Itinerant – a fuzzy weather forecast app - <AUTHOR> http://brutalism.rs/project/itinerant/ <comment><USER2> I think this goes a bit too much in the "imprecise" direction, so much so that it doesn't convey actual useful information (at least in those images shown). First off, short-term weather forecasts are not inaccurate, for the most part, so knowing that the temperature will be 21C (±1 degree) is more informative than knowing it'll be "brownish mass". Secondly, the heatmap style makes more sense when it's overlaid on top of an actual map, and you have an actual scale to interpret it.

What does "cool", "warm", "warmer" mean in here?

That being said, the images look pretty nifty, so it has that going for it.

<comment><AUTHOR> I've updated the article to be more clear about the existence of the auxiliary interface. Thanks for the comment, super useful!

<comment><USER2> Sure thing!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I really like this. Reminds me of the difference between analog and digital watches: the former gives you a "fuzzy" time, but also a more visceral understanding of how "close" one time is to another. Maximum precision can be useful, but it also feels unnatural, more appropriate for machines than humans. It's important to remember that accuracy and precision are not the same thing!

<comment><USER4> Time is reckoned in quarters in many parts of the world, especially rural areas. At my computer job, I can always see the time in minutes, so I leave for meetings with the least amount of wasted time. Precision is both indicative and generative of action.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is absolutely brilliant. The only barrier I see to these new visual languages is the initial barrier to learning the language. Either way, I hope more human interface research starts exploring this avenue.

</comment><comment><USER6> This would be incredible as a live background, both because it's aesthetically stunning, and also for the information it can provide at a glance. I don't know enough about iOS to know whether (weather?) that's possible or not.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm not sure, although I developed this in Unity so I imagine it would be a lot of jumping through hoops to get there... (upvote for the pun :D)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> The idea that vision is so powerful that it can recognize shapes to the point of building a language instantly reminded me of the language used by the aliens in Arrival ([https://www.engadget.com/2016/11/14/dissecting-the-alien- lan...](https://www.engadget.com/2016/11/14/dissecting-the-alien-language-in- arrival/)). I'm sure Itinerant won't go so far as create a whole new grammar but both the blurry, ink-like feeling and the reliance on patterns are interesting.

</comment><comment><USER8> I think a free demo should be available, or at least some clear evidence of what information this app provides that a traditional one doesn't. You have mentioned some of the shortcomings of traditional apps, but you have not demonstrated solving those. As of now, this app seems more of a beautiful art project than a pragmatic weather app, to me.

</comment><comment><USER9> I like the app, it's very intuitive, I'm considering making it my go-to weather resource. I think it could be improved by adding an hourly forecast - perhaps consider adding a slider for how the blob will change over the course of the next 24 hours?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! I'm not sure what you mean by hourly forecasts, you can already swipe left/right to change the observed point in time?

<comment><USER9> Oh wow, you can! This feature is super cool, I didn't see it mentioned in the app description though. Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Beautiful! Mapping data into raw-er perceptual forms feels like a rich area for exploration, plus you get to flex coding and design skill at the same time. Any plans for an android port?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! I would love to do an Android build but time and resources (e.g. devices to test on) are scarce. I haven't ruled it out though, let's see how the iOS version fares financially ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I like the idea of leveraging our already powerful sense of vision and pattern matching to communicate the weather but I feel like this does more to hinder understanding than it does to facilitate it.

If you're going to use a visual language, why not use one that people already know and recognize instead of introducing new patterns/symbols that you have to learn?

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a very valid point. One of the main reasons for introducing a new visual language (apart from purely artistic ones) was to intentionally inject a dose of ambiguity into the readings. Our existing visual systems (words, numbers) are implying preciseness which is not always there with weather forecasts (it is decreasing the further away you go from the current point in time), and I was trying to break away from that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> While I still want to see the actual data, I would love this as the background for my weather display. For the same reason I like analog/digital watch combos: if you're just walking by, you can get a useful approximation, but the very precise data is still right there when you want it.

</comment><comment><USER13> Do you have any plans to port it to Android. Would love to try out the app.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm considering it!

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I've been meaning to put something similar together for a while now. The visuals in this one are certainly more striking than what I had in mind. Neat!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! :) By all means do, we need more playful software if you ask me!

<comment><USER14> Can I ask what data source you use? I have yet to find one which covers my part of the globe, provides data for free, _and_ gives some measure of confidence of the values reported.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm using DarkSky which gives you 1000 requests per day for free, and beyond that the pricing is quite reasonable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> quite amazing, would love this as a background on both phone and desktop

</comment><comment><USER16> Looks great! Any thoughts on adding humidity?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! Yes I'm thinking about it!

<comment><USER17> Would it be possible for me to inquire as to what library you used to generate the smoke samples for your app? I have a project where I wanted to do something very similar (just not for weather), and I've been having the hardest time finding a good library for it!

<comment><AUTHOR> No library, I wrote the SDF/raymarching shaders from scratch. But there are libraries out there...

<comment><USER17> Holy wow, that's pretty amazing! You should consider making it into a opensource library for others to use, it's truly beautiful! Thank you for making this project.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you, I appreciate it! :) There's [https://kev.town/raymarching- toolkit/](https://kev.town/raymarching-toolkit/) but I haven't tried it. Looks promising!</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


What would do you need to see before joining an early stage startup? - <AUTHOR>

This question is aimed at talented programmers, who have successfully built a project whether it be for work, or another startup.
What would you need to see from someone with a web app company proposal to feel comfortable joining as CTO/Lead engineer?  Let's assume that you did not yet know the person.
I'm asking b/c I have several plans that I am in the final process of developing but would like feedback on how to get real talent to join as co-founder.  I know I can get your run of the mill coder easily, but what do I need to come to the table with to a top 10%er. <comment><USER2> I was a technical cofounder and I have joined several startups as either the first employee or the first technical employee. This has evolved over the years, but the big thing that I look at is the person or team that I am going to join. It's cliche but true. That manifests itself in two ways:

1\. "Smart People That I Like Having a Beer With" is a must have. There is so much that happens in a startup that its more like a family than a job. And in this case, picking your family is wisely is the path to happiness AND success. 2\. Deep experience in their field and / or a clear way to generate early revenue (through network, former company, etc.). The hardest part of starting a company is early traction and if I can't bring it then I want it in the people I work with.

Notice that none of this is really about the idea because if you have someone with deep experience or early sales, then the idea will evolve over time as it finds the right Customer Need.

Good luck!

<comment><AUTHOR> Great advice! I'm currently making plans to exit a mild-moderate profitable company and I can attest to the fact that a startup is like family! We share the struggles, triumphs and everything in between.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> #1 thing I look for is traction: people that obviously want to buy what you have to sell, as measured by them _actually_ buying what you have to sell. If they have that, then I look at the size and interestingness of the market (I don't really care if you have traction as a consulting business, but if you have traction in an exciting consumer market, my e-mail address is in my profile). Then I'd meet the founders and other employees to see if its a good fit for me personally.

If you don't have traction, it's a much harder sell. In that case, the first thing I look for is the team. Are you someone I could hit it off with over drinks? Do you have deep expertise in your area of your startup? Are you driven by data or by dreams? Do you have a plan for how you're going to attack your market, or is it just "There must be riches out there _somewhere_ "?

</comment><comment><USER4> I would expect reasonable hours, some guarantee that the startup would be around for a year, a bigger potential pay-off than a big company, and that the other guy was a reasonable person with good ideas that was not a micro- manager.

<comment><USER5> If you expect reasonable hours, then an early-stage startup is probably not for you.

