Stock buybacks are dangerous for the economy - <AUTHOR> http://feeds.hbr.org/~r/harvardbusiness/~3/6jA8uy6spIQ/why-stock-buybacks-are-dangerous-for-the-economy <comment><USER2> > _Taking on debt to finance buybacks, however, is bad management, given that > no revenue-generating investments are made that can allow the company to pay > off the debt._

This seems to be the crux of the article, and it appears to be completely unsubstantiated.

First of all, this article isn't about just stock buybacks -- the argument of the article applies broadly to dividends just as much, save for minor details.

The point the article is making is that profits ought to be reinvested rather than paid out. But _obviously_ mature firms often can't find ways to reliably re-invest. They don't _need_ to grow any further, nor should they. So investors _want_ them not to re-invest, and throw off dividends or buybacks instead. This way _investors_ can fund the next generation of companies.

And taking on debt to do it isn't inherently irresponsible. In fact, it's just a wise financial decision when interest rates are low. New revenue streams aren't required to be generated -- it's just shifting a subset of future revenue to the present.

So I really don't get this article at all.

<comment><USER3> I used to also agree that all the arguments against buybacks apply to dividends, but I've since changed my mind. On the surface level, they are identical → cash is transferred from company to shareholders.

But the way the cash is transferred matters, and it has second order effects. Specifically, as it impacts stock options.

Executives tend to be compensated with options. The more the stock goes up, the richer they get. Distributing $X in dividends should provide an equal total return to the average shareholder as spending $X on a buyback, but that buyback will do it by pushing up the share price.

As the share price goes up more and more, execs with options have disproportionately more to gain than the average shareholder. They have a leveraged exposure to the price!

<comment><USER4> Could you help me in understanding this? In my head if dividends are paid out, wouldn't this drive the stock price up the same as if a buyback happened? Or is this some sort of market inefficiency / irrationality where the market is rewarding stock purchase volume rather than just looking at the total expected value of the company?

Edit: sorry about that, I get it now after thinking through it more.

Let's say the stock is truly worth $100 (assuming we could figure that out). Then if the company does buybacks, the stock trades at $100 - great for the executive with stock options. However, if the company pays dividends, then the stock price is reduced by the expected value of those dividends. So total expected value is the same, and long term executive comp is the same because they get the dividends as well, but short term they would prefer the buyback because of the higher stock price. They only benefit the same from dividends if they have a long term view.

<comment><USER5> There are 100 shares in the market I have $100 in cash, and $100 of Assets. My Company is worth $200

If I pay a $1 ps dividend, then the share price should halve, and the share owners get $1 each.

If I buy back 50 shares, at $2 each, there will be 50 shares left at a value of $2 each. But now my earnings/share goes up as if by magic, and my options are worth more than in the dividend case.

Also capgains vs income tax yada yada

<comment><USER6> > But now my earnings/share goes up as if by magic, and my options are worth > more than in the dividend case.

That's not correct. The EPS increase is offset by reduction in company value due to less cash. [https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/stock-buybacks- ar...](https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/stock-buybacks-are-no- disease-heres-how-they-really-work)

<comment><USER5> EPS does go up by magic, since it is earnings (not value) divided by shares (which have halved in number).

The options bit is a slight fiddle, although empirical evidence supports it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> High corporate debt isn't caused by buybacks, it's caused by low interest rates. Low interest rates _cause_ buybacks because it becomes more attractive to raise capital through borrowing than selling shares.

It's the same reason both consumer and government debt are also high. But anybody who thinks now is the time for higher interest rates is a bit confused.

If anything now is the time to print a bunch of new money to counteract the existing deflationary forces caused by the coronavirus, which in the long term is what allows interest rates to rise, since once the deflationary forces wane the printed money would start to cause inflation which could be counteracted by at that point raising interest rates.

<comment><USER8> > now is the time to print a bunch of new money

I'm curious as to whether the money would ever make it into the hands of the average consumer (which is where I'm assuming it needs to go to actually cause an increase in inflation, considering how consumption-heavy our GDP is, but correct me if I'm wrong!) There have been recent calls for the government to distribute money to prop up demand, but won't banks lobby politically against this sort of activity? Seems like a lender wouldn't want inflation to actually increase because that would cause their current lower-interest loans to be less valuable? One of the oft-cited concerns for continually missing our 2% symmetric inflation target is that market participants will begin to expect and plan for low inflation, which has a negative feedback effect on future inflation. Seems to me like financial institutions are already expecting low inflation and aren't all that interested in seeing it rise.

<comment><USER7> It isn't really mortgage banks that lose out from inflation. The money banks loan you is created from nothing as a fiction inside their computers and destroyed again when you pay it back. The only money that continues to exist is the interest you paid them, which they get to keep.

Low inflation kind of sucks for banks (and investors in general) because it tends to coincide with low interest rates. When interest rates are low, people borrow money and invest it, which reduces _real_ returns by increasing competition to buy securities.

The people who dislike inflation (really, higher interest rates) are the people doing all the borrowing.

<comment><USER9> > The money banks loan you is created from nothing as a fiction inside their > computers and destroyed again when you pay it back. The only money that > continues to exist is the interest you paid them, which they get to keep.

Care to cite a link for this? My understanding is that the money they loan you is physical and real, but the money "held" for savers is a fiction that could be lost if the bank went under, thus the reason that the federal government offers FDIC insurance for money deposited in banks, and why the feds are allowed to dictate interest rates and tell banks what overall percentage of their holdings they are allowed to loan out.

<comment><USER7> [https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/022416/why-b...](https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/022416/why- banks-dont-need-your-money-make-loans.asp)

Banks (like everybody) use double entry accounting. When they make a loan, there are two entries. One is a credit to your account for the amount of the loan, the other is a debit representing the debt you now owe to the bank. You borrowed $5000, so you owe the bank $5000 (the loan) and they owe you $5000 (it's in your checking account), which cancel out. Notice that the amount of cash in their vault hasn't changed at all.

Banks have reserve ratios. They're required to keep a certain amount of their deposits on hand in case somebody actually wants to withdraw them. (Those just got set to zero, but they're normally something like 10%.) But as long as they've satisfied their reserve requirements, they create money from nothing when they make a loan.

When you pay back the loan, the debt of the loan and the credit in your deposit account cancel each other out again, they both disappear and the money that was created is destroyed along with your debt.

<comment><USER9> So I think your description is in agreement with mine, but I consider the first action of the borrower to be withdrawing the money and giving it to e.g. someone selling a house. If the person selling the house uses the same bank, then yes the bank really did just create the money for the loan, but if it wasn't the same bank then I consider them to have created money for the previous investors while handing out the real money to a borrower. Mostly a matter of perception I guess.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm surprised this came from the HBR. They said only 43% of companies record R&D expense but almost all buy back stock.

But that's not true. The 43% number is just companies that capitalize R&D on the balance sheet. All companies must disclose buybacks, but only some capitalize R&D, (even though they all spend on R&D), so of course it skews the data.

That's just a poor comparison on HBRs part.

<comment><USER11> I'm not surprised. I've never thought HBR had high quality stuff. This sentence alone is ridiculous:

> Taking on debt to finance buybacks, however, is bad management, given that > no revenue-generating investments are made that can allow the company to pay > off the debt.

Not necessarily. Just as debt can be paid back by issuing more shares to raise capital, debt can be issued to raise money to buy back shares. It depends on whether management thinks the current valuation is too hot or too cold.

<comment><USER12> I agree, and I think Apple is an example of a company that uses debt in a perfectly sensible way.

My fear is that these debt fueled buybacks actually create perverse incentives among options holders who have a lot to gain from short term gains in share prices.

<comment><USER13> > My fear is that these debt fueled buybacks actually create perverse > incentives among options holders who have a lot to gain from short term > gains in share prices.

Reckless increasing your leverage is a great way to destroy equity value due not only to increased interest expense but also from the cost of financial distress which investors price into their models.

Which is not to say companies don't do that – there's definitely a wedge between what's best for shareholders and what's best for _management_ ¹, but there's no way around it other than having shareholders run the company themselves (which comes with its own set of issues)

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The point about executive compensation is probably the most poignant.

If you pay an exec team with fixed price stock options, they can run the company into the ground with debt to issue stock buybacks and do absolutely nothing to improve the business and increase the value of their stock.

Stock buybacks do have a place though. When you issue stocks, you're doing so to raise money for the company. You can think of issued stocks as a kind of debt you've issued that continuously pay interest over time, except the interest isn't cash or dividends, it's equity in your company as it grows.

If you know your company is in a good place and the stock is undervalued, you could convert that debt so instead of having to pay equity as interest, you pay a dollar amount to a bank. But that tool could also be used to artificially inflate the value of fixed price stock options that may be issued to execs.

</comment><comment><USER15> Anytime a company overextends itself financially, it's dangerous for the company and if lots of companies do it, the economy as a whole. Look at PG&E underinvesting in infrastructure while paying large dividends, it's the exact same problem. Companies have become micro-focused on short term returns for shareholders and lost track of longer term planning and building anti- fragilility into the company infrastructure.

Buybacks are one of the bigger ways businesses are doing this because buybacks have significant tax advantages versus dividends. (

So long as management can rely on low interest rates and government bailouts for big businesses, it's hard to argue it's even a management failure. It's a failure of our government to set the correct expectations and fiscal policy.

</comment><comment><USER16> Matt Levine has a rebuttal to this argument today.

Also, buybacks absolutely benefit shareholders that continue to hold. The supply of shares decreases, often increasing the value of the held shares.

Levine's argument did implicitly point out to me that there are times when those who don't sell back some of their shares during buybacks are inherently taking on more forward risk than with dividend stocks; a lesson I'm learning now the hard way. One lives and learns.

