arbitrary group of k+1 people

This is already false

Saying that

> Let R be someone else in G other than P or Q.

Is something completely natural for a group with k+1 elements (with the exception of k < 3), but the "proof" is so deep down in its absurdity at this point calling this the fallacy is almost a technicality

<comment><USER32> The basic principle of induction is to prove k+1 in terms of k. If we can show it's true for k=1, then it's true for all k>1 as well. But assuming that it's true for k is a basic part of inductive proofs. It's like falling dominoes. You show the first domino falls; you show that, if the previous domino falls, the next domino will also fall; and thus all the dominoes fall.

The trick in this proof is that the steps for proving k+1 in terms of k don't work for all k > 1, which invalidates the generalization that the induction depends on. The steps obscure an extra predicate on the generalization, so that it's not fully general.

If the proof (of some other property) didn't have that hidden predicate, or something like it, it would be fine. The problem really is that far down.

<comment><USER30> I know how induction works, believe it or not

> in this proof is that the steps for proving k+1 in terms of k don't work for > all k > 1,

Yes and those are steps 7 and 8, not step 9. Because that "proof" is already wrong. It comes from a wrong premise, surely, but that's already wrong at this time

This is why I'm calling BS on step 9 being the fallacy there.

> Step 5: Let G be an arbitrary group of k+1 people

> Step 7: Consider everybody in G except P. These people form a group of k > people, so they must all have the same age (Right conclusion from wrong > premises)

> The trick in this proof is that the steps for proving k+1 in terms of k > don't work for all k > 1,

7 and 8 doesn't work for any k > 1, it's not "for all" it's "for any". That's why this is so ridiculous

Step 9 fails for k<=1 and k=2 and that's it.

So yeah the induction doesn't work, but it's not only because of step 9, it's because of 7/8 (which are just erroneous conclusions of a false premise)

<comment><USER31> Why is step 7 wrong? If all groups of k people had the same age, then everyone in G except P would have had the same age. That is a true proposition ('false => true' is true).

The greater point of the excersise is to show a failure mode of an inductive proof. If the property hadn't been so clearly false, it may have been harder to spot the actual mistake ; the excersise is meant to prepare you for those other cases.

<comment><USER30> > If all groups of k people had the same age, then everyone in G except P > would have had the same age. That is a true proposition ('false => true' is > true)

The logical formula is right but the premise is wrong. But 7 is considering both.

It's like saying "Person P had 1Mi dollars and got 10% interest last year then now Person P has 1100k dollars". But Person P didn't. The interest calculation is correct, but the premise is wrong.

> The greater point of the excersise is to show a failure mode of an inductive > proof.

I see that, but the fact that the other steps are not contributing to the solution makes it harder to argue that the mistake is there. Because that statement needs a qualifier, but it is "not wrong" per se (it's not even affirming anything, it's just saying "pick the person you haven't picked (from a group that might not have anyone else to pick, fair enough)

But everything derived from a false premise can be false. That's how we get the proofs by contradiction, right? We keep going down the wrong path until it obviously blows up

Or we could just prove this whole problem false with a set of two people in Canada with different ages (counterexample to Step 5). Case closed.

<comment><USER31> > It's like saying "Person P had 1Mi dollars and got 10% interest last year > then now Person P has 1100k dollars". But Person P didn't. The interest > calculation is correct, but the premise is wrong.

No it is not like that. It is like saying "IF person P had 1Mi dollars and got 10% interest last year THEN now Person P would have 1100k dollars". This statement is true regardless of how much money person P has today. That is how steps 5-8 work: they are true _regardless_ of the truth of the antecedent ('in every group of k people, everyone has the same age'). Finding 2 people in Canada of the same age would NOT prove step 5 wrong (though it would show it to be pointless, of course).

Probably a much more interesting problem would have found a less obviously wrong premise to demonstrate this with. I'd love to find a way to build a similar argument for Fermat's last theorem or some other non-trivial observation.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Getting Fired over Politics on Social Media - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/discourse/getting-fired-over-politics-on-social-media-3ef3ac860397 <comment><USER2> You don't hear about the people who don't get fired though.

All this depends on the experience level of the boss you work for. There are lot of oversensitive influencial customers out there, not just the Chinese Govt.</comment>


Ask HN: are headline fails getting on your nerves? - <AUTHOR>

It's starting to bother me that twisted or outright misleading headlines are becoming more pervasive, even on the NY Times. It's irritating because I can't trust an article's headline anymore to click it and read it. I now read the top commenter's summary and typically do away with the article as standard practice for most items. <comment><USER2> There's a parallel between the headlines of articles on the internet and advertisements for products: the currency of the internet is attention/page views. It was unethical for people to advertise products as something they weren't, just as it's unethical to advertise a piece of content as something it's not: you're benefitting from deceiving the public. We got Truth in Advertising when they did it with physical products… maybe the same idea should be applied here.

</comment><comment><USER3> I've noticed that even legitimate news outlets are starting to use linkbait titles. We often rewrite titles on HN as a defense against this.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Got an idea:

The Punisher

1 - article has bad headline

2 - submitted to site with author's email and your email, and customizable note with dropdown of issues with headline, or something within article

3 - you get email with reply-to of author's email and attached note

4 - you reply to it, sending note to author

5 - submission has a dedicated page on site making it easy for others to send the note

6 - author has opportunity to reply to note, as will be listed on the site's page for that article

\--

a - when author replies, all users who sent the note get a point

b - authors that reply get a point if majority of senders approve the author's explanation note

\--

the email that is sent to each person can have ads at top</comment>


A Practical Introduction to Blockchain with Python - <AUTHOR> http://adilmoujahid.com/posts/2018/03/intro-blockchain-bitcoin-python/ <comment><USER2> Excellent article! A very complete explanation covering all the necessary concepts to understand blockchain technology.</comment>


Monetizing your website shouldn't be a big deal. - <AUTHOR> http://www.mysmallbusinessbranding.com/2013/10/18/monetizing-your-website/

<comment><USER2> What if the site is a blog? What product does the site have to offer then?

