Paul Graham on why he doesn't like seeing college-age and younger founders - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2018/09/01/paul-graham-on-why-he-doesnt-like-seeing-college-age-and-younger-founders/ <comment><USER2> TechCrunch just trying to make news. To me the greatest part of the video was more stories about the antics of his friend Robert Morris.

Most on HN weren't even born yet when his worm took down a large part of the net but I well remember it;<). I hadn't heard the story on how he took an entire term off to relaunch Harvard on the Internet.

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

<comment><USER3> I read Cuckoo's Egg by Cliff Stoll around 1990 (it covers RTM's story of creating the "worm")... that book had such an effect on my life. Later, while in prison (during the startup boom of 1995-2000), I remember reading another article talking about how RTM had become a millionaire in the startup scene (presumably with Viaweb). That article, again, had a huge effect on my life after prison.

<comment><USER4> Paul Graham is actually a minor character in Katie Hafner and John Markoff's book (_Cyberpunk_) about the incident.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Perhaps there is a tendency for older people to value older people more highly than younger people, and conversely for younger people to devalue older people in favor of younger people.

As a famous young person once said "Young people are just smarter.".

It appears the message here from PG is that "Younger people have intellect but perhaps not the demonstrated tenacity and drive needed to succeed, and tenacity and drive trump intellect when it comes to entrepreneurialism.

<comment><USER2> Actually it was Mark Zuckerberg who said young people were just smarter. It was my generation (the boomers) who had the famous saying to never trust anyone over thirty. Each generation has a variant of the same mistake ;<).

<comment><USER6> I'm not sure why the statement should be so controversial. In a cross- sectional study of the current population, every measure but crystallized intelligence peaked around 25: [https://medium.com/psyc-406-2015/how-fast- does-iq-decline-ca...](https://medium.com/psyc-406-2015/how-fast-does-iq- decline-can-you-do-anything-about-it-f5ca370d8b62)

The second study mentioned in the article, which is longitudinal rather than cross sectional, has more optimistic results for older ages, but as it says, there are problems with tracking the same people over time, such as them just getting better at IQ tests.

Regardless, the first, cross-sectional study gives clear answers to the current relation of age to intellectual ability.

Age shouldn't be a factor in hiring, only ability, but it's not unreasonable to say that, at least right now, you can expect people in their 20s to perform better at many tasks.

It's also hard not to just agree with the "young people are just smarter" statement based on intuition. When have you ever heard of a 20 year old needing help figuring out a television remote? Something clearly changed between the time that someone learned to drive a car and when they had to be shown for the 50th time how to upload a video from their camera to facebook.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Software is a commodity for complex or difficult industrial problems nowadays, so domain expertise is as relevant as coding abilities to sustain a profitable startup. Domain expertise cannot be acquired by chance and good scientists that have been trained for a long time become entrepreneurs later in their life, often after a stint in academy or corporation labs.

<comment><USER8> Is it a commodity? Why is such a premium placed on senior engineers then?

</comment></comment><comment> a-dub eh, read to me like he was suggesting that young people try living their damn lives before shackling themselves to a business venture. you can always start a business venture, but you're pretty much only young and full of wonder once...

</comment><comment><USER9> If you write some software for a very popular Web site, no one else need know you were 60 years old, in a wheelchair, fired from IBM, and wearing sandals, sweat pants, and a Grateful Dead T-shirt. What matters is the Web site, the design, the code, pleasing users, running ads, getting revenue.

</comment><comment><USER9> So, Paul Graham (PG) gives us anxiety about startups, fear, uncertainty, doubt, for young people getting stuck prematurely on a long track that might be a mistake and losing out on their youth, etc.

Okay, there are no doubt examples that support that.

But PG's focus is a bit narrow, something like YC graduate and VC funded $100 billion in 10 years or bust.

