Ontario announces that it will begin a basic income trial in 2016 - <AUTHOR> http://www.sciencealert.com/a-canadian-province-is-about-start-giving-everyone-a-universal-basic-income <comment><USER3> Can someone explain to me why universal basic income seems to be more popular than negative income taxes these days? To use some examples I'm picking out of my hat:

1\. Universal basic income: Everyone gets $10K per year.

2\. Negative income tax: Everyone gets $15K per year, phased out linearly across an income of $60K (i.e. if you earn $0 you get $15K, if you earn $20K you get $10K, if you earn $40K you get $5K, and if you earn $60K then the negative income tax is fully phased out).

Why is 1 preferable to 2? Is it just that it's less susceptible to tax fraud? Note that the amount that an unemployed person gets in UBI is less, because the same amount of money is being distributed to more people, even millionaires.

<comment><USER4> There's no reason why the amount going to poor people under UBI should be less. Money goes out to more people (everyone), but the higher brackets would pay more, so it'd be a wash. IE, the millionaires get an extra $10,000 a month than they would with a negative income tax, but end up having to pay an extra $10,000 a month than they would with a negative income tax.

As for why UBI is preferable, let's look at some situations. If a person gets fired in May and needs the extra income, with the UIB it would be coming in already and they wouldn't need to worry about anything. With a negative income tax they would probably need to apply to some government agency, at which point they would either start sending the person payments whenever they get a chance to review the application (which could take weeks or months), or they deny the application for one reason or another and the person has to appeal/send more evidence and try to navigate a bureaucratic maze while they're running out of money.

Or a person is self-employed, and at the beginning of the year they believe they will make too much to get the income, then mid-way through the year their business slows to the point where they start going through the bureaucratic hell of the previous person, and then after a few months some new clients come in and they start trying to navigate the bureaucracy again to update the agency without a penalty.

I don't know if you've ever applied for benefits like these, but very often things turn into a mess, and you're spending weeks calling different offices and waiting for thing to go through, at which point your eligibility changes and you have to start over again. UBI doesn't eliminate all issues, but it's simpler in the same way that sending your kid to the local public school is simpler than trying to get support using the FAFSA.

Also, with the checks going out to everyone it's going to be hard to get rid of something like that (look at Social Security for an example of this).

<comment><USER5> UK: this is an attractive part of the basic income proposition.

I think such a scheme might also promote risk-taking in employment in the sense that people might be motivated to try stuff they would not normally try e.g. setting up their own micro-business or working on temporary contracts.

Now, the OA is talking about a _pilot_. How do those work? How do you decide to ring fence the residents in the region you are trying it in? Why could not I just move over there for a couple of years during the pilot?

<comment><USER6> I agree. It should have been done, and the benefits system mostly abolished, decades ago.

Given the organisation of welfare in the UK it is so very, very easy to fall through the gaps. It's designed for the world of the 1930s-70s. There's no point in a safety net unless it's reliable, and it clearly isn't.

If you had a simple 9-5 job and been made redundant, with P45, the system seems to cope. If you are self-employed, an ex-busines owner, or juggling multiple, possibly zero hour, contracts the system breaks utterly. Claiming seems to be an entirely manual process with various people employed to validate, check and ask questions, so it is very expensive to do.

If you knew you were getting that £100 (or whatever) a week, every week regardless, you'd risk the uncertain project, or even the second attempt, learning from your mistakes. The system right now puts you off ever trying anything not 9-5 again, because you'll know it'll be months to get any help out of them.

Of course, like talk of simplifying the tax system, I am not optimistic it will ever happen. Or it will be an ineffective token gesture that solves nothing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> While I can understand the benefits of basic income, it still bugs me that this might massively undermine democracy and turn out to be a point of no return for a society. Once every single voter has an incentive to vote for politicians that promise increases of their basic income, each election will turn into a competition on increasing that type of spending. It's basically a massive redistribution scheme. This is different from welfare systems, which only support a small number of people who actually need it.

<comment><USER8> How is that different from any democracy? People are incentivised to vote for people who promise lower taxes.

Edit: or better infrastructure, ...

<comment><USER9> It's different fundamentally. Lower taxes do not automatically guarantee you better income, but they do guarantee that the result of your work remains for you at your disposal in a larger extent. But the value still has to be produced by yourself, not the government that takes it from others.

<comment><USER8> Granted, lower taxes are different. Better infrastructure, more child support, ... still are the same problem, IMO. Yet, the system -- somehow -- works.

FWIW, that's the reason I'm in Churchill's camp: "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

Democracy relies on politicians believing what they say. It is easily gamed. Yet I have no better alternative.

Challenge my view :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This basic income idea has been popping up a lot lately. And there's some merit to it, but there's some major problems too.

The biggest problem I see is giving people cash. Why not instead give each adult a voucher for housing (just barely adequate for cheap housing) and each person $5/day food stamps (or something similar), regardless of income.

Everyone gets a lower stress level this way. The risk of being homeless or hungry go to near zero. It doesn't matter if you're unemployable, or starting a business, or between jobs. You know you're going to be okay.

While giving people cash seems to have the same effect, it doesn't. At least here in the US, money problems are (mostly) a money-management problem. Many people use any cash they get to pay for whatever seems the most pressing at the moment - whether it's rent or a big screen TV. People buy the TV when they have money and rent isn't due yet, then have a little unexpected expense and can't pay rent. The stress level hurts them, hurts their families, causes increased expenses (e.g. payday loan).

My parents were like this, in six-figure-income years and in dead-broke years. It hurt us quite a bit. And "loaning" them money NEVER helped - they'd pay the mortgage today and then buy the TV when the next payday came in. And there's LOTS of people like this, which is why there's a payday loan on every corner.

Now, we've taken care of my mom by covering her housing and utilities directly. And her stress level is down a lot. It works great. This would have also helped me a lot when I was a student. And it means more startups - <USER2> all startups would be "ramen profitable" by default. And in the US, we could fund this with about a 10% tax (probably less if we took some funds out of SS, disability, section 8, etc.).

<comment><USER11> Take a look at GiveDirectly, which focuses on direct cash payments to the poor instead of traditional centrally planned aid actions. [https://www.givedirectly.org/](https://www.givedirectly.org/)

One of their early findings was that people in Kenya in thatched roof homes used their money to get tin roofs, an intervention that was on nobody's radar, and greatly improved quality of life.

People are in poverty /by definition/ because they don't have money, and are generally painfully aware of what their biggest challenges are.

<comment><USER10> 1) A housing voucher would cover analogous issues in the US.

2) Being poor in a poor country is very different from being poor in a rich country.

3) I don't know the details of the program, but it likely involved different amounts of accountability and social influences than a basic income.

<comment><USER12> "I don't know anything about what you're talking about, but I'm going to assume it supports my point of view."

<comment><USER10> "One of your concerns isn't backed up so I'm going to ignore your other points and troll"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The linked budget announcement says simply that the government will _begin consultations_ on how best to test and implement a Basic Invome scheme in 2016, not that it'll actually trial it this year. Not that a trial will begin his year. And, given the so-so response towards Ontario's supplemental pension plan, I wouldn't take support for this scheme as a given.

</comment><comment><USER14> I'm from Montreal where there's already income to families not making enough money. This is great but obviously some people abuse the system and use it to drink beer all day so some Montrealers don't like the idea of using their taxes to give them money.

But one very important point that people don't know is that giving basic income like that, even if abused, reduce criminality. When you have no money and are desperate, you're more likely to start doing illegal actions. Economically speaking, when you start thinking about the cost of more criminality, you realize that it's a pretty good deal to give basic income.

Not everyone here agrees with what I just said - most people don't even know that - but I think that in itself is a great reason.

</comment><comment><USER15> I have nothing against basic income as long as there are incentives and opportunities to motivate people to do better for themselves either financially or creatively.

As an Ontario resident it'll be interesting to see if this goes into effect and what the long term results are.

Can we get another province to try a libertarian approach and we can compare notes in about 25 to 50 years?

<comment><USER16> Basic income is supported by the libertarian party. [http://www.libertarianism.org/columns/libertarian-case- basic...](http://www.libertarianism.org/columns/libertarian-case-basic-income)

<comment><USER17> It's controversial: [http://reason.com/blog/2014/08/04/libertarians-on-basic- inco...](http://reason.com/blog/2014/08/04/libertarians-on-basic-income- guarantee)

The case for it is basically that we should choose something terrible over something awful.

<comment><USER18> I think there are also quite a few libertarians who recognise the necessity of wealth redistribution as a guard against creeping inequality, and would prefer that it be done in a market compatible way, instead of via government services.

<comment><USER17> > quite a few libertarians who recognise the necessity of wealth > redistribution as a guard against creeping inequality

Forced wealth redistribution is antithesis of libertarianism.