<comment><USER17> The value increase caused by the buyback tends to disappear in a year or so. There was a study which found this, but I don't have a reference on hand.

<comment><USER12> I do not understand why that would happen. Wouldn't they inflate the earnings per share, resulting in a permanently higher share price (all else being equal)?

<comment><USER18> If stock price was actually based on pure fundamental analysis, sure. That is not at all reality though.

<comment><USER12> After I wrote that, it occurred to me that there is another counterargument. If cash-on-hand decreases along with the inflation of earnings-per-share, the business value doesn't really increase.

I have always assumed that shareholders wouldn't take this into account, but maybe they deserve more credit than I've been giving them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> HBR also has published a few rebuttals of this same argument: [https://hbr.org/2018/03/are-buybacks-really-shortchanging- in...](https://hbr.org/2018/03/are-buybacks-really-shortchanging-investment)

I am of the opinion that they are probably pretty neutral overall to the economy. Their contribution to inequality is more damning of how capital gains are taxed.

</comment><comment><USER20> Stock buybacks are no different than dividends†: a form of returning capital to the owners / investors of a company.

The problem is when boards / executives game the system to front-load options to themselves and other trickery and then cash them out.

†And dividends themselves in turn should be irrelevant to your investing decisions:

* [https://www.pwlcapital.com/the-irrelevance-of-dividends-stil...](https://www.pwlcapital.com/the-irrelevance-of-dividends-still-a-non-starter/)

<comment><USER21> So why not just issue dividends and avoid the downsides?

<comment><USER20> > So why not just issue dividends and avoid the downsides?

As another replier pointed out: dividends create a tax event if the shares are held in a taxable account (in US: not IRA, not 401(k)).

Sometimes people (pensions, trusts) don't want those types of events and would rather choose when to invoke tax events by selling only when they need to for income purposes.

<comment><USER22> But so what if it creates a taxable event? Let's put aside what is good for you in the short-term, for a second.

If a company does buybacks, and even borrows money for them, it might boost their stock in the short term, but it doesn't make their company better long- term, because they aren't investing that money into R&D, and it puts them in a possible cash crunch in the future (ie airlines today).

As a thought experiment, what if instead of the company buying back stock, it's the US government. What if they decide to spent $500 billion buying 10% of every stock out there, instead of giving $1000 to every American citizen b/c of the virus. The first benefits people in the short-term, and doesn't create a taxable event. The second benefits people in the long-term, but might be a taxable event.

<comment><USER23> You're comparing buybacks to everything else. The person you were replying to was just answering why buybacks are now more popular than issuing dividends. The overwhelming reason is taxes.

<comment><USER12> I think his point is that buybacks should be no more relevant than dividends. This pop-culture meme that "dividends are irrelevant" is not unique to dividends at all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> "Boeing, Which Repurchased over $100B in Stock, Downgraded to BBB, Seeks Bailout"

[https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/boeing-which- repurchased-o...](https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/boeing-which-repurchased- over-100bn-stock-downgraded-bbb-seeks-short-term-bailout)

</comment><comment><USER25> Here's the thing: if a company has 1 million dollars in cash, and a 2 million dollar market cap, and they spend the cash buying back 1 million worth of stock, the total value of the company, including the cash they spent, has decreased by 1 million dollars and the stock price should therefore not change at all.

So why should these stock buybacks consistently be boosting the share price? Either investors are stupid, or the company is _intentionally paying too much for its own stock_ so that the CEO can get a big bonus.

I know which one sounds more likely to me.

Edit: I suppose there is a third option: maybe the CEOs were assuming the stock price would rise forever, and were hoping to cash in on the speculative bubble, which is less fraudulent but more reckless. I don't know which one is worse.

<comment><USER26> The stock price should change because the earnings per share will be higher in the future.

<comment><USER25> But the company is poorer by the same amount as they spent on stocks, which if the stock price is correct should reduce earnings by the same amount, canceling out to no change in the stock price.

<comment><USER26> Yes, the market cap of the company is lowered by the amount it spends on the buy back, however the value per share stays the same. A year later the profit from the new year is included in the market cap which is divided by a lowet number of shares. This means the value of a single share is now higher while the market cap is the same as in the beginning. Or am i missing something?

<comment><USER25> Yes you are, the company has given up a bunch of cash which could have been used to hire staff, buy capital and so on, so again _if_ the stock price is correct they have decided to forego some profits due to the buyback, and it should cancel out.

<comment><USER26> Fair point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Is this part of why stocks have slipped so much? Based on what I know of the market (what relatively little I know, I keep up with it, but it's not my day job), I'd have expected most of the volatility from coronavirus to be in the sectors most heavily affected by low foot-traffic. Instead companies like Google and Apple are down 30%. I doubt the anyone is seriously expecting COVID-19 to cause the average of Google's or Apple's profits over the next 20 years to fall by 30%, so it seems the market must have been oversubscribed? Maybe it still is. The S&P500 is still at a historically relatively high PE of 18.5 and a Schiller CAPE of 23.2, both of which will probably be even higher after earnings are announced next month.

<comment><USER22> A lot of trading is done via indexes. So if people are bearish, the whole market ends up tanking. Stocks like Roku and Netflix should actually benefit from people staying home, but their stock is still going down, because people are just selling the entire index.

<comment><USER27> You are correct and this effect is increasing over time. More and more investment is being done on baskets of stocks as these investments became accessible through ETFs and traditional managers were not able to beat the "dumb" indices (there's nothing really dumb about them).

Sure, there are funds like the Vision Fund or boutique stat arb funds who still trade individual names, but these are absolutely dwarfed by the size of investments into entire baskets/etfs. The companies in S&P 500 see more liquidity that the entire rest of the US equities combined. And inside that 500, the top 50 again sees more trading than the entire 450 rest combined.

So what happens when the market sells off? Everything becomes correlated. All the idiosyncratic effects are overpowered by the overall selling pressure. There'll be companies hit more than others, but there'll be very few (basically none) big names that will weather the storm completely unscathed. This is the effect of being included in the top 1000-2000 companies in the US. The moment your company gets there, you have to accept that in a crash, your stock will do the same as everything else.

This behavior also ties back to a broader effect in financial markets, namely that in a market stress, correlations spike. All stocks fall, bonds tend to appreciate (hence stocks and bonds become negatively correlated), by definition, volatility goes up everywhere.

<comment><USER28> > the top 50 again sees more trading than the entire 450 rest combined.

I have no number to substantiate this hunch but I believe that that was one of the main reasons why Boeing's shares continued to still remain at a reasonable level even after the MAX debacle, even though under normal circumstances its shares should have seen at least a 50-60% nose-dive immediately after the first signs of corporate malfeasance.

But when almost every big pension fund on the planet has to purchase your shares because it's included in a big index that will never fail of course that the stock market won't "punish" despicable moves like the one committed by Boeing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Is a company with cash on hand and low debt at risk of a leveraged buyout, leading (if it happens) to high debt and a low reserve anyway?

</comment><comment><USER30> Would it be so that stock buy backs amplify the company stock value during good times? But is the reverse true when there is a down turn in the market? Ie when there is a market down turn if a company owns its own stock it amplifies the down movement?

Can someone who understands this better explain how it works?

</comment><comment><USER31> Fascinating. Correct me if I'm getting it wrong:

The Quantitative Easing brought rates down to almost zero for a decade. Abundant liquidity, low rate loans.

Corporate management use the chance to get cheap money to buy stocks back. Stock prices go up, the management gets huge payouts. Workers and shareholders get nothing. Inequality grows. R&D expenses decline.

As stock prices go up, stock indexes soar and we witness (kinda) amazing market growth (woo-hoo) which is actually pumped up artificially (who cares).

The virus hits the economy. The stock indexes deflate.

The Fed announces another huge round of QE to "inject liquidity", and we now all know where it will go.

I'm not sure if all this can be better described by "scam" or "corruption".

</comment><comment><USER32> To underline huge market distorting impact of stock buyback, read this quote from Goldman Sachs Top of Mind, Issue #77 ([https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/pages/top-of- mind/buyb...](https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/pages/top-of-mind/buyback- realities/report.pdf)):

"Buybacks have been the single largest source of US equity demand each year since 2010, averaging $421 billion annually. In comparison, during this period, average annual equity demand from households, mutual funds, pension funds, and foreign investors was less than $10 billion each."

</comment><comment><USER33> Can't companies just take on debt now, to avoid bankruptcy? Lenders should be eager to lend to them because they know that business will return to normal after the virus has passed.

</comment><comment><USER34> >When companies do these buybacks, they deprive themselves of the liquidity that might help them cope when sales and profits decline in an economic downturn.

No one is depriving themselves of needed liquidity. Liquidity-need is forecasted, as is the expected IRR for the cash on hand if it were re-invested into the company. Ultimately, companies decided share holders got the best return with buybacks.

<comment><USER32> Really? So why they are asking for a bailout now if they had not deprived themselves of needed liquidity? Have they not noticed the cyclical nature of economy?

What is happening is executive suite milks the cow to death as fast as possible, because there no adverse consequences for them. They think they will be safe in their bunkers in New Zealand when the shit hits the fan.

<comment><USER34> Who took on more debt just for stock buyback that is now asking for a bailout?

<comment><USER32> It's not necessarily about taking debt to buyback their stock. It is about free cash flow. Here are some facts:

"As a group, the six [major US] airlines spent 96% of their free cash flow on stock buybacks over the past 10 full years through 2019."

"Boeing's free cash flow for 10 years totaled $58.37 billion, while the company spent $43.44 billion, or 74% of free cash flow, on stock repurchases."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Maybe it's just profitability is dangerous for the economy.

