How to Download Your Instagram Photos and Kill Your Account - <AUTHOR> http://wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/12/how-to-download-your-instagram-photos-and-kill-your-account/ <comment><USER2> For those of you who don't think this is a big deal. Instagram is explicitly stating that they're going to sell the use of your pictures to third parties. They're also going to start showing ads in their news stream. I know the pictures are of too low quality to be plastered on a billboard. That's not the point. What I expect they want to happen is something like this:

I post a picture of me drinking a Coke to Instagram. I expect to share this with my friends, and maybe the people who follow me on Twitter. I know it's publicly available, but the chances of anyone beyond my circle of friends seeing it are slim to none. But now, Instagram notices that I posted this picture and sells it to Coke. Now, when Coke starts buying ads on Instagram, my photo shows on total stranger's news streams saying something like "Hey Enjoy a Coke, like this guy here!"

So, what's wrong with that? Well, for one thing, I never agreed to be in an ad campaign for Coke. Maybe I don't even like Coke. Maybe MY caption was something like "Ugh, out of Pepsi".

For another thing, generally, when you appear in an advertisement for a product, _you get paid_. Your likeness in the context of a commercial ad campaign has value, and when a company says "Yeah, I'm just gonna go ahead and take that and not pay you anything" the appropriate response is "hell no".

<comment><USER3> There are tons of stock photography models who live with this risk for a bit of compensation. So they make (say) $100 to be in a photo and have a 0.01% chance of being in an ad they find objectionable.

I get a free/fun app instead of $100. Instead of a .01% chance, I have a .00000001% of appearing in an objectionable ad (my photos just aren't as good as pros, and I'm just not that pretty). Add to that-- if this happens, I certainly won't be the first one it happens to and will almost certainly have an opportunity to delete my account when I start hearing about this happening in the wild. Even if I don't delete it, the chance of my crappy photos getting found/used out of the MANY BILLIONS on instagram also seems laughably small.

Statistically, this could bite me-- but I have to figure that the chance is so close to 0% that the (small) reward of using Instagram is worth the (trivial) risk. I also tend to dismiss concerns around lightning, sharks, and hijackers.

<comment><USER4> > Add to that-- if this happens, I certainly won't be the first one it happens > to and will almost certainly have an opportunity to delete my account when I > start hearing about this happening in the wild. Even if I don't delete it, > the chance of my crappy photos getting found/used out of the MANY BILLIONS > on instagram also seems laughably small.

You don't understand the situation. When you delete your account, it won't delete the ads in circulation - there won't be anything you can do about that.

And your photo won't be used for a general Coke advertising campaign. It will be used to sell Coke to YOUR FRIENDS, on Facebook and elsewhere across the web. Everywhere your friends go on the intertubez, they'll see a picture of you drinking Coke, with the caption "Drink Coke, just like your good buddy Webwright does!" And that will stay as long as Coke feels like it.

<comment><USER3> "You don't understand the situation."

I sure do. My point was-- the first time this happens, there will be an outcry that makes this one seem small. At that point, I can delete my account. Maybe the poor sucker who was the first victim can't, but I can. MAYBE Instagram at this point is so malevolent that they give me the finger and retain my photos, but that seems kinda unlikely.

Edit: And I couldn't give a single damn about whether my friends see my visage next to a coke logo if I was willing to photograph myself enjoying a coke. It doesn't inconvenience me or my friends one single bit. Even if they throw my photo into a cigarette ad, I'd probably send them an annoyed note, nuke my account, shrug and move on with my life.

<comment> Tuna-Fish The contract explicitly specifies that they can, and will, retain all your photos if you don't delete your account by the deadline. After that, they have a permanent license to do whatever they want with your photos.

<comment><USER3> Yep-- lawyers who write ToS' tend to make them as company-friendly as possible to give them the most wiggle room (and best defense in case they get sued). But it'd be silly/suicidal to use photos from deleted accounts when there are literally BILLIONS from non-deleted accounts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Can somebody explain to me what the big deal is about Instagram and these new terms of service? I can't fathom that anything but 1% of 1% of photos taken there are good enough to be used commercially, and if folks are so afraid that their pictures of Starbucks lattes will be used in some kind of marketing campaign (in which case they should actually be flattered), what exactly is stopping users from removing location information from the pictures they want to keep private?

For me, if the local coffee shop here wants to dig up some pictures I took of their business to help them get more customers, why not let them? I'm not Richard Avedon, and I never, ever, expected to profit from my Instagram photography. I'm more than happy to support small businesses _and_ Instagram. Have a ball, guys. _It's all public anyway._

<comment><USER6> The big deal is that _someone is profiting from my work without my consent and it isn't me_.

It's that we (the people) get slammed by DMCA violations for taking someone else's content (for private consumption). When a huge corporation takes ours (and gets paid for it), what recourse do we have?

It's that these corporations can change the rules on us in the middle of the game. It's the classic bait and switch.

It's that we're not even getting asked or given credit.

The Instagram developer page (<http://instagram.com/developer>) says _users own their images_. They expect third party developers to respect that. Why won't they?

Who fights for the user?

<comment><USER7> Technically we _are_ giving our consent by using the service. In fact, we already agreed to the current terms, which state "We reserve the right to alter these Terms of Use at any time." It's not even a classic bait-and- switch. It's clearly stated in the contract we all signed up for.

I agree that it's sort of uncool on Instagram's part, but as fellow app developers, shouldn't we also be siding with Instagram for their right to protect the interest of their product?

I hate to be the guy that points this out, but it's an important distinction.

<comment><USER8> Your view just plain scares me, there wouldn't be so much heat over this right now if it was something the majority of people including app developers thought was the right thing to do. There's plenty of examples of things that I feel is uncool, but I can understand it from the business side. A few weeks ago, when people went nuts over the possibility of ads showing up in peoples instagram feeds, I was like, fine. In every single terms of service that I have ever read, that line, "we reserve the right to alter these terms of use at any time", appears in some form or another. That is not an end all, and it's not an important distinction. What you alter the terms to still matters, especially on this big of a scale.

You make it sound like if they did this and didn't tell anyone about it, just opted everyone in, and started selling off photos. That you'd be ok with this. Not sure where you draw the line, but facebook/instagram finally decided to cross it. Users of products do have rights, and honestly app developers should head this as an important warning/lesson. You should always have a right to protect the interest of your product, but sometimes, when you decide to monetize a service years after its conception, you mess up. Even facebook/instagram can make huge mistakes. Instagram is going to take a gigantic hit from this.

<comment><USER7> My view scares me, too, but I think you have the right idea: It's a terrible business decision. Much like the Netflix/Qwikster ordeal, I imagine the result to be some sort of mass exodus.

Obviously, our use of any application is simply a privilege, and participation is not compulsory. As creators of the application, it's Instagram right to control their application how they see fit.

That point is easily overlooked. It's the principle I'm defending, not the decision.

My hope is that great companies will make great decisions. I think we've seen a little bit of that from organizations like Google and MapBox doing the "right thing", and they have great products to show for it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I think the interesting question here is "how many folks will simply ignore all of this and keep on using Instagram?" -- if privacy scandals were going to hurt user bases, Facebook would long since be gone. I suspect that any loss of users Instagram has suffered are more likely to have been through the dumbing- down of their iOS app than privacy concerns.

<comment><USER10> I will continue to use Instagram, as I don't feel particularly concerned with my photos on there. I'd even feel honored if they were a bit smarter about their approach and planned on asking for permission to use specific photos first. Shit, that would probably have kept this from being a PR disaster and instead become a bonus for some users, as I think it would be really cool to see my photos featured in different mediums.

<comment><USER9> Good points -- although I suspect that the reason they don't ask permission is they want to be able to transparently do the kinds of things they've been doing with profile pics for years ("your friends love X, click here").

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> tl;dr:

Use this to download your Instagram photos <http://instaport.me>

Then use this to delete your account <http://help.instagram.com/customer/portal/articles/95760>

<comment><USER12> Does deleting your account actually remove your photos? I've seen some people claim that you can still load the images if you know the URL. Not sure if it's just a CDN that hasn't expired the content yet or if Instagram really keeps your photos after you "delete" them.