<comment><USER6> More than 40 is reasonable on an ongoing basis at a startup, but more than 60? more than 80? I don't think it's smart to expect creative people to work more than 50 hours a week on an ongoing basis. If they've got the requisite commitment and excitement then the other 62 waking hours will be well-spent subconscious time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Ability to focus.

Courage to try new things.

Willingness to accept some of those 'new things' aren't working as planned and change course or drop them.

Ability to examine situations logically, but also to get passionate about the offering.

Basic agreement that revenue and profit are king, and decisions should be made based on the numbers.

Clear vision for how money will be made.

Ability to articulate customer base.

Demonstrated ability to sell, or to find people who can.

<comment><USER8> Sure, and add to that: Actual proof that the people already involved are doing something now beyond navel-gazing. Vision and courage and whatever the tin man was looking for are wonderful, but what matters more is _doing_. I'm not Toto. This isn't Kansas. If you want my work then show me your work.

<comment><USER7> Agreed. 'courage' and 'vision' aren't all that are needed. However, I've talked to enough people over the years to realize when even _those_ are missing. Absent those, you'll never even get close to the doing. Sometimes the 'doing' part hasn't happened enough simply because people are overwhelmed with too many things to do and not enough time. If that's really _all_ that's missing, but the other parts are in place, I'm more inclined to get involved (although still, I rarely do).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> 1) Compelling idea 2) Significant ownership stake (ideally 50%) 3) Funding to pay salaries for 1-2 years 4) Co-founder that's competent, hard working, and easy to work with.

If you have those four things you're in the top tier of awesome opportunities. Any entrepreneurial-minded great hacker is going to be interested.

<comment><AUTHOR> With a 40-50% equity stake, what's a reasonable salary range for an experienced programmer? What's the minimum?

I would raise initial salary from my own pocket for the lead CTO, so I'm curious if I'd have enough. $90k+ is not feasible.

<comment><USER3> If I were getting a 50% equity stake, I wouldn't expect a salary. That's basically a cofounder role, and the risk/reward work out appropriately. I'd expect to live off my own savings - but I'd also expect significant input into the business, including the ability to change its direction if the original idea really wasn't working. Basically, if you give up 50% of the company, you're in this together, better act like it.

I might expect a relatively small (cover living expenses) salary if I were taking on, say, a 20-30% equity stake as a cofounder in a pre-traction startup. This is sort of a no-man's-land of risk/reward tradeoff, though. There's an awkward dynamic when you're paying someone else's living expenses and yet their salary is still well below market-rate. It's worked for a couple startups (Hotmail was one, Intuit may've been another, though the equity stakes for Intuit all got renegotiated when they almost went bankrupt), but you don't see it often.

Once you're down in single-digit equity stakes, it's expected that you'll pony up market-rate salaries. That's what fundraising is for. :-) The equity stake for early employees is there to compensate (and incentivize) them for the possibility that their salary may not be their tomorrow, not for the lack of a salary.

<comment><USER10> Vesting schedules add further complexity to this analysis.

<comment><USER3> True, although if I were coming on-board as a cofounder, I'd expect to be there for the long haul, so they don't affect me all that much. I'd prefer to see both partners have pretty standard vesting, probably 4-year.

I do take vesting into account if I'm joining as an early employee and I expect the company to be bought out soon. I believe that acquirers can do whatever they want with an employee's unvested options, and this is a pretty easy way to get screwed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> If you just have a proposal, I think it is going to be tough to attract the right talent. I am not necessarily a hacker (or maybe I am, who freaking knows), but I am taking that role on so I can make the first versions of my product. If I can show some traction, I know I won't be wasting anyone's time with my business. Furthermore, the first version doesn't have to be pretty, it just has to be good enough to get by.</comment>


Live Coverage of the Juno Orbital Insertion at Jupiter - <AUTHOR> http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/## <comment><USER2> I previously submitted this: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12030852](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12030852)</comment>


Simplicity Betrayed - faithful emulation of the TRS-80 video system - <AUTHOR> http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1755886

<comment><USER2> I'm guessing this has been posted in response to the recent article about the bsnes emulator. Interestingly enough, some bsnes forum-members have put some time and energy into exactly the sort of CRT-scanline emulation the article mentions at the end.

For example, here's a GLSL shader that emulates CRT curvature, scanlines, and the Kell effect:

[https://gitorious.org/bsnes/bsnes/blobs/patches/snesshader/C...](https://gitorious.org/bsnes/bsnes/blobs/patches/snesshader/CRT.OpenGL.shader)

...and here's what it looks like applied to a screenshot of the Playstation game "Symphony of the Night":

<http://ind01.bilderkiste.org/2131284306277/SotN_crt.png>

The original forum thread is here, but it's quite long and many different people post different implementations with different accuracy/speed trade-offs throughout its length:

[http://board.byuu.org/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=147](http://board.byuu.org/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=147)

</comment><comment><USER3> Never got to play with a TRS-80, but I did some interesting (but CPU-heavy and timing-sensitive) display tricks on the Apple IIe. Even without such tricks one could play with line offsets and produce more colors than the official 6 (in high res). Playing with video hardware is a lot of fun.

</comment><comment><USER4> If you're in need of something archaic like the Z80, you need look no further than your trusty TI-83.</comment>


Ultrasound imaging now possible with a smartphone - <AUTHOR> http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/04/21/ultrasound.imaging.now.possible.with.a.smartphone <comment><USER2> What he's done is impressive to be sure, but getting the build cost down isn't really the problem; it's the lack of substantial competition that will keep prices up.

Someone has to build and sell these things and in the US and every other industrialized nation it will be regulated as a Medical Device. Likely, before it can be used in developing nations also, it will need some form of regulation and that's where the high cost comes from.

Designing medical devices, getting them FDA approved, and then building them to meet the standards, and meeting product support requirements (I think we're required to provide support 5 years after we stop selling a Medical Device) is expensive and any company doing that is going to want to recoup their costs. There's a high barrier to entry in Medical Device manufacture and as long as that barrier exists, businesses will take advantage of it and the products will be expensive. For example, the company I work for makes a medical instrument that costs us about $60,000 to build. We sell it for around 10x that.

His $500 probe will probably end up being sold for about $7-10,000 by the time it hits the market.

<comment><USER3> Would it necessarily have to be sold as a regulated medical device if it is not used as such? There are many companies which sell devices which claim to function as fetal heart monitors (most of which do not work) which are sold without regulation.

There are also consumer-targeted EEG, EKG and such devices which provide medical information but do not claim to be clinical-grade.

I don't know what the law here is, but as long as it was not sold with any diagnostic claims, and did not recommend any invasive use, would it fall under regulated equipment?

I do agree however that competition (or lack thereof) will be a determining factor.

<comment><USER2> _(most of which do not work)_

That's pretty much the key: if you can make it work in a medically useful fashion then there's a lot more money to be made selling it as an actual regulated Device.

As long as you don't make medical claims then it won't be regulated as a Medical Device, but it would still have to follow other Consumer Product Safety regulations. Those are much easier/cheaper to meet. The only EEG/EKG type devices I have ever seen were kits and they didn't provide any medically useful information.

Ultrasound imager classification is covered here: [http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRS...](http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=884.2225)

<comment><USER4> _if you can make it work in a medically useful fashion then there's a lot more money to be made selling it as an actual regulated Device._

I can't see why this would be true. Selling it for $500 now (and $50 in five years, as these things go) seems like it would mean an incredibly larger market than selling it for $7-10K, as you suggest.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I've considered building something like this for awhile, I'm curious as to the electronics required in the probe itself.

I'm sure a "medical grade" version would be quite expensive but I can see a "baby-monitor"-class device as being a huge hit with consumers.

<comment><USER5> You got that right, I know about a dozen young couples who would buy one in a second that are expecting. Anyone know if an 'at home' baby monitor device exists now?