[https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/category/profitabilit...](https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/category/profitability/)

</comment><comment><USER36> > In 2018 alone, even with after-tax profits at record levels because of the > Republican tax cuts, buybacks by S&P 500 companies reached an astounding 68% > of net income, with dividends absorbing another 41%.

Uhh... well, that math doesn't check out.

<comment><USER37> It's saying that the S&P 500 companies spent a total of 109% of their income on buybacks and dividends, intentionally and voluntarily running at a loss to increase stock prices (vs. running at a loss to grow revenues or something similar).

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> I would say that the airline industry regrets spending 96% of their free cash over the ~last decade buybacks, but it looks like they are probably going to get bailed out...

<comment><USER39> So they can issue back those shares on the market

<comment><USER22> But don't buybacks usually mean they bought back the shares and eliminated them? It no longer exists. It's not sitting in any account.

<comment><USER39> They can issue new shares if they want.

Also, how come they're in trouble if everybody paid for their tickets, and they're not flying?

<comment><USER40> Airlines have been issuing refunds. Also, new bookings have fallen off of a cliff.

<comment><USER39> Interesting

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> I would have liked to see the article address the potential advantages of stock buybacks.

Are companies with greater ownership more resilient to market turbulence? Are they better positioned to focus on long term growth over short term performance?

Additionally, it is unclear if these companies were neglecting R&D or had already exhausted their viable options. If the economy does turn for the worse, would additional high risk R&D investments still yield returns? Perhaps they were wise not to park capital in R&D

Last, buybacks allowed a large number of shareholders to cash out while the market was at an all time high.

<comment><USER42> It's literally impossible to exhaust R&D Opportunities. The hard part is going from research to commercialization but the is an almost unlimited amount of innovation still possible.

<comment><USER41> There may be near infinite opportunities to invest, but that does not mean they can be profitable.

Also, if something is a good investment, it doesn't mean it is a good investment for a given company.

<comment><USER42> That's true and a good general guide but the current incentives for the executive team to under invest in long term health of a business and boost short term profit are overwhelming this rational analysis.

<comment><USER41> The incentive for the executive team are set by the board and shareholders, who could easily restructure incentives to favor R&D investment. Whether is this is good for long term profit will be different from case to case.

I worked at a company where annual goals routinely included invest X billion on new technology acquisitions. Some of this money sticks and some doesn't.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> I am shocked how many companies were so thinly spread after '08 and the virus exposed them. We learned absolutely nothing from 2008 (probably because the govt bailed out everyone). Does capitalism really work when we can't even enforce true price discovery?

</comment><comment><USER44> They're means to transfer wealth to the executives and risk too everyone else. Simple as that.</comment>


U.S.: 'Extreme' Disappointment in Russia's Asylum for Snowden - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323681904578641610474568782.html?mod=WSJ_GoogleNews&mod=igoogle_wsj_gadgv1

<comment><USER2> I have a tough time taking moralizing about the rule of law from an administration (likely illegally) massively spying on their civilians while firing missiles at cafes from remotely operated vehicles, following an administration that did the same things, but also got caught kidnapping and torturing people.

Clean house, then whine about how dirty other people are.</comment>


Should you be a platform developer? - <AUTHOR> http://www.techhike.net/2011-10-04-should-you-be-a-platform-developer.html

<comment><USER2> Quote pulled from the article...

> Swallow your pride and start learning a platform. There are a ton of > opportunities right now for platform work, that work is not going to end any > time soon and you might as well take the plunge sooner than later. There > will be some limitations but in return you will get some opportunities that > were not possible before

This is a great point. A lot of people here ask how to get into freelancing doing Ruby or Python work, but there are a lot of opportunities for platform work. This is especially true in the PHP world with Wordpress, Magento, Drupal, etc. I believe these ecosystems are much easier to target than general application development because they attract paying clients who can better grasp what a platform will do for them as opposed to a programming language or framework.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. I don't have much experience on the PHP side but I think the issue would be similar. Essentially we are all moving up the stack and we need to adapt which is difficult :/</comment></comment>


NLP's ImageNet Moment: From Shallow to Deep Pre-Training - <AUTHOR> https://thegradient.pub/nlp-imagenet/ <comment><USER2> I was at a deep learning conference recently. The topic of how AI can improve healthcare came up. One panelist said that a startup they were working with wants to help doctors use AI to use NLP to send claims to insurance companies in a way that won't be rejected. Another panelist said that he was working with another startup that wants to use AI and NLP to help insurance companies reject claims.

I think in the future we'll see their AI fighting against our AI in an arms race similar to the spam wars. The one with the most computing power and biggest dataset will win and humans will be at their mercy.

<comment><USER3> > One panelist said that a startup they were working with wants to help > doctors use AI to use NLP to send claims to insurance companies in a way > that won't be rejected. Another panelist said that he was working with > another startup that wants to use AI and NLP to help insurance companies > reject claims.

Sounds like GAN in meatspace.

<comment><USER4> Yep, They compete endlessly, while we enjoy hyper-accurate decisions on these things, leading to greater efficiency of both.

<comment><USER5> Yes.

But quite possibly "greater efficiency" according to a fitness function that's not accurately mapped onto "keeping humans alive"...

I wonder if this'll end up in an equivalent state to the "tank detection neural net" which learned with 100% accuracy that the researchers/trainers had always taken pictures of tanks on cloudy days and pictures without tanks on sunny days? ( [https://www.jefftk.com/p/detecting- tanks](https://www.jefftk.com/p/detecting-tanks) )

Who'd bet against the doctor/insurer neural net training ending up approving all procedures where, say, the doctor ends up with a kickback from a drug company - instead of optimising for maximum human health benefit?

<comment><USER6> >But quite possibly "greater efficiency" according to a fitness function that's not accurately mapped onto "keeping humans alive"...

Since when was this ever the case? Especially in America? The US healthcare system is NOT built around providing adequate care for everyone, as far as I've read/heard.

Full disclosure: West-EU citizen here

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> For more detail plus working code, lesson 4 of the fast.ai course uses this technique to obtain (what was at time of writing) a state of the art result on the imdb dataset:

[http://course.fast.ai/lessons/lesson4.html](http://course.fast.ai/lessons/lesson4.html)

By training a language model on the dataset, then using that model to fine tune the sentiment classification task, they were able to achieve 94.5% accuracy

<comment><USER8> Well spotted - this is where I first created the algorithm that became ULMFiT! I wanted to show an example of transfer learning outside of computer vision for the course but couldn't find anything compelling. I was pretty sure a language model would work really well in NLP so tried it out, and was totally shocked when the very first model best the previous state of the art!

Sebastian (author of this article) saw the lesson, and was kind enough to complete lots of experiments to test out the approach more carefully, and did a great job of writing up the results in a paper, which was then accepted by the ACL.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> The title is a little too click-baity for my taste ("has arrived," huh?), but I think the OP is unto something.

It is now possible to grab a pretrained model and start producing state-of- the-art NLP results in a wide range of tasks with relatively little effort.

This will likely enable much more tinkering with NLP, all around the world... which will lead to new SOTA results in a range of tasks.

<comment><USER10> Do you have links for these pretrained models? The only one I am aware of is OpenAI's where they fine tuned a Transformer architecture for 1 month on 8 gpus:

[https://blog.openai.com/language- unsupervised/](https://blog.openai.com/language-unsupervised/)

[https://github.com/openai/finetune-transformer- lm](https://github.com/openai/finetune-transformer-lm)

<comment><USER11> You can find ELMo here: [https://github.com/allenai/allennlp/blob/master/tutorials/ho...](https://github.com/allenai/allennlp/blob/master/tutorials/how_to/elmo.md)

And ULMFiT here: [http://nlp.fast.ai/category/classification.html](http://nlp.fast.ai/category/classification.html)

<comment><USER9> For those who don't know, Sebastian Ruder is a coauthor of the ULMFiT paper: [https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.06146](https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.06146)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Pretrained models have enabled so much in CV, excited to see similar shifts in the language world.

A great supplement is Sebastian's NLP progress repo: [https://github.com/sebastianruder/NLP- progress](https://github.com/sebastianruder/NLP-progress)

</comment><comment><USER13> Not to be too obtuse, but isn't WordNet (you know, the project that inspired the creation of ImageNet) "an ImageNet for language"? It seems kind of weird to bring up ImageNet within the context of NLP and not mention WordNet once.

<comment><USER11> WordNet (as you probably know) is a database that groups English words into a set of synonyms. If you consider WordNet as a clustering of high-level classes, then you could argue that ImageNet is the "WordNet for vision", meaning the clustering of object classes. The article uses a different meaning of ImageNet, namely ImageNet as pretraining task that can be used to learn representations that will likely be beneficial for many other tasks in the problem space. In this sense, you could use WordNet as an "ImageNet for language" e.g. by learning word representations based on the WordNet definitions. This is something people have done, but there are a lot more effective approaches. I hope this helped and was not too convoluted.

<comment><USER13> Does WordNet know that the word "ImageNet" refers to both a database and a pretraining task? :)

<comment><USER14> No, it does not know that, or anything else about "ImageNet"

[http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?c=8&sub=Change&o2...](http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?c=8&sub=Change&o2=&o0=1&o8=1&o1=1&o7=&o5=&o9=&o6=&o3=&o4=&i=-1&h=&s=imagenet)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> TLDR the standard practice of using 'word vectors' (numeric vector representation of words) may soon be superceded by just using entire pretrained neural nets as is standard in CV, and we have both conceptual and empirical reasons to believe language modeling is how it'll happen.

Helped edit this piece, think it is spot on - exciting times for NLP.

