267M Facebook users IDs and phone numbers exposed online - <AUTHOR> https://www.comparitech.com/blog/information-security/267-million-phone-numbers-exposed-online/ <comment><USER2> There's a lot of very obvious "didn't bother reading the article but I'm going to comment on the headline" behaviour in this thread.

FB users put their details on their publicly accessible FB, someone ran a scraper across FB for publicly accessible info and dumped it into an insecure elasticsearch cluster and a researcher found that cluster.

How is FB at fault there? I say this as someone who has colossal issues with that company in general.

<comment><USER3> Facebook have a history of making settings default to little or no privacy, making those settings obscure and difficult to set, and changing those settings and their defaults faster than most people can keep up. This data dump is the not at all surprising result of Facebook's policies.

I remember the Zuckerberg family being caught out by Facebook's settings over a photo and complaining when the photo spread: [https://gizmodo.com/randi- zuckerberg-is-just-as-confused-by-...](https://gizmodo.com/randi-zuckerberg- is-just-as-confused-by-facebook-privac-5971227)

<comment><USER2> I'm not sure I agree. I've had a FB profile, that I admittedly don't look at often, which I've had set to private for its duration and can't remember a time where I've had to jump into the security settings to change something due to my private information suddenly becoming public.

We can argue that the core UI is trivial and hence non-technical people jump on and essentially make user errors, but I'd be inclined to put the onus on people using a private platform to host their private information to ensure they've set up their account in a way that reflects the settings they want.

Don't get me wrong here either, if someone hacks a platform and extracts private information, or if the platform's infrastructure is misconfigured and exposes private information, then by all means I want the company responsible held account. Which is something that currently does not really happen. I'm just hesitant to blame FB for users misconfiguring their accounts and alien actors taking advantage of that misconfiguration.

<comment><USER3> I disagree, this seems to require users to read and understand the EULA, navigate _all_ the settings (and again each time they change) and have a high degree of information op-sec for the things that aren't mentioned in the EULA or settings (such as 1 pixel tracker images on third party websites). This would have to be done for each and every service you come into contact with.

People may not be able to opt out of these services. Many people will buy phones and devices and, when they receive them, discover that the Facebook app and similar apps are pre-installed and cannot be removed. Additionally, here in the UK many schools use Facebook to communicate important information to parents. Even without semi-official requirements, the effect of so many people and organisations running social interactions through Facebook means that people have little choice but to join themselves.

I think we need both legal requirements and social standards about how these things are handled to make things like Facebook safe by default, not safe if you and the people you know put effort and expertise into controlling your exposure.

PS. I haven't downvoted your comments, I don't know why one of them looks to have been downvoted.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Wasn't facebook pestering me for my phone number for "extra security" a while back? Seems like the exact opposite.

<comment><USER5> Last time I tried Twitter will disable your account if you don't provide a phone.

<comment><USER6> You can open a support ticket and they'll restore it and include a BS apology about how your account was supposedly a false-positive of their anti-abuse system (where in reality it's just a way to harvest phone numbers out of easily coercible victims).

However, the main question is: why would you ever give your time to such a toxic platform especially when it's explicitly working _against_ you like in this case? Just move on and give them the finger.

<comment><USER7> > why would you ever give your time to such a toxic platform

Because a bunch of people you know are on the toxic platform.

<comment><USER8> A good idea if you want your personal relationships poisoned.

<comment><USER9> > A good idea if you want your personal relationships poisoned.

not how it works for me! i have friends on fb that i haven't talked to or seen since high school. i don't use fb proper but it's good to know that it remembers everyone so i don't have to. i guess it goes the other around as well.

<comment><USER10> > it's good to know that it remembers everyone so i don't have to

There is something wrong with this for me.. If you don't remember people, are they really worth kepeing around ?

It is a great way to reach someone you want to get in touch with after a really long time, but that scenario is _far_ more rare than people claim when they speak of the 'magic of facebook'.

<comment><USER11> > If you don't remember people, are they really worth kepeing around

How in the world are you ever going to know if you never contact them again?

<comment><USER10> :) I guess I just keep a select group of friends that I _want_ to be with. What I don't know wont kill me and all that, but fair enough. Each to their own !

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> ga-vu Just a reminder that Comparitech "pays" security researchers for "data breaches" and most likely encourages people to report these things to them without getting servers patched: [https://twitter.com/securinti/status/1196850409924681728](https://twitter.com/securinti/status/1196850409924681728)

No offense, but if you need to "pay" for your researcher, you're probably not that ethical and are most likely behind some intentional offensive hacking, so people can make money off your back.

<comment><USER10> To be it just sounds like they're offering a bespoke bounty programme.

If you can assume that they are reporting the exploits or breaches through the right channel, it might actually be more convenient for bounty hunters to have 1 place to funnel them all into.

If the Comparitech also make some profit off their reporting of the breaches then you can start to get an idea of where they're getting some funding from.

I am fine with this practice.. It incentivises more grey/white hat eyes on potential breaches. And in my book, thats never a bad thing.

Given how public they are about their methods and approach, I will give them the benefit of the doubt for now..

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Facebook has fundamentally lost control of their infrastructure. It is insanity. There are now VPNs out of Hong Kong operating output of FB ASN space. I truly have never seen anything like this in my life.

At FB the morale has collapsed. The support forums and bug bounty submissions are piling up and have been for weeks.

FB cannot and will not act. It is a problem of leadership not engineering and I have tremendous respect for nearly all of the staff there.

That being said the fact that Facebook continues to ignore that servers in Vietnam are hosting what appears to be all 71 million records of the Vietnamese ppl is shocking. If you are a Muslim in Vietnam the information is shockingly detailed.

[http://18.104.22.168:9200/_cat/indices](http://220.127.116.11:9200/_cat/indices)

<comment><USER13> > There are now VPNs out of Hong Kong operating output of FB ASN space.

ELI5?

<comment><USER14> Five-year-olds don't need to understand BGP.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Slight reminder that Whatsapp is Facebook owned and that one is based on phone numbers only. Talk about phone numbers, heh?

</comment><comment><USER5> Everyone is at fault except Facebook. Vietnam, illegal scraping, criminals.

<comment><USER6> As much as I hate Facebook, I can't really blame them for someone scraping data users decided to share publicly. When you publish data online available publicly it's normal and expected that someone can make a copy of it, either through manual data-entry or automated scraping.

The only question here is how were emails & phone numbers obtained and whether users were made aware that they would be available publicly.

<comment><USER16> I'm sorry but you cannot expect every user to understand the implications of putting data online. Facebook makes zero effort to protect your grandma who has no idea of the implications of putting info online. Blame facebook.

This is a terrible trend of "well you agreed to the terms and conditions so this is YOUR fault", when certain T's and C's shouldn't exist in the first place. IIRC the CEO of twitter even thinks this is bullshit.

We need to blame citizens, consumers, and users LESS than corporations, not more.

<comment><USER17> > Facebook makes zero effort to protect your grandma

How much effort do you put in to protect your grandma?

<comment><USER16> She is dead

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Is there a way to check if your data was in this database? Is it on haveibeenpwned yet?

<comment><USER12> "product:elastic country:vn" on Shodan. From there grab the IP address and if not over 1000 shards you can simply do...

IP:9200/_search?q=myName

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I bet, even if I deleted my account 2 and a half years ago my data can be found there.

<comment><USER13> You did what? There's obviously no delete on Facebook, only an isDeleted column in the db.

<comment><USER19> I've opted to delete my account, according to the EU laws, Facebook must delete all my data. But I'm sure Mr. Z keeps everything somewhere…

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> > This will reduce the chances of your profile being scraped by third parties, > but the only way to ensure it never happens again is to completely > deactivate or delete your Facebook account.

 _Translation: the only way to have an account is to not have an account._

</comment><comment><USER21> This is what happens when you centralize data - it leaks

</comment><comment><USER22> There has been a few elastic search data leaks recently. I do not know the product. Is it unsecure by default like MongoDB?

<comment><USER12> Yes and changing it is not easy. In particular securing it on AWS has reached totally preposterous levels. I am a Pro Architect Cert holder and I am routinely baffled by the docs there.

<comment><USER22> Their developers should take as much heat as the guys who left that data in the open, then, in my opinion.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> The author describes himself as: "TECH WRITER, PRIVACY ADVOCATE AND VPN EXPERT" (capitalization from source)

"...the trove of data is most likely the result of an illegal scraping operation or Facebook API abuse by criminals..."

More cyber alarmism. What would these "VPN experts" say to a phone directory?

He goes on to describe how this was reported as abuse the service provider instead of notifying the owners of the DB.

Finally he concludes that users can manage their privacy settings from within Facebook. Thereby acknowledging that users can manage their data or have chosen to provide it publicly.

The cyber-alarmism trend from self appointed security experts has gone too far.

<comment><USER24> It hasn't gone far enough; not by a looooong shot.

Billions of compromising documents, photos and personal details are now sitting around on the servers of a half dozen for-profit companies.

Only Equifax has given us a taste of what is in store.

Is the world prepared for the day when a trillion Gmail messages leak? Billions of personal camera-roll photos? Trillions of search history entries?

We needs to start taking these issues seriously.

<comment><USER23> Sure take it seriously, but don't trivialize the issue with alarmism. A few decades ago more information (Full name, phone number and home address) was available in phone directories. These were commonly distributed to every home with phone service.

Today we have security-expert-journalists calling the equivalent of a phone book a "verified threat incident".

I'd wager that gmail data is already available to the intelligence services of the five-eyes countries.