<comment><USER13> Deleting your account certainly implies that you don't accept the new TOS.

<comment><USER14> Ah, but the TOS states using the site means you accept it. You have to use the site to delete your account.

<comment><USER13> The new TOS doesn't come into effect until one month from now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> My god, people, calm down. This isn't instagram trying to use your photos as stock photos.

First: they're not good enough. They're snapshots taken with camera phones, they're not marketing materials.

Second: that would piss off their users, and no sane company would ever do this. The thing you're seeing in their ToS is an interpretation that _allows_ for this.

Expect a statement from instagram confirming that they will change their ToS to explicitly disallow this sometime today.

In the meantime: calm down, go outside for a walk.

<comment><USER16> I came here to post almost exactly this. This happens regularly with the big sites - some idiot lawyer writes an overly cautious ToS change, everyone gets up in arms about it, the site writes an apology clarifying (and probably fires the lawyer).

It seems common sense to me if you just think it to the end: do you REALLY think taking a photo of me drinking Coke (against my will) would be good advertising? Or selling my photo as a stock photo without compensating me - that that would fly? Really? It seems absolutely obvious to me that Instagram has no interest whatsoever in doing what people are all afraid they'll be doing.

<comment><USER17> >It seems absolutely obvious to me that Instagram has no interest whatsoever in doing what people are all afraid they'll be doing

The same question is raised: Why have it in the TOS if it's not going to happen? At the very least it shows a great lack of care for the operation of their business (in which case you should think twice about using the service), at most it shows a complete disregard for their users (also in which case you should think twice about using the service).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Wait. Lot's of people were telling me that lack of Instagram app prevented them from switching to Windows Phone. Turns out lack of that app was just trend setting? :-)

</comment><comment><USER19> There are also free services to migrate your photos to dropbox, drive, etc.

Full disclosure and shameless plug, I work for one. pi.pe

<comment><USER20> Not to completely derail this into a pi.pe thread, but...

a) I'd love to use it, but you're really making it hard to find out what destinations/sources you support.

b) There's quite a bit of bandwidth cost, so I'm baffled as to how you can do this profitably. This makes me wary. Which plays into

c) Your facebook app requires permission to post on my behalf? Sorry, but over my dead body. Especially since I can't give you money. (I _assume_ it's to upload pictures, but there's no way to know. If you had separate up/download apps, you could sidestep that if I just want to export)

So, overall, it's an _awesome_ idea. And I'd happily give you money to do this for me, but you don't let me :)

And if you want to make me really happy: Allow me to set up a continuous job, add s3/google drive destination support.

Now back to your regular instagram discussion :)

<comment><USER21> You can skip the permission to post on facebook.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> News flash - YouTube also has a TOS that allows them to license and resell your uploaded content and it has worked this way for years.

<comment><USER23> Sortof. They have similar clauses, but the YouTube TOS (similar to other services like Dropbox, Flicker, etc.) gives them a "worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free ... transferable license" to provide the service. Legally, you need a "license" for somebody's content in order to access it and generate a thumbnail.

This change in Instagram's TOS is different:

        Some or all of the Service may be supported by advertising
        revenue. To help us deliver interesting paid or sponsored
        content or promotions, you agree that a business or other
        entity may pay us to display your username, likeness, photos
        (along with any associated metadata), and/or actions you take,
        in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions,
        without any compensation to you

Note, this is essentially what Facebook does when you "like" a company's page.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> many might be surprised that instagram only keep 612x612 images, so if you were hoping to download full resolution images,. you're out of luck...

that, however, also makes the whole issue moot since the images are so small to be of little/no use in any commercial sense.

flickr's iOS app, by comparison, stores on their server the full resolution image.

#nofilter FTW

<comment><USER13> > since the images are so small to be of little/no use in any commercial sense

The most likely scenario for Instagram photos being used in advertising would be online, not in print. So the size is fine.

<comment><USER25> Probably even more likely is that they would be used on mobile.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Relevant: [http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/18/3780158/instagrams-new- te...](http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/18/3780158/instagrams-new-terms-of- service-what-they-really-mean)

</comment><comment><USER27> Instagram's new TOS[1] state:

      To help us deliver interesting paid or sponsored content or promotions, you agree that a business or other entity may pay us to display your username, likeness, photos (along with any associated metadata), and/or actions you take, in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you.

In other words, they're trying to monetize Instagram a similar way Facebook is - Sponsored Posts - your photos and associated data can be promoted by companies without having to notify you about it.

Furthermore under Section 106: Exclusive rights in copyrighted works aka. 17 U.S.C. § 106[2] Instagram _cannot_ sell your photos and it _cannot_ use your photos and alter them in any meaningful way.

Having said that Instagram could have communicated this better as this hasn't helped the situation either.

[1] <http://instagram.com/about/legal/terms/updated/>

[2] <http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html>

====

NOTE: Also posted this at: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4939650>

</comment><comment><USER28> Wouldn't the simplest fix be to let users opt-in to this?

Hell, opt me in automatically by default. But maybe this is the compromise, that way Instagram can make money (as they should) and users don't feel ripped off.

</comment><comment><USER29> You're in their casino, you play by their rules. The house always wins.

</comment><comment><USER30> As far as I can tell, some Android devices also save your photos (with filters) in a separate album, so you may not need to download them from Instagram directly.

<comment><USER31> They should. I recently switched from a Droid X running Gingerbread to a newer Android phone, and it was super easy to grab all of my instagram photos (and everything else, really) out of the files directory.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Alternative export tool, doesn't require login, open source and can be trivially rehosted by anyone if the traffic overwhelms:

Source: <https://github.com/duggan/instazip>

"Demo" (aka, you can use this unless traffic kills it): <http://instazip.orchestra.io/>

Caveats: bit buggy, running on a free Orchestra plan, wants a very recent browser to run.

PRs obviously welcome/sought.

</comment><comment><USER33> Love Flickr due to this. See this: [http://blog.flickr.net/en/2011/05/13/at- flickr-your-photos-a...](http://blog.flickr.net/en/2011/05/13/at-flickr-your- photos-are-always-yours/)

Here they have explained how Y! can't use your photos for anything else except for the purpose the content was made available. Additionally, users have the option to make content licensable if they want to using Getty.

</comment><comment><USER34> Sometimes when these discussions appear, people talk of alternatives like "personal clouds" or "peer to peer photo sharing and blogging".

I know of at least Diaspora but there is at least one other i can't remember the name of, that you can install on your own server but i doubt that these projects in their current form will ever take off and be of any competition to the Facebook/Instagram models, because the technical aspect is just too complicated to the average user (assuming it to be a kind of user that has no existing or minimal skills to install Wordpress on a shared hosting).

Was just wondering about this on my way here to the "office" and a solution for this mess regarding user content ownership, privacy and companies "slipping the rug" under the user's feet could be the separation of service provider, the software itself and hosting (where the content is) ?

Basically something along the lines of:

* the user signing up for the hosting part on his prefered provider (Amazon Cloud, Rackspace, Linode, Google appengine, etc)

* the user signing up for his favourite social software provider, let's say as example, software companies that provided on-demand installed software distributions that provided services similar to Facebook, Instagram, Posterous, etc ... including personal e-mail services. Could be addons on a base system or a full distribution per se, rolled on subdomains (photos.bilbobaggins.com, blog.bilbobaggins.com, ... )

* the software provider would be given access (through OAuth or whatever credential system) to roll their software on the hosting provided by the user)

* discoverability (ask aggregated public timelines and the sorts) could work based on a system akin to DNS for humans/peer to peer.

* a form of standard for interoperability between service/software providers would have to bee in place for the users to be able to switch between them and allow competition.

This would mean that:

* users would retain ownership of their content since they control the hosting, meaning they could pull the plug on a service provider or switch to the competition.

* since much of this can be abstracted from the user as automated devops keep getting better, the technical barrier would be lower.