Here is a bigger picture that is really more accurate and optimistic:

First, we should consider a wider range of _startups_ than "... $100 billion ...." We should note that the US is just awash in _startups_ , from Aunt Martha's custom made wedding dresses and Joe's landscaping service to the full range of Main Street businesses in villages, towns, ..., the largest cities, border to border in the US, to much more. Some of these startups include Tom's ambitious Web site. Tom's older brother is half way through his ugrad electronics engineering degree and has taken a trip to China and lined up some manufacturing for a new pocket, wireless electronics item for some special purpose or other, uh, maybe letting Aunt Martha's customers send in good 3D specifications of their body shapes from some ultrasonic signals.

Lesson: There's a LOT of _startup_ activity for all ages, both genders, all education levels, etc. in the US. Some of these, maybe not Aunt Martha's custom wedding dresses, maybe a young person's second startup if not their first, might be big surprises and become the $100 billion.

Second, PG is too narrow on the influences, inputs, information, inspiration, guidance, leadership, knowledge, experience, examples, etc. in practice available, and often important, for young people in business. As for dolphins, orcas, whales, wolves, big cats of Africa, ..., human children learn from their parents, siblings, aunts, uncles, grandparents, family members, friends, neighbors, etc. They might get to work in Uncle Harry's custom Web site development service or some of their father's 7 fast food restaurants, get started in wireless electronics from their grandfather, a senior engineer at Qualcomm, etc. -- maybe learn high school math by age 10, calculus at 11, vector analysis at 12, Maxwell's equations at 13 or some such and, then, do a wireless startup, with some help from Uncle Harry!

Lesson: For a lot of young people who want to start businesses, there are a LOT of information sources other than paying "full tuition" at the scary, solo school of hard knocks and high probability of failure in any of several respects that PG seems to paint.

</comment><comment><USER3> And also, convicted felons make great startup hires!

Disclosure: convicted felon here

<comment><USER10> Yeah, a reformed person can be a great hire. Totally agreed.

<comment><USER11> I really think a distinction needs to be made b/w a reformed person and a convicted felon. All convicted felons are not necessarily reformed persons, and that distinction is very important.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The confusing part to me is that YC started by appealing to college-age kids in Boston. Has the focus changed?

<comment><USER13> Not only was their first unicorn/public company started by college students (dropbox), arguably some of the largest companies of the recent era were started by college kids (facebook).

<comment><USER14> Your forgetting that the college kids of them only had to know basic php and JavaScript to build a server + front end web UI. Now it's at minimum 2 years to learn the deep fundamentals of react/redux/graphql then tying it into lambdas on the backend , maybe another year of study to learn full kubernetes integration , then another year to fully grasp how to set up and side chain in a deep learning pipeline with proper selection of production grade ML framework. Learn them all then choose which one works best. After that to reach youth in mobile sector , take 1.5 years to fully learn iOS and android native platform builds . Etc etc . It's not that college kids are too young . It's that they need to take the recommended time to learn and deploy all the necessary tech to launch a successful startup!

EDIT: this was a \s piece but obviously it went over some peoples heads lol

<comment><USER15> _Now it's at minimum 2 years to learn the deep fundamentals of react /redux/graphql then tying it into lambdas on the back end, maybe another year of study to learn full kubernetes integration , then another year to fully grasp how to set up and side chain in a deep learning pipeline with proper selection of production grade ML framework. Learn them all then choose which one works best. After that to reach youth in mobile sector, take 1.5 years to fully learn iOS and android native platform builds._

By which time the web crowd will have moved on to something else.

<comment><USER16> ...even more floridly complex and requiring an even longer time to use well. I think we've already contracted the Average Hot Lifetime to less than the Effective Learning Period.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Have you up-vote someone you disagreed with today? - <AUTHOR> I feel like there's been an interesting shift in the comments recently: not in their quality, but in how the community is reacting to them. What I've noticed is that there seem to be a growing number of light-dark-light-dark-light threads. That is, a comment voted down, followed by a response voted up, followed by a riposte voted down, etc.
Perhaps it's not my place to say, but I've always been under the impression that comment votes are there to evaluate whether the comment adds to the discussion or not. Votes should not be a measure of whether you agree with the point. When I see long threads of alternating up-down voting in comments, I think one of two things is happening:
1. Individuals are voting based on alignment of views.
2. People are responding to comments that don't add to the conversation.
If there is a long chain of follow-up comments, it seems self-evident that the comment added to the discussion, and probably shouldn't be voted down. If you feel that a comment doesn't add to the discussion, vote it down and move along; no need to reply.
So the question: when was the last time you up-voted a comment you disagreed with, but which added to the conversation nonetheless? <comment><USER2> i do not up-vote comments i disagree with. however, i also do not down-vote them.