EDIT: Personal blog.

<comment><AUTHOR> Actually all the points mentioned in the article apply to personal blogs too.You just need to map out the one that works for you and act on it.</comment></comment>


Samsung acquires Viv, a next-gen AI assistant built by creators of Apple's Siri - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/05/samsung-acquires-viv-a-next-gen-ai-assistant-built-by-creators-of-apples-siri/ <comment><USER2> Unfortunately I think it's pretty obvious why they were acquired, so 99% skeptical of their future. They were probably acquired because:

1\. They realized just owning the software platform is very limiting (For example they can't compete with Apple no matter how good they are. Just look at Google maps. Thousand times better than the default Apple maps but will never be #1 map app on iOS because people always choose the default). Also, now even Google is moving towards owning their own hardware platform. As a VC funded company I think this is the best timing to exit. Otherwise it's all downhill from here.

2\. Samsung wants to fight with Google/Apple/Amazon/MS and needed a weapon (because, you know, people say AI is the future nowadays).

So at best these guys will be integrated into Samsung phones to differentiate Samsung's hardware. I don't see them becoming the "open platform" that they envisioned at all.

<comment><USER3> > Just look at Google maps. Thousand times better than the default Apple maps

No it isn't, they are basically the same for 90% of users.

<comment><USER4> I wish apple gave me a fair choice. I do prefer Google maps but i keep also using stupid apple maps because it keeps coming up.

<comment><USER5> As pointed out by another comment here [1], Google doesn't give you a "fair choice" in these things (beyond the ability to install competitors' offerings as separate apps) either:

> _Google 's MADA agreement forbids OEMs from making anything but Google > Now/Voice Search the default digital assistant on Android devices with > Google Play._

> _Google is telling it 's hardware partners for Google Home and Google Cast > they're forbidden from supporting competing digital assistants._

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12649533](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12649533)

<comment><USER6> Yes, but at least on Android you can change your defaults.

On iOS, you cannot.

<comment><USER5> Ah yes, iOS doesn't let you do that, but third-party apps can choose to open stuff in the Chrome/YouTube/etc. apps if they want to.

<comment><USER7> I'm sorry but thats not good enough.

On Android I can make a new email client, and overnight it can become the default email client for everyone that installs it.

On iOS I would need to convince most large apps to allow me as an option before it would work.

Not being able to do this is basically the last thing keeping me off of iOS at this point.

<comment><USER8> Thank fuck.

Open some app: Would you like me to be the default for X? Me: no thanks.

Next day:

open some app: Would you like me to be the default for X? Me: ahhh, NOT AGAIN.

Or have we forgotten how annoying it is that browsers all seem to do that all the damn time.

<comment><USER7> It doesn't need to follow Windows or Android's UX, but it should be allowed.

Something like a settings menu where you can control the default apps for many "intents" (that's the android terminology, not sure what else to call it).

Choose an app for email, sms, "instant messaging", browser, navigation, phone, etc... Don't let individual apps change anything, and if you want don't even let them prompt you to change something. That last part can be enforced by appstore guidelines.

If apple does this, i'd switch overnight. And as someone that is about as far away from the apple ecosystem as you can be, i'd probably end up using many of the apple "things" over time. Let their first party apps stand on their own. I have no qualms with having theirs be the default, and it honestly doesn't even bother me if they aren't un-installable, but let me change my defaults!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The AI platform that wins won't necessarily be the one that provides the most utility. It'll be the one that people bond with emotionally. I'm not talking about you here- I'm talking about teenage girls with self esteem issues, recently landed immigrants working as night janitors, divorcees with drinking problems, and anyone else who needs a friend.

It's a technical challenge now, but in a few years making a good AI will be high art. By a few years I could mean 3 years or 23 years. There's the possibility that dressing an AI assistant up in a personality that asks 'how are you feeling?' could lead us into an uncanny valley that takes a long time to cross.

<comment><USER10> During Google's hardware/AI Assistant a point was made about wanting google assistant to emote based on context and be personal to the user, 'A personal google for everyone.

This plays to your suggestion of emotional bonding being a key need for AI assistant's.

Though having it called 'Google assistant' seems to break that connection, though imagine something is in the pipeline being tested and analysed over and over to see what works with AI connecting with a user.

<comment><USER9> If you think people are concerned with privacy now, an AI that people -kids- are spilling their deepest darkest secrets to will really creep us out.

It's probably best left to a third party to skin the Google assistant with soft skills. A small startup can afford to gamble on these things. Google (or Viv, Facebook, Cortana et al) need only provide the underlying capability, in such a way that they can wash their hands of it should it invoke a public backlash.

Just so long as they're collecting the data they need to ultimately know you better than you know yourself.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> So the value in AI startups is basically the number of ML/AI scientists you have times X million/scientist these days (perhaps multiplied by some sort of factor that measures the promise of your usually-not-working product).

Given this, wouldn't it make sense for AI/ML people to form a guild and/or union and capture this value themselves, rather than let smooth-talking founders take all the cash?

</comment><comment><USER12> This is going to be great, The worlds top firms are now in direct competition with each other.

Microsoft(Cortana), Amazon(Echo), Apple(Siri), Google(Assistant/Now) and now Samsung with Viv. The possibilites are just endless, the space race netted us a lot of innovation and this should do the same. Competition leads to Innovation

<comment><USER13> Competition is for losers. 10 years ago the battle was microsoft vs yahoo and whoever...and it turned out the ones to pay attention to were fb and twtr...etc. The big innovation, the one to dominate headlines in 10 years, is likely unknown, run by a few guys on a shoestring and barely on the radar right now.

<comment><USER14> MS, Apple, and Google are very much still around.

Twitter and Yahoo are up for sale.

FB is the only innovator on your list that could be classed as a newcomer. And it's been around for more than a decade.

I doubt we'll see the big innovation from a garage now, because the cost of entry has become too high for shoestring operators to succeed.