* most of the hosting and networking costs would be shared between the users, so the software providers could focus more on business models relating to a better service/software, much like app stores work these days i guess?

</comment><comment><USER35> "...will not be able to sign up for Instagram later with the same account name" - I wonder why?...

<comment><USER36> i'm guessing to prevent the possibility of impersonation

<comment><USER35> That is a valid assumption. But I don't give them full credit for it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> clark-kent It depends on how instagram implements this policy, they need a policy that gives them enough flexibility to try new things and find out what will stick. It's too early to start a kill your instagram campaign. Why not wait and see how they implement this.

</comment><comment><USER37> Does anyone what the legal implications are if someone takes a picture of my baby and Instagram sells it to somebody for an ad? Would they need some sort of release?

Because I can delete my own photos but what what happens with other people's?

<comment><USER6> There are none _. They probably wouldn't_. You can certainly try and fight it though!

Food for thought: [http://photorights.org/faq/is-it-legal-to-take-photos-of- peo...](http://photorights.org/faq/is-it-legal-to-take-photos-of-people- without-asking)

<comment><USER38> How can you say there are none when the very link you provide mentions a release can be required for commercial use? You cannot imply that another person endorses your product or service without permission, and I've never seen an exclusion for babies. One may exist, but that FAQ doesn't say anything about it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Why wouldn't they implement a system where you can flag certain photos for promotion and receive a cut if that photo is used for promotion?

Why can Facebook only come up with monetization strategies that take advantage of its users?

</comment><comment><USER40> I'm really curious why <http://instaport.me/> redirects you to <http://184.108.40.206/> Did anybody else notice that?

<comment><USER41> I'm seeing that too. They probably just got a massive spike in traffic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> I think what we're actually seeing is users declare that the value that Instagram provides them is _not_ worth a perpetual and transferable commercial license for all photos taken, past and present.

</comment><comment><USER43> I feel sleezy using Flickr, because they were doing the same thing, uncredited, and running Flickr images in Yahoo! ads. This has been years ago, but one of the reasons I stopped using Flickr.

<comment><USER44> Details?

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> Still won't help you save your comments/photos commented on and likes all too well, though. I personally find them more important as someone who doesn't submit many photos.

</comment><comment><USER46> "...except Content not shared publicly ("private") will not be distributed outside the Instagram Services." from the TOS. Seems interesting to me.

</comment><comment><USER47> Hahah loved this part: "That's it. Of course you'll need to find another photo service to see photos of meals and your friend's feet." ^_^

</comment><comment><USER48> I feel bad for the lawyer who wrote that TOS and will be blamed for killing a toy project facebook paid a billion for.

</comment><comment><USER49> Whenever something like this happens I immediately look for the open alternative. But, does one exist?

<comment><USER50> Such a massive infrastructure is expensive, and given that (arguably) the most useful open system, Wikipedia, constantly has funding drives it doesn't seem viable as a free, large-scale consumer-fronting service. I could see such a service being run as a non-profit perhaps, given some monetization or donations.

<comment><USER49> I'd pay for it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> So, how's instaport making money?

<comment><USER52> 'donate' and 'Ads via Adsie' banners on the right?

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> Someone explain to me how instagram is evil and facebook is okay?

</comment><comment><USER54> Everybody is always trying to get something for nothing.

</comment><comment><USER55> The fact that the article uses a crappy Instagrammed photo for the picture is baffling

<comment><USER24> why? seems on-topic and relevant to me. Maybe you missed the irony.

<comment><USER56> The photo felt like it was also trying to frame Instagram in a harsh light, similar to how articles about violent crime often feature mugshots.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> check out www.instabyebye.com built today

<comment><USER58> I had the same (great) idea, but your site doesn't do what I thought it would. Instead of being able to download all of my large size images, I now have a publicly viewable listing of thumbnails of all of my photos that are now mirrored on your amazon account. There are no privacy settings, or ability to delete them from your server.

I think you should be clearer about the ability to delete them from your server.</comment></comment>


Kijini claims to identify disease using 30 seconds of speech - <AUTHOR> https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/kijini-unlock-the-secrets-of-your-voice#/

<comment><USER2> > _KIJINI's reports are data-driven and sophisticated, based on 25 years of > research in a clinical setting._

The claims are completely unbelievable. Do they have one double blind test published in a serious peer review medical journal???

<comment><USER3> No. This is just new-age pseudo-science founded on a garbled mish-mash of Einstein's field equations, universal resonance, quantum physics, the Kabbalah, the Knights Templar, sacred geometry, the Ark of the Covenant, crop circles, etc.

Just Google the name 'Nassim Haramein'. He is a charismatic crank with a popular following like Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, or Immanuel Velikovsky.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Sadly this campaign ended June 17, about a month ago. Very interesting idea, though. I wonder if there's a place we can demo this?</comment>


Ask HN: What is your company doing for GDPR compliance? - <AUTHOR> The EU's General Data Privacy Regulation goes into effect at the end of May. Our company is getting ready to spend probably 8-person-months of labor time becoming compliant (for a mobile app that uses advertising). It's a giant pain to navigate the policy when you're on a small-ish team without somebody who has been paying close attention to this.<p>Here's the GDPR website: https://www.eugdpr.org/ <comment><USER2> We're a development & product company and are currently adapting to GDPR. We compiled some useful tips in this article: [https://bugfender.com/blog/how-to- comply-with-the-gdpr-eu-la...](https://bugfender.com/blog/how-to-comply-with- the-gdpr-eu-law/)

You must first evaluate which level of compliance you need. For cases where the data is not very sensitive, compliance is a matter of following some simple rules. If the data you're collecting is sensitive, you need to do a risk analysis and decide yourself on the requirements you should follow (which IHMO is bad for both consumers and companies, since they do not have clear rules to follow).

If you fall in the "simple" case, you just have to do in summary:

\- You must guarantee certain rights which might require some changes but are not necessarily too difficult, like allowing to delete data and export it.

\- You must list the suppliers processing data for you and have a contract with them. Also not very difficult but might require some time and requires your suppliers to also adapt, which might probably be the most difficult step.

</comment><comment><USER3> Probably the most important part of GDPR is the fact you must prove you're doing reasonable efforts to comply.

In my company we've setup an internal redmine project that tracks and has pointers to all development and administrative work related to data protection. We also upload there a copy of the final documents we produce to have it everything in one place.

Why? In case of inspection, you cannot fake 2-3 years of work in a few hours.

</comment><comment><USER4> Nothing. I am waiting for the EU and its army to enforce it on companies like mine that have no business presence in the EU.

We don't collect personal information and if someone wants to have their data removed I am happy to do this too.

<comment><USER5> No one expects them to enforce it on you.

But don't be surprised when your EU customers start leaving for products that do comply.

That's kind of the whole point.

<comment><USER4> Considering we are B2B and don't collect personal data I think this is unlikely.

I feel for the poor EU companies that have to deal with this mess. If you are a smaller company it might be best to do the bare minimium and hope you sail under the radar.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Work for a fairly large company and we've been working on GDPR since like last October. There is a lot of ambiguity on unstructured data that we don't parse/process (things like customer uploaded images, pdfs, etc) that seem to be confusing for product management and/or legal.

If a customer uploads an image or PDF and it's got a second customer's protection information in it, how am I supposed to know? It's just sitting in an s3 bucket without any introspection...

</comment><comment><USER7> By 8-person-months of labor time, you mean 4 people working on it on a quarter-time basis for the next 4 months?

Deadline is May 25 2018 which is less than 4 months from now. I'm planning this and talking with various consultants right now. Happy to share the details if anyone is interested.

</comment><comment><USER8> The worst is for side-project which is making small buck from freemium subscriptions. The project is finished and almost maintenance free. I am considering to kill the project or explicitly require only B2B users (no consumers). There is also option to move all it behind US reseller to avoid unnecessary compliance burden.

</comment><comment><USER9> Mainly supporting the Right of erasure. I'm the PM working on it, so lots of talking to our lawyer, consultants, going through all the db fields, etc.