</comment><comment><USER16> Definitely excited by this, but wish the article was a bit more detailed.

<comment><USER8> The ULMFiT, ELMO, and OpenAI Transformer papers are all quite readable and linked from the article. Sebastian and I also wrote an introduction to ULMFiT here: [http://nlp.fast.ai/classification/2018/05/15/introducting- ul...](http://nlp.fast.ai/classification/2018/05/15/introducting-ulmfit.html)

<comment><USER16> Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> >> In order to predict the most probable next word in a sentence, a model is required not only to be able to express syntax (the grammatical form of the predicted word must match its modifier or verb) but also model semantics. Even more, the most accurate models must incorporate what could be considered world knowledge or common sense.

So, the first sentence in this passage is a huge assumption. For a model to predict the next token (word or character) in a string, all it has to do is to be able to predict the next token in a string. In other words, it needs to model structure. Modelling semantics is not required.

Indeed, there exist a wide variety of models that can, indeed, predict the most likely next token in a string. The simplest of those are n-gram models, that can do this task reasonably well. Maybe what that first sentence above is trying to say is that to predict the next token with good accuracy, modelling of semantics is required, but that is still a great, big, huge leap of reasoning. Again- structure is probably sufficient. A very accurate model modelling structure, is still only modelling structure.

It's important to consider what we mean when we're talking about modelling language probaiblistically. When humans generate (or recognise) speech, we don't do that stochastically, by choosing the most likely utterance from a distribution. Instead, we -very deterministically- say what we want to say.

Unfortunately, it is impossible to observe "what we want to say" (i.e. our motivation for emitting an utterance). We are left with observing -and modelling- only what we actually say. The result is models that can capture the structure of utterances, but are completely incapable of generating new language that makes any sense - i.e. gibberish.

It is also worth considering how semantic modelling tasks are evaluated (e.g. machine translation). Basically, a source string is matched to an arbitrary target string meant to capture the source string's intended meaning. "Arbitrary" because there may be an infinite number of strings that carry the same meaning. So what, exactly, are we measuring when we evaluate a model's ability to map between to of those infinite strings chosen just because we like them best?

Language inference and comprehension benchmarks like the ones noted in the article are particularly egregious in this regard. They are basically classification tasks, where a mapping must be found between a passage and a multiple-choice spread of "correct" labels, meant to represent its meaning. It's very hard to see how a model that does well in this sort of task is "incorporating world knowledge" let alone "common sense"!

Maybe NLP _will_ have its ImageNet moment- but that will only be in terms of benchmarks. Don't expect to see machines understanding language and holding reasonable conversations any time soon.

<comment><USER18> I fully agree and while you probably word it much better than me, I made a somewhat similar argument at [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16961233](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16961233) if you are interested...</comment></comment>


The Slow Death of the Carrier Air Wing - <AUTHOR> https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-slow-death-of-the-carrier-air-wing-1796726088 <comment><USER2> Let's get away from the 'prestige value' of a carrier and look at it more dispassionately.

Why did the carrier displace the battleship?

The battleship had the ability, with its guns, to throw explosives at a target up to a few tens of miles away. On the other hand, a carrier, with its aircraft, could throw explosives at a target up to a few hundreds of miles away. Without its planes, an aircraft carrier is practically useless.

Why do we persist in building carriers?

When we now have ships (even freighters!) capable of carrying missiles which can throw explosives at targets up to a few thousand miles away, a carrier is a wasteful use of resources.</comment>


Site that makes overviews of terms of services - <AUTHOR> https://tosdr.org/?repost#

<comment><USER2> Already posted here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9678357](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9678357)</comment>


Coca-Cola probed over mapping in China - <AUTHOR> http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/f02a6abc-8b21-11e2-b1a4-00144feabdc0.html

<comment><USER2> No paywall: <http://www.cnbc.com/id/100546342></comment>


Hacking with Powershell - <AUTHOR> https://tryhackme.com/room/powershell <comment><USER2> I love the concept but think it would be 100X more powerful if the demo specifically addressed PowerShell Core and scenarios for automating tasks in Linux and macOS.</comment>


The SQL filter clause: selective aggregates - <AUTHOR> http://modern-sql.com/feature/filter <comment><USER2> At an old job, me and another person wrote an in-house SQL-like dialect that compiled to access our C++ data structures. It was kind of nice just throwing whatever junk you wanted into your SQL without having to worry about any standards.

Want a filter clause? Got it.

Need a weighted distinct count? Now it's part of the language.

Also, you can rephrase a lot of these SQL features as subqueries. It's surprising how many database bugs you can find when you do it. Not so much in Postgres, but I probably found a dozen in Redshift. I mean rephrasing this:

        select
          sum(x) filter (where x < 5),
          sum(x) filter (where x < 7)
        from
          generate_series(1,10,1) s(x)
        ;

as this(where t is either a permanent table, view, or CTE as appropriate):

        with t as (
          select * from generate_series(1,10,1) s(x)
        )
        select
          (select sum(x) from t where x < 5),
          (select sum(x) from t where x < 7)
        ;

Though for Postgres the filter will likely have better performance.

<comment><USER3> Depending on the number of years ago, it may have been ahead of its time. C# and Scala have SQL like language abstractions a few years ago via LINQ. Scala has something similar.

<comment><USER4> Scala doesn't have anything like this where the query is compiled monadically before execution, although the data structures do expose excellent ways to chain functional combinators. Squeryl (and there's a similar competitor) implement this for SQL, and I'd say it's 80% there--still a lot of rough edges fitting dynamic queries (e.g. number of tables joinable in a single statement) into a static language.

<comment><USER5> > Scala doesn't have anything like this where the query is compiled > monadically before execution

Nonsense, Scala is arguably leading the way in the statically typed composable query dsl department; see Slick [1] and Quill [2] among others.

Outside of Haskell's Esqueleto I am not aware of any statically typed query dsl that comes remotely close to the aforementioned. LINQ to SQL/Objects provides static query generation but doesn't compose; beyond that, what is there?

[1] [https://github.com/slick/slick](https://github.com/slick/slick) [2] [https://github.com/getquill/quill](https://github.com/getquill/quill)

<comment><USER6> >LINQ to SQL/Objects provides static query generation but doesn't compose

How do you mean? The result of a LINQ query is a sequence that can be used as the input of another LINQ query.

<comment><USER5> By LINQ query I mean LINQ to _SQL_ , not the basic LINQ collections functionality (the equivalent in Scala being for comprehensions, BTW).

If you have an example of .NET based query composition to share I'd like to see it; last I checked there was no such functionality available.

<comment><USER7> LINQ to SQL ends up creating an expression on IQueryable. You can build this expression up any way you want, including in bits and pieces. You can tack on Wheres and Selects any time you like. It's more composable than pain text SQL since the parts can go in any order.

It's only after you force it to materialize (I.e. call ToList) that you can't further "compose" it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Syntactic sugar that's only natively supported in PostgreSQL? The site's banner says, "A lot has changed since SQL-92". Be that as it may, but it seems no one has really bothered catching up. I wonder why that is...

My guess is that such extensions, while useful, are somewhat marginalised features in terms of usage. Thus, no one ever learns them formally and just Googles for what they need -- if it comes up -- and get the CASE solution, in this case (pun unintentional). Hence perpetuating that pattern. Also, of course, the CASE solution is a lot more powerful as the returned expression, that gets fed into the aggregate function, can be basically anything.

<comment><USER9> I think the most well-thought-out explanation I've seen for why widespread support for the SQL standard seemed to stop after SQL-92 is this one:

[http://www.wiscorp.com/is_sql_a_real_standard.pdf](http://www.wiscorp.com/is_sql_a_real_standard.pdf)

<comment><USER8> This was quite interesting; thank you for posting... I may be cheeky and submit it to HN.

<comment><USER9> I'm fairly sure I originally saw it on HN.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> You can do these with Ibis and various SQL engines:

* [http://docs.ibis-project.org/sql.html#aggregates-considering...](http://docs.ibis-project.org/sql.html#aggregates-considering-table-subsets)

* [https://github.com/cloudera/ibis/tree/master/ibis/sql](https://github.com/cloudera/ibis/tree/master/ibis/sql) (PostgreSQL, Presto, Redshift, SQLite, Vertical)

* [https://github.com/cloudera/ibis/blob/master/ibis/sql/alchem...](https://github.com/cloudera/ibis/blob/master/ibis/sql/alchemy.py) (SQLAlchemy)

</comment><comment><USER11> "with" is not supported by mysql but sqlite supports it ? wow, didn't know that.

<comment><USER12> You can still do many subselect queries without with. Its really only an issue with the more complex usages.

<comment><USER8> I personally find CTEs much easier to read than subqueries.

<comment><USER13> and you can use them in multiple places. I'm not sure if you have the same subquery twice if the query optimizer uses a single dataset.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Is this all that different from Hive's analytic functions? I don't think I can put a WHERE filter right in the OVER clause though.

 _SELECT a, COUNT(b) OVER (PARTITION BY c) FROM T;_

[https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/Hive/LanguageMan...](https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/Hive/LanguageManual+WindowingAndAnalytics)

</comment><comment><USER15> For those on Oracle or MS SQL, be aware of the PIVOT and UNPIVOT features. It's not as general as this, but it's terse and works well for the case, i.e., running an aggregate across specific buckets.

</comment><comment><USER16> If I'm understanding this correctly, you can also do this sort of thing as a UNION of aggregate queries, each one with its own WHERE clause corresponding to the desired FILTER.

</comment><comment><USER17> It would be nice to see an example for this kind of query.

BTW, SQL seems like a terrible language. For example, why would it need to enforce ordering for keywords like ORDER BY, WHERE, GROUP BY? So many times I had made a mistake that boiled down to putting them in the correct order...