ML training needs fast, expensive hardware. You can experiment with it on a 1080 graphics card, but for industrial applications you need a _lot_ more speed and power.

<comment><USER13> The cost of starting a transistor startup in the 1950s was too high so the traitorous 8 started Fairchild.

The cost of starting a SSI company was too high in 1968 so 3 dudes started intel.

The cost of starting a new mainframe company in 1976 was too high for most garage ops but turns out two hippies were ready with a better, cheaper, replacement product anyway.

The cost of starting a pc company for Gates and Allen was too high in 1981 so they left it to IBM and wrote the OS. Turned out ok.

The cost of starting and OS company in 95 was too high for Brin and Page so they left it to msft and looked at how to reliably search the web.

The cost of starting a search engine was too high in 2004 so Zuck looked at how to connect people rather than documents. Good call.

See a pattern?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Does anyone else have the feeling that the ecosystem lock-in inherent in all of these large primarily hardware-focused companies isn't necessarily the whole future? I can imagine things like airport kiosks, coffee machines, subway terminals, hotel front desks, and other everyday objects or conglomerations of objects that aren't part of the consumer market most of these companies target also having such an interface, and they may not want to give all of that to Google or Amazon for instance.

Making that software seems like a necessity to me (the "operating system" of the future) and I'm not sure how it fits in with the current trajectory. Thoughts?

<comment><USER16> The large vendors are using phone revenue to fund fundamental conversational AI research. Eventually it'll get commiditized. Either as discoverable microservices that your favorite conversational AI finds, or as tiny ones for each device. I'm not sure which one is really worse.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Make AI startup, get acquired, quit, repeat

<comment><USER18> As long as the founder(s) know what they're doing. I've seen way too many AI startups with founders who don't even have the most basic ML knowledge but are doing it because it's the trend.

<comment><USER19> Replace "ML knowledge" with "CS / SW Eng. knowledge" and I would say this has always existed in the start-up world. My personal opinion is that lack of basic technical knowledge is a major no-no unless at least one of the other co-founders is technical.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Viv still uses Nuance according to their last demo, viv seems to be just a developers platform. Even Siri does not use Nuance anymore. Samsung probably needs developers for their IoT products in order to compete.

Pixel's new assistant will not be available on other android devices with nougat so make sense that Samsung will have to bundle their own into their devices.

<comment><USER21> >> Siri does not use Nuance anymore

evidence?

It still sucks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I'm amazed that the founders didn't have some sort of non-compete agreement here.

Excited that it's a more extensible digital assistant though. I think the reason why I like Alexa the most out of the services right now is that it feels like the easiest to add new functionality too. Hopefully this will pave the way for more open ai assistants.

<comment><USER23> California doesn't believe in non-competes. The state believes that competition is in the public interest and enforcing non-competes would be counter to that.

<comment><USER24> But what about patents?

<comment><USER25> Federal law.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I wonder if Samsung would ever put this on their Android Phones. I am confident it will not be able to compete with Google Now on the same device.

In addition to founders, Viv got a good number of early Siri engineers. From this and other hints I gather its internals are similar to first few versions of Siri. For example, they outsource the Speech component (something Apple still does for several languages). A consequence of that design is separating speech recognition from NLP, which makes it inherently more error-prone than Google Now.

<comment><USER27> Arguably, it may only have made sense for Samsung to buy Viv if Samsung is planning on ditching Google entirely.

\- Google's MADA agreement forbids OEMs from making anything but Google Now/Voice Search the default digital assistant on Android devices with Google Play.

\- Google is telling it's hardware partners for Google Home and Google Cast they're forbidden from supporting competing digital assistants.

So, having Viv as a second digital assistant which isn't default on their own devices and doesn't support any of the products Google's does, doesn't make a lot of sense. But if they need something compelling on Tizen to launch an exodus from Google's platform, where the Pixel has just been declared to get a ton of exclusive features they won't have access to... well, that'd be a reason for Samsung to buy Viv.

<comment><USER5> > Google ... forbids OEMs ... from supporting competing digital assistants.

~Wow, that kinda makes all the ire — including the comments on this page — directed towards Apple for its "walled garden" and "not allowing choice" seem a bit unfair.~

<comment><USER6> The end-user can still install them.

<comment><USER5> You can install other maps/browsers/assistants on iOS too, and other apps can interface with them if they want to. For example Chrome will automatically open YouTube links in the YouTube app. I agree that iOS is more restricted in that it doesn't let the user specify the default browser etc. for links from other apps, however.

<comment><USER28> Alternative browsers on iOS are forced to use webkit engine. Also, I don't think you can install alternative dialer/SMS apps, can you?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Was really hoping to play with the dynamic code generation part of their SDK, hopefully they still get around to launching it.

</comment><comment><USER30> I'm just curious how the founders were able to somehow negotiate a deal to sell Siri and then go right back into the same arena and create a "better" version. How would apple or any company allow those terms?!?

<comment><USER31> They didn't just sell to Apple and immediately quit. They stayed around for some years, which is a common contract condition. You can't practically require people to not innovate after they left a company.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Dag kittlaus & friends placed two successful AI exits in ten years. Just wow.

</comment><comment><USER33> I hope they integrate it with Smarthings. Maybe make the hub a device like Google home or Echo to integrate with all the devices.

</comment><comment><USER34> if this one doesn't turn itself on when its in my pocket, and doesn't start phoning random people without any speech like noises happening, i can see this being slightly less of a gimmick than siri... :P

kudos to these guys though, i never followed their story after apple took them on, and just assumed they would still be there. selling something then going back to doing the same thing, and doing it better... i find that admirable.

also despite my opinion on siri being "doesn't even work, not even close" i do look forward to more and better developments in that direction. although a part of me wonders if we won't just be wiring ourselves directly into our devices by the time this sort of tech becomes truly useful. :)

</comment><comment><USER35> I wonder if this is part of a move by Samsung to move off of Android? In some ways that would be a shame - the only phones I have owned are Samsung Android phones, love them.

Still, Samsung is large enough to build and maintain their own stack.