If you are a SaaS provider then GDPR is table stakes now.</comment>


31C3: The Perl Jam: Exploiting a 20 Year-old Vulnerability [video] - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gweDBQ-9LuQ

<comment><USER2> This is the perfect video to show why you don't do live demos (starting around 15:30). Record the demo beforehand to a video (swf or similar) and play that back.</comment>


Project C-90, an attempt to catalogue every cassette tape - <AUTHOR> http://www.c-90.org/catalogue/tapes <comment><AUTHOR> Note this isn't an attempt to catalogue every cassette tape sold with music on it, just every tape available as blank.</comment>


Ask HN: Interesting software jobs in Chicago? - <AUTHOR>

(posting under a different account, as my coworkers read HN)
Chicago is a great place, but industry-wise, it seems heavily skewed towards the boring and corporate. I've been browsing all of the usual places (37 Signals, Crunchboard, Craigslist, Stack Overflow...) and I'm just not seeing the sort of position I'm looking for. I'd really like a position where the work is varied and I have the opportunity to learn and grow. I'd also like to find a company where the mission is something other than "Make money". Tall order, I know.
I'm a senior developer with a diverse background and a graduate degree. And a mortgage. So that also colors what I'm looking for. Over the past two years, I've grown to respect the opinions of this community, so I'm taking a chance and reaching out to see if the community is aware of opportunities that I'm not. Any Chicago area hackers (or hackers with knowledge of Chicago) have any suggestions? <comment><USER2> >> I'd also like to find a company where the mission is something other than "Make money".

You're going to have a real problem with this particular criteria. I don't think this is problem limited to Chicago, however.

I'd recommend getting to know Chicago's start-up and consulting scene, as these are probably the places with varied work and that treat people like more than cogs in a machine. Chicago has a very strong Ruby on Rails community, so it will probably help if you work in that language/platform. Places I'd recommend checking out: Among local startups, Groupon has a really talented staff and is absolutely taking off. Obtiva and Pathfinder are webapp development companies focusing on agile, rails, and RIA. Threadless is in Chicago and has a pretty large national reputation. I know people at all of the above and think any would fit your criteria. That said, Groupon seems to be in a rough stretch where developers work long hours as a result of their rapid growth; Pathfinder and Obtiva might not be hiring due to the economy and Threadless recently lost one of its founders (Jeffrey Kalmikiff) to Digg, which makes me wonder what's going on that would cause him to leave.

<comment><USER3> Obtiva is hiring. Feel free to go to our website and email us if you are interest.

\--Kevin</comment></comment>


What's missing from the Twitter funding announcement: Revenue - <AUTHOR> http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/06/24/whats-missing-twitter-funding-announcement-revenue

<comment><USER2> I have to admit I was more than a bit shocked to see that Bezos co-led this round. Unless he's really hoping that since it's one of the most visible sites using AWS he really wants to see it succeed?

</comment><comment><USER3> >doesn't it seem strange to be throwing lots of money behind a revenue-starved communication network based on casual, fleeting text exchanges between a tiny population of heavy Web users?

That population is going to do nothing but grow as broadband and smartphones become ubiquitous.

</comment><comment><USER4> Is anyone else trying to bridge the gap between sms and the internet the way twitter is? I can't help but think Bezos sees twitter as an infrastructure service and not a micro-blogging service.

<comment><USER5> Yes, but not Valley hipsters so no one pays attention. SMS isn't even a big part of Twitter--most of their traffic goes through the API.</comment></comment>


Supplement mimics caloric-restriction, elevates NAD+ in healthy adults age 55-79 - <AUTHOR> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-03421-7 <comment><AUTHOR> I was wondering where one can get such supplement... Here is the press release from the company that makes NIAGEN, the one that may have been used in the linked study: a "member of the vitamin B3 family. The body converts NR into Nicotinamide Adenine Dinucleotide (NAD) which is an essential molecule found in every living cell." [1]

My usual question: how can a hacker produce that supplement on their own (for use by immediate family)?

[1] [https://globenewswire.com/news- release/2018/03/29/1455390/0/...](https://globenewswire.com/news- release/2018/03/29/1455390/0/en/New-Published-Clinical-Trial-Confirms-NIAGEN- Supplementation-Raised-Nicotinamide-Adenine-Dinucleotide-NAD-Levels-and- Potentially-Improves-Blood-Pressure-and-Cardiovascular-Health.html)</comment>


Aetna CEO Set to Reap About $500M If CVS Deal Closes - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/aetnas-outgoing-ceo-set-to-reap-about-500-million-if-cvs-deal-closes-1512480623 <comment><USER2> These are just sort of nitpicky comments, but I think in this case they matter:

* most of this is due to appreciation of stock appreciation rights (an instrument similar to a stock option) he already owns that is already vested ($230M)

* $190M is from common stock he currently owns

* he gets $60-85M as part of a change of control package, which is triggered if he is fired after CVS takes over. this is a standard clause in most contracts

* overall, his package is worth so much because his equity became more valuable over the course of his tenure. any employees who got options at the same time as he did would benefit from most of this as well

so these gains did not come from profits, rather appreciation in the equity of the company during his tenure. it would be hypocritical to praise startup founders from reaping capital gains while admonishing this ceo

edit: formatting

<comment><USER3> > so these gains did not come from profits, rather appreciation in the equity > of the company during his tenure. it would be hypocritical to praise startup > founders from reaping capital gains while admonishing this ceo

Why do you think the equity went up in value? It's because of profit driven - valuations and profitability usually go hand in hand. The difference between Aetna and most startups is the business of Aetna adds no value to the economy/society, it's a value suck.

<comment><USER2> i disagree. point by point:

* from 2014-2016, aetna's revenue has increased by 9%, its net income by 10%, and its stock price by 82%. i didnt check all the way back to the beginning of the current ceo's tenure, but id imagine it is a similar trend. stock prices and profitability are not as well correlated as wed like to think

* why do you say aetna adds no economic value to society? i understand if you have a high deductible plan with high premiums, it seems like health insurance is evil, but insurance companeis are required to pay out like 80% of the premium revenue they receive as medical benefits. so aetna pays something like $50B a year to pay for people's surgeries, child birth, medications, hospital stays, etc

if you dont think health insurance is valuable youve never been really sick

<comment><USER4> Health care is valuable. Health insurance is mostly a scam in the US, a way for insurance companies to take a cut without adding any value.

Talk to someone who has lived in countries with socialized medicine (as I have): other countries systems' aren't perfect, but they deliver better results, with less money, and without insurance companies taking massive profits for doing nothing but denying claims.

Full disclosure: health insurance company once repeatedly refused to pay $5000 bill to lab. When I finally said "I'd like to file a grievance" they magically discovered a "coding error" and the bill was paid.

<comment><USER2> health insurance companies are not perfect, but id argue they are more a product of the imperfections of the us healthcare system than a cause of the imperfections

private health insurance is needed as we do not have public insurance for everyone. even in countries like the UK, which tend to have better outcomes and lower cost, private health insurance exists. it gives people more options if they are willing to pay and can afford it

health insurance companies are easy to scapegoat, but in reality they are not usually price gouging, but usually only responding to cost increases by hospitals and health systems. health insurance companies under the ACA must pay out 80% of premium revenues as medical claims. when you add administrative costs, health insurance companies have a structural profit ceiling of like 5%. however increasingly consolidated providers are getting more pricing power and charging more, so the insurance companies have to increase premiums or lower costs (claim denials) to protect their structurally thin margins

insurance companies certainly do terrible things like not paying things and literally inventing coding errors to deny payment. however, in many cases this is mitigated by the healthcare provider taking assignment of insurance and dealing with all this on your behalf. although insurance companies can and do make life harder for docs and influence behavior. but even in countries with "socialised medicine" doctors are influenced (perhaps more strongly) by payers.

tldr, dont hate the player hate the game

<comment><USER3> Ask yourself this question - how do insurance companies in general add value? Forget payout for a moment. Their value is added in deciding what rates to charge people, and determining if a claim is valid, that's it. Anything else they do is value subtraction. Their profit drivers come from raising premiums and denying more claims, both things kill value. You make a good point about providers consolidating, and the same point should be made about health insurance companies consolidating.