If it's not, I have been calling myself a libertarian incorrectly.

<comment><USER18> That depends whether you think the point of libertarianism is preferring market solutions to economic problems, or the protection of pure property rights.

The latter is perhaps more ideologically pure, but I think the former tends to lead to much more sensible arguments.

<comment><USER17> Property rights, social liberties, etc.

I don't even know what to call the first thing you mentioned. "preferring market solutions to economic problems" Capitalism?

<comment><USER18> Well I realise I'm biased, but the libertarians I respect tend more towards "market freedom as the null hypothesis" rather than the ideological extremes that lead to rhetorical nonsense like "tax is theft" and "property rights can be derived from non-aggression", or my personal favourite "violent coercion is bad (unless it's used to enforce property rights, that doesn't count)".

<comment><USER17> > tax is theft

The Supreme Court stated this "rhetorical nonsense" even more strongly: "the power to tax is the power to _destroy_ ".

> property rights can be derived from non-aggression

> violent coercion is bad (unless it's used to enforce property rights, that > doesn't count)

Property rights aren't a consequence of non-aggression, so much as non- aggression is scoped by the extent of property rights.

[https://mises.org/library/what- libertarianism](https://mises.org/library/what-libertarianism)

"...what aggression is depends on what our (property) rights are...One cannot identify an act of aggression without implicitly assigning a corresponding property right to the victim."

For example, driving a car can be aggression, depending on whether I have property rights to that car or not.

<comment><USER18> > "the power to tax is the power to destroy".

I'd need to see the context, but this seems even more ridiculous than calling tax theft. Taxation just moves things around, it doesn't destroy anything. (It might cause destruction due to inefficiency, but that's a separate argument.)

>Property rights aren't a consequence of non-aggression, so much as non- aggression is scoped by the extent of property rights.

Well this is more consistent, but I still consider that a fairly ridiculous definition of aggression. Most people would consider aggression to mean actual violence (or threats thereof) and nothing else. Using resources outside the constraints of society's property system (i.e. theft) might be considered immoral, but I wouldn't call that aggression.

Defining aggression to include theft just seems like a rhetorical trick to avoid explaining the immorality of theft itself (if it's called aggression it must be bad right?)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> We will be voting to implement the same mechanism in Switzerland in next June. Fear campaigns by right-wing parties are intensifying.

<comment><USER20> You call it "Fear campaigns", others would call it "participating in the democratic process".

<comment> k-mcgrady Not sure about the specific situation to parent is referring to but there is a difference. Take the UK referendum to leave the EU. There are valid points on both sides but when MP's start saying that leaving/staying makes it more likely we'll be attacked by terrorists I would consider that a fear campaign. It's a completely hypothetical point and only spoken to scare people into agreeing with you.

<comment><USER21> Both sides of almost every political debate use fear to try to get their way. Anti-encryption folks talk about the parade of horribles that private communications could enable, anti-gun people talk about school shootings, pro- army/navy/air force groups talk up terrorists and foreign enemies, pro-social program partisans pretend that the rich make money by abusing the poor.

There is unfortunately nothing new, unique, or particular about a group using fear to persuade or dissuade people from supporting a measure.

<comment><USER22> Fear as always been a great motivational tool. I'm pretty sure in Rome, they told thing like "if xxx happens, barbarians will be at the door of Rome"

<comment><USER21> Cicero famously argued that if Rome 'gave away' Campagnia, they would lose their 'granary for times of war'.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Given the fact that the Canadian economy isn't doing well and the government is running deficits, how are we going to pay for this ? What are we going to cut ? What taxes are we going to increase? Given the fact that value of CAD has dropped significantly which has led to increased food prices, how will this not hurt the working poor and the middle class ?

<comment><USER24> If the economy isn't doing well, then the government SHOULD be running a deficit. If they run a surplus, then they're depressing the economy even more.

Also, running a deficit by providing services (universal income included), is far better for the working poor and middle class than Quantitative Easing (i.e. jacking up asset prices, which predominantly benefits the rich).

Universal income is essentially the same as Steve Keen's suggestion of a modern debt jubilee, in which the level of private debt is returned to reasonable levels by expanding the money supply and paying down privately held debt. This would reset the clock, so to speak, allowing economic growth to continue. Whether such a policy makes ecological sense is, of course, a separate issue.

Edit: clarified "paying down privately held debt"

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I wonder how many people would use this as on opportunity to be able to spend more time working on open source.

<comment><USER26> I've wondered this as well.

One of the greatest inequities of today's startup experience is the fact that the vast majority of startup founders are already affluent and are basically immune to risk. UBI would allow people to do entrepreneurship with no risk.

They still wouldn't have all the same business opportunities (because obviously plenty of businesses require actual startup capital just go get going, not just people's time), but I think this would help a lot with smoothing over the inequality of opportunity that results from this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> The often raised argument in defense of UBI is the automation of production.

Well, work isn't just about producing goods. We work to solve problems. And there are plenty of problems and challenges that machines won't solve for us ranging from cancer and dementia to clean energy to global warming. Not to mention some nice-to-haves for the long-term like space colonization, life extension or nanotechnology.

Saying that humans should not need to work is like saying this is it. We're done here. This is the world we want.

<comment><USER28> Work on whatever you want to work on. If you're interested in nanotechnology, by all means, go work on it. But why should we design the world to force others to labor in ways they'd rather not under threat of destitution (starvation, homelessness, etc.), if we could instead allow people freedom from this bondage?

The way the world works now is that the wealthy are free to spend their time however they like, and the poor are forced to work on the projects the wealthy want worked on, regardless of their own interests, just to stay alive. Is this it? Are we done here? Is this the world we want?

<comment><USER29> You know what? You're right. I'm tired of doing boring work for lazy rich folks. My basic needs should be taken care of and I should be free to live my life pursuing whatever whims or flights of fancy might make themselves manifest in my mind.

But why wait for our professional policy makers to bring basic income into reality? We can make it happen right here, right now. We'll free all the wage slaves from the bondage of their forced labor, one at time, and starting with me.

Here's an opportunity to act upon your principles and bring the world you want into being.

Send your donations to the following bitcoin address:

1NPgtWa3bR9iKzWdSm9HsTuXhLLDLvTesa

<comment><USER30> Your comment is exactly the sort that would fit in well on reddit, but sticks out like a sore thumb on HN. Why? Well, because after taking the 40 seconds to read your entire message, I realized that it was nothing but sarcasm through and through.

In short, you added nothing to the discussion, apart from disrespecting the participants (which is what 100% sarcasm is).

<comment><USER31> The fact that his retort is sarcastic, does not mean that he does not have a point. His point is that someone will be subsidizing his existence, and pointing out that nobody would want to do it, if they were faced with that reality, directly.

<comment><USER18> This is a silly false comparison.

No, I'm not willing to implement one tiny wealth transfer that could conceivably be part of a Basic Income scheme. That would be stupid.

However, if it were possible to magically enter into a voluntary but binding pact with a large enough group of people to make Basic Income work, then I absolutely would do it even if it would mean lower income for me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> The title of the article is completely misleading.

[http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/budget/ontariobudgets/2016/ch1e....](http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/budget/ontariobudgets/2016/ch1e.html)

From the Budget: >One area of research that will inform the path to comprehensive reform will be the evaluation of a Basic Income pilot. The pilot project will test a growing view at home and abroad that a basic income could build on the success of minimum wage policies and increases in child benefits by providing more consistent and predictable support in the context of today's dynamic labour market. The pilot would also test whether a basic income would provide a more efficient way of delivering income support, strengthen the attachment to the labour force, and achieve savings in other areas, such as health care and housing supports. The government will work with communities, researchers and other stakeholders in 2016 to determine how best to design and implement a Basic Income pilot.

I find it quite interesting they are presupposing a Universal Basic Income, will strengthen attachment to the labor force instead of decreasing it. Human Nature suggests other wise.

</comment><comment><USER33> I think there's a real opportunity for a grand compromise between the left and right here. If a basic income/negative income tax is bundled with abolishing most or all other government handouts and retirement plans, small government minded people like myself could get behind it.

One thing I worry about is that this could cause massive inflation and a recession (stagflation) as people drop out of low-wage work in droves. What percent of society will decide to live on solely the basic income if it's high enough to pay for basic expenses? Work is virtuous and builds character. Idle hands are the devil's playthings.

And what would it do to our democracy if a huge portion of the population is living on someone else's dime and not even trying to join the workforce. Isn't it fair to call them children? What insight could they possibly have in the democratic process except to vote their own immediate monetary interests? I believe in universal suffrage, which is why this is a conundrum for me.

<comment><USER34> > Work is virtuous and builds character. Idle hands are the devil's > playthings.

The only difference is people will get to work for themselves, not for others. Re: the overall tone, I already have two parents and do not need another.