What does taking it seriously mean in this case? Not using Facebook? Acknowledging that data posted publicly is, wait for it... public?

To top it off the bread and butter of this blog is affiliate links to VPN providers. Another centralization of data for those seeking privacy. Not only is this contradictory, but it preys on the ignorance of the audience.

When companies sell this same data to employers it is called OSINT. When someone finds this data through Shodan and it is hosted in Vietnam they call it cyber-crime. Many times the OSINT groups are the same ones making the accusations.

<comment><USER25> I hear this analogy used sometimes but modern data isn't equivalent to phone book data. You had the option to be unlisted and it was respected. You also didn't have your name and address tied to so much personal data in one place. And do we know this data was public? I don't use FB but I know you have options to control who can see what you post, whether it's public or private.

Sure, if you're the HN crowd and assume every database is penetrable, this may not be a "threat incident" but when you're Grandma Jones who assumes that when she ticks the "private" box on her posts that it'll be private. If you care about infosec but are still ignorant of just how incompetent these companies can be then this breach is a "verified threat incident" and there's no reason to be alarmist here because someone mentioned that it happened.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26>
        Zuckerberg: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard

        Zuckerberg: Just ask.

        Zuckerberg: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS

        [Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?

        Zuckerberg: People just submitted it.

        Zuckerberg: I don't know why.

        Zuckerberg: They "trust me"

        Zuckerberg: Dumb fucks.

[https://www.businessinsider.com/well-these-new-zuckerberg- im...](https://www.businessinsider.com/well-these-new-zuckerberg-ims-wont- help-facebooks-privacy-problems-2010-5)

<comment><USER16> No no, you see it's the _users_ fault for... uh... using a service promising to protect them?

Yes indeed putting information online you expect some level of privacy for was your fault, because someone posted on display for everyone to see. Mark is never at fault.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> What this highlights is that it is damn simple to be a poor developer yet achieve a particular goal. You can brute force your way towards that goal, ignoring any sort of costly 'useless' security, usability or user privacy aspects. Even more so if you're a criminal. GDPR|CCPA < INTERPOL!

This is never going to end. This is true for criminal orgs but also legit businesses that despite regulations will mostly prioritize features to their customers over less tangible/monetizable value like hardened infrastructure and updated software.

Maybe I'm wrong and this cluster was left exposed for another reason, though.

</comment><comment><USER28> Facebook only has an issue with people getting the data for free.

</comment><comment><USER29> just a matter of time before messages are exposed too, ruining a lot of lives in the process. One by one, all castles will fall.

</comment><comment><USER30> At this point, in 2019, does anyone truly care about leaks anymore? I feel like this is becoming a new norm.

<comment><USER22> I am so sick of getting nuisance calls that I just don't answer numbers I don't recognise or expect anymore (thanks OVH!). If someone leaks my phone number another time I'd still be pretty pissed off.</comment></comment>


Neverware Means Never Buying a New Computer Again - <AUTHOR> http://www.observer.com/2011/tech/neverware-means-never-buying-new-computer-again <comment><USER2> The Network Computer rides again!

Given it took the Wharton MBA and self-taught genius a year to reinvent this, I read the article with growing frustration that no details were given. None. At all.

Is it just RDP? X? Or something entirely new? Not very clear at all.

Fantastic marketing though. That MBA is already paying itself off.

</comment><comment><USER3> They used to run Sun dumb terminals in the compsci lab at my university and they sucked when everyone was browsing netscape at once. How will this be any different if every kid in the computer lab is watching youtube?</comment>


Ask HN: french start-up in a difficult situation, looking for feedback/ideas. - <AUTHOR>

Hi All,
I am the founder of a french start-up in a difficult situation, and I am looking for fresh perspective of what to do. I feel HN is the best place to ask. So please take a few min, and tell me what you think.
We are a small software publisher, our product is a heavy client (too computations-intensive to be web-based) and we are at a crossroad. Our numbers are much better this year but our current market position is weak and 20-30% of our customers are either dying or moving to new markets. I am not sure the market will be big enough for us in a few months : our value/price ratio being unadapted to a small market with small companies.
Because of that, I am thinking about our next move if the situation/market doesn't improve. I see basically 2 opportunities:
- Mercenary coding : we are a team of experienced python coders (over 50k in python + a few k in C or C++) with a complete production pipeline/organization. We know how to ship (complex) software in time. This may be interesting for some, but I feel the time to build the connecting with the potential buyers may be too long. As I said, we are located in France, not Cali.
- Selling the company to a software group/big company : Our tech is innovative and quite solid but our marketing is not very strong (we try to be clever but good marketing costs money). A group that have the proper marketing and distribution infrastructure would have a good ROI selling our tech through its channels. Again, our location doesn't help to connect to US software publisher (most are in our markets).
So, what do you think ? What would you do ? Other ideas ?
Thanks, <comment><USER2> This sounds like way too complex a question to answer with the small paragraph of information provided. So with that little amount of information, I think the best way to make the decision is by thinking about your team. Of the two mercenary coding has the advantage of actually feeding people so if you really like your team I think you should try that, build and ship a few products for other people and see if with a new perspective you can't think of another product.

You already have a network and customer base, why not try to build products for the new businesses THEY are entering?

<comment><AUTHOR> Because the new market looks like a blind gold rush. Everybody is going to the same place but the maths says that most won't have any ROI.

Maybe you could help with this more-focused question : How to promote a team of (quite) expert python coders ? I've seen some freelancing sites but 1/ indians/chinese/whatever can undercut everybody there and 2/they focus mainly on task that doesn't need good coders.

Thanks

<comment><USER2> Unfortunately I don't know a ton about a) the python market or b) freelancing in general, but as a fundamental rule you can't be chasing the same clients as the 1 Indian guy. I don't know where the big fish are, but minnows wont feed you anyway.

Maybe try finding some other, larger firms and work on a project by project basis? Contact some agencies, other dev firms etc. Short of that it's all sales: find the big guys, get an audience, convince them. Not so complicated just very difficult :)

Good luck.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> There is not enough information in your post to offer any serious suggestions. What is the product you currently have in the market? Did it require special domain expertise? What happens if you decide to close the doors--how would it impact your current customers? Is there any potential for expanding your market? Why would someone want to buy your company? What is the company culture like? Could you could accept outside direction and management? Detailed answers to many of these questions are likely to not be appropriate for a public forum like HN. Your profile has no email address for contact.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry about the email adress, it is now corrected.

About your questions, I am sorry I can't go into the specifics but I don't want to damage our brand. I would be more transparent if the situation was desperate but we are not there yet (that's what I want to avoid).

Here is what I can say : \- our product is a complex (pc/win) software. \- it requires some investment but not much (domain expertise is too strong a word). \- most customers can find alternatives even if much more costly \- our own market could grow (especially under a focused marketing push). \- our company culture is quite informal \- I suppose we could accept outside direction. Not sure, though, I never thought about it.

Don't hesitate to contact me if you want details.

<comment><USER3> I still do not see your email in your profile. Please contact me off grid as firstname.lastname@example.com.

<comment><USER4> Corrected again. a (network) bug I suppose. Anyway, I'll contact you by mail.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> If you really have some innovative developers, you could try to do what Odeo did :)

<comment><USER6> what did they do?

<comment><USER7> they built twitter: [http://www.140characters.com/2009/01/30/how-twitter-was- born...](http://www.140characters.com/2009/01/30/how-twitter-was-born/)

<comment><AUTHOR> interesting...I'll think about it but that looks like a shot in the dark, sometimes you hit something, most of the time not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Firstly understand that the most precious thing that you are losing here is time - or rather time not spent on building a break-out business. Every day that you spent on the dead end business is time not spent on building a break- out business.

This is what I would suggest:

1\. Try selling your startup. Put a time frame on it - say 2 months at the max. Research and Pitch potential buyers. Don't be too rigid on the price. Again, you need to sell so that the business (and its employees) can stretch for as much as possible, and you need to sell to save your time.

2\. If the sale doesnt happen in two months, disassociate from the business. For all practical purposes assume that the business is dead. Detach and Break Free. Do not let the dead-end business take your mindspace. Plan the business contingency - you might let your employees keep running the business so that it helps pay their salaries - or you might make it clear to your employees that the business is dead end and they should jump ship. Offer them salaries till the business pays the bills and help them in whatever way they want. Whatever you do, do not engage in the business.

3\. Use the now free mind space to figure out the next break out business. Do not try to adapt your existing business. Do not try to 'do something' with your business competencies. Do not 'pivot' your existing business/employees/software.

<comment><AUTHOR> I never thought about dissociating from the business but I see the reasoning behind it. The 'free mind space' versus sad burnout is really a good image.

Thanks,

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> My 2 cents for free, for whatever that is worth...

While the old product still makes you money, invest all resources into building the new product.

Selling the company / IP: if you don't have willing buyers lined up and competing-up the sales value, common wisdom suggests that this is usually not worthwhile / a losing proposition. Buyers are usually trying to enter into growing markets / products, but you expect negative growth. So not sure who'd be looking to invest in this area right now...

<comment><USER10> Could not agree more. You have a dying product, not a dying business or bad employees. Level with your employees (who probably already know this is a dying product) - and then set a revitalising target - Build in the next two months at least two online profitable (cash positive) services. Which ones? Ask your employees now, and over next few weeks ask your customers. They have pain points that clearly are being better met elsewhere, but when someone credible asks what pain can I solve, most people reply seriously.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> What's the size of your organization? Having a core team used to work together, and that doesn't need to find a huge amount every month is quite a different beast, and probably much easier to redirect following a different path than a big(er) and with more inertia.