i only down-vote the irrelevant/spammy/obnoxious responses. the responses that don't add any value to a discussion.

this way, if someone says something unpopular or whatever, they're not penalized (by me, at least). they're just not really rewarded so much, either.

</comment><comment><USER3> Twenty minutes ago. I actually voted up someone who had responded to me. I didn't agree with their point, but someone had voted them to 0. It was still a valid part of the discussion, so I voted it back up to 1.

If I disagree with a comment, and it's at 1, I won't upvote it. But if it's less than one, I'll correctively upvote it.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think replies to my own comments are actually easier to up-vote than comments as I'm browsing them. Generally, my rule is that if you reply to me and tell me something new (i.e. not just agreeing), you get an up-vote. If I'm replying to you, you (and usually everyone above you) almost always get an up- vote. After all, you got me to reply (something I don't do with very high frequency).

<comment><USER4> that's a good strategy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I always up vote anyone who responds to me with well-articulated points, regardless of whether I agree with them or not. As long as they have taken the time to explain a viewpoint in a manner that contributes to the conversation I feel that it is worthy of consideration.

</comment><comment><USER6> We've kicked this one around since the day HN went public.

Single-dimension voting is broken. It's a known bug. Given a single way to respond, users are going to vote emotions over substance on a ratio of something like 20:1.

Nobody has a solution that is easy to use.

Film at Eleven.

</comment><comment><USER7> Occasionally, there will be a patient person in a heated debate with a jerk. That's when I expect zebra stripe commenting. I think people will naturally up-vote a comment they agree with more than one they don't. If the tone of all comments is civil, and the argument is well thought out, I wouldn't expect to see light colored comments. Maybe scores of 1, 37, 2, 54 etc... but not comments downmodded to being light colored. I haven't been seeing that too much.

Perhaps we can see some examples of what you're talking about?

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree that it's easier to up-vote someone you agree with. That's part of the reason I posted this question. To me, it's akin to the whole "do a good turn daily" idea. It's not that holding the door open for someone is hard, but that it's so easy to just walk through and not look back. (Though, I think entertaining the thoughts of someone you're disinclined to agree with does more good than holding open doors.)

As for examples, I must admit I didn't queue up links in preparation. A quick browse of the front page turns up this one, though:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=739752>

Sure, the initial commenter was using crude language, but his comment spurred a discussion that went at least 7 levels deep and expressed a strong yet debatable position.

( _Edit_ From the same post, a bit further up, and illustrates the point a bit better I think: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=740067>)

<comment><USER7> I see what you're saying… but don't confuse depth of a thread for quality. I think the first comment was down-modded for language and then typical troll- baited discussion took over. The second one is definitely a better example because the tone is better.

Actually, now that I think about it, I once got down-modded for a comment that I felt was reasonable in tone and content. A little snarky maybe: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=713004> It was political though and I think political topics encourage this kind of behavior. Makes you feel like giving up when you know that there are other users who just want to censor other opinions. That is probably why people rail against the political topic stories here on hacker news. It's less about not being interested in political discussions as much as they don't like topics that encourage division.

It's really crazy what attaching some magic reputation "points" to an activity can do to it. People go absolutely nuts over points. I would have to agree with a point made earlier on this one that it is time to consider hiding the scores, or at least de-emphasizing them. Mob behavior will be fueled by them.

<comment><USER4> The same happens with the 'momentum', if something is on the way down it seems like everybody has to add their stone to the castigation, and if it is on the way up and listed first then it will pick up more points than later but better reasoned out replies at the same level. There is definitely some kind of feedback going on there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm beginning to think that it's time to hide the points totals.