<comment><USER33> A basic income will never and should never happen if its supporters are unwilling to face up to its challenges. Play this offense-taking politics with it and you won't convince anyone. And you'll lose the trust of any libertarians and conservatives who are already in favor of it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Being already over 300 billion CAD in debt, it only make sense for Ontario to spend a bit more. Looks like Ontario government gave up hopes to repay the debt, so who cares - a basic income more, a basic income less...

</comment><comment><USER36> A challenge with Ontario is that the province is already on hard financial times and the current government is politically beholden to the bureaucracy. The financial idea of mincome is that the government can shut down a bunch of over-managed social programs in favour of a unified simple payment direct to the residents...

...but there's not political will to shrink the government complexity and capture this savings, which means mincome in Ontario is the fiscal policy equivalent of this xkcd comic:

[https://m.xkcd.com/927/](https://m.xkcd.com/927/)

</comment><comment><USER37> Simple question - in ideal world where UBI replaces welfare system, what happens to person, who takes UBI check, spend it all in casino and next day is due day for rent, health insurance, no food in refrigerator, etc?

<comment><USER38> You can flip that on its head and ask the same question about an employee who blows all their paycheck in a casino.

It's just an utterly pointless what-if. In all seriousness, how many people do you think will actually go and spend it all in a casino? 0.01%? 0.001%? What's the point of asking a question about the 0.001% of people with such a bad gambling habit that they'd immediately spend all their money in a casino. It should be utterly irrelevant to the discussion.

It's a different problem. Some people will muck up their lives. UBI won't solve that.

Some people will still get hit by a car, some people will still have mental health problems and some people will still get pregnant at 14. UBI won't solve that. Some people will still get hooked on heroin. UBI won't solve that. Some people will get struck by lightning and need emergency treatment. UBI won't solve that.

It won't be the only social welfare program needed. There are some people who through accident or poor choices will still need extra help.

<comment><USER39>
        > It won't be the only social welfare program needed. There are
        > some people who through accident or poor choices will still need
        > extra help.

Whenever UBI comes up some proponents of it support it largely on the notion that it could actually save money by abolishing the bureaucratic social welfare we have today.

Lots of comments here are pointing out something to that effect.

Which makes OPs question less absurd, because it goes to 1) How many selective welfare programs should still remain? 2) If #1 is large enough does the "but it can replace existing welfare programs" argument for UBI make sense?

<comment> Al-Khwarizmi I think the answer to that is quite simple and clear-cut. It can replace all the existing welfare programs that focus on material needs. It cannot replace programs that focus on other problems (for example drug addiction, mental illness, etc.) as those don't go away by throwing money at them. Note, however, than the latter have way less bureaucracy associated. Bureaucracy in welfare is almost always associated with fraud prevention from people who want to game the system to get money that they shouldn't get.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Basic income should be done like in the Expanse (e.g only for those with no/minimal income) and it should be dynamic - percentage based on the current economy size. It should also be spent only on domestic products to stimulate local economy. Otherwise, it will be another Ponzi scheme like the current pension systems.

Which would be a shame since it's a good idea and necessary due to technological advances.

<comment><USER41> A basic income that isn't universal isn't basic income. The entire point is that everyone in society receives the same minimal amount, regardless of what other income they might receive. The reduces bureaucratic complexity and problems like the welfare trap.

<comment><USER40> No, the point should be to provide a safety net while not creating a Ponzi scheme or forcing working population into welfare.

<comment><USER42> That may be a valid approach. The parent comment is merely pointing out that your proposal is technically distinct from "basic income", and therefore should be labeled appropriately.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> I wonder if "payday loan" companies would jump all over basic income? "Can't wait for your next month's basic income check? We'll get you CASH right now for only a small fee.* We're here to help you!"

*Annual interest rate of 1200%

<comment><USER18> I think the solution to this is not to legally enforce debt collection of Basic Income, so it's impossible to be forced into poverty by debt.

IMO the core purpose of Basic Income is to provide a baseline standard of living, so this solution fits well with that ideal.

This would, however, increase the risk to creditors across the board (since the worst penalty for defaulting is living on Basic Income) but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> The issue with basic income is in the long-term. When more and more generations of people start to depend on it (I've seen it with welfare in my hometown), it becomes a crutch and will stifle their future success.

Eventually, there won't be enough people giving back into the system and the whole thing will collapse. Before this happens, taxes will continue to be raised in people in lower income brackets.

The politicians love it though. It creates an instant voter base. Why would a person, receiving free money, vote for someone that will take it away?

Because of things like this, I wish we had laws in place that all voters had to at least 1) work some sort of job (it doesn't matter what it is) and 2) proof they paid income taxes.

<comment><USER45> If a majority of a society wants only to barely survive, rather than improve themselves and/or humanity, that is a problem itself. I see little reason to let _anyone_ suffer, regardless of that fact that they may have "earned" their suffering.

Do you have any modern, long-term examples of basic income failing?

<comment><USER46> > If a majority of a society wants only to barely survive, rather than improve > themselves and/or humanity, that is a problem itself.

That's one way of looking at it. Another way is that advances in technology have made it such that there is a 1% of individuals who progress so fast that they make the rest look like they're at a standstill by comparison, regardless of how hard they try.

<comment><USER45> I don't think OP was referring to people who are trying but cannot succeed. I think he was saying that basic income encourages a society to rely upon the government and forget about putting any effort in to trying to succeed.

<comment><USER47> If you're poor, you're already relying on the government, and have no means to apply any more effort.

<comment><USER45> The poor are incapable of rising above their current conditions?

<comment><USER47> If they were, why would they be poor?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Definitely excited to see this trial take place.

</comment><comment><USER49> Looks like someone beat YC to it :)

</comment><comment><USER50> In social science, society is the guinea pig.

<comment><USER21> I agree with the sentiment, but am somewhat more pessimistic, and would say that the more usual case is:

 _' In social science, the people are the guinea pigs.'_

and disturbingly often:

 _' In social programs, the poor are the guinea pigs.'_

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> For context, Ontario has no natural resources. We have always been an export economy. With globalization and automation, manufacturing is mostly gone, and it's creating social problems. We have a fundamentally different view of the role of government here, we believe government should promote quality of life and happiness. Yes it is socialism and we don't apologize.

<comment><USER52> Isn't Ontario full of logged forests and mines? Not to mention hydro power? (as documented here: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjLBXb1kgMo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjLBXb1kgMo))

<comment><USER53> Also full of minerals (nickel, copper etc). I'm not sure how productive the mines are anymore but Ontario has areas names Nickel Belt, Copperclif, Nickel Centre.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> Basic income seems to come from the right place from people that support it.

I do think it's misguided benevolence, though. I hope that largely removing adversity and creating dependence aren't viewed as trivial changes here. People need to be challenged. We need to consider the more subtle ramifications of this. Humans have always labored. Work is in our blood.

<comment><USER55> I don't view it as benevolence so much as one of the few realistic solutions to the issue of increasing automation resulting in having way more people than we need to produce the needed goods for that same population.

The options are either embracing some form of socialism or violent, society- ending revolt.

I'd much prefer the former to the latter.

<comment><USER54> I agree that a lot of forms of employment will eventually be automated.

I'm more optimistic, however. I think labor will just evolve, just as it's done with every corresponding evolution in technology.

<comment><USER56> > I think labor will just evolve

Then you're missing the point, there is not an endless amount of low skilled labor to do and machines will take over all of those roles, even the new ones. People aren't going to suddenly all be able to handle high skilled jobs.

<comment><USER54> I imagine they said something similar about ditch diggers and buggy drivers when the combustion engine came along.

There is a strong relationship between improvements in technology and improvements in human development. All boats rise with the tide.

<comment><USER56> What happened in the past is not an indication of what will happen in the future, past automation was trivial and small compared to the automation happening today. To continue to bury your head in the sand and proclaim "there will be new jobs" is utterly missing the point being made, no, there will not be a continual supply of new jobs to replace the old ones. Low skill jobs are going away permanently, not just shifted to new fields like in the past. The effect of machines on the economy (industrial revolution) is not going to be the same as the effect of intelligent machines on the economy; the past doesn't predict the future, it only occasionally rhymes with it. Intelligent machines aren't going to create enough new jobs to replace the ones they destroy, by design.

<comment><USER34> > What happened in the past is not an indication of what will happen in the > future,

The definition of change.. but some people seem to believe change does not exist. Is it possible to reach such a person/</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Sviatoslav Richter: A Pianist Who Made the Earth Move (2015) - <AUTHOR> https://www.npr.org/sections/deceptivecadence/2015/03/19/393778706/sviatoslav-richter-the-pianist-who-made-the-earth-move <comment><USER2> I discovered Richter when I listened to Mussorgsky's Pictures of an Exhibition on an old LP. But I really understood Richter's boldness and genius when a friend of mine lended me a CD with Schubert's last piano sonata (D960).