<comment><USER18> > SQL seems like a terrible language.

The reason you give is too trivial to justify calling it "a terrible language"

<comment><USER19> That reason is in fact a good one. The order is "wrong" from the point of view of a developer and _maybe_ ok from the POV of the original intent of SQL: The _end-user_ was supposed to run SQL against databases. Few ad-hoc queries, even complicated, can be managed. But using SQL all the time, and the language is _clearly_ the wrong thing to talk to the DB (is like JS: Is what you have instead of what you want).

Also: The fact that everyone run (even if eventually fail) for a ORM instead of SQL, or the way people imagine NOSQL is "better" -is very telling is NO _SQL_ \- show this.

The relational model is so simple and powerfull, but SQL is not a good seller of the idea.

<comment><USER20> Is there another language agnostic option?

I suppose it would be interesting if you could use something like the llvm to target a DB's core features, but through your language of choice.

I haven't seen anything like that, if it exists. SQL is that standard API today, and ORMs provide the language specific implementation (though sometimes in ways that make it inobvious what the generated SQL will look like).

<comment><USER21> I actually like SQL, but I'm glad people are willing to ask, "Can we do better?" I think for a working programmer, SQL is the only practical choice, but Tutorial D is an interesting attempt to improve (by C.J. Date, described at length in his books Database in Depth and The Third Manifesto), with an open source implementation called Rel. There is also a commercial database called Dataphor that uses D4, a cousin to Tutorial D. There is also a newer project called Andl that is another non-SQL relational query language.

Personally, although I'm not a researcher, I've become intrigued by ways we model change-over-time in relational databases. Snodgrass's book _Developing Time-Oriented Database Applications in SQL_ is a good entry point to all that, and more recently we have SQL2011's Temporal standard. I still have a lot to read here myself, but I am keen to see what happens in the next ten years in how the relational model can incorporate _change_.

<comment><USER22> SQL is a lot like JavaScript: a lot of people hate working with it, but it's the only practical choice, as you say.

It's interesting to note that transpiling to SQL is even more popular than the recent trend of transpiling to JavaScript. Every major language has a query builder (many of which end up with syntax similar to Andl). We're abstracting away from SQL and have been for a long time.

With that in mind, I wonder whether we need a new query language so desperately. SQL is so highly optimized in the major RDBMS that any new language would probably compile internally to SQL, meaning it has the same semantics (and is essentially sugar) _OR_ it would be way behind SQL in terms of optimization.

Am I just totally off base here?

<comment><USER21> After I wrote that comment I thought it might be worth submitting this Andl story to HN about Andl-on-Postgres: [0]. They write, "Relational expressions are converted into equivalent SQL and passed back to the Postgres SPI interface for execution," so you are right about transpiling. But the software world is more mature than it was 20 years ago, so it seems reasonable for a project to get a toehold by building on top of existing systems. That needn't limit its future growth necessarily. It sounds like Andl will work on more than just Postgres, so I can imagine them eventually building a "native" version too. Using existing RDBMSes is a pretty good way to get an MVP though. :-)

[0] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11802917](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11802917)

<comment><USER22> > _Relational expressions are converted into equivalent SQL and passed back to > the Postgres SPI interface for execution_

I actually don't think I like that approach.

If I transpile my own queries (meaning I use a query builder), then I can cache the generated SQL. There would be some placeholders for arguments, but the query itself doesn't change.

Andl's approach could add significant overhead in certain applications where lots of queries are being executed at once.

And then what happens to EXPLAIN support? Is it harder to debug an Andl query?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Worlds Smallest Instrument (MEMS) - <AUTHOR> http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/04/worlds-smallest-violin-uses-mems-plays-only-for-you-video/

<comment><AUTHOR> The Engadged title says it's a violin, but it the fact that they built each note on it's own makes me think of it as a piano, or some other hammer/string instrument. It's neat that they can modify the damping factor by changing the vacuum/pressure within the instrument chamber.</comment>


Ask HN: Rent Office Space vs. Distributed Team? - <AUTHOR>

We're a startup looking at getting some of our first hires. We're currently debating whether to build our team on a distributed basis (maybe use a co-working space once a week), or to rent office space with the advantage of having the team we build working more closely.<p>What is your experience with this? Arguments for or against? <comment><USER2> I vote for distributed teams. Even though me & cofounder are in the same city, every time we meet, the meeting closing phrase is always "why exactly couldn't we discuss this over Skype?"

So, from now on we meet for beers only.

We use: DVSC with an issue-tracker (Bitbucket) + Skype (chat & sometimes voice) + Droplr (works great for quick screen sharing) + some experience required.

Mind the "experience required" part. Cause if a person has no exp in remote work and/or has trouble expressing his/her thoughts and ideas in written form - won't work

The rest of the team is also remote, of cource. We have a designer in Israel, a coder in Seattle etc. (we're in London)

Coworking once a week is a great idea tho. Brainstorming is the only activity that makes office a good idea...

</comment><comment><USER3> Communication overhead is a bitch.

I like to think of offices like a node process. Ideally you should have a tight event loop (your core team) who are physically located in the same location. That could consist of just founders, or founders + a few key employees.

Then, if you develop the right APIs, you can effectively run the rest of your team asynchronously.

But, from past experience in three completely virtual companies, not having people in the same timezone / a drivable distance is the company equivalent of blocking i/o.

Regarding your specific sitch... I'd say early on you want to be together 24/7. If you're past initial prototype / first customers and you're comfortable moving at the same pace, you can probably parcel it out a bit more.

<comment><AUTHOR> love the distributed systems references! :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> when it comes to communication giftings, just as with everything else, all men are NOT created equal.

A startup dynamics relies 83.5% on communication flow, so there are inherent advantages at having people be able to use many of a variety of means: texting, face-to-face, a ticket track system, whiteboard, email, wiki, a chat around some beer.

This is easy to accomplish when you have everybody in the same building, and throw away the key.

Alas, some people have a /life/, and do not feel the Yahoo sleeping-bags-in- the-corridor to be their ideal (see? not everybody same=same).

so, let me ask you, what do YOU prefer as comm models, you people in your core team?

If y'all are the touchy-feely type, that like to look people in the eye, and have a hard time editing even a Wikipedia page, you're better off with some sort a headquarters.

OTOH, if you apologize every time it takes you longer than 2:48 minutes to answer an email , 24/7, and Joomla is your middle name, then remote becomes /possible/, and then you can gain the _many_ advantages of remote, the first one being able to hire beyond normal commuting range- lowering costs and raising quality of available hires to the point you actually can get the very cream in your field.

One other thing to consider: what is your product? As in eating your own dog- food, the medium is the message, and all that, if you're into mobile or software, well, relying in bodies present in one place becomes sort of silly, or the other way around, if y'all are into some new walk-in service franchise.

</comment><comment><USER5> Simple answer: What works better for the Owners. They're the ones who have to live with it.

Personally, I would start with everyone in the same place and then become more flexible regarding remote employment because it is much harder to go the other way (it will cost you knowledge when you lose employees), working together builds stronger relationships (most communication is non-verbal), and informal interaction is where many creative ideas are developed and interpersonal chemistry is created.

Good luck.</comment>


Linux Foundation quietly drops community representation - <AUTHOR> http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/39546.html <comment><USER2> Wow. Thanks for noticing and bringing this to our attention, Matthew.

I, for one, am ready to drop my membership and stop supporting the foundation. Not that they care. A single platinum sponsor is worth 5,000 individual "supporters" to them, but it's a matter of principle -- it's a withdrawal of endorsement.

What options do we have to give the community a voice as far as Linux governance goes?

<comment><USER3> You might switch your support to [http://sfconservancy.org/supporter/](http://sfconservancy.org/supporter/) (the other organization mentioned in the article, and a charity rather than a trade association).

<comment><USER4> Seconded. They currently have a company matching donations through the end of the month, so now would be the perfect time to donate.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I happened to be on the page for GPL violations by AllWinner today. That page also mentions AllWinner recently joining the Linux Foundation, and how their violations are getting worse! [http://linux- sunxi.org/GPL_Violations](http://linux-sunxi.org/GPL_Violations)

<comment><USER6> Allwinner used to distribute "SDKs" which was their Linux kernel with binary modules for components that they could not open-source. Allwinner is a fabless semiconductor company and they source components from different vendors. They did not know that they had to split the Linux kernel source tarball from those binary modules! That wiki page is not constructive.

<comment><USER7> Doesn't matter whether they are fabless, or what they knew and when. They distribute GPL'ed software, they're on the hook, and they need to abide by the rules.

And after all this time and all the warnings they've received, it's not possible they're not aware of their obligations; they just choose to ignore it until the day someone actually sues them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Ah. From reading the comments, the would-be community representative Karen Sandler is the former Gnome Foundation executive director who caused them to run out of money by running outreach programs for women on behalf of far bigger organisations like Google and Mozilla, charging them less for admin than the actual costs incurred, and agreeing to pay participants upfront and get paid back later until it completely depleted the Gnome Foundation's financial reserves. As a result they could no longer fulfil their role of supporting Gnome development, had to go begging for more money, and Gnome developers who were expecting to have their costs paid for attending Gnome events got paid months late because they had to prioritize the non-Gnome payments. (I believe this also screwed over women who were involved in Gnome too.)

Of course, mjg59 is a pretty loudly outspoken feminist activist, so I guess he's hardly going to object to all that.

<comment><USER9> I don't know enough to have an opinion on whether or not Karen Sandler would be a good or bad community representative for the Linux Foundation.