<comment><AUTHOR> Might not be the worst suggestion in the world. After all, the goal is to help the cream rise to the top, yes? We don't really need to know how many votes the top has for that to happen...</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Resume for Software Developers? - <AUTHOR> I graduated from college with a degree in graphic design, however, toward the end of my college education I took some web development courses and discovered an interest for programming. After graduating I took a short-term job as a web designer for a tiny company that made basic static websites for local Mom & Pop shops - they eventually went out of business (poor management).
I relocated back to my home town (small, rural, lack of jobs) due to my Wife's career and took a job in graphic design at a printing company. The small company had a lack of order/revenue tracking software so using my prior knowledge began to build something during my down time.  Over time I built a really powerful tool - but more importantly re-ignited the passion for programming.
After 5 years at the print company, I took a job at a company as a web developer.  A year later the company created a new "Software Department" where I became employee #1, later hiring a second developer. We built products and tools for internal use and eventually were given the option to work remote.  Happiness, productivity, work-life balance was an all time high.  Recently we were told we needed to return on-site and I am struggling. I've decided to look for alternative employment.
Having come from a graphic design background, I have built up a decent portfolio of artwork; seeking a software position, I really don't have much to show.  I have a GitHub account but its pretty empty.  My resume hasn't been updated in a long time as well.  What should I focus on? Should I create a bunch of GitHub projects? When interviewing how do you showcase the work you've done - is it even important? What should I do to make myself more hire-able in the competitive field of Software Development? <comment><USER2> I think you referencing to past projects, or things you did would be a good start. Nowadays online portfolios are a thing. Since you said you have programming knowledge, you can create a website and showcase what you can do there. ^^</comment>


Federal Court Says Public Safety Laws Can Be Locked Behind Paywalls - <AUTHOR> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/02/federal-court-rules-against-publicresourceorg-says-public-safety-laws-can-be <comment><USER2> I can see troubling consequences that arise from both sides' arguments.

If private companies can hold copyrights on portions of the law, that inhibits access to those laws, and I think any reasonable person would agree that citizens have a basic right to access the text of laws and legally binding regulations, and paywalls or other restrictions conflict with that right.

But if the government can essentially revoke a private individual or company's copyright merely by incorporating otherwise protected text into legislation, that can have adverse effects on copyright holders.

And it would be interesting to see just how far you could stretch a claim on both sides.

For instance, let's say that a law specifies that vehicles used by some governmental department must be maintained according to the specifications in their respective owners' manuals. Could that be argued to be a type of "incorporation by reference" of the specifications, thus voiding the copyright of the owners' manuals?

Or what if a private company tried to impose absurd restrictions on accessing copyrighted material that has been incorporated by reference, such that even the governmental agencies charged with enforcing the law were unable to access it? Could that be a way of subverting the law?

Or what if a lawmaker has it out for a particular publisher or writer, and purposefully quotes their copyrighted texts (beyond what would typically be considered fair use) in legislation as a way of damaging their copyright?

And if it is the case that nonprofit groups that devise standards for public safety and device interoperability are deprived of their copyrights because those standards are incorporated into legislation, I would imagine it would disincentivize the work they do, perhaps leading to less well thought out public safety and device interoperability standards.

<comment><USER3> > But if the government can essentially revoke a private individual or > company's copyright merely by incorporating otherwise protected text into > legislation, that can have adverse effects on copyright holders.

How about:

a) voluntarily giving up copyright if you want your text to become law.

or

b) not making law out of propriety, private, copyrighted works.

The reality is that secret laws are bad. We've known this as a society for millenia:

[http://www.crystalinks.com/romelaw.html](http://www.crystalinks.com/romelaw.html)

Those laws were published _publicly_ where anyone could read them.

<comment><USER4> > > [http://www.crystalinks.com/romelaw.html](http://www.crystalinks.com/romelaw.html)

Lovely link! I find the subject of Roman law fascinating.

I'd argue that the reception of it throughout the centuries after the fall of the Roman state (most importantly it's dissemination) helped formed the basis of the modern European identity.