Just listen to the way the first bars, containing the unforgettable opening theme, are usually played by most of the best pianists:

\- Brendel: [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TKy0Lyl4g-s](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TKy0Lyl4g-s)

\- Uchida: [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=l7cc2FD06FM](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=l7cc2FD06FM)

\- Kovacevich: [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MAZ8PA5_gVA](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MAZ8PA5_gVA)

And now listen to Richter's version:

[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbJtHzaFpBQ](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbJtHzaFpBQ)

This very slow tempo is extremely difficult from the point of view of the pianist, because it requires great control of dynamics and precision. However, it allows the listener to understand all the intricacies of the harmony and of the texture. I do not usually listen Richter's version because it requires deep concentration, but I can say I never really understood this piece until I heard Richter.

Happy birthday, Maestro!

<comment><USER3> I'll be honest, as an untrained listener of Classical music, I am having a hard time appreciating Richter's version from the rest except for the Tempo. I think your explanation makes sense that slower tempo allows the user to understand the intricacies of the piece.

How would it sound if other artists also played at a slower tempo? Can they even play at a lower tempo or that's Richter's specialty? Are there any other aspects of Richter's version besides the tempo I should be observing? I am not trying to play a devil's advocate, I am _extremely_ curious as why I can't appreciate it as much as others.

<comment><USER2> It's not just a matter of slow/fast, because when you pick a tempo, this allows adopting solutions that would be awkward at a different speed. (Using a programmer's analogy, picking a tempo is like entering different branches of a very deep tree).

To understand this, consider bars 185ff in the development section. Here, after a long passage where another theme dominated the scene, the main theme returns two times: first in d minor, then in B-flat major. How do the pianists play this passage?

\- Kovacevich ([https://youtu.be/MAZ8PA5_gVA?t=744](https://youtu.be/MAZ8PA5_gVA?t=744)) play the d-minor and the B-flat phrases quite in the same way.

\- Brendel ([https://youtu.be/TKy0Lyl4g-s?t=443](https://youtu.be/TKy0Lyl4g-s?t=443)) and Richter ([https://youtu.be/ZbJtHzaFpBQ?t=983](https://youtu.be/ZbJtHzaFpBQ?t=983)) play the second one much softer than the first, as if the B-flat phrase were a distant echo, or a timid answer, of the d-minor one.

\- Uchida ([https://youtu.be/l7cc2FD06FM?t=812](https://youtu.be/l7cc2FD06FM?t=812)) plays both occurrences very softly as if the composer wanted to remind the listener of the long-forgotten theme.

What I am trying to show here is that, apart from speed, there are many other subtle ways a pianist expresses what the composer meant. This kind of nuances can be very hard to spot, but adopting Richter's tempo makes easier to appreciate them.

<comment><AUTHOR> I noticed that Richter also slows down the tempo very slightly when playing the B-flat phrase. Playing it much softer and slightly more slowly really accentuates the sense of nostalgia and longing I find in this movement.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> A colleague came to Richter after a concert and asked him: "How could you play that passage, I practiced it for 100 times with no luck". Richter: "I practiced it 1000 times".

</comment><comment><USER5> The quote about large hands being a disadvantage for playing Mozart or Chopin sounds ridiculous. Large hands (large span) are an advantage almost always.

Here's an example of Zimerman absolutely nailing a Chopin grande polonaise. Large hands are always helpful.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMsYYhYl6Dg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMsYYhYl6Dg)

<comment><USER6> If you're right then piano keyboards are misdesigned for humans. Plausible in my experience.

<comment><USER7> However, by all reports Chopin's hands were special, and an anatomical key to his success. In At the Piano with Chopin, composer Stephen Heller is cited as extolling how Chopin's slim hands would "suddenly expand and cover a third of the keyboard. It was like the opening of the mouth of a serpent about to swallow a rabbit whole." A student, Adolf Gutmann, also reportedly said Chopin's "whole body was extraordinarily flexible."

Regardless of the size of the keyboard, bigger hands will always cover more keys.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Ah so nice to see this here, one of my favorite pianists.

This Ravel piece [https://youtu.be/PuFwt66Vr6U](https://youtu.be/PuFwt66Vr6U)

His Rachmaninov pieces are absolutely divine.

[https://youtu.be/uT_ZhhQeudY](https://youtu.be/uT_ZhhQeudY)

And Debussy [https://youtu.be/SoqSqW0YW7A](https://youtu.be/SoqSqW0YW7A)

</comment><comment><USER9> My best friend is older mathematician is his late 70's. His best friend,Вадим Могильницкий, who unfortunately passed away, was an avid collectors of Richter's audio recordings and Richter's biographer. He published two books: "Святослав Рихтер" (S. Richter) and "Рихтер - Ансамблист" (Richer - Ansamblyst). They were never translated to English.

</comment><comment><USER10> If you're a Richter fan, I strongly recommend his notebooks [1], which are well edited and give many insights into him and into his perceptions of the artists of that era. The second half of the book consists of a chronological listing of concerts he played in and records he listened to and his evaluations of both.

[1] [https://www.amazon.com/Sviatoslav-Richter-Conversations- Brun...](https://www.amazon.com/Sviatoslav-Richter-Conversations-Bruno- Monsaingeon/dp/0691095493)

</comment><comment><USER11> For anyone interested in learning more about Richter, there is a particularly good documentary called "Richter, the enigma" from 1998.

</comment><comment><USER12> In this YT video of him playing Chopin's Etudes, someone forgot to turn on the lights and he in not able to see the score, but he plays on regardless.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=12&v=gONhZu5ad4s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=12&v=gONhZu5ad4s)

<comment><USER13> I'm far from a professional musician, but I find it difficult to believe that the written music for a solo pianist serves any purpose other than perhaps a bit of confidence in an emergency if memory fails. Surely there's no way you can actually read complex passages anywhere near fast enough to actually rely on them for a live performance.

<comment><USER14> His sense of absolute pitch shifted in later age, leaving him constantly unsure as to the correctness of the notes he was playing. The music was intended to be a check against any confusion arising from this. At least this is what he claims. Would be interesting to know if this was necessarily entirely psychological or not.

<comment><USER15> IIRC he forgot a note one performance and put the sheet music in front of him ever since.

It is easy to imagine forgetting which high or low disconnected note you're supposed to start a passage from on a piece you haven't played recently -- or you have the sense of the feeling of a note but might be off by a fourth.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Felt strange to recognize the name, only because I was trying to find a good version of Rachmaninoff's Prelude Op.23 No.1, and just happened to come across the Richter version which was far and away the best I found. I've never heard him play anything else though.

</comment><comment><USER17> I love his recording of Schubert's Wanderer Fantasy. As I recall, the LP had lovely performances of a Schubert sonata and some impromptus on the flip side.

<comment><USER18> Not a fan of the Wanderer Fantasy. Don't find the melody compelling, personally. D. 946 no. 2, on the other hand, I find lovely, especially when the first main melody comes in not too long after the 3 minute mark, and _especially_ when the real main melody comes in around the 5 minute mark.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoMsV5VrpFA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoMsV5VrpFA)

(This comment isn't related to Richter, I'm just sharing a nice Schubert piece for anyone interested.)

<comment><USER19> Let me compensate the lack of Richter with a Richter recording that is not [1] a Schubert composition. Variations Serieuses (Mendelssohn Bartholdy) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9qEIcgSXLU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9qEIcgSXLU)

[1] I love Schubert, best composer ever in my opinion. Unfortunately, Richter couldn't Play "Tod und das Mädchen" (death and the maiden)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I love his recording of Schubert's Wanderer Fantasy. As I recall, the LP also had lovely performances of a Schubert sonata and some impromptus.</comment>


Atmospheric Vortex Engine - <AUTHOR> http://vortexengine.ca/index.shtml <comment><USER2> This is really interesting. That said, it looks pretty straightforward to build; looks like there are no novel materials or equipment needed to make this happen, from my reading of it. Given that, why don't we have a full-scale prototype of this, at the very least? Is it just the money, or is there something non-trivial about this? I feel like I'm missing some reason why this is non-viable in practice.

<comment><USER3> I actually worked in the lab with Louis' team this past summer (completely unrelated projects.)

If the wind was going faster than a couple miles per hour, they couldn't even turn their prototype on to run their tests. I think the biggest problem they're having with going big-picture with this is doing the due-diligence to prove it's not a tornado machine.

<comment><USER4> Say more about "couldn't even turn [it] on"? Because it didn't work then (not a good sign)? Or because they, or somebody, thought the vortex would detach and go rogue?

<comment><USER3> It was less of an immediate safety concern and more a case of trying to limit the variables. They were only doing tests under ideal conditions, rather than testing in all conditions. I imagine the plan involves testing in all conditions eventually, but they need to fine-tune their equipment in ideal conditions to make sure they know what "good" and "bad" look like before potentially feeding some atmospheric action that they didn't anticipate.