</comment></comment><comment> a-priori Any other Star Trek nerds here think this sounds like the beginnings of a Tricorder?

</comment><comment><USER6> It will be great if they make it for the iPhone. OS 3.0 now has support for external peripherals in the SDK.</comment>


Ask HN: Where/How did you meet your non technical cofounder - <AUTHOR> If you're a CTO or an engineer who found a business partner. How did you find them or how did they find you ? <comment><USER2> My co-founder found me, via the local local tech Meetup scene where I participate actively in.

Attending local tech Meetup events is a great way to network and meet others with similar interests.

If you interested, it also pays to make postulates, positive affirmations for life to send you the right co-founder.

People use such methods to find the right personal relationships, but it works just as well in the business realm.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'd love to meet some business savvy founders interested in a technical cofounder. Was that in the bay area?

<comment><USER2> Nope. Texas.

I'm very versatile, so if you're looking for somebody to work with, we can talk. I have my hands in a number of things in the very early stages right now, but me good at multi-tasking.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well how should we exchange information then :)

<comment><USER2> liniverse.com@f-decima

Reverse and email me at that address.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I'm a non-technical founder and I came here to find a partner. I also went to meetups, talked to people in google groups. I've asked all kinds of people even contractors on Upwork.com. I'm still looking.

<comment><AUTHOR> Maybe we should chat? I'd be interested in hearing about your ideas.</comment></comment>


Show HN: MagicMovieSorter – yet another way to find movie to watch, magic way - <AUTHOR> https://magicmoviesorter.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> This is my weekend project hack to learn React.

How algorithm works. The system calculates Life Path Number and Zodiac sign for your birthdate. The same code is calculated for movie's crew(for directors, writers, and 3 top stars). Then based on compatibility rules (got them from one of the book about numerology) system calculates match for you and the movie. There are different matching rules but it is not that important. What is important is that sorting is the same for you(not random) and different for other users. In total there are 12 * 9 = 108 personalities.

The formula is following:

(Sum(match(directors))/directors_count * 3 + Sum(match(writers))/writers_count*2 + Sum(match(stars))/stars_count)/6

In case a person has no birthday available — this person is skipped in the formula, so instead of three stars we only count two with birthdays. As for the formula we use personality codes, we can search for movies with different criteria: director like me, or perfect match(100%).

I do not call it recommendations but sorting. Being a crazy combination of technology and magic still could be a fun way to find a movie to watch. The bonus feature is a sorting using two dates — so that find something interesting for you and your partner.</comment>


2016: The year AI got creative - <AUTHOR> http://newatlas.com/ai-art-film-writing-review/46891/ <comment><USER2> 2016: The year applied statistics was labeled as AI.

</comment><comment><USER3> 2016: The year AI get Hype</comment>


Interacting with ZeroMQ from the browser - <AUTHOR> http://avalanche123.com/blog/2012/02/25/interacting-with-zeromq-from-the-browser/ <comment><USER2> I like delivering ZeroMQ content to the browser (I have even written my own little WebSockets server to deliver ZeroMQ-pubsub meessages to my webapp), but I'm not sure I understand what the use for STOMP or NullMQ is, here. Is STOMP just used for to translate some bits to ZeroMQ frame terms and NullMQ used as the WebSockets-to-ZeroMQ broker? Why is this better than <https://github.com/tailhook/zerogw>?

<comment><AUTHOR> NullMQ multiplexing protocol is built on top of STOMP. The main advantage of NullMQ is same socket primitives as ZeroMQ, so same patterns and solutions can be built in the browser.

<comment><USER3> I'm new to ZeroMQ. Would you be willing to provide a quick example scenario where this might be useful?

<comment><AUTHOR> I feel the example I built for our demo is a good one. Here I implemented presence and chat servers to build online chatroom. Servers and clients were initially built in Ruby, to be used in a private network behind firewall. I was then able to re-use client code with minimal changes and port it into JavaScript. This client code gave presence and chat to the browser. So effectively we solved an interesting networking problem once and were able to re-use the solution in two vastly different environments - private networks and the browser, where different authentication, authorization, performance and guarantees requirements apply.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> "ZeroMQ's actual C library (libzmq) is just an implementation detail."

That's a spot on. It doesn't really matter whether you are using ZeroMQ, NullMQ or raw HTTP.

It's like OO-programming: You can write OO program in any language.

Same way, you can do distributed messaging on top of any transport layer.

<comment><USER5> Not that it matters much, but ZeroMQ is written in C++, while exposing "C" only interface, and then additionally there is a C++ binding to this "C" interface, which IMHO is very robust design (C for API is much easier to access from other langs).

<comment><AUTHOR> You are right, however C bindings in other languages usually look quite ugly and non-idiomatic, but ZeroMQ did great job in that sense and their higher level language bindings are written with language specifics in mind

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Jeff and Bulat - this is fascinating and timely. Just this week I've been experimenting with bridging (Apollo) STOMP with <https://github.com/wandenberg/nginx-push-stream-module> and getting what appears to be similar results. Neat stuff, and I'm half tempted to write an nginx-STOMP bridge to save a few layers of indirection.

<comment><USER4> Also there seems to be a braidge that connects nginx to 0mq at the backend side: <https://github.com/FRiCKLE/ngx_zeromq>

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Mongrel2.org anyone?

<comment><USER8> Mongrel2 is a webserver and does ZeroMQ serverside. This is about ZeroMQ in the browser.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Neat. I've wanted ZeroMQ in my browser.

I checked the README file for a license, but instead it says "ZeroMQ in your brower, yo!" Which tells me that:

1\. I can't use it.

2\. The author is 12.

3\. It probably doesn't work.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi, the author is not twelve and he in fact is quite known in Python community. I'll ping him about missing license.

<comment><USER2> To wit, useful READMEs are useful. Make use of that fact, please.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yup, I'm sure that will get updated</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Free static aplication security testing tool for open-source code - <AUTHOR> https://srcclr.com/ <comment><USER2> Its a DevSec tool rather than traditional security static analysis focused on a very specific but important use case of helping developers avoid using vulnerable or insecure open-source libraries.</comment>


Prison time, hefty fines for data privacy violations: draft U.S. Senate bill - <AUTHOR> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-internet-privacy/prison-time-hefty-fines-for-data-privacy-violations-draft-u-s-senate-bill-idUSKCN1N65U2? <comment><USER2> I read this and immediately thought "oh shit, yet another regulation for a small bootstrapped software business where we try to be honest while the big guys will still find a way to circumvent it". Thankfully, I looked into the fine print and was wrong. This bill is only for Corporations that do over $50,000,000 in revenues or higher OR (EDITED from AND) have info on at least 1,000,000 or more customers. Of course, I don't mean to imply that smaller tech. companies are all saints but this bill clearly seems to be drafted for the bigger fishes who are powerful enough to blatantly ignore privacy laws.

EDIT: I clarified one thing user downandout pointed that it could apply to App developers who may have a million users as well but overall, it should not affect bootstrappers or smaller tech. businesses that don't have that high amount of consumer data so my overall point still remains.

Below is the link to the details on this bill:

[https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden- relea...](https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-releases- discussion-draft-of-legislation-to-provide-real-protections-for-americans- privacy)

<comment><USER3> You read that wrong. In order to NOT be a "covered entity," you must meet ALL of the following criteria:

1) Revenue of less than $50 million; AND 2) Must not have info on 1 million or more people; AND 3) cannot be a data broker

That means an independent app developer who gets more than 1 million installs, or a website with more than 1 million users, IS a covered entity, _regardless of revenue_. Also, ANY "data broker," _regardless of size_ , is covered.

This info is on page 4 and 5.

Edit: How is a _factual_ comment getting downvotes? OP read it wrong, and I told him so. There's nothing in this comment to disagree with. There are only facts.