Are you using/working with open source libaries/platform? Surely if you are active in a big community (say django), finding some gig to cover the salaries and buy you some time shouldn't be too difficult.

Btw, there is nothing to be ashamed of to work on others' ideas and projects, and 'mercenary coding' sounds a bit like you feel you are prostituting yourself, probably neither good for the ones in your team that will end up selling their services to keep the company afloat, nor for your customers.

What about your market ? if you think it's really dying, don't die with it. You should consider open source your product. Might bring more visibility, new customers and new "mercenary coding" ;)

If your market isn't dying and is small only if you focus on a national context, selling your team/product to someone having more connections to your market abroad could be an option, but will likely have an impact on your team, and on your product. Is this worthwhile ?

Bonne chance.

<comment><AUTHOR> We are 8, 5 devs including myself. Not huge but still costly.

We do use open source libs (mit license), its the combinations which is quite unusual. But we could leverage some of them like web2py.

About mercenary coding, I am all for it as I know my team would do right and create a good margin on each project. What I wonder is how to promote a team like us.

Delegating the sales at the international level might be indeed the best option. Some of our customer are foreign and in bad shape but someone with more connections could be more successful than we have been. Open sourcing (even partially) the product is also on my mind. The increased visibility is indeed something to consider.

Thank you for you input,

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> You have existing customers right?

Pick the customer who believes you the most, and ask him to honestly tell you why this product is important to him. What kind of disasters does the software prevent in his business. How does this software affect him personally.

The problem right now is your company is very engineering focussed and doesn't have enough domain understanding. You need to cut back on your engineering focus and spend more time with your customers.

Also talk to potential customers who are one notch bigger than your current ones. For example, if you are dealing with 5 person company, talk with 50 person company. Their problems are magnified. Enterprise sales require people who understand their problems and require some kind of software integration. Usually, if you have integration or plugins preconfigured, it is a selling point because customization is very expensive.

</comment><comment><USER13> Do you have competitors whose products you could sell as affiliates? This might hurt your pride but will help you stay alive and learn about what products to build next.

<comment><AUTHOR> Indeed that would hurt my pride but that's a good idea. Thanks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Concerning the second option:

Sometime you might find potential buyer of your company within your existing or past customers. Have you reviewed that option?

Another option, maybe your competitor could be a potential buyer too? If they have some customers they don't have or they are willing to integrate new functionalities only available in your version?

<comment><AUTHOR> yep, but the transformation from "buy our product because they're good, we are a reliable company" to "buy the company because it is valuable but cannot survive independently" is a delicate maneuver.

Our competitor have a quite different framework, the tech integration looks complicated. They could buy us autodesk-style : to dominate the market absolutely. Not sure they have enough money for that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> If you honestly think you are going to fold in coming months, why not hire a sales/marketing person? Hopefully, he/she will be able to turn your business around/get new clients/etc.

<comment><USER16> Agreed, why not try to get better at marketing and sales yourselves? If, given with good sales and marketing, you are not able to be profitable in the changing market then BigCo is probably not interested in a buy-out.

<comment><USER4> yes, that's the idea. getting better at marketing. See my above comment.

About BigCo, I agree with you but I was thinking more about an industrial/tech fit something along the lines "this tech adapted to my needs would help me be a lot more competitive. Buying the company might be simpler than paying a lot of customization.". Not sure about the validity of that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Your customers are dying?

<comment><USER4> Some of them are which makes the rest quite conservative about their toolchains/spending. The financial crisis + some disruptive change in their production model did a lot of damage.

We adapted but the new shape of the market might be too small for us. As I said, I am trying to be a step ahead.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> get in touch with some details about your team. might have a project for you...</comment>


Show HN: Fund the Rebuild - <AUTHOR> https://fundtherebuild.com <comment><AUTHOR> I made FundTheRebuild.com yesterday as a small way to help people and small businesses who are suffering in the wake of the riots going on throughout the US right now. It's designed to bring attention to the GoFundMe campaigns that don't go viral.

All the sorting options focus on campaigns with the least number of donations, most money remaining toward the goal, and so on. The list is still fairly small, so if you know of any other GoFundMe campaigns that should be on there, you can submit them at [https://fundtherebuild.com/add](https://fundtherebuild.com/add).

</comment><comment><USER2> Tremendous irony in the number of "black owned" businesses that are listed there having been trashed.</comment>


World History Maps and Timelines - <AUTHOR> http://geacron.com/ <comment><USER2> One thing to recognize, is that borders have traditionally been much fuzzier than they are now. In days of the Polish-Lithuanian empire, for instance, you'd have towns that considered themselves German, with ties to the old Holy Roman Empire. And these towns, even though they might be surrounded by the lands of Polish lords, wouldn't necessarily maintain fealty to the Polish king. In a lot of ways, you could even have two or three different, overlapping "territorial" claims within the same geographic space, without having an inherent conflict.

</comment><comment><USER3> 1250 is very interesting. Think of all the modern day cultures that the Mongol Empire encompassed at the time. Just visually impressive to watch it grow in the years leading up to the peak.

Also, anyone else get an urge to play Civilization after playing with this map for a while?

</comment><comment><USER4> It was a lot of fun to run the clock back to the point where neolithic cultures predominated and see how much the colored areas shrinked. A long period of time in human history. A blink of an eye in geological time.

</comment><comment><USER5> Genghis Khan's conquest is really impressive to watch here, starting form 1207!

</comment><comment><USER6> Have a look at Britain in 410, then do 411 ... did the Romans exit Britain in 1 year? probably history is a bit fuzzy around those dates...

<comment><USER7> Short of showing blurry borders and a shorter time granule than years, this is what you're going to get. For this specific example, 410 is the commonly cited year, although everyone recognizes that it was not such an abrupt process. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_of_Roman_rule_in_Britain](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_of_Roman_rule_in_Britain).

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Somewhat related, this puts me in mind of a project I helped with: [http://williamedwardscoder.tumblr.com/post/37291851878/makin...](http://williamedwardscoder.tumblr.com/post/37291851878/making- the-history-of-worlds-religions-map)

<comment><USER9> cycling through 1936 - 1945 (year by year) is pretty interesting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> The UX on this is very confusing. I'd love to see some great things, like the start of renaissance, but I have no idea how to make the site start the animation. If that's what it does, animate?

<comment><USER11> I noticed it doesn't work at all for me in Firefox 29, but works fine in the latest Chromium build. Those are the only two browsers I use. Try Chrome/Chromium or another non-Firefox browser.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Doesn't work on chrome for me.

<comment><USER13> Works for me on 34.0, although a bit choppy at times.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> would be interesting to know what tool they used to draw the actual borders</comment>


European startups: How not to raise capital in the US - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/entrepreneur/2013/05/04/european-startups-heres-how-to-not-raise-capital-in-the-us/?utm_source=HackerNews&utm_medium=share%2Bbutton&utm_content=European%20startups%3A%20Here%E2%80%99s%20how%20to%20%28not%29%20raise%20capital%20in%20the%20US&utm_campaign=social%2Bmedia

<comment><USER2> > You probably haven't gone to Stanford and MIT

Ahh right, we must be all dumbasses then.

One day I was watching a presentation about programming languages. I thought it was for high schoolers, although the teacher seemed to be exceedingly good, he was talking in a style which assumed approx the same amount of IT knowledge my non-programmer high school 3rd grader little brother has.

It was a Stanford class.

<comment><USER3> If the OP is right in implying that US venture capitalists value very much coming from an Ivy League education, then it's the VCs you should be angry with, not him...

On the other hand, I can guess that being an Ivy Leaguer has a positive correlation with having good connections - independently from the quality of an education there.

<comment><USER4> Some say the connections are the main benefit of going to an Ivy, much like participating in the Greek system, getting an MBA, etc.

<comment><USER3> The Internet offers great opportunities to create connections without the need of a physical presence. There lies a great opportunity to disrupt a system that isn't very efficient at all.

<comment><USER4> I didn't mean to imply that it was the only way to to create connections, just those of a certain type (and among a membership of certain power structures). The Internet is indeed creating alternative methods of networking and business relationships, but it remains to be seen whether the opportunity gathers enough power to disrupt to an appreciable (historically significant, to me) amount. A bunch of Yale and CMU people at the tops of Internet companies isn't much of a change, after all.

<comment><USER3> I completely agreed with you (but upvotes are anonymous... ;) and didn't think you implied that - I just wanted to add that the Internet _could_ represent a great opportunity to disrupt the exclusivity of certain mechanisms - even if that's not easy, and not the case yet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > You probably haven't gone to Stanford and MIT. > You probably didn't work in > a major successful US startup. > You probably don't have many mutual > connections with the investor.

That would seem to apply to most people in the US as well.

</comment><comment><USER6> > If you're a European and work in tech in San Francisco, every summer you'll > be inundated with dozens of emails from friends, contacts and unknown > European entrepreneurs who will ask you for advice and introductions to US > investors for their classic VC fundraising trip.

Possibly due to a biased sample, the post exaggerates the attractiveness of the US for skilled Europeans founders.

<comment><USER3> On the contrary, it looks to me like the post describes the US as a very bad bet (and so not very attractive) for skilled European founders looking for investors.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I run a venture-funded European startup. Raising in the US didn't cross my mind at any stage of our Series A. European money is just as good as US money. This post applies to the 5% of dross European startups who think the grass is greener in San Francisco.

</comment><comment><USER8> > You probably haven't gone to Stanford and MIT.

Queue out X% of startup people in the United States. You know one common quality of great entrepreneurs? They're really good at getting into and paying for elite colleges with sub-10% acceptance rates.