<comment><USER5> Health insurance companies recruit providers (hospitals and physicians), negotiate prices for services, manage patient records and billing, detect, prevent, and prosecute provider fraud, determine market prices based on their predicted population of insured live, and other random tasks. It's a stretch to call this no value add, in my opinion. We can, and should, compare the efficiency of medicare administration to private insurance administration, and study the best practices of each system. Even in countries with state- sponsored universal healthcare, like the UK, there are robust private health insurance systems, which indicates to me that they offer value to consumers and fill some market need.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Well, he led the company while its value went from $10 billion to $69 billion in 7 years. Doesn't seem ridiculous.

<comment><USER7> Yes it does.

Aetna employees almost 50,000 people.

Aetna owes some success to their CEO. They owe most of their success to their employees.

<comment><USER8> I'm all for taxing the rich and compensating workers fairly.

But:

\- Had the company declined, the CEO would have gotten all the blame and been crucified. Can't give blame if you can't also give credit.

\- The CEO negotiated this deal, the employees did not.

\- A good portion of this $500M is from the value of his stock, which is part of his compensation. I don't know the percentage of this payout that comes from stock (WSJ paywall...), but we certainly can't take stock AWAY from him to reduce his payout.

\- Employees who have cashed in their options will also make money from this deal. Other stockholders will make money too.

Again -- I am NOT condoning our American trend of over-paid CEOs. More money in the working class is good for the economy. But this event specifically is not ridiculous.

<comment><USER9> Something I find curious is the degree to which HN seems to want to break out the torches and pitchforks when a CEO profits handsomely by increasing shareholder value. There doesn't seem to be the same animus towards ordinary developers becoming millionaires in a few short years by getting lucky and landing at the right unicorn startup pre-IPO.

CEOs interests are aligned perfectly in this situation: increase shareholder value. The vast bulk of CEO pay is derived from the stock that's granted to them and vested over time just like it would be for any employee that received RSUs or stock options.

I don't quite grok the idea that employees with no ownership stake in the company are somehow owed a share of the capital gain when they've got no capital of their own at risk.

A big part of my compensation is commission and another big part is RSUs. If I don't deliver results and if I don't align my goals with that of the major shareholders and the market, I don't make as much money. I don't see how this contravenes the startup/get-rich zeitgeist here in HN.

Capitalism for me but not for thee?

<comment><USER10> > CEOs interests are aligned perfectly in this situation: increase shareholder > value.

That is wrong. The CEO's risk is asymmetric. Huge upside with limited downside, which encourages reckless risk taking. It is also shorter term (until his grants vest), encouraging short term profit over long term value.

> I don't quite grok the idea that employees with no ownership stake in the > company are somehow owed a share of the capital gain when they've got no > capital of their own at risk.

Is the CEO not an employee? Why would he be owed a share of the capital gain, and other workers not?

<comment><USER9> His risk isn't asymmetric. He (or she) has got to justify their job each and every quarter to the investors. A couple of bad quarters and you can expect the shareholders to be looking for a scalp and it's usually the CEO.

I think you maybe underestimate the job market for senior executives. It's not like a CEO of a S&P500 company can find another job on LinkedIn. Sometimes they land a new gig. A lot of the times they don't.

I'd also suggest you try the job of leading people and groups of that size. There are very few who can do this sort of work effectively.

Also consider that a CEO has to consider the types of challenges he or she would like to tackle. A Board of Directors is shopping for talent and trying to get the right fit. Why does a CEO not get the same opportunity to negotiate a pay package?

<comment><USER11> "His risk isn't asymmetric. He (or she) has got to justify their job each and every quarter to the investors. A couple of bad quarters and you can expect the shareholders to be looking for a scalp and it's usually the CEO."

But what actual risk is the CEO taking? Sure, the board might decide to let them go. But that usually comes with a multi-million dollar severance package. They're not hurting. There is no practical downside. On the other hand, someone who gets laid off because of the company tanking does get hurt, through no fault of their own.

"I think you maybe underestimate the job market for senior executives. It's not like a CEO of a S&P500 company can find another job on LinkedIn. Sometimes they land a new gig. A lot of the times they don't."

They land on their feet more often than not. And, again, they're not hurting for money. If they don't find another job, their children are not going to go hungry.

<comment><USER9> If you got fired from a job that had a potential $500M payday attached to it and only got a $25M severance package at the end of it, trust me, you'd be pretty bummed about it. Go looking for CEOs that got fired and see where they landed. it's one and done for a lot of them.

Again, there is no room for socialist populism here. He negotiated a package and he delivered results. His interests as a CEO are aligned with the shareholders who risk their capital with ownership of the company. They trust the board and the CEO to increase the value of their investment.

Why is this controversial? Why does it matter if he's rich before or after he does the job? All of these guys are already wealthy before they even sign up. They don't need to do this work to survive.

Somehow the notion seems to go around that anyone who makes a boatload of money suddenly has to kowtow to the public on whether or not they deserve that money. That's not how this works.

<comment><USER10> > If you got fired from a job that had a potential $500M payday attached to it > and only got a $25M severance package at the end of it, trust me, you'd be > pretty bummed about it.

Trust me, I wouldn't be. I pity the person who is bummed to have only $25M.

> He negotiated a package and he delivered results. His interests as a CEO are > aligned with the shareholders who risk their capital with ownership of the > company. They trust the board and the CEO to increase the value of their > investment.

Ever tried getting a CEO's compensation reduced as a shareholder? Warren Buffett describes it as follows: "the deck is stacked against investors when it comes to the CEO's pay" [1].

[1] [http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2005ltr.pdf](http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2005ltr.pdf)

<comment><USER12> That is outstanding reading. Like the closing quote of that section:

"Though I have served as a director of twenty public companies, only one CEO has put me on his comp committee. Hmmmm . . ."

Everyone in this thread claiming CEOs usually "earn" their compensation needs to read this and explain why Buffet's arguments are wrong.

(Not because it's Buffett, because his arguments are well thought out and reflect a lot of personal experience with the topic.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I know it's foolish to compare myself to the top 0.01%, but every year it seems like I fall further behind.

Athletes used to make tens of millions of dollars. Nowadays some retire with over a billion dollars of lifetime earnings.

CEOs used to make what? It was common to hear 20-25MM a year, today that number seems ridiculously low.

I know staff on professional sports teams, low men on the totem pole, who make quarter million dollar bonuses.

I realize these are one off examples that aren't common, but they make the gap seem so large.

<comment><USER14> I use increasing athlete salary as an easy analogy to help ppl understand wealth disparity in this country. Micheal Jordan once made $4 million dollars in the prime of his career. Today Steph Curry can sign a $200 million deal in 2017 because that amount is nothing to his owner. Russell Westbrook signed a $200 million NBA extension to go with his $200 million sneaker endorsement this summer. Sounds crazy if you've been following sports. Their salaries aren't out of control though, it just seems that way because our wages are stagnant due to having none of the leverage athletes have via unions/skillset. Athlete salary has grown in proportion to the wealth they help generate, most of our salaries have not.

<comment><USER13> Exactly - you articulated what I was trying to say better than I did.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Give him some tax cuts to go with it

<comment><AUTHOR> Republican tax cuts are targeting small businesses and the middle class. Nice try

<comment><USER16> I know this is off topic from this thread, but I'm honestly curious as to why you think this. What evidence exists to support your statement?

Normally, I would just assume this type of comment is simply trolling, but I looked at your profile and it seems you are a real person with generally intelligent comments so now I'm curious.

<comment><AUTHOR> I didn't read the budget, and likely you didn't read it too. We can't do all things at the same time, so we have experts to take care of things. (Say, you get a CT scan, you are not going to view it and interpret it, your radiologist will.) The same with the budget: I trust the president and the Republicans, as I take their word for it.

<comment><USER17> "I trust the president and the Republicans, as I take their word for it."

That's a bad strategy for a citizen in a democracy. If you blindly believe a party or politician you can't make educated choices.