<comment><USER5> How about doing it somewhere remote? Say, on a remote pacific island with no inhabitants? Or is there even the fear that it could emit a hurricane (which would probably happen anyways, but if it's your machine that starts it, all (media) hell breaks loose)?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_tower_(downdraft)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_tower_\(downdraft\)) Downdraft tower seems similar. In theory could produce 400MW in a small area and solve our energy problems.

<comment><USER7> The difference between the vortex engine and the downdraft or solar tower is that you don't have to build a 1000 meter high tower. I'm not a believer in it but it's important to realise the difference.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Basically and for dummies, what to do with blockchain? - <AUTHOR> Blockchain is the new buzz tech on the block and there is increasing interest from devs worldwide and the big corporations. In your opinion, are we going towards a new global and original software ecosystem or it will be a transactional / smart contract tool on top of existing software only? Thanks. <comment><USER3> Hi! I've been working on blockchain tech professionally since mid 2013, and been writing software since the 80s. I'm CTO of BigchainDB.

Here's how I see things. Blockchains are distributed databases (e.g. MongoDB) with three new characteristics: decentralized (no single entity owns or controls), immutable (tamper-resistant), and assets (you own the asset if you have the private key).

Each new characteristic of blockchain tech leads to business benefits. "Decentralized" helps organizations share resources; e.g. music labels sharing a database of who-wrote-what. "Immutable" gives better audit trails; e.g. to see history of ownership of art. "Assets" can now live on the data store itself, which enables decentralized exchanges and more.

Details: [https://blog.bigchaindb.com/three-blockchain-benefits- ae3a2a...](https://blog.bigchaindb.com/three-blockchain-benefits- ae3a2a5ab102#.k5wi3ccyv)

Let's use this as a basis to answer the question...

You can use blockchain tech in your existing centralized stacks. E.g. it would run side-by-side with your instances of Postgres, MongoDB, etc. Typically the blockchain would incorporated as a database-as-a-service. This would make the stack partly-decentralized.

Or you can go for a fully-decentralized stack. You'd have decentralized file systems (e.g. IPFS), decentralized processing aka "smart contracts" (e.g. Ethereum), and decentralized database (e.g. BigchainDB).

</comment><comment><USER4> Both Bitcoin and Ethereum are quite amazing. Whether they are the "end game" for their technologies has yet to be seen. But we are only beginning to see the applications of this technology. Bitcoin was more or less the first to practically solve the double spend problem, but depends on independent mining to make that work.

I suppose if a blockchain were secured - that is the nodes were all trusted and there was no way for a third party to interject into the blockchain - <USER2> could be very useful for solving conflict of interest problems. I believe it is being used for situations similar to "letters of credit" already, and that's a good application scenario.

I haven't been involved with any non-bitcoin blockchain implementations, so I'm not familiar with the specific issues companies face. But I know both Microsoft and IBM have blockchains-as-a-service and I imagine somebody is working on it. I'd love to hear of their experience.

<comment><USER4> I'm back with a bit more information, discussing applications. Which mostly seem to be other X-as-a-service offerings.

Microsoft has a blog related to their blockchain-as-a-service at [https://azure.microsoft.com/en- us/blog/topics/blockchain/](https://azure.microsoft.com/en- us/blog/topics/blockchain/)

Both IBM and Microsoft talk about Hyperledger, which appears to be where the service side of the technology is converging. [https://www.hyperledger.org/](https://www.hyperledger.org/)

I'm sure somebody who is actually familiar with these things will come along shortly and explain them to us. Or I hope so.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I recently watched Steve Hoberman's ["The Blockchain Billionaire"|[https://youtu.be/HzxX9raADzg](https://youtu.be/HzxX9raADzg)] video. It succinctly explains the what, why and how of the blockchain technology.

Watch it; it will change your perspective and understanding.

<comment><USER6> This isn't a fundamental change in economy, it's like all the other changes we had.

I mean, back in the days we had the Church and the Nobility which had all the wealth. Now we have what? The Stars and the Businesses?

Sure, all in all more "normal" people got a bigger piece of the pie, but it's still a bad system. Also, many old wealthy families still own their money, look at the nobility of countries like UK. Millions of pounds in the hands of people who did basically nothing for it.

Now what will blockchains change? People who got the know how and money to make it work their way will be the winners and this means basically a big bunch of people who are the winners right now.

Yeah, way to stick it to the man! Those pesky bankers now get it...

But we only swap them out for some companies who put in the know how and money to control the whole thing.

The problem isn't that bankers are bad or monarchs or businesses, the problem is that concentrated power is bad and today this means concentrated wealth.

<comment><USER7> >Now what will blockchains change?

Blockchain applications can differ from Bitcoin. I think you are aiming your comment more at Bitcoin--or rather not even that but decentralized currencies in general. In that case, a possible change hoped for by many is the removal of central places of trust that can fail. For example, Satoshi Nakamoto used the text, "The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks" for the Genesis Block—it was because of a concern for placing trust in something central like the banks.

<comment><USER6> How do other decentralized currencies differ from bitcoin?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> "Blockchain" is basically just the process of doing a long math problem with distributed computing and showing your work.

Bitcoin does not rely on new breakthroughs in any science. The thing that's revolutionary about it is the idea of a people's currency, not the technologies used. The technologies that make that possible are all quite old.

Bitcoin's "blockchain" is not even the most efficient way to solve a given problem. It is intentionally inefficient by a variable factor (difficulty) to provide economic stability.

After Bitcoin's rise, a lot of people in banking wanted to believe that there is some magic element of Bitcoin that makes it technologically better than what they offer, because that would mean they could use that technology to create their own Bitcoin. But there isn't. People use it precisely because it allows them to store and exchange wealth outside of banks and nation states. The tech is irrelevant.

</comment><comment><USER9> Pertaining to bitcoin:

> Electronic cash for online payments is possible without financial > institutions.

Above is taken from a post where I summarize and/or paraphrase the original bitcoin white paper. Goal was to answer question posted by OP: communicate the features (of bitcoin) and blockchains with clear language anyone could understand.

HT to Ben Graham, it's "Bitcoin White Paper for Intelligent Investors" and is here:

[https://github.com/DeBraid/bitcoin-notes/blob/master/btc- for...](https://github.com/DeBraid/bitcoin-notes/blob/master/btc-for- intelligent-investors.md)

</comment><comment><USER10> Step 1.) Blockchain!

Step 2.) ??????

Step 3.) Profit!!!

</comment><comment><USER11> blockchain is just a data structure, and its already being used by a bunch of financial institutions to do the distributed ledger thing.

<comment><USER12> Is there a good block chain implementation to play around with? I've looked but I don't know where to begin.

<comment><USER11> Probably hundreds, but I can't point a particularly great one out.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Perhaps nothing at all will come of it?

</comment><comment><USER14> The only problems the "blockchain" solves are money laundering and bypassing capital controls.</comment>


Octobox Is Going Open Source on Assembly - <AUTHOR> https://assembly.com/octobox

<comment><AUTHOR> Here's the blog post about the switch as well: [https://assembly.com/octobox/posts/octobox-is-going-open- sou...](https://assembly.com/octobox/posts/octobox-is-going-open-source-on- assembly)</comment>


Genetic Architecture of Gray Matter - <AUTHOR> http://news.unchealthcare.org/news/2020/march/worldwide-study-unlocks-genetic-secrets-of-gray-matter <comment><USER2> An illustrative link: [https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2017/03/everything-is- heritabl...](https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2017/03/everything-is- heritable.html) (A short post with a nice chart, contains a further link to a proper paper.)

Regarding the pessimism of genetic pre-determination and this congenital disadvantage: I think the real progress of society is how it learns to make lives of _different_ people productive and satisfying. E.g. nerdy types had it hard in, say, 19th century Europe, but now they have a great and important niche in engineering. Same happened to many more predispositions of people that now lead to something interesting instead of pure misery.

I think this process is not going to stop.

</comment><comment><USER3> So how will society adapt when specific genetic variants inevitably are tied to predisposition for intelligence and behavior?

ADHD, autism, BPD, as listed in the article, are not specific conditions, but rather represent a range of behavioral and intellectual tendencies that are better described as clusters in high dimensional personality space. If there are already 300 genes mapped which influence this handful of conditions, that implies that we already know of specific genes which effectively influence behavior by shifting psychology around these clusters.

And since genes are heritable, this has consequences for groups of people and their interactions in greater society. This may be an unpleasant question but if research proceeds in this field it is one that will have to be answered.

<comment><USER4> I don't think it will influence course of events much. Governments will reluctantly allow genetic treatment of debilitating heritable conditions (nothing else, for obvious political reasons). And then brain-computer interfaces will make heritable component of intelligence less important.