Also, fun fact: Roman law has been heavily studied in Japan since after it entered Japanese law as part of the Meiji restoration, so today Japan is one of the centers of Romanist studies.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "Ignorance of the law is no excuse".

"Oh, you want to see the law? That'll cost you."

<comment><USER6> Why pretend we're a representative republic with strong ties into democracy (CIA world factbook)? We're an oligopolstic, corporcrato-plutarchy.

Welfare for the rich, and capitalism for the poor.

Companies get numerous socialist programs to help fund their bottom line, yet average and poor receive little and are berated for it.

Drug test welfare recipients? Can't do that to the CEO, can we?

You're more "equal" rich again, and good luck with that public defender if you're poor.

Kill someone? Poor = eChair. Rich = affluenza, "treatment program".

Just accept the idea that this country now espouses that "More Money = More access to being a citizen". We are not equal. The past had that mythic "equal" part; but that time is done and gone.

In the end, the following is now what this country stands for:

1$ = 1 Vote

<comment><USER7> Shit like this is why people don't take HN seriously.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The lowest level of the US court system tries hard to stick to what law and precedent say, and to avoid engaging with constitutional issues. If you want to drive change you have to appeal it up a level or two, where the senior judges consider it to be within their pay scale. That is what is going to happen here.

<comment><USER9> And in the interim you can be fined or imprisoned for violating a law which you cannot read without paying a private entity.

Either side can appeal a case, and judges should be ruling based on all laws, including the state and federal constitutions. Anything less should be grounds for impeachment (as should consistently having your rulings overturned by higher courts).

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Copyright law needs some serious reform. It's unconscionable that you can't even share the laws that govern you. We really need an exception for things that are considered "public" knowledge, including freedom of panorama. (I can't even take a picture of my own city if it contains an artwork in it) We also need to do something about orphaned works. Sadly, it's in the interest of Disney and other corporations that the status quo of a restrictive commons continues indefinitely.

<comment><USER11> There's no need for a copyright exception, people crafting public laws should simply not incorporate material that cannot be published along with the law.

<comment><USER12> Yes, that would be one solution, but you'd have to somehow enforce that governments do that or else local governments may continue with the status quo.

Also, there's the question of what to do with historical laws. For example, buildings being renovated sometimes have to follow the building codes corresponding to their original construction date. So the current laws that the publishers are trying to paywall may be relevant for another 100 years.

<comment><USER11> The code thing is fairly easy, just make it acceptable to follow the current law rather than the unpublished one.

It might bother preservationists or lead to more expensive renovations¹, but oh well.

¹Is it so much that renovations must follow the old code, or are they sometimes allowed to because the new standard is hard to retrofit?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Kafka and Orwell missed an opportunity when they did not incorporate the idea of secret/paywalled laws into their works.

<comment><USER14> this story reminds me of the card game Mao, which was a particular favourite at my college:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_(card_game)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_\(card_game\))

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> The fight is not over yet. Please consider donating to Public Resources, which runs on a shoestring budget, employing just one person, Carl Malamud, at a modest salary.

</comment><comment><USER15> >ruling that private organizations can use copyright to control access to huge portions of our state and federal laws.

Then if I decide not to use their copyright, the onus is on the copyholder to file suit against me for violation.

If in fact a firm owns it, the government cannot pursue a case, and the firm (with no criminal jurisdiction) cannot impose any penalty.

If in fact the government owns the text, it must necessarily be made freely available, unless it pertains to national security (which is shaky justification at best).

</comment><comment><USER16> How can one possibly respect a law one cannot read or any lawmakers/political bodies who make/encourage such laws or institutions claiming to enforce/defend them?

What exactly is the difference for the accused between this situation and having legal cases randomly decided by random rules?

<comment><USER17> Their weird logic must be "we don't restrict access to the text of a law, you just have to pay for it".

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Perhaps part of qualifying as a lawyer should involve writing code against someone else's annoying API, just to give them a taste of how the law is for the rest of us.

</comment><comment><USER19> >We're disappointed by this misguided ruling, but the case is far from over.