<comment><USER4> Phew! That would be a net positive for the world, long term, to bear less of a greasy footprint from american startup antics.

<comment><USER3> No, it would kill all American software/web startups by limiting them to 999,999 users, unless they have millions of dollars in VC funding that they can use to comply with this law. It would strangle the startup community, as most startups (even those with 1M+ users) can never hope to have the resources to comply. You have to remember that the reason that startups get _any_ funding is because investors hope that they will be highly successful. If there is a guarantee of a huge compliance bill once the company reaches 1M users, far fewer companies will be funded. Getting 999K users, while a milestone, isn't necessarily enough to raise the money necessary to comply with this law.

<comment><USER5> What requirements of this law do you believe would be impracticable to comply with without millions of VC funding?

<comment><USER6> I'm not GP, but it looks like the more burdensome things are on pages 26-33, and they are too lengthy to post here. I can see compliance costing significant sums that would be out of reach to a typical startup.

<comment><USER5> Could you be specific about _any_ of the "burdensome" requirements? You don't need to post all of them; I've read the same draft you have.

<comment><USER7> The question is not "is there anything that would clearly be burdensome?", but "am I confident enough that I am complying with these items, as retroactively interpreted by regulators?"

You need to pay a lawyer to evaluate that for you, that's the cost, not whoever the bills sponsor says this is intended to target.

<comment><USER5> Can you cite an example of one of these requirements that you wouldn't be confident in being able to comply with? Also: how much do you think a legal consult costs? For any one item, I think we're talking a couple hundred bucks.

Almost all of the language in the section we're referring to applies to just one requirement, which is to make data tech companies retain about consumers available upon request to those consumers. That's something responsible companies already do, many because they're already by regulation required to do so.

<comment><USER6> Most competent lawyers cost $400+/hr. For them to review your internal compliance policies and procedures (including your opt-in/out procedures. etc), privacy policy, etc. you could easily be looking at a few hundred hours. That doesn't include the external auditors that the bill wants you to have.

As you said in one of your comments, fortunately this bill as written will never come into law, both due to its implications, and the fact that its author is a single member of a minority party. This is one instance in which I am happy with our system of government.

<comment><USER5> This proposal doesn't require companies to do formal internal compliance reviews. It's not SOX or GLBA. For most startups, the legal overhead here would probably amount to a few phone calls with a lawyer.

My read is that it's less onerous than the California privacy statute that already covers a huge fraction of tech startups.

We do both security and privacy engineering work for our clients, most of whom are encumbered in one way or another by regs, and it is _not_ the norm for legal to do line-item review of policies and procedures. SOC2 Type 1 audits are much closer to a mainstream practice, would almost certainly satisfy the "data protection" requirements in any rule the FTC would come up with, and certainly do not involve "a few hundred hours" of legal.

<comment><USER6> That's just not accurate. You should read pages 26-33 in detail. It wants external auditors to come in, and while consultation with a lawyer isn't _required_ , companies would offensively have to use them to review everything they do, lest they be found non-compliant. That could easily range into hundreds of hours of legal work.

<comment><USER5> I believe I'm one of the "auditors or independent technical experts" this bill refers to (trust me, we don't need Wyden's help getting work), and for the most part the only time we talk to client legal is when we're negotiating our contract. Note also the "if reasonably possible" attached to getting external assessment.

<comment><USER6> You're referring to that specific provision, but again you aren't considering the fact that any business interested in complying will have to have an attorney review the law, and then review all aspects of their business, software implementation, and policies/procedures in order to ensure they are compliant. That's not a requirement of the law, but how else can they ensure that they are compliant?

<comment><USER5> At this point, we've scaled back the argument from "this bill would kill startups" to " _any_ bill would kill startups".

That's a coherent position, but not one we can reasonably hope to debate about between each other.

<comment><USER6> Not _any_ bill, just bills with breathtaking fines and possible imprisonment.

<comment><USER5> This is a frustrating thread.

It starts with the claim that this law could put Flappy Bird on the hook for decades of prison time. I rebut, and you say (paraphrased) "no, read the law, anyone with 1MM users could be sent to prison for failure to comply". This is obviously not true.

Then the claim becomes that pp26-33 of the statute has so many burdensome requirements that it would be impracticable for many startups to comply. I ask for specifics; none emerge. Instead, a new claim appears: every startup would be on the hook for "a couple hundred hours" of legal to verify their compliance.

But the proposal as stated doesn't require formal compliance reviews, making it hard to support an argument that this proposal would somehow cost more than many other regulations that _do_ have that requirement, and for which my firm has done significant engineering and compliance work without spending a hundred hours talking to legal.

But, no, it turns out that's not the argument. The real argument is that the proposal requires auditors, for which legal will have to be deployed prophylactically. Now, the proposal does not in fact have an auditor requirement, but also, the clause that discusses auditors goes out of its way to make it clear that the types of third parties they're referring to are technical experts, which startups already use.

So the argument changes again. Now the argument is that regardless of the specific construction in the proposal (again, these specifics were all brought to the discussion by you!), it would be prohibitively expensive for startups because a lawyer would have to take time to verify the meaning of the law for the startup.

I point out that this is an argument that applies equally to pretty much any privacy or security law, and you respond that this is one is a special case because of the prison time and fines (the "breathtaking" fines are part of the same clauses as the prison liability) --- thus resurrecting the original false claim.

This doesn't read to me like a good-faith argument.

It's of course fine to make the argument that _any_ new regulation would impede startups and would therefore not be worth the trouble (there are other arguments against this proposal you could just as easily make; for instance, that the field isn't mature enough for us to have the FTC use rulemaking authority to establish cybersecurity requirements for startups).

But if those are the kinds of arguments, you're making, make them. Don't move the goalposts.

<comment><USER6> _It starts with the claim that this law could put Flappy Bird on the hook for decades of prison time. I rebut, and you say (paraphrased) "no, read the law, anyone with 1MM users could be sent to prison for failure to comply". This is obviously not true._

Actually, with specific regard to Flappy Bird, it is true because it had more than 100 million installs, far surpassing the 50 million requirement to expose him to _criminal_ as well as civil penalties. So, in contrast to your statement, it actually is true.

 _Now, the proposal does not in fact have an auditor requirement, but also, the clause that discusses auditors goes out of its way to make it clear that the types of third parties they 're referring to are technical experts, which startups already use._

I'm not sure what you mean here. There is an auditor requirement "where reasonable," and presumably "reasonable" would be entirely up to a court's discretion. Also, "technical experts" in the context of this law, wouldn't necessarily be the developer of the site, but rather technical experts who are trained in complying with this law. Likely, that means someone brought in by a law firm or professional auditing outfit, at enormous expense.

<comment><USER5> No, you're _still not correct_ , because the problem with your claim isn't simply that you have to be a larger company to face prison time, but that there's only one offense in the bill that includes that thread: knowingly certifying fraudulent data protection reports. I'm like the 4th person on this (broader) thread to point that out, and this is at least the 3rd time I've pointed it out to you.

By the way, did Flappy Bird even collect NPI? Or is this an even sillier example?

<comment><USER6> _there 's only one offense in the bill that includes that thread: knowingly certifying fraudulent data protection reports._

That's what it says, but one would have to believe that failing to file such reports would also be a criminal violation in any final draft of the bill. Otherwise what would be the point of the bill? Does it make sense to you that they would have a bill like this, and provide a simple way to avoid it: just don't file? That appears to be an oversight by the author, but one would undoubtedly be fixed.

 _By the way, did Flappy Bird even collect NPI?_

Since this bill uses a vague and legally untested definition of "personal information," simply maintaining weblogs containing IP addresses could trigger this.