<comment><USER2> Brain-computer interfaces won't do much to the structure of motivation and other traits that make certain genetically "more nerdy" types better predisposed to certain types of mental work. Much like easy and cheap computer-based DAWs and musical instruments did not make everyone a musician or a composer on equal footing.

<comment><USER5> You can literally stimulate networks, you may even be able to chemically and topologically change networks with combined technologies. We are talking about brain interfaces of the future, obviously some of which may get more invasive yet safe, assuming that engineering around the sensitivity of the brain improves.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: A beginner's guide to data analysis with unix utilities (part 1) - <AUTHOR> http://j-vdh.blogspot.com/2015/05/a-beginners-guide-to-unix-utilities-for.html

<comment><USER2> What's with the all-capsyness? Please edit the title, moderators.

</comment><comment><USER3> Show HN: caps lock

<comment><AUTHOR> fixed</comment></comment>


Using Ruby and Python on Web Clients - <AUTHOR> http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2009/Jul-22-1.html <comment><USER2> Requires Silverlight.

<comment><USER3> Or Moonlight.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What are some nicely designed file sharing websites? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> <https://dropcanvas.com>

Incredibly simple site.

</comment><comment><USER3> <https://www.wetransfer.com/> is really slick

</comment><comment><USER4> ge.tt

<comment><USER5> How much do you think that domain cost?</comment></comment>


Applied Linear Algebra Textbook by Boyd and Vandenberghe - <AUTHOR> http://vmls-book.stanford.edu/ <comment><USER2> Same team is also developing Convex Optimization module for JuliaLang

[https://stanford.edu/~boyd/papers/pdf/convexjl.pdf](https://stanford.edu/~boyd/papers/pdf/convexjl.pdf)

Convex Optimization – Boyd and Vandenberghe

[http://web.stanford.edu/~boyd/cvxbook/](http://web.stanford.edu/~boyd/cvxbook/)</comment>


Advice for job seekers (colorful language) - <AUTHOR> http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/sfo/28858010.html

<comment><USER2> For every frustrated HR peon who hates it when people send a link instead of a Word resume, there is another who hates it when people send a Word resume instead of a link. Of course, both will invariably come to the conclusion that people are stupid.

Attachments? Only stupid people don't know about viruses. No attachments? Only stupid people don't know about the MS Word-compatible software used by HR departments to sort through resumes. And so on and so forth, ad nauseum.

How about you take a long, hard look at yourself, Ms. HR and consider that one is by definition a "total raging bitch" when one refers to their fellow human beings as "whiney fucksicles".

<comment><USER3> I have to wonder if she specified the resume format and medium. If I ask for a resume as an RTF attachment, I'm not going to get mad at someone who sends a link. I'm just not going to look at it. That said, I've received some truly horrific resumes over the years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Right, because we are all looking for jobs on this board.

Oh wait, startup capital is drying up. Carry on.

</comment><comment><USER5> I'm in the midst of hiring a part-time bookkeeper. One ad on Craigslist resulted in over 200 responses.

I got a guy with his email address full name set to "Iwana Jumpu", at least three resumes in Comic Sans, and fully 25% of them the email body had no text...it was just an attachment of their resume (some did have a cover letter attached as well, though it was mostly a generic cover letter with no relation to the position or my ad). The people who went to the trouble to write an email, mention why they liked the sound of the position, and give a brief overview of their qualifications _as they apply to this job_ are obviously the people I'm calling and considering for the position. Good spelling, reasonable grammar, sane use of fonts and colors, etc. also play a role.

This process has led me to start work on a similar rant for my personal blog. I understand the frustration, and I can only imagine what it's like for someone filling many positions, rather than just one.

<comment><USER6> Now now, don't you think Iwana Jumpu has enough problems already without being discriminated against in employment situations?

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> "I am not a total raging bitch." Well, maybe not "total"...

<comment><USER8> Haha at least it was entertaining. And while most of the write-up probably seems like common sense to HNers, this should be required reading for college students applying for jobs.

College recruiting - please God never again.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Brilliant! She seems to 'punctuate' like an English man and describes exactly what I do when culling resumes from the pile on the first pass.

</comment><comment><USER10> "90% of everything is crap – music, movies, cars, people." - never guessed the last ingredient before

<comment><USER11> Maybe 90% of resumes are crap, but I believe everyone has some potential, even if their resume is crap. I certainly hope that's not how one views their friends, coworkers, employees, children, neighbors, etc.

<comment><USER10> Agree

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I liked it, she pretty much describes her job and the common mistakes people do...</comment>


Judge Alsup Slams Patent Troll - <AUTHOR> https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190508/17291342168/judge-alsup-slams-patent-troll-basically-everything.shtml <comment> munk-a Seeing those who try to profit by breaking/abusing our legal structure smacked down is always cathartic - this particular instance has a hilarious portion of the judgement in refusing the ability for the filer to censor what they filed over. Intellectual property is valuable and industrial espionage from actors who are not held to account by US law is a real issue - but in theory that's what patents are there for. Your IP no longer needs to be kept under lock and key since it's registered with the government and you are given legal recourse to seek damages if someone uses that information - this is the mechanism I appreciate the most from our patent system and I hope we preserve it when we revise the system to be less stupid about other things.

The fact that this troll was arguing that they couldn't reveal the way in which their IP was infringed publicly as it would hurt their business is hilarious as it's absolutely true and depressing at the same time - <USER2> business is hoping that other companies accidentally trip into patent violations, they don't want those violators to negotiate usage fees upfront nor do they want the violators to carefully avoid violating the patent.

<comment><USER3> Such shady tactics aren't limited to small companies - Microsoft kept its Android patents secret for as long as possible: [https://www.zdnet.com/article/310-microsoft-patents-used- in-...](https://www.zdnet.com/article/310-microsoft-patents-used-in-android- licensing-agreements-revealed-by-chinese-gov/)

<comment><USER4> Microsoft did not try to keep their Android patents secret but did try to keep secret the list of which of their Android patents were used in licensing deals. This is a key difference as, unlike patents, licensing deals and the list of patents included in those deals are not public information and keeping them confidential does not seem to me to be "shady." The individual patents, provided you knew which were involved, could and can be easily looked up and read.

<comment><USER3> > This is a key difference

It is a distinction without a difference - without knowing which patents are 'Android patents' (i.e. the ones in the licensing deals), avoiding them is impossible.

<comment><USER5> Could you find them by looking at the patent markings on Android devices (or in the accompanying documents) made by companies that licensed the patents? The patent licensing deal that granted them the right to use those patents should have included a requirement that they mark.

<comment><USER3> From the wording of that story I assume no, or it wouldn't have required the Chinese government to reveal them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It seems strange to me that having prior technical knowledge in some field is seen as an assett in a judge, but a reason to disqualify a juror.

Is it the case that lawyers don't want anyone to understand the technical issues, but they only have the ability to get rid of potential jurors, not judges?

<comment><USER7> A jury trial involves a careful division between the jury's role and the role of the court, lawyers, and experts. The jury decides a factual question based on a carefully orchestrated presentation of evidence. The judge decides the content and manner of presentation of that evidence, to conform to legal requirements. The jury's job is simply to evaluate the evidence and render a decision.

For example, say the defendant asserts that a patent is "obvious." "Obviousness" has a precise legal definition: it means that every element of a patent claim was disclosed in a combination of prior art references. Where multiple references must be combined to arrive at the invention, there usually must be a showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references in the necessary manner. The court will decide what elements are required by the patent claims and what references are prior art, and the experts will opine on what elements are disclosed in which prior art references and whether there is any motivation to combine them. The jury takes that information and decides the ultimate question of obviousness.

That process absolutely requires the jury to "understand the technical issues." During trial, evidence about how the accused product works will be shown in slides right next to the patent claim language. Jurors will be repeatedly told that they must find that every element of the patent claim is practiced by the accused product. If jurors don't understand the technology well enough to map between the accused product and the patent claims, they are not going to return a verdict for the patent owner. (You will almost never see an appeal in a patent case where the patent required doing "X" and the accused product simply did not do "X." The fight is always about the scope of what it means to do "X.")

But that understanding must be based _only on the evidence presented._ The risk with jurors who have domain knowledge in specific fields is that they will substitute their own knowledge and preconceptions for the evidence, and when that happens, you get a verdict that is not based on the evidence presented--which is curated to meet legal requirements--but based on an unknowable body of information in the juror's head.

There is also _no need_ for jurors to bring personal expertise to bear on a case. A jury of 12 ordinary people can understand surprisingly complex subject matter when they have Ivy-league PhDs explaining it to them, and do nothing but focus on the subject all day for a week or two at a time. What they may lack is _domain knowledge._ But if there is pertinent knowledge, it is the party's job to put that knowledge in front of the jury. The jury must simply be able to understand it once it has been presented.