That being said, if the problem is that she would be a bad representative, the appropriate solution is for someone better to run against her and win the election. Eliminating the position suggests that the Linux Foundation doesn't trust the community to pick the "right" representative... and that says a lot about the situation.

<comment><USER10> > Eliminating the position suggests that the Linux Foundation doesn't trust > the community to pick the "right" representative... and that says a lot > about the situation.

The idea that the linux community is dysfunctional and would elect a representative who wanted to push a particular political agenda at the expense of linux itself is sadly none too implausible.

<comment><USER11> On the other hand we should expect nothing but good things from esteemed GPL violators such as Allwinner and WMWare, right? /s EDIT: I guess I should qualify the statement wrt WMWare as "supposed violator", since the case isn't over and I haven't looked at the source code.

<comment><USER12> Was this intended to be a rebuttal? It's really just an unrelated tangent phrased in an misleading way.

<comment><USER11> It is a rebuttal to the implication that the possibility of the community electing some nefarious personality should be considered valid ground for denying said community any representation. By the same token a bunch of corporations should be denied one. I didn't interpret the post as call for reformed governance, unless you consider

1\. Deny individual representation

2\. ???

3\. Governance problems fixed!

a plan (yeah, I'm being snarky, sorry).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> vezzy-fnord Has anyone ever believed the Linux Foundation to be anything besides an ad-hoc promotional vehicle targeted by and toward large players?

Rob Landley sums it up well: [http://landley.net/notes-2010.html#18-07-2010](http://landley.net/notes-2010.html#18-07-2010)

<comment><USER13> Not really disagreeing with you or the link you posted. But I will just say that LF organize many important Linux conferences[1]. I know from experience many years ago that organizing conferences is difficult, tedious, time- consuming and incredibly expensive. The LF conferences that I have been to have been very well run.

[1] [http://events.linuxfoundation.org/](http://events.linuxfoundation.org/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> One (now supposedly former?) individual member from the Linux Foundation received a message from Paypal(!) indicating that the Linux Foundation is not going to take his membership fee any longer. No further explanation given, no communication from the Linux Foundation.

"Dear <name redacted>,

The Linux Foundation canceled your automatic payments. This means we'll no longer automatically draw money from your account to pay the merchant.

If you have any questions, you may ask The Linux Foundation about this cancellation."

<comment><USER15> [http://d.pr/i/1aKJp/2k5zsOoc](http://d.pr/i/1aKJp/2k5zsOoc)

I got it too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Please forgive my ignorance. But does this corporate meddling in governance structure have anything to do with their recent corporations sponsored/bankrolled initiative "Designing Block chain for transactions". Which obviously calls for weeding out trouble making general public.

<comment><USER17> Are you confusing the Linux foundation with the Bitcoin foundation?

<comment><USER18> Nope - [http://www.linuxfoundation.org/news- media/announcements/2015...](http://www.linuxfoundation.org/news- media/announcements/2015/12/linux-foundation-unites-industry-leaders-advance- blockchain)

<comment><USER17> Missed that. Thanks for the info.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I don't care what they do, but I don't want them calling themselves the Linux Foundation and I don't want them owning linux.com

</comment><comment><USER20> I've emailed the Foundation to ask them for the reasons for the change. I'll post any replies I get here.

</comment><comment><USER21> They clearly have a for-profit mission. Linux _means_ community, yet they have no community representation. Therefore, the foundation name is misleading.

"The IT Chamber of Commerce", however, isn't a misleading name.

</comment><comment><USER22> LF is corporate entity, but I always liked and supported it. I think I will drop my support for them if this is what it seems like it is. I want to wait till I hear LF's response to these claims.

</comment><comment><USER23> First the Wikimedia Foundation, now the Linux Foundation. "Membership" in a nonprofit is now about as meaningless as being an "AOL Member" was.

<comment><USER24> The linux foundation is not a non-profit.

But I'm curious about your statement about the wikimedia foundation, is their board not elected by general members?

<comment><USER25> throwaway7767 wrote: "The linux foundation is not a non-profit."

As late as a month ago, it claimed to be: "SAN FRANCISCO, December 17, 2015 -The Linux Foundation, the nonprofit organization enabling mass innovation through open source..." (from the Block-chain page linked above, [http://www.linuxfoundation.org/news- media/announcements/2015...](http://www.linuxfoundation.org/news- media/announcements/2015/12/linux-foundation-unites-industry-leaders-advance- blockchain) )

<comment><USER24> I stand corrected regarding the linux foundation, I was under the impression they were a company and not a non-profit. Thanks for the info.

<comment><USER26> They're a 501(c)(6) trade association if you want to be technically correct. Which is different from 501(c)(3)'s which are what you normally think of as "non-profits" but it's still an exempt organization like a chamber of commerce.

Fun fact: The NFL was a 501(c)(6) organization at one point because "professional football leagues" were specifically named in the IRS code but they voluntarily dropped their status.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I don't think I know what the "linux foundation" is . . and I've used linux for 7 years.

<comment><USER28> Note who is the current employer of this obscure hacker: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Torvalds](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Torvalds)

<comment><USER27> Your point is taken. At any rate, I am nonplussed about this story.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Terrible. I was about to make a donation because I read that other article saying they fund NTP and other critical free software projects.

<comment><USER30> If you were planning to donate because of NTP specifically, are you aware of the Network Time Foundation [0] that supports both the NTP Project (the original reference implementation), the Ntimed Project (phk's rewrite), and other related projects?

[0]: [http://www.networktimefoundation.org](http://www.networktimefoundation.org)

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> How many of the "leadership" / "management", ie: the people raking the profits from this organization are coders? [http://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/leadership](http://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/leadership)

<comment><USER32> Mike Woster - graduated cum laude with a B.S. in Computer Science and Honors Engineering from Texas A&M University

Steve Westmorelander - He received his B.S in computer science from Louisiana Tech University. Westmoreland is based in Portland, Ore.

Dan Cauchy - Dan earned a Bachelor's degree in Electrical Engineering (with a Computer Engineering major)

Dan Kohn - Dan received a bachelor's degree in Economics and Computer Science from the Honors program of Swarthmore College

And all the fellows:

Linus Greg Kroah-Hartman Till Kamppeter Richard Purdie Janina Sajka

Weird question, don't see why the management have to be coders. They work for the foundation. The foundations pay plenty of the kernel developers.

<comment><USER31> > The foundations pay plenty of the kernel developers.

Do you mean directly? How many do they pay?

<comment><USER31> Full disclosure, I've never asked LF to pay me for my contributions, nor have they offered. None of the people I know who are lk contributors who I've just asked have gotten anything from LF. They have been solicited to pay to attend LF organized conferences.

<comment><USER33> They don't pay contributors in a Patreon- or tip4commit-style scheme; they _employ_ certain core developers. If you are not a subsystem maintainer / lieutenant, you're not going to get a job offer from them. (And even if you are you shouldn't _expect_ one.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Is one person with $5000 more valuable than 5000 people with $1? If you're a person without $5000, no; if you're a foundation, apparently.

</comment><comment><USER35> Reads like a well planned, step-by-step executed (hostile?) takeover of the full power over the board.

Why am I not suprised?

</comment><comment><USER36> Can someone else please write up a substantial comment so that the top comment is not a bigoted feminist bashing, logical fallacy ridden comment. It's embarrassing.

</comment><comment><USER37> People have asked for years, when will Linux be a real OS, when it gets on the desktop?

No, when it part of underhanded dealings by large multi-national corporations. So Linux has finally arrived! Sorry to see it was the Linux Foundation, I've always had high hopes for them.

<comment><USER38> I don't know where to begin.

0) Linux is just a kernel, so if taken literally, it never will be an OS. But I will roll with your terminology for now.

1) Linux was a Unix-like OS for tinkerers, programmers and soon for servers. A "real OS" is not defined by its availability on the Desktop. And indeed I very much used it exactly because of this, because I am a tinkerer who rather runs a Server OS on his private machines, that also allows him to do most Desktop- tasks with ease.

2) The voice of the Desktop camp inside of Linux is not ignored, if anything, the influence is too big. Think about systemd for example. This was not a move in order to run better on Servers, this was primarily Notebook and Server focused. The year of the Linux Desktop is not something we won't see because of evil big corporations, rather because it simply is not Linux's DNA to be that.

(And side note: Because of systemd I see more and more people using *BSDs)

<comment><USER39> To be fair, notebooks and desktops ran fine without systemd for a long time. To this day, I'm convinced systemd got there just to give Red Hat a big enough foot in the door.

Systemd _is_ useful on servers, especially for the DevOps people. On a desktop, it solves no problem that cannot be -- and that has not been _for years_ \-- solved without it.

I don't use it enough to question its technical merits. The fact that it was packaged in Debian and the world hasn't fallen over implies that people may be unhappy with it, but can still do their jobs, which would mean it's not _that_ bad. But the necessity of its existence on notebooks and desktops is questionable at best.

Edit: I know this is going to incite a lot of posts about how the times have changed and now storage devices aren't statical anymore and we NEED systemd. From a lot of people who are too young (or too recent Linux users) to remember the days when udev was still news.

Guys, we've been _easily_ hotplugging devices on Linux, on USB, SATA and PCI for about half a decade before systemd's first release (and not as easily but reliably, nonetheless, for at least seven or eight). We've been reliably booting and using Linux off a combination of USB and NFS filesystems for even more than that. All that yadda yadda about devices coming and going at boottime is not without its technical merits, but unless you boot your computer with its case open while frantically plugging and unplugging SATA drives, trust me, it's of absolutely no consequence.