<comment><USER36> They've been maintaining their own set of apps that mirror Google apps on Android for a long time.

<comment><USER37> They are hot garbage, too. It's really ridiculous, you get a new Samsung phone and it has the default google/android apps, a copycat set of Samsung apps, and often a third set of carrier-specific apps that are even _more_ of a dumpster fire.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> For how much they hyped their product this is a pretty inconspicuous exit.

</comment><comment><USER39> That reminds me of an interview i saw a few months ago with one of their main guys:

[https://charlierose.com/videos/28249](https://charlierose.com/videos/28249)

</comment><comment><USER37> Crap, another piece of preinstalled bloatware I won't be able to remove from my next phone without rooting it.

</comment><comment><USER40> John Gruber is going to love this one.

<comment><USER41> Indeed. He also loved the Galaxy Note 7 beating iPhone 7 with earlier launch.

<comment><USER40> It was early all right.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> It's very disappointing that Apple got stuck with Siri and does not really improve on what they have. I assume part of it has to do with the fact that they are very careful about customer data and a lot of what makes assistants useful is having as much data in the cloud as possible.

Still. As an iOS user I'm very jealous of what exists on other platforms now.

<comment><USER42> Siri has been getting better ever since its release. Have you used it in iOS 10? It now has 3rd party integration with Uber and Lyft, Venmo, and many other apps. Its reliability and usability have drastically improved since Siri 1.0 on the iPhone 4S.

<comment><USER4> No integration with the apps i care about: spotify, google maps, gmail and many others.

<comment><USER43> Isn't that on Spotify and Google to implement?

<comment><USER44> You have a whitelist of possible domains though (Messaging and payments being the most common for now)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Please review my landing page - <AUTHOR>

http://albumcorner.com
Each week, the website will feature one independently distributed album by an indie artist. We're partnering with the musicians to put the whole album up for streaming for free and for download for $5.
However, it is only available for ONE day: Wednesday (there is nothing happening on the site the rest of the time other than augmenting the email list).
If you enter an email, you will get an offer to invite 3 friends for a free (instant) download of an album. What do you think of the landing page/concept? What could we do better? Thanks! <comment><USER2> Looks good on Chrome (OSX). The only thing which stands out as not perfect is how your "A new indie album every Wednesday" bullet doesn't fit on one line. Perhaps you could re-word to make it shorter (eg drop the indie, or say week instead of Wednesday) or make the layout a bit wider

</comment><comment><USER3> Looks very nice to me (using FF 7.0.1).

But one thing you may want to do is to have the 'for artists' link, link to a webpage rather than a pdf.

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree! I intend on replacing the PDF with a snazzy video intro for artists when my video producer gets done with it. Thanks for the comment!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Er... why is it already playing a song by a artist? Hm... also, not shuffle just in case I dun like the artist..

</comment><comment><USER5> Clickable <http://albumcorner.com>

</comment><comment><USER6> I like... One thing though... If your artists use samples from other licensed music, the RIAA will come after you personally.

 __* NOT LEGAL ADVICE __* I see you have your domain info hidden using WhoisGuard. Good idea.

Better make sure that WhoisGuard won't give you up if they receive a demand letter from RIAA's lawyers. __* NOT LEGAL ADVICE __*

One last Q... If anyone can listen for free, how will you stop people from downloading what they listen to without paying?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback! That's a really interesting point, I hadn't considered that. I will have to be sure to add that to the artist contract.

To answer your second question, the music will be streaming, so in other words, I won't be able to _prevent_ them from download. However: a.) the album will stream at 128kbps (vs 320kbps if you download), b.) the tracks wouldn't be separated (it would be one big awkward sound file with no metadata), c.) the download is extremely cheap to begin with, and d.) I'm trying to build a community of listeners that really want to support the artists.</comment></comment>


The Pirate Party (Sweden) May Take Place in the European Parliment - <AUTHOR> http://translate.google.se/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dn.se%2Fnyheter%2Fpolitik%2Funga-valjare-kan-ge-piratpartiet-eu-mandat-1.855936%26prev%3D_t%26usg%3DALkJrhhCUTadYhm5-bV16ZliZMVzgJEmhA&sl=sv&tl=en&history_state0=&swap=1&swap=1

<comment><AUTHOR> Here's an article in English at last: <http://www.thelocal.se/19162/20090430/>

</comment><comment><USER2> This is hilarious to read. It's like discovering you've BitTorrented the new Wolverine film with Spanish sub-titles and a Japanese dubbing. You can work out what's happening, but focussing on any specific sentence makes no sense.

Oh, also an interesting issue to watch.

<comment><USER3> I found it quite impressive how far automatic translation has come, unlike the early babaelfish days you could in fact understand most of the text without trying to do a overly literal retranslation into the source language (I still fondly think back to the day when babalfish translated the german city name "Würzburg" as "peppering castle").

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> They should dress as pirates when they go to parliament...the whole getup, an eyepatch, a fake parrot, a fake sword, etc</comment>


Fed looking into central bank digital coins - <AUTHOR> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fed-brainard/fed-looking-into-central-bank-digital-coins-brainard-says-idUSKBN1ZZ2XF <comment><USER2> When the day comes to pass, we will definitely need to have 2 things:

1) a way to keep debt securitization under control. The rate we saw institutions repackage loans and "insure" them with paper was astronomical and would be dwarfed by equivalents on-chain. Contagion-squared.

2) less friction in a fiat-token on/off ramp means financial institutions are going to need to have a real strategy on blockchain projects. There will be less separation between tokens and traditional markets. Trading patterns of crypto moonboys could potentially spill over to non-crypto markets.</comment>


Black Hills Bail and Legal Defense Fund - <AUTHOR> https://bhlegalfund.org/ <comment><AUTHOR> [https://www.pscp.tv/w/1BRKjYOAEMpxw?t=3h34m3s](https://www.pscp.tv/w/1BRKjYOAEMpxw?t=3h34m3s)</comment>


Window Snapping in macOS Sierra [video] - <AUTHOR> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pzJGeTS49f4 <comment><USER2> I use this wonderful app Spectacle[1] for window management in OS X—I mean, macOS. :)

Effectively utilizing my screens is a big priority for me when I do work. It might just be a security blanket thing but I need need need to have a few things open at all times to get in my groove.