<comment><USER5> You've now moved the goalposts past the present text of the proposal and into _hypothetical future versions of it_.

<comment><USER6> That's not "moving goalposts" as you put it. Are you saying that you believe that they would allow such an enormous loophole in such a bill?

<comment><USER8> It is often the case under US law that failing to file paperwork is treated as a much less serious act than filing fraudulent paperwork. If you fail to file a tax return, you're nearly always assessed a penalty (it's a misdemeanor). If you file a fraudulent tax return, you can easily go to prison for a long time (it's a felony).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is an extremely frustrating headline. The draft bill we're discussing does not appear to establish "prison time" for "data privacy violations".

The bill "covers" any entity with over 1MM users (Flappy Bird) or $50MM in revenue over 3 years (most mid-sized startups). It creates a compliance regime, violations of which can be pursued by the FTC under its "Unfair Trade Practices" authority.

A subset of Covered Entities (those with over 50MM users [very few startups] or $1B in revenue [virtually no startups]) are further obligated by this proposal to file annual Data Protection Reports. If the CEO, CISO, or Chief Privacy Officer of one of those entities deliberately certifies such a report knowing it to be false, _those specific people_ are liable for imprisonment.

Actual failure to comply with data protection and privacy requirements are not enough to get you charged criminally in this proposal. The violation that can actually get you imprisoned in this proposal would constitute a deliberate attempt to defraud the government. You have to be a relatively big company, fail to comply with the requirements of this draft, _and then lie about it to the FTC_ to end up in prison.

 _(For what it 's worth: I don't think this bill is going anywhere; it's a discussion draft by a single member of the minority party.)_

<comment><USER9> > (For what it's worth: I don't think this bill is going anywhere; it's a > discussion draft by a single member of the minority party.)

Ron Wyden is indeed a single member of the minority party, but he is establishing himself as one of the leading voices on these issues. Christopher Soghoian probably played a big role in drafting this bill as his Senior Advisor for Privacy and Cybersecurity.

<comment><USER5> When the bill gets a Republican co-sponsor, it'll be time to take it seriously as "news".

<comment><USER10> Or when the Senate gets a Democrat majority

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I've said it before, when it comes to mass surveillance,intentionally malicious backdoors and general societal loss of ptivacy, the solution should be primarly legislative not technical.

Good example: every store with a camera uses ML to identify customers and passerby's and shares this info with 3rd parties. Should we talk about how to best facial and gait ML analysis or is the answer simply criminally outlawing this practice?

Why can't I file a restraining order against big tech that states "if you identify activity and you correlate it with my identity,immediately erase it and take steps to avert similar activity data collection": because I feel bigtech's abuse of this data pauses a danger to my liberties and free excercise of my civil rights.

Modern privacy laws are overdue as it is and they need to be criminal,not civil.

Another one: ISPs would think twice about selling your celltower correlated location data and web/dns activity to 3rd parties if this meant jail time to the CEO. If this practice is outlawed with only fines and regulations as the penalty,the only person that can sue them is a well resourced attorney general or a very very wealthy person that can afford a multi year legal battle. Unfortunately,even when bigcorps break CFAA the FBI won't even listen to civilian complaints.

<comment><USER10> It can't be criminal because corporations can't go to jail. The only punishment you can apply to corporation is to take a little bit of its money, but not so much that it declares bankruptcy and gives all its assets to a new corporation formed by the same owners, who are protected from the Limited Liability structure from having to pay their debts.

<comment><USER11> That's what CEOs are for. All corporations have a structure where one person or a group of persons are accountable for decisions. For example,look at financial crimes(think Enron),executives are sent to jail all the time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Would these rules also apply to NSA/CIA misuse of surveillance?

<comment> gingerbread-man There have been a handful of prosecutions (and many hundreds of firings) for misuse of the FBI's NCIC database by law enforcement officials. For instance, ex-NYPD Sergeant Joseph Dwyer was convicted of conspiracy in federal court in 2016 for selling information from NCIC to private defense investigators.

Personally, I believe this kind of breach-of-trust should be prosecuted much more vigorously. But besides the fear of embarrassment, I suspect federal agencies are unwilling to compromise intelligence methods to prosecute misbehavior.

<comment><USER13> Of course, but it shouldn't be up to them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The biggest unintended consequence I see is that more tech businesses will have to charge for their service rather than make money in opaque ways.

<comment><USER15> That's not a bad thing.

The big tech companies are edging towards complete monopolies in their spaces and a significant part of this is that they know everything and they're allowed to leverage that data. Why would you go to anybody else to advertise? Unbundling this, making advertising harder again will spread out the budget, probably push more towards publishers rather than networks. Again, not a bad thing.

It also means that new players get to compete. It's been very tough to compete with similar services on price when the incumbents can operate at zero "cost".

Not having your data traded under the table is just gravy.

<comment><USER16> I think it would be a pretty horrible thing if all these once free internet services suddenly cost money. Nobody seems to be thinking about the significant amount of people who wouldn't be able to afford monthly subscriptions to Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, etc. even if it did all add up to "only" $15/month. Poor people should not be priced out of the online spaces where modern discourse happens. Single mothers should not be priced out of getting to post baby pictures on Facebook. I think it's indicative of living in bubbles that nobody else seems to be giving this consideration any weight.

<comment><USER17> Currently the price we all collectively pay for these "free" services is a decrease in the sanity of public discourse. Is that really a better option?

<comment><USER18> How would subscription fees improve the discourse on social media sites?

<comment><USER17> Currently, social media users are the goods being sold, so the companies running the networks don't have much interest in offering tools and algorithms for high quality discussion. With paying customers the situation would be very different. (Not that it's going to happen – I'm just saying that we already pay a hefty price for the "free" services.)

<comment><USER19> If I had to test that hypothesis I would consider the comments section on the NYT (a website that requires a subscription to access more than 10 articles a month). Just checking the comments section there shows that people are just as vitriolic there _even_ if they've posted on more than 10 articles that month.

I'm comfortable saying that paid networks won't in-and-of-themselves improve conversation.

<comment><USER20> What this bill might help (or at least give law enforcement additional tools to prosecute with) is preventing situations like the Cambridge Analytica situation, where corporations with nefarious motives gather user profile information from social media in questionable ways, and use these tools to try to manipulate in areas outside of mere marketing.

In other words, while I'm not sure if this will improve discourse, at least it mitigates a little bit of the questionable social media meddling that we've seen of late.

I kind of see jimmaswell's point that there is a risk of creating a "tiered Internet". But I'm not sure it's completely an either/or situation. It sounds like that the bill _also_ emphasizes more transparency on what is being done with the data and who it is sold to. As long as personal data is not shared haphazardly and in a leaky fashion, consumers might be just fine with the bargain they get.

Things like shopper loyalty programs already offer this sort of bargain: in exchange for allowing companies access to more granular shopper information, the shopper gets access to greater discounts. Loyalty programs currently _are_ subject to various consumer protection rules. In contrast, the bargain social media has struck with users (free service in exchange for marketing data) is not well protected.

Personally, I'm fine with a little more transparency and disclosure in this fashion. I don't think this necessarily means the end of free social media per se. (I will say though that this is a sign, one of many, that the days of social media "moving fast and breaking things" is over.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I'm fine with fines, but I hope prison time is restricted to intentional and malicious illicit behavior and not anything due to neglect or oversight. I'm not a fan of people being put in cages unless they're violent or have ruined people's lives intentionally.

<comment><USER22> It is. Read Sec 5.(d).

It's not like people will be thrown in prison because their DB wasn't patched quickly enough. They have to knowingly and intentionally lie to the federal government in an annual report.