In fact, why doesn't everyone who hasn't gone to Stanford or MIT just smack themselves in the head, abandon their startups, and apply for low-level janitorial positions. Clearly they weren't born intelligent and able to start a startup, otherwise they would have gone to Stanford and MIT where all smart startup people are able to go when they turn 18.

</comment><comment><USER9> > You probably haven't gone to Stanford and MIT

Oh dear ...

I understand that this was the author's honest appraisal of the thought processes of potential investors within the SF bay area community. I also understand that it is probably a true reflection of investor attitude. Lastly I understand that the sentiment behind it is total c __p - with about as much foundation in the truth as a bouncy castle has in rock and mortar.

Whether merely perceived or actual, the astonishing arrogance of some Americans is hurting their image.

</comment><comment><USER10> Any statistics on what % of successful YC candidates that went to Ivy League schools? I'm going to assume there is a bias that people who go to prestigious Ivy are more likely to apply to prestigious programs like YC so probably a high percentage.

</comment><comment><USER11> I think holds for founders from all countries outside of the US.

</comment><comment><USER12> Haha I barely started reading the article and I already trip over this sentence in one of the first paragraphs: "I believe I now have a statistically significant pool of data and experiences to analyze". Clearly somebody misunderstood something. Perhaps it is time we stop using terms we don't understand.</comment>


Show HN: Browser history functioning and loopback gotcha - <AUTHOR> https://zhirzh.github.io/2017/01/30/browser-history-functioning-&-loopback-gotcha/ <comment><AUTHOR> Just want to say: If you [think you] know the organisation mentioned, don't it publicly, please.

Mail me via github instead. That's all. Cheers.

</comment><comment><USER2> Using DLL as an abbreviation for "doubly linked list" without mentioning it first is confusing to say the least.

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks for pointing that out. made amends.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: how to spend your (early) 20s? - <AUTHOR>

Traveling? Building a "big" startup? Running a smaller business or website? Go to work for a large company? Graduate school? What are your suggestions?
I'd love to hear opinions from those currently in their early 20s - what you're doing - as well as older folks - what you did, and what you wish you did (if they aren't the same! :) )
(by early, I mean age ~20 to 25) <comment><USER2> I'm about to turn 30 years very shortly here, so this is from my perspective. Years ago, after college, I spent most of my traveling around various places in the world across all of the continents, trying my hand at a few businesses, some which worked and some which some failed miserably, and chasing women. I think if you travel, chase money, and chase women, all in equal balance with none at the expenses of the other, you will most likely not have any regrets ten years from now unless you get a girl pregnant, then all bets are off. As you progress in age, you may learn to make the mix more efficient by realizations such as "if you are successful chasing money, you spend much less time chasing women, as they then chase you". Money and women have been sought after by men for thousands of years, and while today's modern intellectual man may find it simplistic and barbaric, there is nothing wrong with satiating your appetite for what you were naturally programmed to do, be an animal. You can learn a lot from rappers, they have the basic idea figured out. Knock the top few layers off Maslow's hierarchy of needs and you have a higher likelihood of being happy. Just my humble opinion.

</comment><comment><USER3> Explore.

Explore jobs. Explore places. Explore hobbies.

I personally think that unless you've had this totally overwhelming idea about a company for several years you shouldn't try to start a company at this stage. If anything, work a couple of years at a larger or established company. Get a feel for how things are done, so that when you _do_ go off on your own, you have some better idea of what the "finished product" is supposed (or not supposed) to operate like.

Travel. Buy a ticket someplace and just go be there for a while. Work, write, hang out, whatever, just do it.

Have relationships, probably none too serious, but enough to see how your personality fits with other types. Try your hand as a pick up artist (really, you can learn a lot from this).

Basically, spend your early 20's really looking at the world and figuring out what/who you want to be when you grow up.

</comment><comment><USER4> 18-23

Did the traditional college route. (Stanford)

This was great for me because I needed the resources to pursue a gymnastics career. It also exposed me to lots of interesting people and ideas. I had the opportunity to initiate projects and start things. Stuck around for a masters after my undergrad (both in biology) and to use my last year of athletic eligibility.

23

Ran the business operations of my college newspaper.

It was a paid full-time job where I got to manage adult and student staff and report to a board of directors. Great experience running a small business with real revenues and expenses (had to cut expenses massively while reorienting the sales side to stop the revenue decline). Let me know I wanted to be an entrepreneur.

24

Worked in sales and marketing at an ad tech startup. (isocket)

Also great experience - gave me handson skills, saw how a b2b startup launches and starts to get traction. Built my network. Started blogging. Worked my butt off.

25 Started my own startup. Got together with some good friends who were in startups working as developers. We decided to take the leap and start something. We're targeting a big market and the odds of success are slim but we're hopeful and hungry. =)

Hard to say what I'd do differently. Wish I had done more personal projects and less student groups in college. Wish I had learned how to code. Wish I had started blogging earlier. Wish I had traveled outside the country more (the startup will keep me busy). But since I'm pretty happy with how things have turned out so far, can't really call those strong regrets by any means...

You're asking the right questions - keep thinking about this stuff ... and if you have an inkling of a good idea, DO something abou it, even if it's just to send an email or write a post about it. You never know where it will lead...

</comment><comment><USER5> I'm on the earlier side of the spectrum turning 20 last January. Currently, I'm sitting on my couch writing this while doing research on a "big" startup idea I have, but during the school year, I attend Georgetown. Over the summer, I'll be at Oxford taking a few classes and traveling around Europe a little. After school, I'm really undecided on what I will do. I would much rather prefer to start my own venture, but the $$$ and relative safety of big corporations are big incentives to defect. I'm really glad I have another 2 years to figure it out.

What are you currently/hoping to do?

<comment><AUTHOR> (I am also 20).

Hah, well, I'm not quite sure, hence this post.

But after spending the past few months researching and meticulously laying out a conquer-the-world startup idea, I've come to the realization that I'm not quite prepared for it. It's going to require too much money and I don't have all of the necessary skills to get it off the ground.

So, until I'm ready, I'm working on a couple smaller projects, both of which, coincidentally (or not), apply directly to the "big" idea. The goal is to make enough income from these projects in order to finance some travel (and the future startup.) Ideally, the skills from these smaller biz projects will prepare me for the big game down the line.

\--

As far as the big corporation vs. your own venture, my advice would be to try and develop your own things before you graduate. That way, it will be an easier decision in 2 years; either you need a job, or you don't.

That said, I personally would go for my own venture, simply for the personal freedom. Running an online business that makes ~30k a year would be worth significantly more to me than a ~60k stationary full-time job.

<comment><USER5> Not a bad strategy. I have already started a company which has been my number learning experience. I definitely know what I would do differently. Just to clarify the venture was not a failure, but also far away from being a "big" startup (read: slightly cash positive). My number 1 piece of advice (although I don't know how much it is worth) is to network. It is crazy how mindless some investors truly are. It seems if you can get 1 person with a pretty big name in the tech industry behind your project, you can get the whole gang. Obviously you need a great product, but it seems the true value in startups today is the name.

Are you the business or engineer side (or both)?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, you're probably right on the networking, although investors right now might be affected by the bubble situation. Networking in general is a good practice, though.

I'm striving to be both the business and the engineer, although I have much more experience with business (family and small money-making projects I've done through the years.) Ideally, I'd like to build the site entirely myself and then bring on a technical wizard (for salary or a small chunk of equity) to be the CTO. Call me selfish, but I want to have control over my business - no huge dilution to co-founders and investors for me, thanks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Whatever else you do, keep a journal. Cheap notebooks with a decent pen work well, but OhLife (YC S10) is pretty great. Keeping a public blog is not the same thing. Consistency is unimportant, but the habit is vital. "Keeping a journal" is something you can still be doing even if you haven't actually written much in it in weeks. A sentence here, a sentence there. It adds up.

</comment><comment><USER7> I'm currently 24, finally about to graduate after 7 years at university.

Did freelancing and contract work when I was 19, then I joined a large company at 20 where I worked full-time for nearly three years (I really just wanted an escape from university where I was questioning why I was there when I cared little about my major and seemed to bell well-off without a degree). After that I did PR work for a gaming startup for a few months.

Looking back, I wouldn't have changed a lot of what I did other than hustling more towards my degree and other side projects when I took on the full-time gig. I was so burned-out from that one job that I just spent the rest of my time playing video games and taking one course per term. I became too complacent and didn't explore all my possibilities when I had great freedom to do so.

So, whatever you do, just don't do only that. Go for a breadth of experience; travel while doing freelancing, join a large company while doing a startup on the side, etc.

</comment><comment><USER8> I'm in my early 40's now, so here's my take: Follow your passion (I quit College to develop software), do the things that interest you without overspecializing (I did low level device drivers, database systems, consulting, games), and don't stay too long at any given job. (Never more than two years)

Do something crazy occasionally. (I emigrated to the US, from Germany - and I spent all my vacation time working on cruise ships)

By your early thirties, you'll have had a lot of fun, and a decent idea what you like. (Although that changes occasionally - did games for 15 years, working on the Internet side of things now. No more games, got over it)

Above all, have fun. If things go wrong in your 20's, a reboot is not a big deal. As you start accumulating the things that go with age (a family, a higher salary, a mortgage, etc.) a restart is more terrifying and probably harder.