[1] [https://www.spectacleapp.com/](https://www.spectacleapp.com/)

<comment><USER3> I haven't head of Spectacle before. I've been using BetterTouchTool which seems to offer more options and greater functionality (see my other comment - can set what % of the screen the left and right take up). However the simplicity of Spectacle looks inviting.

<comment><USER2> It's the main reason I switched to it from Amethyst. I've heard good things about BTT but I have yet to find a reason to switch from Spectacle as it has everything I need to manage windows over two screens.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Still can't believe they haven't fixed the maximize the window functionality. Windows has so much better window management.

When I saw this title I thought "finally" but it appears that I'm going to be disappointed yet again.

<comment><USER5> I think they didn't fix it because they didn't think it's a problem. I understand it might be hard to get used to if you're used to using applications fullscreen. But when you use a 27" iMac you kinda get why it works that way. I just have a lot of big windows and actually never want to maximize any of them. Partly overlapping windows also makes it easy to switch between them. So it actually suits the way I work quite well. As I see it: Apple has a vision on how you are supposed to work with a computer. You can only change it slightly. Maybe you like it, maybe you don't. I generally like to adapt the ideas a UI or OS is using. As long as it feels coherent and well thought out.

<comment><USER4> Well on my main computer I am running a 34" screen with 3440x1440 in resolution. But when on a MacBook you really want to be able to maximize the window. Also, on my large screen, with Windows, I can drag any window to the side and have it maximize the space that is left which is just perfect.

<comment><USER6> Have you tried the split screen with two full screen apps? I do this all the time now with an editor and terminal next to each other.

In fact I pretty much use full screen apps and spaces all the time now, reminiscent of my UNIX setup with fvwm.

<comment><USER4> Yes I do that all the time on Windows, it's a lot harder on a macOS though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Can you try resizing a window to the full screen and seeing if the dock still reserves pixels? [http://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/141800/gap-at- the-b...](http://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/141800/gap-at-the-bottom- of-maximized-windows)

<comment><USER8> This! We must know!

...it has been killing me for years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> For window snapping I like to use Moom. I like it because it offers snapping without injecting any behaviors into window dragging so I don't find myself accidentally snapping windows when I'm really just trying to move them. It also lets me choose when I want to snap, so I get to keep standard Mac window management most of the time, but have snapping around in the cases where it makes sense.

<comment><USER10> +1 for Moom. It does what it's designed to do beautifully.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I use BetterTouchTool for window snapping. After seeing the title I thought maybe it would replace my need for BTT. However after watching, it definitely doesn't.

Here's a preview of BTT Window snapping: [https://fat.gfycat.com/SandyFastFinch.webm](https://fat.gfycat.com/SandyFastFinch.webm) . I also have keyboard shortcuts to snap left, right and maximise.

</comment><comment><USER11> > keeping the desktop clutter free

Or you could just join the tiling window manager cult and become enlightened.

e.g. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FL51N8fTLTA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FL51N8fTLTA)

</comment><comment><USER12> I've spent maybe 1% of my time on Windows in the past five years and I'm still constantly trying to snap my MacBook's windows by dragging to the edges of the screen.

I've been on ChromeOS a lot lately and I really like the keyboard shortcuts there. Alt-[ or Alt-] to put a window on half the screen or Alt-= to maximize and Alt-- to minimize.

<comment><USER13> Next time you're on Windows, try Win + Arrow keys.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Maybe I am the only one, but I think just watching the video make it already frustating. Specially with the prounouced window shadows, it doesn't really make sense clarity-wise.

</comment><comment><USER15> Reminds me of Winamp that had this feature long ago.

</comment><comment><USER16> Also noticed the dock has blank spacers in it. If that is the case, that is a great new feature as well.

<comment><USER17> Turns out you can already do this. It works on El Capital, at least.

[http://www.imore.com/add-space-your-mac-dock](http://www.imore.com/add-space- your-mac-dock)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'd just be happy if you can just move windows back on screen easily.

</comment><comment><USER19> Openbox does the snapping-to-other-window-edges thing too

I really like Openbox</comment>


Reinventing Performance Management - <AUTHOR> https://hbr.org/2015/04/reinventing-performance-management <comment><USER2> Ex-deloitte employee here. I left before this change in performance review took place, but here's some thoughts & context based on my experience:

\- People may be concerned that relying on four questions may be too narrow, but at the end of the day, regardless of which questions are officially on the performance eval form, those are the questions that matter. At Deloitte, I had to consistently find new projects every 2-6 months, and the question of "Given this person's performance, I would always want him or her on my team" is not hypothetical. Project manager and partners answer this question implicitly all the time when they hand-pick their team members, now it's just answered more explicitly. At the end of the day, if you're an employee, what's more important to your career: that your boss thinks you're an Excel whiz or that she enjoyed working with you and will put you on an interesting, challenging project next month?

\- I think some of the criticism that these questions essentially about your likability or ability to "manage upwards" are fair. But for a firm, whose business is all about providing client service, evaluating people on their people's skills for "managing upwards" seems like a reasonable proxy for their ability to "manage clients", which really is a valuable skill to the company. On the other hand, for engineering orgs, these four questions may need to be rephrased - (e.g. off the top of my head: "do I want this person responsible for delivering and maintaining critical production services").

<comment><USER3> I especially agree with your second point. While many performance measurement programs do screen for the most likable or personable people, this is actually intended in consulting. Consulting is about selling work, and you will sell more work if people like you and you're pleasant to work with. And you're right, managing upwards can be rephrased as "getting people to do what you want them to do without any authority to make them do it" \-- basically the entire job of a management consultant.