<comment><USER23> _They have to knowingly and intentionally lie to the federal government in an annual report_

So it's a nonstarter, since the people being prosecuted for these things will have lawyers adept at whittling down intent to only the most brazen and malicious behavior. Not only that, but Sarbanes-Oxley showed us how effective "annual report" red lines are.

<comment><USER22> Perhaps. But that's not a compelling argument against this bill. Perfect enemy of better and all that.

<comment><USER23> I agree that the nirvana fallacy is implicated, but there were zero convictions under SarbOx, zero prosecutions even.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> "Wyden would also create a national "Do Not Track" system to stop companies from tracking internet users by sharing or selling data and targeting advertisements based on their personal information."

Why not just reform EULAs so that people have more power over what they're often blindly agreeing to? If people could easily see the details and to what they're agreeing to and have more power over certain clauses, I think market forces would take the industry into a different direction, and there'd be more transparency. I don't always believe a market-solution is optimal, but in this case, it seems right.

</comment><comment><USER25> This would probably mean more compensation at executive level for the increased risks!

<comment><USER22> Companies will have a Chief Privacy Officer whose job is basically to provide oversight and, of course, absorb the risk. That person will probably be paid well.

I'm actually OK with that. We're always complaining that companies don't take security/privacy seriously because there's no incentive to do so. See e.g. the Equifax HN threads. Having a person in the C suite who'll end up in jail if the company seriously fucks up is, IMO, a net positive for the world.

<comment><USER26> I just hope it's crafted such that it won't inhibit small businesses or hobbyists.

<comment><USER25> That's exactly my hope. Only large companies benefit from such laws (including, potentially GDPR), other smaller ones get slowed down. With gdpr, many newspaper outlets stopped access from outside of the US.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> PDF Full Text : [https://www.wyden.senate.gov/download/11012018-wyden- privacy...](https://www.wyden.senate.gov/download/11012018-wyden-privacy-bill- discussion-draft&download=1)

</comment><comment><USER28> I find the notion of a do-not-track registry disturbing. It would actually become an identifier for you that could be used to link all the disjointed information collected under that identity. Kind of the opposite of what it's intended to do.

</comment><comment><USER7> The problematic aspect of regulation is that you don't just need to comply, you need to _convince the regulators_ that you've complied. A better approach is to create liability for certain specific failures if the company didn't follow reasonable best practices, which means you might get sued, but in that case it would be on the plaintiff to show that you didn't follow best practices, rather than the regulatory approach which makes it a burden on the company to prove to regulators (who have no incentive to keep costs of compliance down, or even limit themselves to cases where customers are in some sense harmed).

</comment><comment><USER29> So Facebook, google, Microsoft, et al, will continue to sell my attention, and now pass the insurance bill onto me. Lol. I know, it's for my security.

<comment><USER30> As you mentioned Facebook, Google, & in large part Microsoft sell your attention. How do you propose that they are going to pass the insurance tab onto you?

<comment><USER29> Internet tax

<comment><USER30> Sooo to be clear... Your theory is:

1\. Large companies by insurance for data privacy violations

2\. They then lobby to repeal H.R. 3086 (Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act

3\. They then lobby for another bill for taxation on internet use.

4\. Then they lobby for what would be equivalent to a hand out in order to recoup losses.

<comment><USER29> I don't think it would be that hard. Lots of pieces of pie for all involved. It may just happen wait and see

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> On one hand, I think this is a good thing. That is, I certainly would like to have more control over who uses my own data.

But, on the other hand, the scope of this bill has some risk of bringing about a technology winter. Most people outside of tech don't realize how much of the software they use has been indirectly subsidized by the ad and data brokering industries.

<comment><USER31> Isn't that kind of the point? I'm not anti-google/facebook in the least, and like to think that I'm knowingly trading some privacy in return for ad- supported services that have value to me. But it's tough to think of any compelling arguments for why companies making billions shouldn't be required to a) provide some minimal level of care over the data they collect, and b) disclose what they're doing with all that data. How will that bring about a tech winter?

<comment><USER24> What I mean is that it's become a major part of the US's economy. Globally, this industry probably generates 100s of billions of dollars, and those companies mostly spend their revenue on more software, more hardware, more research, more computer scientists, more computer engineers, etc. Indirectly, probably almost all of us here are partially paid from the ad-network-value- chain. And, what about all of the open source products that have been funded by these companies.

<comment><USER32> Sounds like a labor mis-allocation bubble.

Bubbles burst. Furthermore bubbles _should_ burst, for the health of the economy.

<comment><USER24> How is this a bubble? Unlike previous bubbles, the current technology surge is actually funded by real value, real demand, real revenues, and gigantic profits.

<comment><USER32> "Bubble" may be wishful thinking, but can you really argue that it's not "labor mis-allocation?"

"The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads. That sucks."

By intentionally sewing economic irrationality (ie _beyond_ how irrational humans are already), advertising destroys societal value. Here I use "irrational" in the sense of "making self-harming economic decisions."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> full bill text can be found here:

[https://www.wyden.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Wyden%20Privacy%2...](https://www.wyden.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Wyden%20Privacy%20Bill%20Discussion%20Draft%20Nov%201.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER34> It would be nice if the government imposed the same requirements on its own departments for violations of privacy as it does on private companies.

Seems to me that government is eager to punish private companies for violations, while increasing its own storage of personal information on innocent people.

In this comments section, someone else said:

> [..] when it comes to mass surveillance,intentionally malicious backdoors > and general societal loss of ptivacy, the solution should be primarly > legislative not technical.

I'd object to this, given that a legislative solution is unable to restrict government collection of private data, while a technical one isn't (case in point: cryptography).

</comment><comment><USER3> Fortunately, this is just a "discussion draft" and I don't believe it would ever be passed as it is written. This clause would expose mom-and-pop app developers who have apps that happen to go viral and get more than 1 million installs to the same expensive, onerous requirements as an entity with $1 billion or more in revenue:

 _Each covered entity that has not less than $1,000,000,000 per year in revenue and stores, shares, or uses personal information on more than 1,000,000 consumers or consumer devices or any covered entity that stores, shares, or uses personal information.._ "

Putting those two vastly different classes of entities under the same umbrella and exposing them to decades in prison seems like it would have a chilling effect on the startup community. You would just have to _hope_ that your app/website doesn't get to 1 million users, otherwise you're exposed to requirements where the implementation will bankrupt a small team or independent developer.

I guess you could simply stop allowing new registrations at 999,999 people, but it seems like a bad idea to discourage businesses from growing beyond that.

</comment><comment><USER10> This is campaign nonsense. It's a partisan bill sponsored by the minority party, not a serious proposal.

</comment><comment><USER35> That is a stiffer sentence than a second degree murder charge which is 15-years in California.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_(United_States_law)#Cal...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_\(United_States_law\)#California)

<comment><USER36> That's not a fair comparison - you're measuring the bill's maximum against a murder charge's minimum.

The bill allows anything from fines up to 20 years in prison, while a murder charge has a mandatory minimum of 15 years (up to life).

<comment><USER35> Second degree murder from one jurisdiction to another. In California I stand mostly corrected: The penalty is: 15-years to Life. At the 15-year mark they are eligible for parole.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_(United_States_law)#Cal...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_\(United_States_law\)#California)

</comment></comment></comment><comment> ryan-allen I'm cynical, if bankers can get away with the mortgage securities fraud and not go to jail, then how can a data breach in a tech company cause people to go to jail?

Faulty thinking on my part, probably.

</comment><comment><USER37> Why are bills like these always drafted after the fact? E.g. Equifax, Google+, Facebook hack, etc.

It would be common sense to pass laws before it happened and would of incentivize companies to beef up security.

<comment><USER38> Or make the bill _retroactive_ ... ?