</comment><comment><USER9> Recently turned 26. I spent a bit too long in university switching degrees and all, starting in economics but eventually graduated in electrical engineering. I got a job right out of school working for a large engineering construction company. Quickly realized that wasn't for me, but stayed on for 2 years for the paycheck. Married the girl of my dreams, quit my job, and moved to Guatemala to study spanish for a few months. I'm writing this the night before I head back to the US. In a month I'm moving to the San Francisco, and we'll see what happens from there.

Seems like there is no right or wrong way to go. I'd say just make sure you're happy and always challenging yourself.

</comment><comment><USER10> I just graduated from College and have been connected to the matrix (aka corporate america) for the past year. I can say that working and having a stable job will definitely tell you if you want to do your own thing. I discovered quickly that I am way to motivated to stay in a 8 to 5 job and that I want to do my own thing or join a supportive corporation.

I would recommend doing some corporate gig if you are unsure about starting your own company, but realize that it is very hard to cut the pay check. It is difficult to leave a stable well paying job.

I am pretty firmly in the camp of entrepreneurship and it is still difficult for me to remove myself from the matrix.

<comment><USER11> Agreed. Getting paid $65k and higher right out of college (where one is likely making zero) from a stable job is hard to give up. It can be helpful in the short term to pay off college loans and the like, but some people fall into the "one more year of my giant paycheck and then I'll do something I enjoy" trap. Before they realize it, many years have gone by...

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I have worked my arse off in my 20's. 10 hour workdays on average, and when I left my first employer, after 9.5 years, I got paid out 260 unused leave days (we had time-off-in-lieu for weekends).

On the plus side: this set me up financially for the rest of my life; I developed high skills and a good reputation; and the work was interesting in itself.

On the minus side: I lost touch with most of my school/university friends; had trouble maintaining relationships with girls.

Funny thing is: I am not sure whether I'd do it all again, or not... so I don't know what to recommend... sorry.

</comment><comment><USER13> Travel. You'll be able to get away with doing it more cheaply than at any other time in your life.

</comment><comment><USER14> I am a self taught programmer with a BA in Political Science who works as a pseudo-project/product manager.

When I graduated on 2007, I worked at a major medical software company. In 2010 I joined a more traditional software startup (not the Silicon Valley startups like you see here). I think this was a good path for me. I've certainly learned a lot at both companies, although the startup is much more rewarding.

Regarding graduate school, I'm not interested in paying to learn what I've already learned through experience. When I get to graduate school I'd rather study new stuff (not just learn object-oriented design...ugh).

</comment><comment><USER15> I just started a job at a large company where the job security is excellent. But I don't want job security right now, I want to do something exciting and real. I just wish I was brave enough to dive in.

</comment><comment><USER16> About 15 years ago I worked with a 24 YO man who had married his high school sweetheart and they had 3 kids. Some guys would tease him that he missed out on so many things.

One day he said that these guys had it wrong, because when he is in his mid 40's, his house will be paid for and his kids will be in college.

Not a bad plan if you can pull it off.

I hope he did/will.

</comment><comment><USER17> I would say any of those sound fine. The one thing I wish I had done was not spend more than 3 or so years in any one location or job in my early-mid 20s.

</comment><comment><USER18> A pg essay on the subject is fitting: <http://paulgraham.com/hs.html></comment>


Ask HN: How do I become a better web designer? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Good artists steal. I know most things I have worked on we've taken different visual concepts from various sites and then incorporate them. The key is to steal IDEAS not actual content, and ideally merging different good ideas to create an original feel. After that you just utilise the feedback loop to polish what you have into something that the majority of your users like.

After you've done the above a handful of times you start to get a gut feeling for things which you should listen to as it will often be more right than more wrong.

TL;DR: Light theft and practice.

<comment><USER3> Haha! Literally posted the same advice at the same time. I guess we're onto something ;)

<comment><USER2> Or maybe you're just an idea theft! ;P

I suspect a lot of people have a similar-ish work pattern. I'm certain there are a few visionaries that legitimately create new ideas, but the majority of us are just recycling old ideas in a new way.

<comment><USER3> I've been doing this for almost 15 years now. I definitely create new things, but I didn't start that way. And really, you should use conventional things for most problems that you come across. It takes a pretty unconventional problem to justify an unconventional solution.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is going to seem overly simplistic, but... Practice!

1) Find designs that you love, copy them pixel for pixel

2) Start mixing and matching elements from different interfaces that you find.

3) You'll start to see repeated patterns, get good at connecting these patterns together into new interfaces.

4) After a while of this, you'll see that you don't need to do as much research and direct copying anymore.

5) Congrats! You are a junior designer, keep practicing :)

<comment><USER4> This is the same advice I was going to give and is how I've been working on my design skills.

One addition: you should look through Dribbble [0] or similar sites for inspiration, and you can use pre-existing resources for Sketch or Photoshop [1] to build mock-ups. I find it better to improve on design by iterating a bunch on mock-ups before working in HTML/CSS/iOS (since I'm much more familiar with going from design mockup -> front-end).

0 - [https://dribbble.com/search?q=website](https://dribbble.com/search?q=website) 1 - e.g., [http://www.sketchappsources.com/](http://www.sketchappsources.com/)</comment></comment>


The Wall, a modular microLED display - <AUTHOR> https://www.samsung.com/us/business/products/displays/direct-view-led/the-wall/ <comment><USER2> This is one of those "oh my gosh" technologies that you put in the lobby of your venture capital firm or hedge fund to just calibrate the level of money the client should be expected to have/invest.

That said, AFAICT microleds are the only technology that really lets you tile them. So you can build a 4K UHD display that is basically a bit smaller shorter than 8 feet (2.5 meters). But at 31 PPI it isn't great up up close. (not bad obviously but not stunning). Once it crosses 72 PPI that is when the world gets really interesting. For me.

<comment><USER3> Interesting numbers.. If I recall correctly, 72 PPI is the minimum recommended pixel density for digital prints, so the final result looks smooth and not "pixely".

In the specs for The Wall microLED display, they mention a pixel pitch of 0.84mm. A quick conversion (1 inch = 25.4mm) tells me that's roughly 30 pixels per inch - oh, right, that's what you meant by 31 PPI, you already calculated it. :)

Still, it's an attractive product, and I can imagine many use cases. Looks like the price range is $17~22K, for 9.6m x 5.4m dimension.

<comment><USER4> To extend the thought, 72 DPI has been the minimum recommended density for working at a desktop. For closer materials like magazines or photos, it was I think 300 DPI, since you might get closer. It's one of the reasons mobile screens got more dense, so that when you hold it 30 cm from your face things still look smooth.

So... if your average viewer will be farther away from this wall than a desktop user, the DPI can go down and still be attractive.

Edit: the not-science-backed chart here seems to track [http://resources.printhandbook.com/pages/viewing-distance- dp...](http://resources.printhandbook.com/pages/viewing-distance-dpi.php)

<comment><USER5> At 300PPI, the cost of powering (electricity, CPU and GPU) a large feature wall might actually exceed the cost of the wall itself.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Ahh comparison pics of two different displays being shown on my display. My favorite kind of "wait, that makes no sense whatsoever" marketing.

No matter what particular bit of new display tech they're advertising it's _always_ the following too:

Image with undersaturated colors | Image with oversaturated colors

<comment><USER7> This was pointed out in an advertisement for a tv back in the 1980s. Think Harry Anderson was the pitchman for the ad. At the end he said "I'll show you this amazing new tv but remember, you're seeing it on your screen". Haven't seen any other video display ad since make that point.

Edit: found the commercial ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PMG2lyGRcQ&feature=emb_titl...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PMG2lyGRcQ&feature=emb_title))

<comment><USER8> Sharp had ads for Quattron on their Aquos TVs that pointed out that you couldn't see all the amazing colors. It had/has an extra yellow subpixel on the screen.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4DK1Yx4R6k](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4DK1Yx4R6k)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The splash of dust transitions used in the product video seem pathological to YouTube's MPEG compression. The compression renders the transitions a blurry mess—it's so messy as to be jarring. That's disappointing in a video that is attempting to sell the viewer on the clarity of a new display technology.

<comment><USER10> Yeah, this is an inherent problem with marketing nice screens through bad screens.

<comment><USER11> More like bad bitrate/codec.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Without giving away too many details, I worked on a project that involved the first installation of this in the UK last year. It's so good in person - you'd expect so for the price - but the early unit we worked with was incredibly unreliable. Hopefully they've managed to iron out the (apparently heat- related) issues by now.

<comment><USER13> I've seen this in person in London, and it's very warm. You can feel the heat coming off it from several metres away. Not sure if that is still causing problems or not.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> We already seen this in last year's CES 2018 [1]. So what exactly is new here? Were there any technical improvement? Or was it the same thing someone decide to post it?

[1] [https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2018/1/7/16861790/sa...](https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2018/1/7/16861790/samsung- the-wall-microled-modular-tv-announced-ces-2018)

</comment><comment><USER15> For people like me who only open the comment section; "the wall" is a new display technology by Samsung that apparently allows you to easily tile them together

</comment><comment><USER16> Those side-by-side comparisons halfway down remind me of when you used to get ads demonstrating how much better DVDs were than VHS ... on the VHS tape you just rented.

<comment><USER17> Not only that but I preferred the "LED" examples in most the pictures, the right hand side just looked oversaturated.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> This is cool. Add it to the ever growing list of impractical and expensive things that I want to own in spite of it. Historically speaking this sort of reminds me of the wall of sound: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_of_Sound](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_of_Sound) Totally different and way more put together but the scale evokes a similar sensation.

<comment><USER19> I really liked the individualism of the audio spotlight [0] but I have never seen one in use yet.