That said, many consulting companies have overly-complex performance measurement systems. At the end of the day, if you're not very good, you won't get staffed on projects and you will be laid off. If you are good, push for a promotion and you'll probably get it. None of that changes based on the measurement system you use; because people at either end of the spectrum will/won't game whatever measurement system you enable. And IMO if you can get the same results with a lot less overhead, it's a win/win.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> That is weird. They ask to rate not the person, but your feelings against the person.

Yes, this very much simplifies manager's job - but remembering Kahneman's Thinking Fast and Slow, people are notoriously skewed at measuring things through their feelings. A lot of personal factors, including levels of sugar in reviewer's blood, heavily affect this type of 'judgment'.

I can see how Deloitte may be happy about spending less time on bullshit, and I applaud to that. I can also see how this new system is no different in consistency of the results compared to the previsions one - both are pure bullshit, so weighted random number generators work approximately the same when asked for 4 of 10 weighted random numbers. However, I really do not see this as progress. This is more of a regress - they see the problem, but they offer the solution that makes the managers slightly happier, and does nothing to precision or fairness of the system.

What we need to do it stop blindly applying a sales-oriented performance rating system to engineers.

We need specific set of quantified criteria for each group, and resulting rating should be calculated independently of the rater. We do not need more manager-oriented performance systems. We need to look at these systems form the point of the employee who is being rated.

<comment><USER5> High school popularity contest...

<comment><USER6> This is exactly what I've being saying for years of that project basis individual competition, it's a a popularity contest, albeit at high school level, defines today's most IT organization.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> _1\. Given what I know of this person's performance, and if it were my money, I would award this person the highest possible compensation increase and bonus.

2\. Given what I know of this person's performance, I would always want him or her on my team.

3\. This person is at risk for low performance.

4\. This person is ready for promotion today._

Questions 2-4 seem OK, but question 1 is problematic. I've been conducting data analysis on questionnaire data and people can't be expected to imagine "if it were my money". It's not their money, it won't be taken from their paycheck. Basically the stakes are not real. Which in turn will create in upwards bias.

<comment><USER8> That probably doesn't matter, as long as the bias is uniform.

<comment><USER7> Yes, but what does the question actually capture? What's the incentive not to agree with that statement? Or maybe everyone puts "4" instead of 5 to hedge their bets?

Don't want to deride the question without seeing someone from Deloitte expand on that, but the "as if it were own money" seems redundant at best.

<comment><USER9> I'd be glad to give everyone a raise with someone else's money -- when there's no downside to doing so. I think the point is to remind you that there's a cost associated with that.

<comment><USER7> But there is no cost/downside. At least for you. What I'm arguing is that this "reminder" is not effective.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> It is perfectly fine to applaud Deloitte, sadly, this concept won't spread.

HR departments are so entrenched with annual review bullshit that even if they call it a different name and put a new "spin" on it, it will just end up being even more disappointing shit-work for everyone.

<comment><USER11> I do performance management for Fortune 500 company. Literally two weeks ago we began redesigning the model.

It may sound that it would be difficult to change what has been going for years, but there are several factors that make it easier than it seems so:

\- Normally performance management process is managed by few people even in companies sized in 10,000's of employees. Even if ultimately the decision is made by HR executives, it is easier to make such decision when there are so few directly involved people. These people are normally part of corporate, and they just provide the process for local HR that usually has no real say in how performance management is done.

\- Both corporate HR and local HR are tired of this too. We have been hearing these points for long time. Every single year enforced/recommended (amongst other points) distribution brings heated discussions yet nothing is done. Executives hear this.

\- Talent Management system vendors are becoming more flexible and allowing different models for performance management. Such system is needed, but no one would ever sign up for developing it themselves.

In overall, I think it is a matter of time till this spreads. Promoting the wrong people or blocking the good ones is very expensive.

<comment><USER12> > In overall, I think it is a matter of time till this spreads. Promoting the > wrong people or blocking the good ones is very expensive.

I have worked for several companies that follow Trend-driven Management and would not be surprised to see this spread amongst the CEO's and execs of major companies.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I wonder, will four questions will grow into six, eight, twelve whatever, which will then require a form or series of forms to be completed & some sort of redundant moderation to ensure they aren't dealing with individual perceptions again etc etc, eventually evolving into what they have just done away with.

<comment><USER14> I've seen this happen at companies before. The other side I've seen is:

      HR bod: sorry, you can't give everyone a 5 on your team, someone has to have a 1
      Manager: but, I've hired my team sensibly!
      HR bod: sorry, you can't give everyone a 5 on your team, someone has to have a 1

:(

<comment><USER15> Yes, seen that. One variation I experienced was separating retention rank (how critical is this person to the team, dept., etc.) from performance rank (how effective and skilled is this person). That was a bit of a painful exercise as it was very clear to me that the organization was sifting for a reduction in force despite high performance after having culled the low performers.

<comment><USER16> It makes sense on the most basic level of "we have 5 high-performing individuals but we only have enough work to support 4."

If you have a group of people who all get 5's on a review but you are required to let one of them go, how do you do it in a way that isn't picking a name out of a hat, or the first person to get stuck in traffic and be late to a meeting?

<comment><USER17> But one knows what the numbers can be used for when assigning performance review numbers to people. So instead of picking a name out of a hat, the process is to pick a number out of a hat corresponding to a name?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> "Deloitte started using these four simple questions to do performance reviews. You won't believe what happened next"

<comment><USER19> HR departments hate it!

<comment><USER20> They got all their employees happy with this one weird trick!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Accenture followed suit:

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on- leadership/wp/2015/07/...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on- leadership/wp/2015/07/21/in-big-move-accenture-will-get-rid-of-annual- performance-reviews-and-rankings/)

</comment><comment><USER22> The four questions seem sensible but having employees' evaluation judged solely by their team leader seems guaranteed to create a culture of managing upwards and groupthink.

</comment><comment><USER23> Just be 'radically transparent' (a la Bridgewater) and don't be hesitant to give feedback in REAL-TIME. That's the only way to consistently improve. It's surprising to me that places like Deloitte haven't embraced this yet...instead favoring traditional political correctness and 'professionalism' and frustratingly clunky methods like this.