Devices appearing and disappearing dynamically used to be a problem. In 2.4. Do you remember the 2.4 kernel? That was (boy, does time pass...) more than ten years ago. Do you _honestly_ think the smart people writing Linux sat on their thumbs for ten years while the arcane world of tape drives and 10 MB hard drives around them was giving way to this new world of magic SSDs and USB?

<comment><USER10> The evil part is that it's making it harder and harder to use a lot of OSS projects on non-Linux OSes. As a FreeBSD user I'm worried, and when it comes to Debian/kFreeBSD the world really has ended as far as I can tell ( and just when it was starting to look like a first-class architecture :'( ).

The conspiracy theory would be that it's a deliberate RedHat effort to cripple competitors like Solaris. Unfortunately \\*BSD and freedom will be caught in the crossfire.

<comment><USER40> A RedHat ploy may be, but certainly not to fight _Solaris_ of all systems. Not even Oracle believes in Solaris (they are pushing Linux everywhere, and their own devs always target Linux first), and its community is basically as big as AmigaOS.

Systemd is just the end result of RedHat employing a dominant share of infrastructure-critical Linux developers and making too much money compared to other players.

<comment><USER41> Well Oracle now have their own Linux distro, forked from RHEL6 (iirc).

This fork seems to have put RH on a war path, as their subsequent releases no longer separated out kernel patches from the main kernel source etc.

And now CentOS is part of the RH flock, where before it was an independent repack of RHEL.

And while Solaris itself may be "dead", there are still various tech that came out of its development that is of interest in the -nix world.

Just look at the continued lamentations that you can't get ZFS support in Linux because of incompatible licenses.

<comment><USER24> Was it really a fork? I was under the impression that they were just directly rebuilding the RH packages, and maybe adding a couple of new ones. Like CentOS, but it's another company doing it and profiting by free-riding on RedHat's work.

I can understand RedHat being pissed about that.

<comment><USER40> They do fork the kernel and add their own packages for some stuff but yeah, 90% of userland is just recompiled RedHat.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I am sorry that I have to say this, but large parts of the GNU/Linux community are just irrational idealists hard to work with. Read the GPLv3, it's a great political document, and somewhere in there there also is a software license, hidden between the lines.

Linus always said: He cares about the code back and otherwise not what vendors do with it. He is not in any sense one of those GNU-people about Software Freedom everywhere and for all. When the Free Software Foundation (FSF) created the GPLv3, indeed during the process, Linus already spoke out against it and said he would never ever use it[1]. He cited reasonable use-cases for which vendors have no other way than to not to give open access to devices, in part for example commercial license agreements.

The GPLv3 - from the perspective of the FSF - fixes some vital flaws in GPLv2, from Linus' perspective however is just too strict, forbids use-cases Linux has been used before previously and is extremely anti-business and would hurt the Linux project.

Whether this step of the Linux foundation is right or not, can't say for sure, but I totally understand it. A political anti-business pro-freedom-everywhere radical who already is involved in suing some of the companies she is supposed to work with on that said board? Sounds like a headache you would want to avoid at all costs.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU)

<comment><USER42> Linus is not a god, and his proclamations are not gospel.

He can crow all he likes about how he wishes he never used the GPL and how he is not political... but the truth is, no one knows what would have happened if he didn't use the GNU license or distribute GNU software. Its theoretically possible that his project would have died on the vine without members of the community who cared about those things and made considerable contributions. Nobody knows, not even Linus.

<comment><USER38> Linux would have never been as successful if someone like rms would have called the shots. People still tinker with the GNU Hurd microkernel and it's less usable than Minix. Linus is also no god for me, but he is delightfully pragmatic, someone companies can work with, not against.

<comment><USER43> This explains the failure of gcc, glibc and gnu utils/userland to completely fail to gain traction too! /sarcasm

(Although the egcc split was painful, and at long last there are some viable alternatives - it took _decades_ for them to rise up. So it's a little odd that the FSF/RMS would never have successfully been able to develop a project? Obviously the need for a (new) GPL licensed [kernel] is less when there _exists_ a decent GPL licensed kernel (Linux)).

<comment><USER44> gcc is already beginning to lose traction to llvm.

<comment><USER43> My point was that "already", means "it took a long time". See also: embedded development.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Deconstructing 'Decentralization': Exploring the Core Claim of Crypto Systems - <AUTHOR> https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3326244 <comment><USER2> Great article, all your contributions seem pretty solid. Are you a hobbyist or professional in the post structuralism world?</comment>


What just happened here on HN? (Error?) - <AUTHOR> http://i.imgur.com/HztGXmm.png

<comment><USER2> I screwed something up in the REPL. Sorry!

<comment><AUTHOR> no problem, it went away pretty quick. :)

<comment><USER2> I'm going to try the thing again now. Hope I get it right... (Edit: seems so.)</comment></comment></comment>


Writing an OS in Rust - <AUTHOR> https://os.phil-opp.com/ <comment><USER2> It's the beginning of a kernel. It may expand in the future, but to me, calling it an OS is like building a door and calling it a house. It's inaccurate and it makes it sound greater than it currently is. I on the other hand do not want to make it sound less great of course, but what we call things does matter.

<comment><USER3> agreed, but it's a cool tutorial topic. I don't think anyone expects this to result in a useful OS, but it makes me contemplate learning about rust.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Obligatory plug for the same thing in big: [https://www.redox- os.org/](https://www.redox-os.org/)

<comment><USER5> They're only the same in that they're both a kernel in Rust: the parent blog is an educational/exploratory OS, whereas Redox seems to be aiming for real- world use and not pedagogy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Ah, the Rust Evangelism Strike Force is finally back! Can't wait for the webshit weekly at n-gate.com

<comment><USER7> I'm not part of any strike force and I activly dislike envangelism. Still, I like this website very much.</comment></comment>


Looking Back on Tech, Startups, and VC in 2018 - <AUTHOR> http://haystack.vc/2018/12/29/looking-back-on-tech-startups-and-vc-in-2018/ <comment><USER2> I'm not certain that I agree with him about crypto hibernation. I am far from a crypto advocate but I follow the space and have some friends deeply engaged in it.

There's an awful lot of work being done, especially with blockchain. Great ideas with impressive teams. But it isn't showtime yet. It's heads down and working time.

<comment><USER3> Sure, there's plenty of work being done, except it's fueled by the founders' need to show investors that their money is being put to a good use, and hence not pull out. I've yet to see an actual business problem solved with a blockchain (other than helping optimists part with their money).

<comment><USER4> Relevant NIST flowchart ("Do you need a blockchain?"): [https://imgur.com/a/RlUj9Ed](https://imgur.com/a/RlUj9Ed)

<comment><USER5> For a while, the flowchart was basically "Do you need funding?". A lot of pitches were basically "X, but on the blockchain". Seemed to be a decent strategy, too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "For me personally, it's been fascinating to see just how much consumer demand scooters as an easy and fun option, and yet consumers don't seem to want to charge or dock these items"

Alternative take: petty crime is so incredibly prevalent in SF, customers prefer rental scooters so they don't have to worry about theft.

A big reason behind the popularity of Citi bikes etc is the same: it delivers the convenience of having a bike, without the headache of having it stolen quarterly.

<comment><USER6> I interpreted what he was saying differently. To me, he was saying that consumers like renting scooters, but they do not like renting scooters if they have to dock or undock the scooters similar to a citi bike versus a grab and drop approach.</comment></comment>


'Dead Sea Scrolls' at museum turn out to be forgeries - <AUTHOR> https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/2020/03/museum-of-the-bible-dead-sea-scrolls-forgeries/ <comment><USER2> As others have pointed out, the headline is much spicier than the story, which barely qualifies as news:

> On Friday, independent researchers funded by the Museum of the Bible > announced that all 16 of the museum's Dead Sea Scroll fragments are modern > forgeries that duped outside collectors, the museum's founder, and some of > the world's leading biblical scholars. Officials unveiled the findings at an > academic conference hosted by the museum.

> "The Museum of the Bible is trying to be as transparent as possible," says > CEO Harry Hargrave. "We're victims—we're victims of misrepresentation, we're > victims of fraud."

So a museum acquired some pieces it believed to be legitimate, but was concerned they may not be authentic, so it investigated, discovered the pieces were fake, and is now informing the world. Sounds like reasonable people who did the right thing.

<comment><AUTHOR> The headline is: _" 'Dead Sea Scrolls' at the Museum of the Bible are all forgeries"_

Your quoted excerpt says: _" independent researchers funded by the Museum of the Bible announced that all 16 of the museum's Dead Sea Scroll fragments are modern forgeries that duped outside collectors, the museum's founder, and some of the world's leading biblical scholars"_

What is it that you think the headline should say?

<comment><USER3> The headline is fine. Reading it in the spirit of "the museum is defrauding people and we found out about it" is extremely uncharitable and nitpicky.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sure, I guess I automatically interpret the connotation of "forgeries" and a museum as referring to a museum being the defrauded, since they typically are either given or acquiring exhibits, and less often are selling/trading them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Note that this says nothing about the Dead Sea Scrolls in general, which are absolutely real, and mostly in the custody of the State of Israel: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls)

<comment><USER5> I don't keep up on what apparently seems to be issues with the museum, but _this_ was what drew my eye: if _all_ dead sea scrolls were forgeries that would shake the foundation of [Abrahamic] theology.

<comment><USER6> I doubt it. The stories would persist even if one set of written copies were cast into doubt. They have been more or less in their present-day form since long before the dead sea scrolls were discovered. That span of time and space has attracted hucksters and forgers for centuries, and theology has carried on.

<comment><USER5> No, I think you're right. After your comment I did some research and I had grossly overestimated the importance of the dead sea scrolls. I had no idea the silver scrolls existed until a couple hours ago.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Interesting, but over-sensationalized. To quote the article, "Even before the new report, some scholars believed that most to all of the post-2002 fragments were modern fakes."