[0] [https://www.holosonics.com/](https://www.holosonics.com/)

<comment><USER20> I have experienced it at several Best Buy stores in the video games section to advertise the various Call of Duty games over the past several years. You can only barely hear it unless you are standing directly in front of the panel.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> So what's new about this? It's been in the market for a while at around $20k per tile iirc.

On the other side doesn't Sony, Barco, Christie and a few other signage companies have something similar to it?

<comment><USER22> Brand new TVs have a tiny bezel on three or sometimes four sides, but it's still a bezel.

I dunno about Sony, but the Sharp and Philips models I could find had thin bezels too. When you tile displays, you have two bezels touching, so the black line is at least twice as wide.

Zero bezel on 4 sides also seems to be noteworthy, because it removes some ways in which one could 'cheat'. For example the new iPhone. From what I understand the bezel on the sides and top could be zero instead of just really really narrow, but the bottom edge has the display electronics attached. To keep from having a big bezel at the bottom of the phone they _folded the screen over_ , so the electronics sit behind the display instead of below. I'm not sure that allows true edge-to-edge display, so Samsung would have had to do some other trick instead of feeding signal in from the edges.

A wall display that can be tiled on three edges still allows for quite a big bigger displays (especially in situations where long linear ones are good, like balconies or the barriers in MLS fields), but not quite like this one.

<comment><USER23> I don't follow your logic. What makes you think Samsung is applying consumer- grade smartphone design/cost-optimization hardware hacks to modules targeting a completely different market segment, let alone form factor?

<comment><USER22> I'm saying those won't work for their design. But that hack exists on what many would deem a luxury good.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> They should just call it "Wall" /seanparker

</comment><comment><USER25> I never though that Samsung will jump on microled bandwagon.

Samsung for long been trying to make LEDs in-situ on backplane, and they had samples in labs at least 5 years ago.

</comment><comment><USER26> In the next generation's version of "Woody Woodpecker" Coyote will use these instead of fake tunnels painted on the walls.

<comment><USER27> I beg your pardon, ITYM "Road Runner".

<comment><USER26> :facepalm: you are correct

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> So you can combine 4 modules to make a 72" 1080p display. Regardless of cost, this currently seems a bit impractical for home use.

<comment><USER29> I'm currently rocking a 125" screen with a 1080p projector. I'd love 1440p with super dark black.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Anyone care to make an educated guess how much this thing costs? Is an 8'x10' display going to be six figures, or seven?

<comment><USER31> Currently, Samsung is offering two models of The Wall, or rather the individual panels that make up The Wall, the IW008J and the IW008R. While Samsung doesn't list prices for these panels online, other resellers are listing the modules for $16 to $23 thousand dollars each.

These individual modules measure 31.75 x 17.86 inches, but have an individual resolution of 960 x 540 pixels. In order to enjoy the same 3840 x 2160 resolution you'll get on a standard 4K TV, you'll need to buy 16 of these panels, to set up in a 4 x 4 configuration that measures 146 inches diagonally.

[https://www.tomsguide.com/us/samsung-the-wall-tv-release- dat...](https://www.tomsguide.com/us/samsung-the-wall-tv-release- date,news-27356.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Direct link to PDF Spec [https://image- us.samsung.com/SamsungUS/samsungbusiness/produ...](https://image- us.samsung.com/SamsungUS/samsungbusiness/products/displays/direct-view-led/iw- series/pdf/DIGSIG-THEWALLPROFDSHT-APR19T_Final_4-17-19.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER33> Anyone with experience with these types of panels know whether the proposed seamless edges are actually possible? I'm a bit skeptical that manufacturing tolerances are tight enough to create a seamless edge from independent panels but I don't know enough to call bs.

<comment><USER34> In LCD or OLED displays, most of the display area emits light. There are black lines between the pixels, but they are thin, so it's hard to hide a seam in one. In contrast, the micro LEDs on this display are very small relative to the distance between them, "micrometer scale" vs. almost a millimeter. Most of the display area is actually a blank black surface, where a seam can be hidden.

Making smaller displays this way will be a challenge as the pixels will have to get closer together.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> English is not my first language but even I can spot some rough edges in the copy. Probably translated by a non-native, and they read like AliExpress' product pages: trying to be inspiring but in reality just confusing.

</comment><comment><USER36> Someone loves the word "Great" in their marketing department.

<comment><USER37> No joke. Good example how to not write marketing copy for a landing page. This is from the linked page:

\- Behind the greatness of microLED display technology

\- View the greatness

\- Great black

\- Great color

\- Great refinement

\- Build the greatness

\- Great design

\- Great modularity

\- Great look

\- Handle the greatness

\- Great performance

\- ... see the greatness of microLED display technology up close

Hint for people writing landing pages: try to not use the same word over and over again. Something like thesaurus.com can help you find alternatives, but make sure you understand the replacement word and that it sounds natural.

<comment><USER38> > Hint for people writing landing pages: [...] Something like thesaurus.com > can help you find alternatives [...]

Guess the next ad campaign will read like this:

\- Behind the prodigiousness of microLED display technology

\- View the amplitude

\- Stupendous black

\- Humongous color

\- Titanic refinement

... you get the point.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I'd have hoped for HN there'd be an article focusing more on technology, and not just a marketing site. That said, does anyone know how this compares to LG's OLED tech?

<comment><USER40> LED walls aka jumbotrons have been around for years and it's not particularly clear what's new here other than the consumer branding. LED walls appear to be far more expensive than OLED but it's hard to compare given that there's no overlap in size.

<comment><USER12> > it's not particularly clear what's new here other than the consumer branding

Pixel density

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Any idea on the estimated price per panel?

<comment><USER42> On SHI, it's listed at $16,779.00 (per unit?) [https://www.shi.com/products/productdetail.aspx?SHISystemID=...](https://www.shi.com/products/productdetail.aspx?SHISystemID=SHICommodity&ProductIdentity=35923808&EventID=d89f144e-56a0-42d5-9781-8bb9c9faed13)

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> A power draw of 130w per module(incl. cabinet) will give you a nice usage of 2kW in the standard configuration.

</comment><comment><USER44> With pixels sized at about a millimeter, maybe it should be called a "milliLED" display.

<comment><USER40> The catch is that the pixel is mostly black and the LEDs take up a small fraction of it. One might say a microscopic fraction.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> I think the comparison screenshots are hilariously dumb given that most people are going to be viewing them on a normal lcd screen. How did they magically make my screen display previously impossible colors!

<comment><USER46> It's explained right there: "The Wall's microLED technology possesses _inherent color qualities_ with _two times superior color purity_ ".

2x superior color purity is no mean feat. Such advanced technology can transcend beyond the boundaries set by your paltry screen.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> How much power does this consume? Can it be battery powered? I wish there was a requirement for ads to list all the bill of materials they used and links to specifications.

<comment><USER48> 190W/module max. 130W/module typical.

Full specs are there. Click on "See all specifications" near the bottom just above the form.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> Parlor walls.

</comment><comment><USER50> Any guesses as to consumer pricing on this?

</comment><comment><USER51> I guess the Fahrenheit 451 references are inevitable, so why not embrace the naming? :b

<comment><USER52> Samsung doesn't need any more references to fire in the public consciousness right now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> We don't need no illumination.

<comment><USER54> We don't need no remote control

<comment><USER55> No dark LED in the clean room

<comment><USER56> Samsung leave TVs alone

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> A marketing page at the number one spot on Hacker News, and only 35 minutes old. Hmm.

<comment><USER58> How is this any different than what happens after every Apple product launch?

<comment><USER59> Well for starters a lot of HN users actually use the products Apple launches.

<comment><USER60> Every television in my house is a Samsung and all of my Android phones are too.

<comment><USER59> I have no hesitation in saying that you will _never_ own, nor be in the market for this product.

<comment><USER60> Even in cases where that might be true - would you still allow me the enjoyment of reading about it?

Gee golly, I mean I don't live anywhere near The Boring Company tunnel projects but I still like reading about those...

What's your problem?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> I can't wait for micro LED displays to become mainstream.

IMHO OLED displays are analogous to Plasma displays back in the day: A new tech that enabled many new form factors (Thinner TVs) but had many key drawbacks like power consumption and burn-in. The same is the case with OLED, which enables new form factors like foldable displays, but brings its own issues.

I've been actively avoiding OLED displays for all my purchases due to its major current drawback: Burn-in. As beautiful as OLED displays may be with color and contrast, I have seen plenty of TV displays and phones with a permanently burned-in image of something that remained static for too long such as network logos, and status bars. My previous employer used beautiful 80" Samsung displays for their conference rooms, all of which were ruined in little over a year.

This matters a lot to me because I use my TV for gaming, which involves static menus that will burn OLED displays if you're not careful.

This is not something current LED displays are prone to, and I'm hoping micro LED displays work the same way.

<comment><USER25> > This is not something current LED displays are prone to,

I will disappoint you. LED displays have burn ins too! And with pixel sizes approaching that of OLED, burn ins will start sooner, and be more visible.

Samsung will not go for microled for consumer market until it gets "led on the backplane" going. That eliminates the transfer process, and most of cost associated with it.

The unsolved issue is current transfer. If you grow LED in-situ, you have to somehow put power supply there too, and preferably do it in the same manufacturing process.

If you have to transfer LEDs mechanically, it makes little cost difference to put LED driver ICs there mechanically too.

<comment><USER61> You're right that LED isn't immune from burn-in, however, it is _much_ more resistant to it, and isn't necessarily permanent either. Leaving an LED display off for a few days, often less, can be enough to bring it back to normal.