<comment><USER16> Yes god forbid someone be expected to show "professionalism" in a professional environment.

<comment><USER23> Your comment is a perfect example of why companies don't adopt this.

Critical feedback is too often construed as 'unprofessional' or 'inconsiderate' when it's simply a subjective statement on the way someone does something.

If we as a people could take feedback more constructively rather than misconstruing it all as some kind of pejorative statement of our character, we wouldn't have this issue.

So really the problem is that we don't have ENOUGH professionalism. Too much personalism and not enough professionalism. The personalism gets in the way of true, transparent feedback.

<comment><USER24> I have a verbal 'tick': I ask 'Why?' all the time.

When I ask it, I mean: "What was your thinking that lead to you making that statement or claim?"

I learned some time ago that regardless of MY intent in asking it, somehow, people act as if they are being attacked or disagreed with.

I'm just looking for context and trying to understand the reasoning process.

If we, as a culture, can't even ask "Why?", then I have to assume that (professional) real-time subjective assessment would be a big non-starter for people. Culturally, in the US, anyway.

<comment><USER23> A large part of my motivation to start my own company is to define my own culture. How is one to progress without asking 'why'? How is asking 'why' once a year (and in abstract, politically-correct terms) supposed to help us? Why not do it better, faster?

And for the commenter above, how is asking 'why' not professional? Clearly there are professional ways of going about it.

I wonder why so many people think like that. Especially when it's understood that when bad things happen in business, it's 'just business as usual' (e.g., getting fired is often said to be 'just business as usual'...nothing personal). Then why can't we be more transparent about feedback in the workplace?

For the record, I think what you're calling a 'tick' is a virtue.

<comment><USER24> > For the record, I think what you're calling a 'tick' is a virtue.

Very kind of you to say. The automatic way I point the question at anybody who crosses my path may say otherwise.

I have noted that in personal argumentation, in the US and Japan, that the word is not often not used as a tool for inquiry. I've seen it wielded more as an accusation or bludgeon, and it may be this dual-use that make people sensitive to the word itself.

The child's response to any answer with a "why?", is truly a really excellent algorithm for getting to the bottom of things.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> TLDR; In 2014 HR conducts a survey to find out what the people they hired think of HR's other surveys and find plenty of work for HR to spend the next year on and publishing about to arrive at a four question survey for release in 2015.

</comment><comment><USER26> The _actual_ article:

[https://hbr.org/2015/04/reinventing-performance- management](https://hbr.org/2015/04/reinventing-performance-management)

<comment><USER27> Thank you!

Very interesting article. But I wonder, can these four questions really capture the performance of employees? It seems better than many systems but perhaps it is too narrowly focused.

<comment><USER28> I've worked with Deloitte employees on a few occasions, in my experience their managers (and often several layers of managers) have worked directly with each member of staff and know them well. The annual reviews seem to an outsider to be an important formality for justifying what is already relatively clear.</comment></comment></comment>


Former Mt. Gox CEO Heads to Trial in Japan Over Missing Bitcoins - <AUTHOR> http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/07/09/former-mtgox-ceo-heads-trial-japan-over-missing-bitcoins <comment><USER2> This article feels wanting. It doesn't cover much of any details about Mt. Gox and instead goes off on tangents about the former CEO's personal life, and the cryptocurrency ecosystem...

I'll see if I can make up the gap. I'm no expert on the Mt. Gox story; it's extensive and full of speculation, but here's what I remember.

Mt. Gox has suffered multiple bugs, hacks, etc during its existence. But the two significant events occurred in 2011 and 2014.

2011, the price peaked at something like $30 and quickly collapsed to $0.01. As explained by Mt. Gox, this was due to a hacker breaking into the exchange and stealing a large amount of funds. The drop to $0.01 was caused by the hacker selling a bunch of those coins on the exchange, eating through all the orders on the book.

Fast forward; February 2014 started off with Mt. Gox shockingly halting all Bitcoin withdrawals. This was followed through the month with a number of disconcerting moves, from Karpeles leaving the Bitcoin Foundation to the closing of Twitter accounts. Little information was released by Mt. Gox officially during this time. At the end of February Mt. Gox filled for bankruptcy, claiming they had lost 750,000 Bitcoins (worth nearly $2 billion at today's valuation). Mt. Gox announced that they believed the coins were most likely stolen by hackers.

So what's the story here? Through the events of 2014 Mt. Gox was not the least bit transparent. Halting Bitcoin withdrawals, and then a month later announcing bankruptcy and that coins had been stolen without any information in between was very disconcerting. In addition, prior to 2014, they had halted USD withdrawals and had run into other banking difficulties in the interim.

The most damning evidence was released by a Tokyo security company WizSec, which concluded that "most or all of the missing bitcoins were stolen straight out of the Mt. Gox hot wallet over time, beginning in late 2011."

If true, it meant Mt. Gox had been losing money for years. People reasonably didn't believe Mt. Gox could not have known about this.

The prevailing theory now is that at some point, likely early 2013 or sooner, Karpeles found out they had been bleeding coins. Karpeles would have then been faced with having to announce the loss of a significant percentage of customer funds. It would be the death knell for Mt. Gox. Karpeles would lose his business, and customers would suffer.

Was there an alternative? Maybe. What if, instead, they kept quiet. And what if they used their dominate position in the Bitcoin trading ecosystem to manipulate the market? Slowly, casually manipulate the price of Bitcoin upward. A rising price would compel investors to invest more, and sell less. That would mean more deposits coming into Mt. Gox, and less withdrawals going out.

Basically, Mt. Gox would be operating with fractional reserves. As long as there wasn't a "run on the bank", they could continue to operate without anyone knowing what happened. In fact, if they could keep this going long enough, the lost funds could be made up slowly using fees and personal funds.

So the prevailing theory is that Karpeles realized and executed this plan. Exactly when this would have occurred is up for speculation.