Sounds like its going to be appealed.

I think the government needs to stop passing regulations that just copy the rules of private standards organizations unless they are also allowed to publish the regulations. Private organizations will do what they will, the public can't control private actors or force them to give up their right to collect money for their standards (at least not without a fight).

I juts don't understand why the government would just make laws without ensuring the right to publish them or make them widely available to the people, is just irresponsible and goes to show how little thought goes into all these regulations that govern our lives.

<comment><USER20> It's easy to understand. They are just doing what their primary constituents (big corporations) want.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Seems like an oversimplification of the issue, but the consequences are certainly disturbing.

<comment><USER22> This is the issue.

Some weird corner of the law gets ruled on, but it has odd implications for the rest of us ... questions and concerns abound ...

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> interesting facts, from the decision:

 _Importantly, there is no evidence that the ... standards are unavailable to the public. In fact, the undisputed record evidence shows that the standards are required to be available in physical form from OFR; are available for purchase from the [first] Plaintiffs in hard copy and from the [second] Plaintiffs in hard copy and PDFs; and are accessible in read-only format for free in [second] Plaintiffs' online reading rooms_

If this information is freely available in electronic format — which seems to be the case for the second plaintiff — then in my mind the concern is greatly mitigated. The defendant could simply link out to the relevant page.

I'm surprised the decision doesn't mention the cost that the first plaintiff charges for the hard-copy of their standards (which are apparently not electronically available), since the cost/delay seems relevant. If the cost is hundreds or thousands of dollars, there definitely be cause for concern. On the other hand, if the cost is negligible, I'm somewhat less concerned.

To be clear, I still think that whatever agencies incorporate third-party content by reference should always require that the documents be freely available online. I just think these facts about current availability are interesting (and are not mentioned in the EFF post).

</comment><comment><USER12> Some of these laws are so complex and interdependent that we need tools to help simplify them. If the publishers are allowed to paywall the law, then it'll be harder for startups like UpCodes to operate.

UpCodes provides a search engine into the codes, pinning (bookmarking) codes, a collaboration tool and finally weaves in local laws and amendments right into the code.

</comment><comment><USER24> I don't get the criticism against the judge or the ruling. Frankly, the arguments presented by Resource.org seem to be unpersuasive (the claim that these standards are "discovered facts" is just insulting to the engineers that worked on them) and completely unsupported by the law. It's not the judge's fault that your Congress and other governments have sold you out. Go sue _them_ for enforcing laws you can't read.

<comment><USER25> "I don't get the criticism against the judge or the ruling."

It's actually directly contrary to rulings in other states, circuits, etc.

Even the supreme court has held, consistently, since 1888, that the law is free.

'the authentic exposition and interpretation of the law, which, binding every citizen, is free for publication to all, whether it is a declaration of unwritten law, or an interpretation of a constitution or a statute' Banks v. Manchester (128 U.S. 244, 1888)

I don't think this could be more clear.

An argument that you get to lock it away by incorporating by reference is patently absurd and directly contrary to this.

You don't get to say

"page one of georgia annotated code:

for the text of pages 1-100000 of the georgia code, please see 'the real georgia annotated code', published by forprofitco,"

But that's just what is happening, since these standards are not "voluntary", but _binding law_ that you can be charged with crimes or sued for violating.

If they wanted to charge money, they have a simple solution - don't make them law, don't charge people for violations, etc.

" Frankly, the arguments presented by Resource.org seem to be unpersuasive (the claim that these standards are "discovered facts" is just insulting to the engineers that worked on them) and completely unsupported by the law."

Except they (and others) have repeatedly won in pretty much every other case. This is in fact, the first case i'm aware of that they've lost (or that others have lost in similar situations).

Frankly, the idea that you can sue people or charge them with a crime, for a law they have to pay to read is insulting to _everyone_ , and very clearly not constitutional.

As mentioned, there is a simple solution - if you want to charge, don't give them binding force of law. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too.

<comment><USER24> But that's my point - the question in this trial wasn't whether the State can use closed standards as law, but whether someone can violate the copyright of these standards just because the State refers to them in the law.