Another artifact OLED displays have is their PenTile subpixel arrangement to compensate for the red, blue, and green organic compounds degrading at different rates. Hopefully micro LED brings us OLED quality with LCD reliability.

<comment><USER25> The smaller is the junction area, the more current goes through it. If you want to produce more photons with smaller area, you will inevitably run into that.

Those LED displays you can get in retail are nowhere close in die size to what microled is. Those conventional 1080P led displays with <1mm pitch already demonstrate very visible burnins. There is one in a hotel nearby that is only 4 moths old, and I can already distinguish an imprint from the brand logo, they seem to have unknowingly ran it on maximum brightness though.

<comment><USER62> > Those LED displays you can get in retail

Do you mean the LCD displays with LED backlights; that's what I've seen in retail, marketed as "LED TV"? Are you seeing burnin of the LEDs, or image retention on the LCD? LED burn in might look more like noticeably different white levels across the different local dimming areas, especially if it gets worse over time related to static brightness differences in the displayed image.

<comment><USER25> I mean commercial small pitch LED panels made of modules, like ones used for outdoor advertising, but much smaller.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The $20,000 gold Apple Watch Edition sold out in China in less than an hour - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-watch-edition-sold-out-in-china-2015-4

<comment><USER2> After losing a couple of house offers to overseas buyers with cash, I'm beginning to question my parents' decision to move to America for a better life.

I kid! ;)

</comment><comment><USER3> This news is worthless without knowing how many stores actually had them and how many. Artificial scarcity is part of the marketing here, of course they'd sell out.

<comment><USER4> You're right but I would not be surprised if they sold even if there were plenty. I don't understand the luxury market but it is fascinating that things like this do sell.</comment></comment>


Apen A2 Digital Pen - <AUTHOR> http://www.apenusa.com/productdetail.asp?product_id=2

<comment><AUTHOR> Video since it seems down now: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYqE-ZbEPj8>

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Has anyone tried this? I'm very curious since I'm thinking about trying it out.</comment>


What does it cost to run a startup in Chicago? - <AUTHOR> http://www.builtinchicago.org/profiles/blogs/what-chicago-companies-should-a-digital-startup-use

<comment><USER2> Interesting but consider ...

$6,000 for an intense 11 week Ruby on Rails class at Code Academy \- You can learn for free with online tutorials $99 annually for Wordpress account to announce ourselves to the world \- use tumblr, blogger, or anything else that is free $10 per month to Surepayroll after you have hired your first employee \- use wave accounting, it's free $99 per month for Basecamp from 37 Signals to manage projects \- use asana, its free

<comment><AUTHOR> There are some really cool resources to learn on the web, but nothing beats hands-on, especially for beginner coders like myself. From personal experience, Code Academy excels at being the place you go to learn, to bounce ideas/questions, and a place where the progress you make dictates the flow of class. Online resources are static, they can't flex to your needs, and really when there's no community right there on tap, it's too easy to fall off.</comment></comment>


The Fallout (2017) - <AUTHOR> https://www.guernicamag.com/the-fallout/ <comment><USER2> There is a recent HBO Documentary about this landfill called Atomic Homefront [https://www.atomichomefront.film/about/](https://www.atomichomefront.film/about/)

The government also sprayed (possibly radioactive) chemicals on low income areas of St Louis during Cold War [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/secret-cold- war-tests-in-st-lou...](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/secret-cold-war-tests-in- st-louis-cause-worry/)

[https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/suit- fi...](https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/suit-filed-over- government-test-spraying-in-st-louis- during/article_9bc1fc7d-7093-58a3-b557-0cbac5dc38ab.html)

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

Lookup Operation LAC (this is one reason we have chem-trail conspiracies)

On the other end of St Louis they had to remove an entire city in one of the worst ecological disasters in the USA Dioxin Times Beach, MO [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Times_Beach,_Missouri](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Times_Beach,_Missouri)

[https://www.stlmag.com/Remember-Times-Beach-The-Dioxin- Disas...](https://www.stlmag.com/Remember-Times-Beach-The-Dioxin- Disaster-30-Years-Later/)

One of my teachers from St Louis worked for a major chemical company there that made some really dangerous products. He claimed for extra money they paid employees $20 a barrel to put barrels in their cars & dump them in the river or elsewhere, during your commute back home. He died rather young of cancer.

While governments & the war machine played a major role in many ecological disasters & toxic & radioactive disasters, perhaps as the reason for the initial production, for-profit companies have their hands in the R&D, the production, the distribution & allegedly safe removal & storage. After these companies split up the profits between executives & investors, they usually go through a series of paper sales or just shut down to protect the beneficiaries from legal liability. The problems are then outsourced to the government and the taxpayers pay millions or billions for the cleanup and litigation. Sometimes the "efficiencies of the free market" have an enormous hidden price tag.

</comment><comment><USER3> I find it interesting that the people in the story seem amazed that the government would actually do something that was dangerous to the general population.

I'm not suggesting tin foil hats, but it seems that experience shows that governments regularly do things that end up harming others either through ignorance or incompetence.

<comment><USER4> Why limit it to governments. Always when certain people have power over other people, they value a small advantage to themselves higher than a big disadvantage to the others or the general well being. It's not that all people are acting like this, but such people tend to compete hardest for positions of power which often leads to one such person gaining that position at some point.

Doesn't matter if government, company, NGO, newspaper, soccer club, church. Whatever offers power over other people has this disadvantage.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Wait till all the chemicals used for fracking finally make the drinking water of big cities unusable.

And no, Europe won't take refugees from the US.

</comment><comment><USER6> If it is so bad, why isn't anybody making a short, accessible story out of it?

I read as far as the cancer map. I wonder if the population density is perhaps simply higher around the creek. I can't tell from the map.

</comment><comment><USER7> > Even if every gram of radioactive waste were removed from the landfill, > where would it go? There are facilities in Idaho and Utah willing to accept > it. But those facilities are located in communities, or near them, and those > people don't want this waste in their backyards or their gardens or their > rivers or their drinking water either. Even if we box it up and send it in > train cars to remote places, it will be there, ready and waiting to kill any > of us long after we've forgotten where we put it, or what "it" even is.

I know there are a lot of HN readers that keep pushing for nuclear power. This article seems to suggest we're not ready for it. It's as simple as asking for one more failure, which can, apparently permanently destroy large areas of land.

The US government should buy every property and relocate all of those people and give them all 2 acres of land.

<comment><USER8> This waste wasn't created from power generation and bringing up power generation is misleading.</comment></comment>


People Like Netflix's Original Content More Than Its Other Content - <AUTHOR> https://www.allflicks.net/people-like-netflixs-original-content-more-than-its-other-content/ <comment><USER2> I really like Netflix originals (the ones I've watched), but it also makes me fear for the future of consolidated streaming. I want to be able to keep up with, and watch good recommended shows.

If I want to watch shows like The Man in the High Castle (Amazon), Game of Thrones (HBO, duh), Difficult People (Hulu), HarmonQuest (Seeso), etc. Is it reasonable to have to subscribe to 5 different streaming services?

Don't get me wrong, $9,99 is likely too cheap to get _mostly_ everything like you do with Spotify, but I'm willing to pay double or triple that, as long as I can keep it in one service, and that it's not _five_ or _six_ times as much, which is a bit steep.

Can we expect anything other than a fractured market, where each service has a lot of content, but not even half of what we want to see?

<comment><USER3> if only there was a service that "bundled" all the "channels" you like into some sort of "package" and provided a unified interface to stream them all into your TV through a "cable" like device

<comment><USER4> It is amusing that people have been complaining about not having a la carte cable for years, and suddenly the opposite complaint is surfacing about these streaming services.

<comment><USER5> I wouldn't mind having a cable package again if it weren't for all the ads. I'm simply not going to pay for a service for it to inject ads into my experience, and that includes cable television.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Awhile ago Netflix decided to become HBO before HBO could become Netflix. This shows in two ways. One is that they have been investing a bunch in original content and striving for high quality original content for streaming. It also shows that content that isn't owned by them seems to be declining in quality or there is less emphasis or even ability to get non original content on Netflix and the quality appears to be declining IMHO.

<comment><USER7> That's pretty much what I came here to say. I do like their original content, BUT...

I want that "last year's movies" that I used to be able to get from them, and now seems to be going to crap.

The quality of their original stuff is very good. And they've got good coverage of non-original TV, too (e.g., reruns of "Friends"). But when you get to movies-from-theatres, they're just not there at all anymore.

I think this is intentional on their part, but they need to be careful, because Amazon also seems to be doing well with a similar strategy (e.g., "Man in the High Castle"). Netflix's original mission of movies could be what sets them apart but it seems to be all but abandoned.

<comment><USER8> yea, and actually, the movies i get through the hbo go app are often far superior to netflix's offerings. they rotate, but they often include major releases. i have been thinking about canceling netflix's streaming and returning to the dvd option to get more access.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > That means that user ratings for Netflix originals are 11% higher, on > average, than user ratings for syndicated content.

You can't really draw any conclusions from that stat though since part of the issue is some of the non-original content they add is so bad. I looked up some of the ratings for their recently added movies and some had basically 1 star (on imdb, etc). Why even add it in that case? I think concentrating on original content is great, but I think they should be the go-to place for something else as well...I remember years ago people were amazed at how many quality, little-known, niche independent films they had. Why not get back to that in addition to original content?

<comment><USER10> Agree...of course the user ratings are lower for the non-original content.