The headline uses the word "all", but is talking about 0.0002 of the dead sea scrolls. "at the Museum of the Bible" is a bigger qualification that it initially appears.

<comment><USER8> 'all' of the ones at the museum is a correct statement isn't it?

<comment><USER7> Technically correct, but irresponsible

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> There was a good NOVA (or maybe Secrets of the Dead) episode on PBS that noted how there were a bunch of supposed dead sea scroll fragments that came onto the market that in many cases ... found buyers who just happened to be interested in the the text that were on the fragments.

The market of private dealers working with secret sellers and buyers is very opaque and the middle men seem to pride themselves on secrecy more than authenticity and seem a lot like scam artists of their own.

<comment><USER10> Yeah, I saw this. They were specifically talking to experts at the Museum of the Bible. Good episode indeed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> As several people quoted in the article mention, it is wonderful to see a museum being so upfront and truthful about their artifacts. It seems to be a much better situation because of it, especially when compared with something like the "Jesus' Wife" fragment. [https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/the- unb...](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/the-unbelievable- tale-of-jesus-wife/485573/)

<comment><USER12> These are the same people who imported looted Iraqi tablets.

[https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo- way/2017/07/05/535698988...](https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo- way/2017/07/05/535698988/hobby-lobby-to-forfeit-smuggled-iraqi-antiquities)

<comment><USER11> Yep, and this makes me feel more like they actually may have just been really naive when it came to that case. Naivete is no excuse, of course, for what happened there.

<comment><USER13> They have had this sort of thing happen since before they opened. They claim to be victims etc each time and it's many times now.

<comment><USER11> Yes, all of this is explained in the article. They've been really open about it each time. They haven't really been making the _same_ mistakes each time and they have been working more and more with experts who seem to be running things very well.

From the article:

'The museum is also reevaluating the provenance of all the material in its collection, and it is prepared to return any stolen artifacts to their rightful owners. In 2018, the Museum of the Bible determined that a manuscript in its collection sold several times beforehand had in fact been stolen from the University of Athens in 1991. The museum promptly returned the artifact to Greece.

'Christopher Rollston, a specialist on Semitic texts at George Washington University in Washington, D.C., welcomes the effort to set things right. "The Museum of the Bible did some really bad things eight to 10 years ago, and they were rightly criticized severely," he says. "I believe that they've made a number of attempts in recent years to right the ship.'

<comment><USER13> Saying "8 to ten years ago" in 2018 seems to be suggesting that this is an historic issue ending in 2008-2010 that has been fixed. The latest public story is of items of dubiously origin from Oxford over some years up to 2015, and the saga has been playing out publicly for some time. This isn't something that happened in the distant past as that last quote makes out. What about the Oxford story is 'open'? The story mentions investigations from Indian, US, UK, Egyptian and Iraqi authorities. That's quite a list.

[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/10/16/mystery- deepens-...](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/10/16/mystery-deepens- oxford-academic-accused-illegally-selling-bible/)

[https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/16/world/europe/oxford- profe...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/16/world/europe/oxford-professor- bible-hobby-lobby.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The Dead Sea Scrolls in Israel are real. The ones in one museum in America were forges.

<comment><USER15> Why do you think that?

<comment><USER16> No one doubts the authenticity of the scrolls in the Shrine of the Book in Israel. They have undergone detailed radiocarbon and paleographic dating.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> There is a cottage industry in the world of archeology where people find things and then pretend they're related to biblical stories. Even otherwise honest archeologists play this game, since saying that "this is a building from the time of Solomon" has a very different perceived meaning than saying "this is a structure built by unknown people living 2600 years ago".

</comment><comment><USER18> I'm reminded of this:

[https://news.artnet.com/art-world/mexican-museums- artifacts-...](https://news.artnet.com/art-world/mexican-museums-artifacts- mostly-fake-1016198)

> The report found that only 83 of 2,000—or just over four percent—of the > museum's pre-Columbian artifacts could be authenticated.

</comment><comment><USER19> When the Museum of the Bible, which is funded by Hobby Lobby, was created, they went on a huge, decade-long spending spree, buying up Christian artifacts all over the world. This created so much increased demand that sellers worldwide jacked up their prices, and it also created an opportunity for forgeries and outright theft. The Guardian has a fascinating article about it that focuses on Dirk Obbink, an American papyrus scholar at Oxford University who seems to have been selling papyrus fragments from the collection he was supposed to be cataloguing.

[1] [https://www.theguardian.com/news/2020/jan/09/a-scandal-in- ox...](https://www.theguardian.com/news/2020/jan/09/a-scandal-in-oxford-the- curious-case-of-the-stolen-gospel)

</comment><comment><USER20> I want to know the entire story of how they were forged. Artistic forgeries are among the most interesting and elegant crimes.

Eric Hebborn is a brilliant example:

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

<comment><USER21> Book called Numismatic Forgery is absolutely brilliant. Talks about how different coins can be forged depending on era, how making technique should match the original coin (ancient coin dies were hand engraved, so should the modern forgery). Some coin forgeries are made from remelted coins of same era but of lesser value, so that metal would match etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> _At the time, the family was embarking on an ambitious new project: the Museum of the Bible, which opened in Washington DC in 2017... Items for the Green collection were bought by Hobby Lobby, then donated to the museum, bringing a substantial tax write-off._

These rich people, they really are all the same.

</comment><comment><USER23> Obviously these must be fake as SEELE hoarded all the real dead sea scrolls for the human instrumentality project

<comment><USER24> And they wouldn't want to know what's really on them as well

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> For some reason, god does not seem to like written history or reliable historic accounts.

As soon as writing is introduced in a culture, all the fantastic miracles and revelations stop, or become much more moderate.

Somehow you go from gigantic columns of fire descending from the sky, to simple healing miracles that can be faked and are faked routinely in modern times as well. A magician trick could qualify as a miracle in biblical times.

No more prophets either. Before, prophets appeared every few generations. But now, it has been thousands of years since the last prophet appeared.

Some of the more cryptic stuff can also be explained: hallucinations. There were no people in ancient times to diagnose disorders like schizophrenia and drug use was not punishable by law. And even if they decided to punish drug use they did not have the means to identify illicit substances.

All that, plus contradictions with science, makes me think these scriptures are simply a collection of folkloric legends.

This does not prove a god does not exist.

<comment><USER26> Having seen incredible miracles, aswell as even surprizing prophecies come true multiple times...

Which includes things falling from the sky -- at the exact time of praying for them

For instance seeing a refugee camp catch fire, and so prayed for rain in the desert, etc, etc

\-- Which gives me at least, hope for a different conclusion :)

Edit: no comment on the Hobby Lobby, I don't know anything particular about them

<comment><USER25> You are free to believe whatever you want, or participate of your culture as much as you want.

But I strongly suggest you to document these miracles as you presence them to help others support your views.

<comment><USER26> Thanks. Sure!

Just thinking of some modern writing inline with what the previous poster mentioned, such as:

[http://sirisofcalifornia.com/168833-books-jackie- pullinger.h...](http://sirisofcalifornia.com/168833-books-jackie- pullinger.html) (epub/pdf/txt)

Note that I've met that person, and been to those places. They take heroin addicts and convicts -- about 20 to 30 in one building; they live 24-7 together, without previously knowing each other, for 3 months -- and come off heroin or other drugs in that time. What was cool was getting to see that, and see how peacefully they live together, even given their background

Addendum: Loads more, sorry I haven't met these authors tho

[https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1022866.Run_Baby_Run](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1022866.Run_Baby_Run)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDKLYFYc40Q](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDKLYFYc40Q) (I like this guy)

<comment><USER25> To me, the miracles I care about are not unusual and paranormal phenomenons, but simply what is around us: life.

Life is a miracle of nature.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I am curious how they passed so many experts. Surely the scrolls themselves were carbon dated - does that mean the forgers got actually period correct parchment and ink?

<comment><USER28> The article states:

> In a report spanning more than 200 pages, a team of researchers led by art > fraud investigator Colette Loll found that while the pieces are probably > made of ancient leather, they were inked in modern times and modified to > resemble real Dead Sea Scrolls.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Editing "of the Bible" out of the original headline makes this HN post clickbait.

</comment><comment><USER29> Ran into the "paywall", but yeah, sadly, forgery has grown into a very large problem in the archaeological world. Lots of debate and controversy over how best to address it. We can't simply disregard all unprovenanced finds, as some seem to propose. Many of the most significant archaeological discoveries ever made are unprovenanced.

<comment><USER30> This museum in particular seems especially prone to buying stolen or faked items, though.

<comment><USER29> Makes sense. Private/smaller collectors are probably much more likely to end up with fake items. Having said that, large, institutional museums do end up with fake items occasionally as well, sometimes displaying them for years before determining that they are fakes and removing them.

<comment><USER31> Nobody's easier to fool than true believers.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Who wants to shut down free online Stanford CSE classes? - <AUTHOR> http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/01/26/1415248/stanford-online-courses-delayed-more-time-to-sign-up I would sure like to know... <comment><USER2> The top comment mentions issues with disability advocates and problems with the website, and that they're trying to get it fixed and launched.

So, that may or may not be the official story.</comment>


Getting Groovy with Reactive Android - <AUTHOR> http://open.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/getting-groovy-with-reactive-android/?_php=true&_type=blogs&utm_source=Android+Weekly&utm_campaign=a97f04efe2-Android_Weekly_116&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_4eb677ad19-a97f04efe2-337837401&_r=0 <comment><USER2> This link on Groovy was subbed 9 days ago:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8195501](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8195501)</comment>