<comment><AUTHOR> Nobody does blindly anything. We make choices, and that is my choice. I trust the Republicans in Congress, and I am happy with their legislative agenda. Let's respect each other choices, and not denigrate anyone for being politically blind. We all have brains, personalities, education, and we all deserve respect.

<comment><USER17> Did you do any reading about the budget? I haven't read the whole thing but it seems pretty obvious to me that main benefits will go to the highest incomes and corporations and only a small percentage to the middle class. Unless you define middle class as people with net worth in the millions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> It helps to understand the breakdown of how he got to this level of benefit. My guess: it doesn't sound like he just gets a $0.5B payout at close, but instead its the value of his Aetna holdings after close + his termination contract. To break it down, say he gets option for 300,000 shares at $30/share ($9mm) each year over the last 7 yrs, and the company stock price has gone from $30 to $207 per share, with steep ramp in price at the end of his reign, he is left with 2.1mm shares worth $177 more per share than he paid for them, netting him $370,000,000. His change in control contract is worth $85mm, bringing him to $450mm. Right or wrong, it makes more sense when broken down.

Disclaimer: I know very little about whats normal in stock options and executive pay, but a $10mm/yr salary for a man serving as CEO and chairman of a $70B company doesn't seem as far fetched as the $500mm total comp makes it sound

</comment><comment><USER19> Oligarchy at its best: Aetna/CVS workers mostly making minimum wage and doing all the work while the CEOs earning insane paychecks. Would this guy really be worse off if he only made 50M and the other 450M would go to the employees?

<comment><USER20> would you accept $50 bonus and $1 to each of your 450 covorkers if you were set to receive $500 bonus instead?

<comment><USER21> Interesting how that question is phrased.

Would you accept $50 (million dollar)? Hell yeah.

What would you choose between $50 and $500. Maybe $500, not sure if I could live with myself, but I can see how some people would.

But why is $500 even on the table? Why isn't someone (a board, a shareholders' meeting) telling this guy: $50 (million) should be enough.

<comment><USER20> because that bonus is based on how much he saved or made for that company. he/she must have saved/made the company at least 3 times as much and was promised the bonus by that same board if he achieves the goal. board does not gift him the bonus, board owes him.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I wonder if there's a reasonable way to normalize the value of stock incentive packages, such that they only become worth outsized amounts if you actually outperform the other companies in your sector. That way, they can't just ride a bull market to a massive payday, and similarly, a bear market doesn't automatically destroy their compensation.

</comment><comment><USER15> Not sure if people know, but corporate compensation is rigged in the US. It is mostly determined by a compensation committee appointed by the board, and consisting of members of the same oligarchy. By contrast, CEOs in other countries don't make such obscene numbers

<comment><USER8> > By contrast, CEOs in other countries don't make such obscene numbers

By contrast, _companies_ in other countries don't make such obscene numbers. Don't forget that our economy eclipses everyone else's. Our economy is on par with the entire EU's, and is still larger than China's which has several times our population.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Whatever your politics that $500 million comes from profit in healthcare. Aetna has an economic incentive to denvy as much care as they can. That $500 million to one person is part of the overall cost of healthcare in the U.S. Is this really money well spent on healthcare?

<comment><USER24> More importantly, that 500M was money siphoned away from healing people. This is a share of the reward in not healing the sick.

<comment><USER25> Not necessarily... If we pretend the $500m is "profit", that $500m could have been created by Aetna offering better preventative care or it could have been created by letting people die in the name of corporate greed.

Aetna's valuation has grown out of the passage of the ACA. I find it unlikely that the second is true. The first certainly has happened but its unlikely that it accounts for all of the profit.

I put profit in quotes because the $500m is a bonus from the sale of the company, not an "income - expenses" profit.

<comment><USER23> This is from be ACA but I think it gives the general idea of the tactics insurance companies use:

[https://health.usnews.com/health- news/articles/2008/08/25/ho...](https://health.usnews.com/health- news/articles/2008/08/25/how-crafty-health-insurers-are-denying-care)

Here's one from after ACA passed and was implemented:

[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mental-illness-health-care- insu...](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mental-illness-health-care- insurance-60-minutes/)

The ACA attempted to make things more fair in terms of appealing denials and mandating certain coverages. It's not reasonable to believe that Aetna's profit comes from offer better preventative care. I'd need to see some evidence to believe that. Certainly before ACA health insurance companies let people die in the name of corporate greed. They have an economic incentive to deny care. Evidence of this is in the fact that the CEO is getting a $500 million bonus.

Yes the $500 million comes from stock price increase. But that comes from profit and the profit, at least partly, comes from denying care.

EDIT:

[https://twitter.com/RoseAnnDeMoro/status/922627477553397761/...](https://twitter.com/RoseAnnDeMoro/status/922627477553397761/video/1)

It happens often enough that there is a market for lawyers to help out when insurance claims are denied.

[https://scottglovsky.com/practice-areas/health-insurance- den...](https://scottglovsky.com/practice-areas/health-insurance-denial- lawyer/)

<comment><USER25> > profit, at least partly, comes from denying care.

This is the same as saying Dole makes part of their profit by selling rotten bananas. A factual statement but the implication of it is incorrect. The bulk of Aetna's business is to sell health insurance to healthy people. Its cheaper to never provide service than to deny payouts.

> Yes the $500 million comes from stock price increase. But that comes from > profit

Stock prices rise and fall without any consideration to profit. See Amazon. Aetna's valuation can be based on a thousand different factors. The fact that an offer has been made to purchase Aetna can increase its stock price.

<comment><USER23> Revenue comes from selling policies. The company has a financial incentive to deny care because that increases the profit. It's one way they try to control expenses and thereby increase profit. After Katrina State Farm famously denied coverage to many people on the grounds that it wasn't storm damage but rather flood damage. Companies that have an incentive to get out of spending money generally try to do so. Health insurance companies hire people for the express purpose of looking for loopholes and ways to deny coverage. This is well documented.

You have in the comment above and in other comments spoken in terms of what could be. Do you have evidence that Aetna's valuation was not based on profitability? Do you deny that Aetna has a financial incentive to deny coverage or to look for ways to get out of paying for coverage? Do you believe that the $500 million for one person is money well spent in the U.S. healthcare system?

<comment><USER25> > Do you have evidence that Aetna's valuation was not based on profitability?

No. But if you read the comment of the person I originally responded to, you'll see that this discussion is irrelevant to the overall point. Any clarification of Aetna's valuation has been for your understanding of stock valuations in general. Not to pursue some point about Aetna's ethical or unethical valuation.

> The company has a financial incentive to deny care because that increases > the profit.

> Do you deny that Aetna has a financial incentive to deny coverage or to look > for ways to get out of paying for coverage?

Yes, categorically. If Aetna signs an agreement to pay health expenses and fails to follow through they face three major consequences:

\- They can be sued for breach of contract.

\- They can lose market power as their brand loses public trust.

\- They can face fines from government regulators.

If Aetna is denying claims that they were never contractually obligated to pay in the first place, then I see that as fraud prevention.

> Do you believe that the $500 million for one person is money well spent in > the U.S. healthcare system?

Why should I even have an opinion on the subject? I have never given Aetna or CVS my business. It's not my money they're swapping.

CVS is in a highly competitive market segment. If they were ripping off their customers they would have never acquired the market power to pay this CEO a bonus of $500m.

<comment><USER23> _Yes, categorically. If Aetna signs an agreement to pay health expenses and fails to follow through they face three major consequences: \- They can be sued for breach of contract. \- They can lose market power as their brand loses public trust. \- They can face fines from government regulators._

I think you are ignorant about how things work in the U.S. There haven't been strong regulators for quite some time. The average person has neither the money, time, or willpower to fight an insurance company. The legal costs can be quite high. The time required to get a favorable ruling that actually gets enforced is often times quite long. Witness Exxon and the time required to get them to pay for the Valdez accident.