As to your last point--if the judge doesn't understand your technology, she will assume it is bullshit and find ways to throw out your case. (Most cases don't make it to a jury trial.) Parties go to great lengths to explain the technology to judges, for example, through lengthy tech tutorials and the like.

<comment><USER8> Which is the complete opposite of how juried trials were originally designed.

"A jury of one's peers" originally meant people from your community, people who knew you, thus coming in with lots of relevant knowledge.

[https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/a%20jury%20of%20o...](https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/a%20jury%20of%20one%27s%20peers)

<comment><USER7> That's true in a sense, but I should note that the shift to the modern conception of the jury's function happened long time ago: [http://www.dentonlaw.com/newsarticles/hearsay-a-brief- histor...](http://www.dentonlaw.com/newsarticles/hearsay-a-brief-history).

> Beginning in the later 1400s, the development of the jury trial, with > witnesses testifying about the facts of a particular case was an important > factor in the development of the hearsay rule. Interesting, it appears that > prior to the later 1400s juries conducted their own investigations in civil > cases.

> Toward the end of the Middle Ages, the function of the jury transformed from > persons who were active investigators that had knowledge of the case to our > present day juries who are passive triers of fact with no prior knowledge of > the case presented.

<comment><USER9> The US still has a sort of investigative jury: the grand jury. Though the actual investigation is not actually done by the people on the jury, I think it has to be a direct descendent of those medieval juries.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> He can slam all he wants, its obvously not working. Maybe the courts need to raise the cost of sueing without merit.

<comment><USER11> Outside the US it's very common for the losing party to pay the legal expenses of the other party, in order to discourage stuff like this because someone who's obviously right has theoretically nothing to lose. However, since that could be abused by big companies, we often let governments handle common civil matters. Eg, in Sweden you would call the Swedish Companies Registration Office in case someone opens up a business with the same name as yours and they would handle it rather than you dragging the offender to court.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Here's the case. Looks like they are appealing.

[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6262395/uniloc-usa- inc-...](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6262395/uniloc-usa-inc-v-apple- inc/)

</comment><comment><USER13> I often wonder what life is like as a patent troll attorney. Wake up, read emails knows, get to work on filing motions, read some hate mail, post some scammy ads, make a few calls to other people in the racket.

Sure, maybe they get paid enough not to care… but the have industrialized patent trolling. It's a job like any other for most involved.

That life seems… I duhno, pretty sad.

<comment><USER14> It's a matter of perspective. A patent troll is just a big corporation's term for an inventor who seeks to make money by licensing his patented invention to others. The big corporation doesn't see any value in paying license fees when its internal R&D team come up with the same invention on its own. The inventor can't realistically compete with the big corporation, so he is branded a "non- practicing entity". The inventor can't get an injunction to stop the big corporation from shipping its product because of _eBay v. MercExchange_. When the inventor asks for too much, the big corporation will challenge the patent in court and/or the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instead of paying a license fee. The PTAB finds 40% of the patents it reviews invalid. [0]. Recent court decisions have also rendered entire categories of inventions unpatentable, regardless of how new and non-obvious they are. [1]. The inventor faces tremendous odds against him making any money whatsoever. Most patents are, in fact, worthless. [2].

So, from the patent troll attorney's perspective, he is fighting against injustice. He is an advocate for the little guy, the downtrodden independent inventor, who is being taken advantage of by the big evil corporation.

[0] [https://www.patentprogress.org/2018/05/01/a-little-more- than...](https://www.patentprogress.org/2018/05/01/a-little-more-than-forty- percent/) [1] See, e.g., _Alice v. CLS Bank_ and various post- _Alice_ Federal Circuit decisions. [2] [http://ipassetmaximizerblog.com/the-dirty-little- secret-of-p...](http://ipassetmaximizerblog.com/the-dirty-little-secret-of- patents-is-that-most-are-worthless-to-their-owners-here-is-why/)

<comment><USER15> > The inventor can't realistically compete with the big corporation, so he is > branded a "non-practicing entity".

A characteristic of software that distinguishes it from most other industries is that software "inventions" are implemented as a work of authorship rather than a physical product. If you invent a new kind of battery and want to mass produce it, you need real estate for a factory, manufacturing equipment, factory workers, contracts with raw materials suppliers, etc.

If you invent a new kind of software, to mass produce it you distribute it over the internet, which is very inexpensive and within the reach of most everyone.

The result is that the small inventor generally _can_ compete, but the very act of doing business makes it more difficult to enforce a patent against a big corporation, because as soon as you do they turn around and counterclaim with their own thousands of patents, many of which are invalid or not infringed but it doesn't matter because the litigation costs would bankrupt you.

The result is that the small inventor is hurt by software patents (the big corporation can in practice use them against the small practicing inventor but not vice versa), and anything that weakens or eliminates them helps the little guy. Meanwhile the entities that do initiate software patent litigation are commonly lawyers that have picked old software patents from the bones of dead businesses to use them to attack the surviving ones, which is obviously not a sympathetic business model. The attorneys doing this professionally are presumably aware of this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Alsup for SCOTUS</comment>


Ask HN: What is the hiring pipeline in top tech co's for the more experienced? - <AUTHOR> If you have ever worked for a large well regarded tech company, I'd like to hear a bit about how hiring and interview selection is done for more experienced people.
When I graduated college, working for a high paying tech company was never in my mind for the immediate future. I chose to play the long game- start out in small, low paying local business that need qualified people more immediately. So it came as a shock to me to learn that the high paying tech companies would rather optimize hiring for newbies than for more experienced professionals.
I know there is a huge pipeline for new grads at those companies. They need to grow talent organically and from that POV having 1 more year experience really doesn't matter.
But after a while you won't qualify for the new grad pipeline after that time, so it gets harder to join since the bar is higher. What is that bar like then? What experiences are expected out of a developer of 5 years? Or 10, or 15? Because as one gets more experience, the number of possible paths your career can take grows exponentially. <comment><USER2> I've been through the interview process at several of the majors now, and there are some critical differences from when I was a new hire: a clear emphasis on the entire product life cycle, a probing for you doing requirements gathering for everything you're asked to do, and many behavioral questions where they ask you about times you have done X or Y, and then they'll drill into the situation, why you made the choices you did, how you structured your solution, and the resolution (did it work or not). When I was a new grad, there was much more emphasis on knowledge and coding type questions because I had not yet had those experiences.

For what it's worth, I didn't make the cut as a new grad. I did as an experienced engineer.</comment>


Equifax ex-CEO blames breach on one person and a bad scanner - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnet.com/news/equifax-ex-ceo-blames-breach-on-one-person-and-a-bad-scanner/ <comment><USER2> The only "blame it on one person" argument that a CEO can get away with is "I blame myself"

</comment><comment><USER3> "But the protocol was followed"

As usual, the authors of the protocol were not blamed.

Or any of their management.</comment>


Show HN: Wordia - Word of the Day Extension - <AUTHOR> https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/wordia-word-of-the-day/cbjnclhjnighoifjcpmdmlmigeeamdol

<comment><USER2> I was excited until I got the word of the day "misunderstanding".</comment>


Practical Attacks on Face Recognition with Infrared [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.04683 <comment><USER2> This does not work for FR that does not observe IR. Which is most FR systems, because most FR systems have to use legacy video hardware several years, often a few camera generations, back. Including wholly optical CCD systems.

However, a similar fashion accessory does an even better job: some fashion hats have blinky LEDs on them; blinky LEDs cause a camera's components to adjustment for the unusually bright light, which are then gone, than back again. The mechanism in most security cameras cannot adjust for the lighting changes as fast as the LEDs are blinking, causing no good captures of the face beneath the blinkly LEDs.

<comment><USER3> Don't a lot of image sensors pick up infrared? I don't have any IR remotes to test modern stuff with, but I know my Galaxy S5 and every phone and point and shoot camera I had before that would register the light from IR remotes.

I guess that's a cheap filter away from being fixed anyway.

<comment><USER2> Sure, lots of image sensors pick up IR. But they are not in the millions of legacy security camera systems at banks, grocery stores, college, corporate and campus security systems.

The majority of the surveillance systems of the world are 10-20 years old. they work fine, for their original purpose, and the owners want to add FR, not purchase an entire new system requiring the loss of their previous investment.

<comment><USER4> Say what?

All those legacy systems (probably) shipped with a weak IR filter, but the CCD on the the devices will more than happily react to a bright IR light.

This is even how the majority of "night" cameras operate. They ditch the IR filter, then illuminate the scene with IR.

<comment><USER3> Yeah this is what I was getting at. How many old cheapo security cameras have no or bad IR filters if that was still the standard for ~2012 flagship Android devices...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > Health concerns. It is unclear if an attacker would get his eyes and face > skins hurt, under the exposure of such a large amount of infrared in a long > period of time. If this is true after confirmation from physicians, > attackers may not dare to launch attacks with this method, worrying about > their health.