 _Frankly, the idea that you can sue people or charge them with a crime, for a law they have to pay to read is insulting to everyone, and very clearly not constitutional._

My point exactly! They should be suing the State for doing that! Not trying to invalidate some company's copyrighted standard.

<comment><USER25> "But that's my point - the question in this trial wasn't whether the State can use closed standards as law, but whether someone can violate the copyright of these standards just because the State refers to them in the law."

The answer is yes. :)

At best, it's a taking.

"My point exactly! They should be suing the State for doing that! Not trying to invalidate some company's copyrighted standard."

You have this very backwards, in the sense that the organization _deliberately_ worked with the states to make this happen.

You would have a better argument if the states had forced it to happen.

In any case, you also have "who should sue who" wrong.

1\. You can't sue the states in federal court they have sovereign immunity ;) But if you could ....

2\. At best, this is a taking by the state. It's the problem of the standards folks to sue the state, not the problem of the rest of the world of trying to use the law.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> On the one hand the law should be freely available in full text to everyone.

On the other hand, how many legislators are qualified to write a fire code?

<comment><USER27> Those two points don't really oppose each other...

<comment><USER28> The people who put together these codes spend a lot of time and effort doing it. They only get compensated by requiring people to pay for access via a copyright.

Some bodies do it without restricting access, like IEEE, but their work in contributed by interested parties who control their IP via other means. Companies will work on the next 802.11x, but they are always trying to guide the standard to benefit their company.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Even if the companies that wrote these laws get to retain copyright, surely the substantial public interest in making them freely available makes this Fair Use. But current Copyright law is a cancer on our economy. Why not the government, too?

</comment><comment><USER30> The ACA already forces every US citizen to buy a product from a private company. This isn't much different.

The Supreme Court has already upheld this as a "tax", so expect the same result.</comment>


Show HN: Retail Store that runs on Ethereum - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/brakmic/BlockchainStore <comment><USER2> I would be terribly afraid to write a real world retail system in Solidity. One stupid mistake and all the money is gone, without much you can do about it.

And without formal verification, bugs are certain sooner or later.

<comment><USER3> Would you feel more comfortable with Javascript on Lisk?

<comment><USER4> Security isn't graded on a curve. The crappiness of Lisk doesn't make Solidity any less crappy.

<comment><USER5> I kinda think it is. Not many systems can withstand a nation-state level attack. But, uh, most people get a pass on that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> How does Ethereum help with retail? It's not like the smart contracts can verify that the customer has actually received the physical item.

<comment><USER7> What? Yeah they can. Have an escrow that releases the sale price to the seller and additional security deposits to both parties when the buyer sends proof that they received a nonce shipped with the physical item. You can even add a refund mechanism by allowing the buyer to send back another nonce along with the returned item, which when redeemed returns all escrows back to whoever originally paid in.

<comment><USER8> The buyer wouldn't receive the nonce until they received the physical item, at which time they could claim they did not receive it.

<comment><USER9> That's why you have the additional security deposits.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Ethereum will not scale.

/Every/ single node will have to run these contracts. Not your node, not ten distributed nodes, but /every/ node has to run the contract.

I wouldn't trust anything with my money that works this way.

<comment><USER11> > Ethereum will not scale.

I understand your not wanting to put your money into a bleeding edge technology, but there are /plenty/ of ways that Ethereum is working on the scaling problem:

1\. Sharding and shard-based consensus algorithms are already in development and can be deployed after PoS hits. 2\. Raiden offers scalability solutions for certain DApps.

<comment><USER10> > can be deployed after PoS hits.

Why is this considered a solution? All it does is formalize Vitalik's control over the network. If he doesn't like it, it gets forked.

Not to mention, do you know how few Ethereum nodes there are that /actually/ verify the contracts? Proof of Stake isn't going to incentivize anyone to execute the contracts on the scale that is needed to maintain this network. Sharding won't work if there aren't enough people to work with.

What about DoS contracts? I know for a fact, that I can write code to brick SSDs by writing as much as possible to them.