<comment><USER39> If it'll retroactively apply criminal penalties you're going to need a companion amendment to the Constitution.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Sillicon Valley has spend the last few years investing in their lobbying so I'm not holding my breath for a US GDPR.Especially not with current administration.

</comment><comment><USER41> Prison time for this is madness.

<comment><USER42> Prison time for executives is the only thing that gets taken seriously. Fines to executives can just be paid by executive insurance, and unless you crank them up to 4% of global revenue like GDPR, fines to the company will likely simply become cost of doing business.

But threaten the executives with prison, and they'll suddenly make sure that the company complies with the law. I bet e.g. SOX would be taken a lot less seriously without those teeth.

Besides that, I don't see a reason why wilful privacy violations should not be met with prison terms. Don't want to go to prison? Don't collect/share data that you're not allowed to collect/share.

Even for negligence, there is precedent to send people to prison, although that usually requires the negligence to result in death. But the scale at which software mistakes can cause damage is often higher than the scale at which mechanical/structural engineering does: A collapsing building kills hundreds of people. A collapsing Equifax database doesn't kill anyone directly, but affects over a hundred _million_ people, and has the potential to ruin their lives (imagine e.g. private Facebook profiles outing people in intolerant areas - would probably lead to a larger number of deaths than most modern-day building collapses).

<comment><USER43> Easily disproven.

The 2008 crash is full of executives who did not comply with the law, and did not take the threat of prison seriously. I think to this date you can count the number in prison on two hands, and most of those were more foot soldiers than masterminds.

<comment><USER44> Maybe there needs to be consequences for selective law enforcement and/or selective prosecution?

<comment><USER45> That sounds somewhat naive, but on the other hand it also might help in getting all these unenforced, legacy laws of the book that result in anyone at all times being with one foot in prison if someone decided to enforce every law.

<comment><USER44> I agree with it sounding naïve. The thing is, we've tried a lot more things that attempt to pragmatic and reasonable with limited success: innocent people get hurt, while bad actors weasel out. I know the standard is supposed to be to allow a hundred guilty people go free rather than allow one innocent person be imprisoned, but given how many people are in prison, there might be more innocent people in there than we'd like to admit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> lets see how do we put a legal corporation in jail? anyone have the answer to this that our congress people lack?

<comment><USER47> The board replaced by military officers along with suspension of business license of original owners.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> My pet theory is this is firing a shell across the bow of BigCorp. Telling them change is coming. Maybe this won't pass, but be prepared to be held more accountable.

<comment><USER49> The FTC already has quite a lot of authority over privacy regulations (in the financial sector at least) and does next to nothing with that authority. They spend zero time affirmatively looking into regulatory compliance and only take (very limited) action after receiving numerous reports about egregious violations. I suspect this far more of a "look at how much we're _helping_ consumers" that will add some teeth to the few enforcement actions they do pursue but won't do much by way of removing their head-in-the-sand approach to consumer privacy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> Unintended consequences: This could make running a public Wifi hotspot a losing proposition for many businesses that operate one today.

<comment><USER22> Nope.

The bill defines covered entities in Sec. 2.(5)(A) and 2.(5)(B). In particular, companies with less than $50,000,000 in gross receipts and information on fewer than 1,000,000 customers are not covered by this legislation.

And _even if_ those apply to your local coffee shop or whatever, Sec. 2(5)(B)(iii) further limits the definition of covered entity so that businesses that do not provide 3rd party access to information are not covered.

So Starbucks and other _huge_ coffee chains/retail shops are the only organizations that would have to re-evaluate data collection from their public Wifi hotspots, and even then might be exempt depending on what they are collecting and how they are using that information. And, I should point out, these companies will need privacy experts on staff anyways, so this provision is highly unlikely to cause them to shutter their in-store Wifi networks...

Additionally, some of the more onerous requirements only apply to a subset of covered entities with yet larger gross receipts and yet larger numbers of tracked consumers.

But, unequivocally, your locally owned mom & pop coffee shop is excluded from consideration under this provision multiple times over.

<comment><USER51> Unless inflation happens... This only applies to big businesses now, but in 25 years it will start effecting medium sized firms and it will eventually hit small businesses. This will create a morass of bureaucratic regulations stifling entrepreneurship...

<comment><USER52> Granting the assumption of monotonically increasing inflation at a wild rate, this is still only true ceteris paribus. I can't imagine inflation that would make a small coffee shop chain into 50m/year revenue (customer floor requirement notwithstanding) would happen in a vacuum.

<comment><USER47> What he means is regulatory inflation, not the monetary one. A few years later, the customer threshold would be amended to a few thousands, ten years later, the thresholds would be abolished.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Page not found :(

<comment><USER54> That data is too private.

<comment><USER55> 555

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> so they admit, that the war on drugs is not working anymore. a new paper dragon is needed.

<comment><USER57> This is a very strange comparison to me, given the enormous disparity in the targets. But can you expand on your line of thought?

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> Just about the only threat that execs will take seriously is a posse of well- armed men. I'm personally not against dispensing some long overdue vigilante justice, but I wonder whether we'd know when to stop?

</comment><comment><USER59> I could see this seriously effing with software jobs. Even if a company intends to keep their noses squeaky clean, every developer hired becomes an additional risk. Companies will try to control more of the process from the top down (and that works out great LOL) and they'll try to do more with less. Or GTFO of the country.

</comment><comment><USER60> This is going to make it impossible to start a startup. We need to organize a movement against this.

<comment><USER61> Of course, Europe has had no startups at all since the Data Protection Directive (95/46/EC) was passed in 1995. /s

<comment><USER62> Europe does not have anything comparable to Silicon Valley, and heavy regulations are often cited as making it hard to do business there.

<comment><USER49> Yet they still seem to find a way. That tells me the regulations aren't as onerous as some businesses would have you believe.

<comment><USER62> Who is "they"? Sure there are some companies, but clearly nothing like SV.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


End Geoblocking - <AUTHOR> https://endgeoblocking.eu/ <comment><USER2> The example given is the BBC.

A service funded by licence fee payers who are resident in the UK.

Why should a service, that is advert free and wholly paid for by the UK licence payers, be free to people elsewhere?

You may react that it need not be free... i.e. on different terms. And it is, BBC Worldwide exists and material is available for licencing by other television networks, one may watch Top Gear globally.

I'm not even sure that I agree that geoblocking should be removed for commercial copyright holders.

Is it being proposed that all copyrighted material be subjected to compulsory universal licensing? Actually, let's change the question: What _is_ being proposed?

It's fine to say "end geoblocking", yes... down with that, we can all agree it's a pain. But there doesn't seem to be a solution being proposed to say what replaces the existing legal enforcement of copyrights and the resulting contracts which today have led to geoblocking.

Edit: I mentioned the BBC because that was the example given. The general gist of this comment isn't solely about the BBC. What _is_ being proposed?

<comment><USER3> Ok, but then let me pay for it. Because I _can not_ pay for it a lot of the time.

Instead of the blocked screen show me "enter credit card for $.99 and watch all you want"

 _that_ would be hard to argue with.

Seriously, dragging the entertainment industry along until they realise that the internet actually is global is such a pain.

<comment><USER4> Rightholders usually _don 't allow_ services to let you pay for it if you're from another country.

At least implicitly, their estimation is that accepting your money would damage their ability to exclusively license content 28 times in the EU, and that eroding that system would do more harm to the bottom line than the extra money they might make.

In practice, the vast majority of content is of course not successfully licensed 28 times, so they end up turning away/not even aiming for the majority of their potential customers for the majority of their works.

Whether the current model is really best for rightholders' (maybe just publishers') bottom lines is up for debate -- in their calculation, they are probably biased towards prolonging the established business models that come from the times of terrestrial TV broadcasting/physical media sales.