The Netflix catalog of non-original content does have some bright spots. But there's also a ton of really obscure documentaries, miniscule budget action movies, crappy Adam Sandler movies, reality TV garbage, etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I think a lot of this is due to the fact that Netflix's other content is pretty terrible. I _really_ miss the old Netflix DVD library: that had every movie or TV show I could ever hope to watch. Now I have a few popular movies from the last year, a few popular movies from a few years ago, a smattering of TV shows, and some (admittedly pretty good) original content.

I just want to pay a cheque and get access to every film & TV show from across the world.

</comment><comment><USER12> This should be retitled, "People Like Netflix's Original Content More Than Its Other Sparse and Geographically Restricted Content"

<comment><USER13> Or "besides Netflix's own shows, there's nothing worth watching on Netflix any more". Except in some places where Netflix doesn't even have all their original content lol.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I don't see the value in comparing Netflix's original content against the exceptionally larger collection of syndicated content which mostly consists of whatever they can get their hands on regardless of quality. It only makes sense that in averaging those two groups the OC one would rate higher.

<comment><USER15> Came here to say the same and as the back catalog slips further and further into the syndicated Sunday movie category the OC looks better and better because you haven't already seen it. When I first subscribed to Netflix it was a library of DVDs (literally), now its a slightly better TBS. (Hey Lethal Weapon's on... again)

One thing to note about the cost. There's one rather large difference between cable and multiple streaming services (at least where Netflix is concerned) and that is advertising. We may be paying more for this content, but at least we're only getting content and not having to wait through mis-targeted advertising... At least for now.

<comment><USER16> Agreed completely. Back in October someone blogged that only 31 of the IMDB top 250 movies are on Netflix.

[https://www.streamingobserver.com/netflix-now-31-movies- imdb...](https://www.streamingobserver.com/netflix-now-31-movies-imdbs- top-250-list/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Netflix's original content has been extremely high-quality, on average. That said, the quality of the other content has also seemed to steadily decline, so this might be a skewed metric.

</comment><comment><USER18> I find watching the Netflix back-library to be slightly depressing. Generally watching older movies is great but when nearly every 'you might be interested in' has a cast that's 50% deceased it gets depressing

<comment><USER19> I personally don't find Back to the Future less entertaining now that I know that Michael J Fox has Parkinsons disorder.

Life happens, and people get old and die. I appreciate their older works for what they are.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Of course they do. Netflix original content is specifically targeted towards its users.

[https://blog.kissmetrics.com/how-netflix-uses- analytics/](https://blog.kissmetrics.com/how-netflix-uses-analytics/)

</comment><comment><USER21> Netflix is sort of the new 2.0 cable company, at the begging it was great in term of global catalogue, ten years from now if will be Netflix shows only, back to square one.

</comment><comment><USER22> As a marketing guy, I see these trends of unique content focused websites beginning to win over the YouTube/Social Sharing model in many parts of the world. In China, made for internet shows and Korean/Japanese shows dubbed into Chinese are all the rage. In India, locally led content focused video companies have begun rapidly grabbing ad budget dollars from what was previously a YouTube/FB market primarily - especially given FBs issues with video viewability. In the US, there's Netflix and Amazon Prime.

The only difference is in the monetization model - primarily subscription in the US and Ads in China/India - though we're seeing some models of Subscription to do away with ads in China.

</comment><comment><USER23> That's not saying much when there's very little good third-party content. Except for House of Cards S1, Netflix original content is B-grade at best.

When Netflix started instant streaming, they had a solid content repertoire from various places. Today, they have very few good third-party movies, and they try to fill the empty space with lousy Original Content.

Of course people will prefer Originals compared to very few crappy alternatives. I would rather see Netflix spend money on getting programming from other companies instead of throwing money at Adam Sandler.

</comment><comment><USER24> There has got to be a bias here. Of course people who've subscribed to netflix like their original content.

<comment><USER25> This. I'll totally confess that I'm very indulgent towards original Netflix programs. I'm paying for it so I want to believe I've made the right choice.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> this is a bit misleading, netflix has continued to lose most of its good licensed content and what is left is mostly garbage compared to what used to be there.

</comment><comment><USER26> What other content?

</comment><comment><USER27> Which shows do you guys like?

<comment><USER28> Stranger Things and the Marvel Hell's Kitchen series (Daredevil, Jessica Jones, and Luke Cage so far) should appeal to most of the nerd crowd and have a lot of mainstream popularity too. I also enjoyed Marco Polo, Sense 8, and The Get Down personally.

<comment><USER29> It's sad they couldn't license any real super heroes. Those guys are lame.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I don't like any of Netflix's original content and Netflix(US) is pretty annoying with not offering content (such as Tokyo ghoul and better call Saul) I wish they made another Dexter as original content but oh well. About to only use Kodi.</comment>


If the TSA Were Running New York - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/05/if-the-tsa-were-running-new-york/39839/ <comment><USER2> I have to agree, the TSA has become nothing more than a political tool that does little to prevent future terrorist attacks. I believe they serve a purpose, but that purpose is not to prevent organized terrorist attacks, it is to keep a single crazy guy from bringing a gun or knife on board and attacking people, or hijacking the plane and holding the passengers for ransom. (Keep in mind that this is what hijackings were before 9-11, which is why they were able to crash three planes)

Nowadays they have become more of a "feel-good" terrorist defense. Passengers and pilots are screened for everything and have their bottles of water and toenail clippers taken in the "search for bombs" while cleaning crew and other employees are not screened at all. The TSA does not, and cannot effectively, defend against terrorist attacks. That falls to the FBI and CIA, if an individual intending to attack America makes it to the airport than we have already failed and if the TSA stops them it is nothing but dumb luck. Yet Americans accept all of these intrusions and expenses for a false sense of safety. The T-Shirt vendor had it right "See Something, Say Something" is the single most effective last line of defense.

<comment><USER3> Solutions perpetuate the problems they are set up to solve.

<comment><USER4> What does that say about programming languages?

<comment><USER3> Ah, I think the pithy one liner perhaps applies more to institutions.

<comment><USER4> Programming languages _are_ institutions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It is sad that this article is so true.

For me, the terrorists have now won: I won't fly to most places any more.

I won't fly because the security theatre now makes it so unpleasant, time- consuming and indirectly expensive that I would rather forego my holiday to those destinations I can't reach by other modes of transport that actually make me feel comfortable on the journey and welcome when I arrive.

That's a shame, because I would have really liked to visit places like the US and Japan some time in my life (I live in the UK). But how am I supposed to enjoy a holiday when my journey starts with my other half and me being virtual-strip-searched by sometimes dubious characters we can't even see and ends with having biometric scans taken to go into a database as if I were a criminal?

<comment><USER6> >But how am I supposed to enjoy a holiday when my journey starts with my other half and me being virtual-strip-searched by sometimes dubious characters we can't even see and ends with having biometric scans taken to go into a database as if I were a criminal?

Just enjoy the bit in the middle.

<comment><USER5> Is that the part where I have to take off half my clothes for real so they can put the belt and jacket outside the metal detector and the shoes through whatever that other machines does, the bit where they throw away the bottle of soda I was enjoying and make me buy a new one, the bit where someone glares at me over the top of my passport while heavily armed guards look on, the bit where the staff on the way onto the plane mess several passengers around because they don't like their tone and have a "zero tolerance" policy, the bit at the other end where I queue up for ages only to again have someone glare at me over the top of my passport in the presence of armed guards, or something else?

<comment><USER6> Really, don't be such a drama queen. Airport security isn't fun, but you're being silly about it.

(And no, by "the bit in the middle", I meant the holiday.)

<comment><USER7> This is the conversational equivalent of "your feelings on the matter are irrelevant; suck it up, because I don't think it's so bad". Your opinion is duly noted.

For what it's worth, I haven't flown in over a year and a half, and have no intention of doing so until airport security returns to some semblance of sanity. I'm not being a "drama queen" about it; I simply won't pay an exorbitant rate for the privilege of being treated as a criminal because I'd like to board an airplane.

<comment><USER8> You can call air travel lots of things, but it's not exorbitantly expensive.

NY to LA is $325 by train. It's 175 to 350 flying on Virgin America.

<comment><USER9> Yea, last time I flew to Glasgow I literally paid more for the taxi to and from the airport than I did for my flight to and from Scotland.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is a great article. In my personal opinion they should decrease security/airplane safety inspections until flying becomes as dangerous as driving in a bus.

I really don't see any mathematical or logical reason why flying in a plane should be safer than driving in a car (but if you do I am interested in what they are). The benefit of doing this would be huge savings in the cost of flying and the cost of the TSA. Additionally there would be a huge increase in the connivence of flying.

</comment><comment><USER11> Presumably they will ban bicycles

[http://www.thisisfyf.com/2010/04/happy-fucking-earth-day- hun...](http://www.thisisfyf.com/2010/04/happy-fucking-earth-day-hundreds-of- bikes-trashed-for-obama-visit-.html)

<comment><USER12> No. They'll just search every one they see by cutting it in half, and finding nothing, returning it to you so you can continue on your way.

<comment><USER7> So you've traveled across the border by car then, I take it? :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Love the last line: "Next step in the thought experiment: after wondering what NY would look like this weekend if run by the TSA, imagining what the TSA might be like if run in the spirit of this weekend's NY."

</comment><comment><USER14> Best. Article. Ever... amen.</comment>


Making money on domain names: dirty business or brilliant strategy? | Venture Itch - <AUTHOR> http://www.ventureitch.com/?p=161 <comment><USER2> Interesting article. The business definitely seems a bit dirty, and now that registrars themselves are getting into it, I imagine it will get out of hand. They really need to repeal the 2 or 3 day trial period; I think that would take care of a lot of the speculative purchasing going on.</comment>