In an ideal world your point would be relevant. We do not live in a truly free market. We live in an environment of regulatory capture. An era of force arbitration which is well known to favor the corporation. We do not live in an environment where corporate malfeasance is properly punished. Look at the fines banks had to pay for knowingly laundering drug money. It was far less than the profit. BP famously has leaky oil pipelines in Nigeria because it can get away with it. Comcast has virtually no public trust and yet it continues to profit greatly. Your view is not justified by reality.

It is well documented that health insurance companies hire people to look for loopholes. To delay and ultimately try to deny coverage. This is not disputable.

<comment><USER25> > It is well documented that health insurance companies hire people to look > for loopholes. To delay and ultimately try to deny coverage. This is not > disputable.

Everything you said before this point is irrelevant.

It's trivial to find the list of lawsuits lost and fines paid[1].

Read this excerpt:

> In 1999 a California jury awarded $116 million in punitive damages to the > widow of a man whose death from stomach cancer was alleged to have been > caused by the refusal of an Aetna subsidiary to approve treatment approved > by its own doctors.

$116 million for failing to pay what would have been $100k max for treatment. Aetna certainly has a financial interest in upholding their agreements. They would have to deny 1160 identical cases before breaking even. Assuming that none of those 1160 sued for damages.

1\. [https://www.corp-research.org/aetna](https://www.corp-research.org/aetna)

<comment><USER23> _The case was then settled out of court for an undisclosed amount that was reported to be around $20 million._

I know a medical malpractice attorney. He only takes cases he is absolutely sure to win. The gray areas he leaves alone. It is in these gray areas that insurance companies mostly try to get away with paying claims.

What I wrote prior was not irrelevant. You have a naive view of how markets work in the U.S.

<comment><USER25> It _is_ irrelevant. You're talking about oil spills in Nigeria. I'm talking about _one specific health-care company in America_. I don't care to hear your opinions on the market and how it operates. I also don't care to hear anecdotal testimony about your friend's business practices.

It is a matter of public record when Aetna has been fined and when Aetna has been sued. It is _trivial_ to research the subject.

I'm not sure why we're still having this conversation. Aetna's P/E ratio is 50% higher than the market average which means its price (and therefore CEO bonus) are driven by future growth potential. Not profit "extracted" in the here and now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Do all the other workers get a proportionately large cut (relative to their incomes)?

<comment><USER17> They should be more worried about layoffs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> For 10% of that he can buy enough of congress to make that happen

</comment><comment><USER28> Is there a non-pay-walled site to read the whole article?

<comment><USER18> Marketwatch has some information [https://www.marketwatch.com/story/aetna-ceo- bertolini-could-...](https://www.marketwatch.com/story/aetna-ceo-bertolini- could-exit-after-cvs-deal-with-500-million-2017-12-05?siteid=rss&rss=1)

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> No paywall: [https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsj.com%2Fa...](https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsj.com%2Farticles%2Faetnas- outgoing-ceo-set-to-reap-about-500-million-if-cvs-deal-closes-1512480623)

</comment><comment><USER30> Paywall bypass:

[https://m.facebook.com/flx/warn/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsj.com...](https://m.facebook.com/flx/warn/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsj.com%2Farticles%2Faetnas- outgoing-ceo-set-to-reap-about-500-million-if-cvs-deal-closes-1512480623)

<comment><USER31> Yeah, from paywall to worse. NBD

<comment><USER30> I'm genuinely confused by this response. All that URL does is have you click from Facebook, which makes FB the referrer, which WSJ has anointed a paywall free zone.

What am I missing?</comment></comment></comment>


Skyscrapers – but no sewage system. Meet a city run by private industry - <AUTHOR> http://ideas.ted.com/skyscrapers-but-no-sewage-system-meet-a-city-run-by-private-industry/ <comment><USER2> Imagine my surprise to learn that this utopia of privatization literally dumps shit on the poor people who live there.</comment>


Ask HN: How Can I Learn Ruby on Rails? - <AUTHOR>

I have a good knowledge in HTML & CSS. I have bought a few books and read them + I have read a load of tutorials but I still can't learn...
Does anyone know a site or something that can teach me ror? Or if somebody here is ready to teach me? If it helps I have some knowledge of Pascal. I also read on HN daily (didn't have an account up until now) so don't think of me of a spam bot or something.
Thank You <comment><USER2> Warning, link dump ahead.

Start with: <http://tryruby.org/>

Then try: <http://railsforzombies.org/>

Other people have asked the same thing and received helpful answers: [http://www.reddit.com/r/rails/comments/dchql/what_is_a_great...](http://www.reddit.com/r/rails/comments/dchql/what_is_a_great_curriculum_for_learning_rails_if/)

[http://ask.metafilter.com/165590/Rapid-Ruby-on-Rails- indoctr...](http://ask.metafilter.com/165590/Rapid-Ruby-on-Rails- indoctrination)

[http://stackoverflow.com/questions/55574/learning-ruby-on- ra...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/55574/learning-ruby-on-rails)

Free programming books here, there are some RoR examples: [http://stackoverflow.com/questions/194812/list-of-freely- ava...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/194812/list-of-freely-available- programming-books)

Rails tips: <http://railstips.org/blog/archives/2010/10/14/stop-googling/> (I liked this article but the whole site might have good resources.)

There is a community specifically for mentoring: <http://www.railsmentors.org/>

And here's a general Rails community link: <http://www.workingwithrails.com/>

Not my favorite site but here's a good article on freelancing: [http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2010/10/26/successful- freela...](http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2010/10/26/successful-freelancing- with-ruby-on-rails-workflow-techniques-and-tools/)

Rails Rumble, get some app ideas from here once you build your skills: <http://railsrumble.com/>

Of course, Google "_why". Read about "why the lucky stiff". Read lots about him and see where it leads you.

</comment><comment><USER3> When I was learning Rails last year, one of my favorite podcasts were Railscasts <http://railscasts.com/>

Also - a friend taught a StuCo (student-taught course) at CMU about programming, which included Rails. He still has the slides and assignments up, those might be useful too: <http://www.cmurpg.com/>

</comment><comment><USER4> <http://guides.rubyonrails.org/>

</comment><comment><USER5> <http://www.railstutorial.org>

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thank You for all your answers. I will try all of the links you suggested.

</comment><comment><USER6> what's your email?

<comment><AUTHOR> markmussett24 @ gmail . com

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> [http://stackoverflow.com/questions/55574/learning-ruby-on- ra...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/55574/learning-ruby-on-rails)</comment>


How to Create a (Great?) Startup Office Space While Being Absurdly Cheap - <AUTHOR> http://dontrepreneur.com/2009/12/14/how-to-create-a-great-startup-office-space-while-being-abusrdly-cheap/

<comment><USER2> This article was totally reasonable and interesting until I got to this part:

Employee office chairs – $60 to $80 (must be ergonomic!)

Your office chair – $150 to $200 (it is worth it)

Huh? Now I'm left wondering what _else_ is wrong with this guy.

<comment><AUTHOR> Fair enough – the intent was to say as the founder you should splurge on yourself a little – not to say you're providing others with inferior stuff. I was able to find great chairs at an affordable price. When I can afford Aeron chairs for everyone, I would do that!

I removed that part because it takes away from the point of the article.

<comment><AUTHOR> Employees in this office will have plenty of perks – including $100 travel reimbursement per month, plus free lunch every day. I would not want to hire someone bogged down into such minute details of chairs when the entire space is obviously meant to make it as comfortable for them as possible.

<comment><USER3> are you kidding me? After the PC/Laptop/screen the type of chair is very very important. Any developer that is worth something, knows that they will have to sit down for long period of time, it better be a good chair.

If not, then it shows a lot about the employer. You risk looking like a company that buys cheap desktops, and and small screens to save money, but don't realise they are loosing tons in the way of lost productivity.

At home I have an $200 Ikea chair, and it is really nice. Not bank breaking for sure, but I expect my employer buy something similar in comfort level. Doesn't have to be a top of the line, but something that I can sit for few hours at a time without breaking my back.

I learned it the hard way, but I will never work in a place that cheaps out on chairs.