I honestly have no idea why anyone thinks joining into a botnet that allows arbitrary code execution is okay.

Furthermore, all it takes is a single vulnerability in the Ethereum VM to cause a chain split that could, theoretically, throw every node off.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'm unclear - how is this different than an eCommerce system (say Shopify or WooCommerce) that had a plugin to accept Eth?

Is it just that the registrations are handled in contracts too?

</comment><comment><USER13> This first thing that popped into my head was Silk Road.

<comment><USER14> But with the store itself running in the blockchain (I think that's how it works), so it's a lot harder for the FBI and co to infiltrate and take down. Of course, they could instead create legislation that illegalizes the use of Ethereum or any similar blockchain technology.

<comment><USER6> There's a much simpler solution. Cops sell drugs on the market. Sellers have to physically mail the drugs to the customer, so they need a mailing address. Then instead of mailing drugs they raid the house. Pretty easy. And to get sellers they can buy drugs and trace the drugs they bought back to the dealer.

The FBI may not be able to take down the entire store, but they don't have to.

<comment><USER15> The first issue is addressed by a reputation system (e.g. like in LocalBitcoins where traders have the history and reputation). For cops to get a good reputation would mean actually selling drugs to a lot of people.

And the second issue: what if cops traced the package to a country where selling these drugs is legal (e.g. generics in India)?

<comment><USER16> In an anonymous/pseudonymous system you can fake your reputation. If you can launder the coin being used, you can reuse it to create a bunch of fake sales and purchases with a randomized (but positive) score attached to the transactions (or some subset of them, people don't always provide ratings). This establishes the seller (and the buyer) reputations and allows them to interact with others.

An account (seller or buyer) with a positive reputation could be hijacked if their computers are compromised or they reveal just enough PII for an investigative team to track them.

Re second issue: It may be legal to sell (drug) in (nation). If it's not legal in (other nation), then you're breaking the law by sending it to (other nation) even if you're in (nation). Local legality does not protect you entirely, though it may shield you partially (through your nation not supporting extradition). But should you enter (other nation), be prepared to be arrested (this has happened several times in the US).

<comment><USER17> Reputation systems need to have more than just the number, they need to have a date, and they need to have out-of-band communication points where prospective buyers can see anything said about sellers outside of the transaction-level reputation system. Silk Road at least had this. So how many months/years is the cop account going to operate for, and how many fake sales can they get away with without selling a legit thing to someone? If the system is using bitcoin, each fake sale needs to use real bitcoin (and pay transaction fees), and since site owners have an incentive to find and get rid of fakers cops need to make sure their coins are adequately mixed too. To not actually ever distribute anything, how long until multiple people complain that attempts to buy resulted in the item being delisted? Or if they actually do get to buy, how many times are the cops going to sell and deliver illegal goods in a manner that will give them positive reviews sometimes with pictures (like good package obfuscation)? The real protection for buyers is that cops don't spend nearly as much resources (with the exception of maybe a couple items / circumstances) going after buyers as they do going after sellers.

The protection for sellers is that it's actually pretty hard to track one down from a package. Not impossible but hard. (And you might even get the wrong seller. The seller you buy from might just be buying from someone else and entering your information for delivery, like drop shipping. If you're concerned about a seller, you might even pay a premium to sell their same item at a loss and wait for someone else to take the buy risk for you.)

It's interesting to look at known dark market arrests, buyers tend to go down to controlled deliveries of certain items but there's not all that much commonality in arrests. [https://www.gwern.net/DNM%20arrests#analysis](https://www.gwern.net/DNM%20arrests#analysis)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Interesting, i will try to fork this project to do a used clothes store(Brechó in portuguese).

</comment><comment><USER19> This is so cool! I was starting to research the design of something like this...

The ERC20 token idea is also great, people then would have a reference implementation for their own tokens... it could unlock a new wave of DApps. Kudos!

</comment><comment><USER20> > Besides the web interface I'm planning to implement an ERC20 compliant token

Why??

<comment><USER21> In case people want to give him lots of money for no reason.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Check out openbazaar</comment>