Obviously, things didn't go as planned. June 2013, Mt. Gox had to suspend USD withdrawals. This had a really nasty side effect. Basically, to get your money out of the exchange now, you had to buy BTC and then withdrawal those coins to sell on a different exchange with functioning USD withdrawals.

The result is a rapidly rising price, because of increased buy pressure.

The end of 2013 sees the price of Bitcoin rapidly rise 500%. As with most rapid explosions in price, we saw a correction shortly after.

By the end of January 2014 the price had fallen ~30%.

If our suspicions are true regarding Mt. Gox, this would be fatal. Lots of investors making 500% returns in the span of two months, and then seeing a market correction downward? You bet they're gonna sell and pull out. A run on the bank.

So February 2014, they had to halt BTC withdrawals, and the sham was up. The rest is history in the making.

This court case will be terribly interesting. Will any of this theory be proven true? Other theories abound. Some argue the coins were merely stolen by an insider, or a company Mt. Gox was working with. Some argue they were stolen by Karpeles himself. Hopefully some kind of compelling evidence one way or the other will come to light during the course of the trial.

Regardless, this case is making history for Bitcoin exchanges. It will certainly be a story that puts fiction to shame.

<comment><USER3> > Basically, Mt. Gox would be operating with fractional reserves.

I would not call what happened to Mt. Gox "operating with fractional reserves."

In a normal financial system, fractional reserve banking means that a bank retains X% of its customers' deposits as a "fractional reserve" while lending out the rest to other customers, often with either collateral (home, auto) or high interest rates (credit cards) to mitigate the risk of nonpayment. In this case, the bank can balance its asset (loans) and liabilities (deposits) balance sheet.

In Mt. Gox's case, they simply lost the bitcoins they were supposed to safe keep rather than making loans or anything like that, and are thus insolvent.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm not convinced he doesn't still have the coins.

</comment><comment><USER5> The collapse of Mt. Gox was probably one of the best things to happen to Bitcoin.

<comment><USER6> Could you elaborate? I'm really curious as to how!

<comment><USER2> Couple things.

One of the points of Bitcoin is that you become your own bank. But a lot of people ignored that and stored their coins on exchanges like Mt. Gox. The loss of funds to the collapse of Mt. Gox is a constant reminder not to do that.

(NOTE: Yes, storing coins on your own was certainly not easy. It's a tad easier now with hardware wallets, but there's a lot more to do. But everyone managing their own funds with their own private keys is still ultimately goal of Bitcoin.)

The collapse of Mt. Gox was one of the first, huge financial scandals in the Bitcoin ecosystem. It has made users more critical of trading platforms, which is always a good thing.

It was also a nice shock to the system for naive investors who weren't aware of the true risks of investing in volatile assets like Bitcoin.

Of course, Mt. Gox was also incredibly destructive to the Bitcoin ecosystem. So it's a bit like arguing that the Great Depression was the greatest thing to happen to the American economy.

<comment><USER7> > everyone managing their own funds with their own private keys is still > ultimately goal of Bitcoin

No it isn't. The goal is to enable financial freedom, so that the people who want that level of control over their money can have it, but those who see benefits from having their money cared for, can do that too.

If I think I'll probably lose my bitcoin trying to store them myself, and that they're probably safer on Bitcoin Service X, I should be able to keep them there. I should also be aware of the tradeoffs.

Remember all those stories of people losing millions of dollars because they kept their crypto on hard drives? I know it's easier now, but it's still a lot of work. You can manage that work. Many people can't.

IMO the philosophy of Bitcoin is not "you should do things this way," but "it's important that people be able to do things this way, if they want to."

But the Mt Gox event did help make it clear that people should be selective about how they store their money.

<comment><USER2> > No it isn't. The goal is to enable financial freedom, so that the people who > want that level of control over their money can have it, but those who see > benefits from having their money cared for, can do that too.

Sorry, bad phrasing on my part. Perhaps it's better said as "Enabling people to be their own bank is one of the goals of Bitcoin."

Of course, financial freedom is the umbrella goal of Bitcoin, you're right. Part of that is making it possible to be your own bank. Importantly, that means making it _easy_ to be your own bank. We want it to be as easy for the average person to manage their coins themselves, as it is to manage USD at a bank. That way, even though users are free to use centralized services, there should be no reason to.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> _> Bitcoin has suffered hacking incidents including one last year in which a major Hong Kong-based exchange Bitfinex suspended trading after $65 million in the virtual unit was stolen._

Quality research. /s

This is akin to saying HTTPS was hacked, when YAHOO got hacked.

<comment><USER9> Or that fiat currency is hacked when someone gets pickpocketed on the street.

<comment><USER10> In terms of proportion, it is more like if someone walked into Fort Knox to count the gold and discovered that it was all missing. Sure, it doesn't discredit the * concept * of state-backed currency, but it would be informative.

<comment><USER11> Slightly related - there's weird (probably unfounded) suspicions around gold stored in the US on behalf of some countries. May or may not have led to things like Germany repatriating its gold reserves: [http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-09/bundesbank-has- comp...](http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-09/bundesbank-has-completed- gold-repatriation-new-york-fed-three-years-ahead-schedule)

<comment><USER10> Yeah, I was going to use the NY fed reserve bank as an example, but I know about the rumors and didn't want to open that can of worms.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12>
        > spent money lavishly, including on
        > prostitutes

I do not like what journalism in 2017 looks like.

<comment><USER13> How do you mean? Phrases like that have been a staple of journalism for at least 150 years.

<comment><USER14> And that needs to be changed. Sex work needs to be dragged out of that puritan hellhole, and highlighting thhat he spent money on prositutes but not anything else just perpetuates the view of sex work as "bad".

<comment><USER15> That is very laudable, but I'm not sure if prostitutes are ever going to qualify for a business expense

<comment><USER16> They might if buying them for one's potential clients instead of for oneself?

<comment><USER17> From what my buddies in finance tell me, these things are expensed as dinners.

<comment><USER18> Yep, meals and "entertainment".</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>