As a physician, I don't understand this to be a serious concern. UV light is the opposite side of the viable spectrum from IR

This is fascinating. What a great idea.

<comment><USER6> Intense IR can damage the eye; more specifically, it can lead to cataracts.

Prior to learning to arc weld, I always thought the primary danger of looking at the arc without protection was UV exposure. However, it turns out that IR exposure is also problematic. See, e.g., [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glassblower%27s_cataract](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glassblower%27s_cataract)

<comment><USER7> _more specifically, it can lead to cataracts._

Not to downplay it, but cataracts are probably the easiest operational procedure on the human body. At least in the rich world.

Most people will have to deal with that at one point in their life.

Source: Myself; I got both of my eyes fixed last year. While I can appreciate the horror of your eyes cut up, the actual operation is really minimally invasive.

Mind you, I'm not arguing that excessive IR - or UV exposure is generally a good idea.</comment></comment></comment>


An Open Letter from a Phone Phreak - <AUTHOR> http://pastie.org/8402904

<comment><AUTHOR> I should probably add that the circuit switched stuff really isn't incompatible with less obscure gear. You can even send raw TDM frames over layer 2 ethernet. There's an implementation in PBX software for this.

[http://www.thrallingpenguin.com/articles/tdmoe- mf.htm](http://www.thrallingpenguin.com/articles/tdmoe-mf.htm)

</comment><comment><USER2> Its sad that we are regressing from high quality to low quality voice telephony. Telephone companies are already petitioning (rather silently) to remove any aspect of regulation from the state utility commissions. I got a tattered postcard in fine print from CenturyLink explaining about such a hearing that will take place in .. get this .. 4 days on a weekday. I suspect they don't want the public to be very aware of this.

Soon, the last saviors of communication, the battery bank powered analog telephone line with cold war reliability, will be replaced with garbage DSL/VoIP modems that crash on a daily basis with choppy audio... yay.. i can't wait for another actiontec. This is going to be the replacement for the "landline". Seriously.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's assuming they'll provide it at all. I'm assuming if they get someone to overturn universal service regulations, some rural, less profitable communities may be deemed not worthy to keep providing service in at all.

I'm sure just the idea makes the cable companies feel all warm and fuzzy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Do black/red/blue boxes still work or is there a current generation of similar type phreaking devices?

<comment><AUTHOR> Blue boxes? To some degree, yes. There's a lot of switches in rural areas that rely on MF signaling (usually the ones that don't offer caller ID or anything), but they don't use 2600 hz supervision like the old carrier systems do. They use bit-robbed signaling. So to be able to send your own MFs into a trunk, you need to be able to fool the switch into thinking the trunk just hung up and went back offhook.

Internationally, it's a different story. E1 carrier and it's derivatives don't support bit-robbed signaling, so you'll still find a lot of C5 trunks. 866-284-3437, for example, takes a very strange route (MCI to New York, and from there, we believe Paetec/Windstream abroad) before sending you to a conference system in Malaysia.

There's even some really strange stuff in rural Russia that actually relies on their own flavor of _backwards_ MF. So if you send a 2600 hz tone and a single MF, it'll spit MF back out at you. In Soviet Russia...

As for red boxing? Yes, sort of. Most payphones these days run off of a microcontroller inside the phone, so there is a way to fool the phone, but it doesn't involve any kind of inband signaling. Some of the older ones are 6502 based if you can believe it. The Nortel/Quortech Millenniums, one of the more common phones, run on Z180s.

Anyway though, if you can find a phone that hasn't been retrofitted with a processor, you can place a call to some in-state long distance areas, and a TOPS switch (in short, DMS-100 family software) will listen for redbox tones to bill for the call.

As for black boxing? The short answer is no; this relied on a quirk in electromechanical stuff where you'd actually be connected to the called party while their phone was ringing. The long answer is, less and less no actually. One of the things I learned recently is if you're calling somewhere on an AT&T trunk that terminates over a 4ESS to a 5ESS before hitting your destination (in short, most large areas), you can pass audio before the calling party answers, and it'll let the call go on forever if nobody answers. So if you can find something that bridges two calls together without making the call answer, yes, you can effectively do the same thing as black boxing.

As for devices, these days it's about being as resourceful as possible. So the greatest things you'll find tend to be using just a regular phone and your wits.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Thanks for posting this. I love reading about the telephone networks and how they've grown over time into the mess of VoIP we all interact with every day.

<comment><AUTHOR> Glad you enjoyed reading it :) . That's the point, though; the phone network predominantly doesn't run on an IP network now, and I feel we'd really be better off keeping it that way.</comment></comment>


Pizza.com sold for $2.6 Million - <AUTHOR> http://www.sedo.co.uk/auction/auction_history.php?language=e&auction_id=27887&tracked=&partnerid= <comment><USER2> There's no way on paper that pizza.com is worth that much at all. But if you _really_ want to be _the_ person who owns it, I guess you'd be prepared to pay whatever it takes regardless.

It's alexa rank has been pretty much nothing until recently, it'll drop back down to 0 after the hype of a sale wears off, so the owner will have pizza.com, but no traffic :/

<comment><AUTHOR> There's a lot of traffic that's driven to generic domain names. Article here: [http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_26/b4040059....](http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_26/b4040059.htm)

Best excerpt: _They bought control of beer.com for $80,000 in 1998 and built an audience for the site by giving out free e-mail addresses and having fans rate different brews. Less than a year later, they sold it for $7 million to Interbrew, a beer company. The pair then bought creditcards.com for $100,000 in 2003, created a comparison site for credit-card offers, and sold it to a private equity buyer for $2.8 million in 2004. Now that it's valued by some at several hundred million dollars, they admit to selling too soon._

<comment><USER2> That's different though. That is _building_ a site and driving traffic to it. Those successes would have happened just as well with other domain names. Sure, the fact they were generic probably helped a lot on exit, because people rightly or wrongly still see them as a big advantage.

Fact is, pizza.com doesn't get any traffic. They will have to spend a lot more money making it so that it does get traffic.

For example, you could either spend $2.6m on a generic domain, and spend another say $2m on building a site/marketing etc, or you could register 'somethingpizza.com' for $10 and spend $4m on building the site/marketing.

I'd put my money on the second option. But I guess it depends if there's someone else further down the line that believes it's worth say $3.6m, then you make a profit out of doing nothing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Bummer. I had a great idea for a pizza-centered startup (no joke) and that would have been perfect. I only had 2mil budgeted for the domain (joke).

<comment><USER4> The final two bidders didn't even _start_ bidding until $2.4 million :o

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> openfacetomatopie.com sold for 5 cents.</comment>


Readability shuts down - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@readability/1641cc18e02b#.p7z20y8zh <comment><USER2> Is it still possible to accomplish what Readability originally was for -- that is, to click a Javascript bookmarklet that reformats the page you're reading with nice text and no distractions?

I never needed their service that you log in to. I still have their bookmarklet around, but it doesn't seem to work anymore.

<comment><AUTHOR> Coincidentally I've built a server-side alternative for my own purpose but given the niche /problem/ and readily available browser plugins (or native as with Safari), I've never turned it into a product. Technically it's rather simple.</comment></comment>


Governor 'shooting the messenger' in Arkansas PUA data breach - <AUTHOR> https://arktimes.com/arkansas-blog/2020/05/18/governor-shooting-the-messenger-wrong-tact-in-arkansas-pua-data-breach-experts-say <comment><AUTHOR> Key quote from the article:

> I asked [Governor] Hutchinson more broadly if he had concerns about the > message he's sending about when citizens should report web vulnerabilities.

> "Well the question is, do you see a vulnerability or did you find a > vulnerability? I think we'll let the investigation speak for itself on those > points."</comment>


Life Balancing Act - 6 Ways to Keep Your Priorities in Focus - <AUTHOR> http://techstartupgame.com/2011/07/20/the-life-balancing-act-6-ways-to-keep-your-priorities-in-focus/

<comment><USER2> Interesting post. I find work life balance to be very tightly coupled with the time horizon of the company.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey Mathattack - thanks for the feedback. You are absolutely right, the time I can spend focused on my family is very different now than it was 4 years ago when I started my first company. The biggest challenge is certainly during the transition years from having a stable job to taking your first jump as an entrepreneur. Nothing can really prepare you, or your family, for this major transition - but at least trying to maintain some balance is key. Thanks for reading!

<comment><USER2> I hear you. From a personal view lot is BC/AC - before and after child. From a corporate view, it is a question of sprinting (to an exit or market opportunity) versus building for a longer time horizon. As we age, our priorities change, as do the types of places we choose to work.</comment></comment></comment>