If you can't afford a $200 chair per employee, then you shouldn't be hiring. You need founders, and they can bring their own chair.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think not hiring because you can't afford $200 chairs is silly-I can either hire you now or wait until I can afford 600 chairs. There are part time employees out there too! I was specifically referring to the fact that as an employer I am doing the best I can to get good chairs within a budget. These chairs are extremely comfortable and happened to be affordable.

I went to IKEA looking for chairs—and hated all of them. To me, these chairs are very comfortable.

<comment><USER2> I think you're missing my point. Chair quality is a red herring. It's "visibly splurging on the founder" that's going to kill you.

<comment><AUTHOR> If you stopped by our office I think you would say there isn't any splurging anywhere-we aren't VC backed

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Very nice job on a $4,500 budget. I am impressed with your results.

It stands to reason that everyone is different and some people will not care one way or the other about this, some will hate it and think it's dumb, and some will think it's heaven on earth. I think when you hire if you look for the type of person who truly appreciates this type of environment as much as you do you will have a much better team for yourself. I think that someone who finds this workspace as invigorating as you do will excel in this environment more than they would in a drab one and may end up producing at a higher level than someone who does not.

This color scheme and attention to detail is not for everyone, but it is for you and your company--it sets you apart. It really seems to set the tone for your company culture right now and I think you should stick to your guns on this plan as you grow larger and try to hire those who share your appreciation for it. Build a _GOOD TEAM_.

</comment><comment><USER5> I'm working at a fairly established small programming shop, and the boss basically set a budget and let us choose our own desks and chairs.

Because I wanted a fairly fancy chair and didn't really give a crap about having an "executive-looking" desk, I splurged on the chair a bit ($299 on sale for $249), got a fancy n-way adjustable keyboard tray second-hand ($100), and a Fredrik desk from Ikea ($149).

Chair: [http://www.officedepot.com/a/products/510830/Realspace- PRO-9...](http://www.officedepot.com/a/products/510830/Realspace- PRO-9000-Series-Recycled-Mid/)

It's super comfortable and adjusts in height, seat depth, back height, armrest height and position, etc. The only downside is that it could use another half inch of seat height (and I'm not even six feet tall)

Desk: <http://www.ikea.com/us/en/catalog/products/60115989>

I can't say enough good things about this desk. I've got the first of the two top shelves about six inches above the desktop with two 19" monitors on it. With bigger monitors I would take it down one notch, but there would be room for dual 27" screens. I did have to put a couple of spacers to mount the keyboard tray, as there's a cross-brace that's in the way.

Here's my setup: <http://img39.yfrog.com/i/fobj.jpg/>

<comment><USER2> We did this too and I advise against it. There are desks that people will find that will screw up your space in unpredictable ways. Get everyone the same desk.

(For what it's worth, we eventually standardized on the same Ikea Frederick desk you like).

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> One of the more horrific color choices I've seen in a while.

<comment><USER2> I like that it's colorful, even if the colors are kind of hamhanded; it's good for your office to have an identity. I wish we could paint our offices (we could, but we need to be able to trade up to bigger offices on very little notice).

<comment><USER7> Instead of painting your office, you could print posters.

Assuming you can find a cheap printing place, there are tons of high resolution creative commons images on flickr and elsewhere.

My university has a _super_ cheap copymat, it may be that a university near you has similarly cheap prices.

<comment><USER2> Posters = clutter, and I'm already pretty cluttered:

<http://www.flickr.com/photos/45585199@N07/4186099566/>

It's a great idea, though.

<comment><USER7> That's a good point: if there's a poster there then it can't be a white board.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Interesting article, particularly in regards to the tax credit for office spaces (I happen to be in Pittsburgh, might be useful knowledge for the future).

I guess I don't agree with everyone else here, but I think it all came together well and I actually enjoy the color choices

<comment><USER9> Agreed - Also in Pittsburgh here. Looks like he was able to get office space on the North Side that qualifies for that tax credit. Not a bad area at all - just a short walk along the riverfront park to PNC Park/Heinz Field!

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> We did something similar with Citizen Space I in San Francisco (CS has since relocated to the ground floor of the same building in a different space, with decor less to my liking).

<http://www.flickr.com/photos/laughingsquid/294769682/>

As you will see from the photo we were able to create a very slick space for little money - mainly using Ikea furniture.

I believe we worked out that our budget for 6 people was less than 3 Aeron chairs.

</comment><comment><USER11> I don't get what the point of hiring more employees if you don't outfit them with the most productive tools. Great machine, great monitor, great chair- 5-6k max.

<comment><AUTHOR> Of course you get the best hardware - this article was meant to show that even a non VC backed company could get an office up and running. Were the other tips helpful?

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Someone once (okay, I forgot the article this was in) recommended that for an engineering/programming office it's a good idea to get a pool (snooker, billiards, etc) table for a recreational area. This helps lessen eye strain as there are many different coloured balls at differing distances that one must focus on and thus relaxes the eyes.

Also if you have reasonably even matches players it's quite fun to play.

</comment><comment><USER13> I wish he'd speak more about what prompted him to get an office space. Is it because he's hiring more people? Did he consider virtual collaboration models instead of a 'real office?' Did he just want to get out of the house?

<comment><AUTHOR> I am beginning to bring on part-time help and needed an office space so we could collaborate. Plus the business needed to feel more "real"—this is a hard concept to explain but what happens in your house can sometimes feel more like a hobby.

<comment><USER13> Ah - got it. Just curious, but are you basically getting most of your part time help from locals to Pittsburg? Any particular reason why you're not sticking to virtual? Also, did you consider a co-working facility (not even sure if they have any in Pittsburg, but they sure are cropping up everywhere)

<comment><AUTHOR> I considered a co-working facility—I would have loved the collaboration, but this was a great deal for some private space.

Working at home makes you treat things differently than waking up and going to a space 100% dedicated to work. Maybe it's just me, but it seemed like the right time after 12 months.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The best startup office tip I have heard is buying sheets of 'Solid White Tileboard' from home depot. It is a material used in commercial shower installations that works well as a white board. 8x12 sheet is ~14 dollars.

<comment><USER2> That's pretty expensive, isn't it? (I assume those are inches, not feet).

<comment><USER14> No, that is feet.

<comment><USER2> That is crazy-ass cheap. URL?

<comment><USER8> This seems to be the same, but at Lowes. Correct me if I'm wrong: [http://www.lowes.com/lowes/lkn?action=productDetail&prod...](http://www.lowes.com/lowes/lkn?action=productDetail&productId=61082-46498-31023248&lpage=none)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Looks more like kindergarten than an office space. Where are the crayons?

</comment><comment><USER15> What's a decent ergonomic chair for under $100?

<comment><AUTHOR> Bizchair.com around the holidays had some great deals.</comment></comment>


The Next Big Language (2007) - <AUTHOR> https://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2007/02/next-big-language.html?m=1 <comment><USER2> (2007)

<comment><USER3> He was not wrong. The optional typing took longer to materialise than he expected, though.

<comment><AUTHOR> Also now there is Rust as potential C++ successor. Time flies.</comment></comment></comment>


Warlords of Documentation: A Proposed Expansion of Stack Overflow - <AUTHOR> http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/303865/563941

<comment><USER2> How about instead of another technopoly we create a p2p documentation search/update/distribute protocol? That way it has a consistent structure but isn't automatically dependent on one company.</comment>


When you say "passionate", I think "show me". - <AUTHOR> http://thestartupfoundry.com/2011/02/15/when-you-say-%E2%80%9Cpassionate%E2%80%9D-i-think-%E2%80%9Cshow-me%E2%80%9D/

<comment><USER2> I completely understand the point the author is trying to make, but I would disagree with the author's meaning of 'passionate'. People can be passionate about their ideas, but that doesn't necessarily mean they have taken that 'next' step to 'show you' a product. I think what the author really wants to see from people that claim they are 'passionate' about their ideas is pro- activeness in building something tangible.</comment>


Show HN: Google When?– adds a timeline to visited links in Google search results - <AUTHOR> https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/google-when/dgafcidlgmbcehokgdeghmfnbpbfhihh <comment><USER2> Again?</comment>