What is clear, from an EU point of view, is that the geoblocking that is required to enforce this model artificially limits the audience of a lot of European cultural products, forces people to seek out copyright-infringing channels, reinforces digital borders between EU member states, harms lingustic minorities etc -- and is just in fundamental conflict with both the idea of the common EU market and the internet as a global medium.

(Disclosure: I made the campaign site.)

<comment><USER5> Right, so if legislators and voters feel that the current use of the law- granted rights results in undesirable results, they can alter the conditions so that the publishers are not allowed to region-lock or do exclusive licencing limited to a particular part of the EU.

Just as they do with many other industries to facilitate the goal of a single EU market.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I have to pirate some intellectual properly simply because it's impossible for me to legally obtain it for any price. That's the reality of living in a "wrong" country.

<comment><USER7> If it was made available to you for 1000x its local price would you then stop pirating it?

If not, then is the lack of "any" price the problem? Or do you have higher expectations than you've stated here?

<comment><USER8> How about being made available under the same price people in other countries pay and not being treated like a second class human?

<comment><USER9> Different countries have different costs, taxes, wealth and willingness to pay.

<comment><USER10> What difference does it make when the people on those countries send you money through an international credit card?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Please do not make another law. Most of the laws produced by the EU in regards to the internet do usually not help anything, but just place another burden on the shoulders of small to midsized companies. Look at the VATmess or the stupid cookie law.

Some possible outcome could be that you are forced to offer your service in the whole EU, even if you are just a small, online fan shop for a second liga soccer club.

All those EU laws usually just help the big multinational companies to keep startups out of the market.

The EU should stop producing any laws at all and concentrate on harmonising the endless supply of inconsistent laws in their member states.

<comment><USER12> > EU in regards to the internet do usually not help anything

"We use cookies to blah blah..."

Has that peace of legislation actually improved privacy or just make websites more annoying?

<comment><USER11> It didn't improve privacy a bit, but it produced costs and enabled lawyers (at least in Germany) to earn some easy money with a new breed of "Abmahnungen".

<comment><USER13> I would say it worsens the situation because it trains people to just click on every banner that says something like that. People are lazy and I would argue that once you have to do that a dozen times a day you are probably more likely to also give up on even base-checking EULAs, new service conditions etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I can't agree more. I appreciate that there are complex reasons for it to exist regarding legacy content licensing deals, but as a single market the EU absolutely should not permit artificial trading barriers between member states. The sooner the better.

</comment><comment><USER15> Geoblocking is economic segregation of knowledge and culture based on luck (if you had the luck of being born on a country with high material standards and strong currency).

Free flow of information is one of the easiest ways we can reduce the global wealth inequality gap and have a more stable society.

</comment><comment><USER16> Geoblocking isn't the problem. It's just the symptom. The real issue is restrictive copyright BS. Often when a show is block from a country (ie Canada) it isn't because the producer doesn't want to let Canadians watch. It's because some tiny bit of music in the show required a license, which the producer purchased from a clearing house, which in turn was only authorized to sell licenses within some tiny area. I believe this is part of the reason so many American Netflix shows are blocked in canada.

<comment><USER5> The proposed changes exactly address this cause - any the geoblocking provisions in contracts (including previous contracts) would be null and void, so the producer would be legally able to distribute the content across the whole EU under the same conditions as for the EU part (e.g. UK) they originally had, while ignoring any geographical restrictions.

It's just as in other industries where you can't legally limit your wholesalers/distributors to sell within a particular area only, that's a violation of anti-trust laws.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> American companies in Hollywood sign business contracts with American companies in Silicon Valley and these Europeans think they can tell them what they can do. People are under the strange impression that multi-million dollar entertainment products are some kind of human right. If a shoe company decided they weren't going to sell in Europe people wouldn't get all indignant like this.

<comment><USER18> I agree with you 100%. I think the reason people get huffy about online content vs. shoes for example, is there's no _technical_ reason why a video I have hosted in US shouldn't be watchable in the UK, and people intuitively understand that. There are only regulatory and political reasons which are difficult to understand and therefore get boiled down to "bullshit."

<comment><USER8> Being able to carry (or buy online) a bought DVD/BluRay from USA and watch it EU and then being denied the ability to buy and stream of that exact same content is the definition of "bullshit".

<comment><USER19> That DVD/Blu-Ray would be region locked to the Americas...

<comment><USER8> Replace "USA" with "Germany" and "EU" with "Netherlands" if that makes your nickpick gremlin happy -_-

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I agree totally. Coming form Serbia a lot of things are blocked for me...it's not fair.

</comment><comment><USER21> Recently I had to unsubscribe from Netflix, because it started to block VPNs properly (geoblocking). Sorry guys, but I'm not going to give up privacy just for you. And I can't switch it off on app basis, because VPN is done for my whole home network on router.

</comment><comment><USER13> Although I find geoblocking super annoying as well (personally), I don't see a compelling argument why site owners should not have the right to decide freely who can access their page and who not? It's they who provide the service, so it should be their call.

<comment><USER22> This isn't about private people it's about businesses. Those haven't been allowed to discriminate based on many things for a long time. This proposal merely pushes that further.

This isn't the huge change you want to make it out to be.

<comment><USER13> I'd be happy to get rid of other overregulation as well. Laws are man-made, and therefore they can be changed by man.

<comment><USER5> Why yes, laws can be changed by man, and that's why they have made these customer protection laws and will likely change them to be even stricter in future. At least in the EU, there is strong support for that.

<comment><USER13> Unless they do the opposite and people get all whiny about "neoliberalism" and so on.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> One of the most interesting arguments is: "Linguistic minorities, long-term migrants, exchange students, etc. – 1 in 10 Europeans[ELEN] – are denied access to their culture online."

Of course no geo blocking means English and American content is even more available which could lead to even less linguistic and cultural diversity. This could be a classic case of be careful what you wish for.

<comment><USER4> US content is already pretty widely available. Currently, the Danish minority in Germany can watch the 80%-non-EU-made content in the German Netflix repertoire just fine -- but they are blocked from watching the Danish public broadcasters' content online, which is a significant chunk of the content that exists in their language/from their culture.

Remember that US-only services could continue to geoblock all Europeans even if geoblocking was eliminated in the EU. In practice it might give these German Danes access to, I dunno, twice the US content they can watch today, and maybe 5 or 10 times more Danish content. Plus 100 times more Estonian, Portuguese, Maltese, and so on.

I can't follow the argument that this would lead to less cultural diversity, not more.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Wait.. Could this law have a side effect of hurting potential YouTube competitors?

Right now we are only concerned about major players, like YouTube, Netflix, etc.

With the proposed law, a smaller video service might not be able to focus on a smaller region. Focusing on a smaller group could give a competitor the chance to build up notoriety among that group.

For example, in 2050, each town has its own website capable of hosting videos. The town videos have ads specific to the local population. The pricing of ads could be controlled by that town. For this to work, it might be desirable to be able to limit consummation of the videos to the townspeople. Bandwidth is also used to serve content.

If you're fine with YouTube/Google and Facebook being in charge of ad-pricing from now until the end of time, then this law would not disrupt that vision. But if you expect YouTube to pay different rates, or have any competition, this law might create unreasonable restrictions for new competition.

</comment><comment><USER25> The BBC makes great content and it costs money to do so. It is a large organisation and suffers from lack of agility so changing the funding model is very difficult. Great programmes are made [as well as the usual dross] but to maintain their brand they must continue to do this and need a guaranteed revenue stream

Overlaid is the reality that the BBC is a political issue in the same way that the NHS is. Changes are not enacted by the BBC alone, it requires government approval of the direction of travel. The pillars of the UK [or maybe just England] are the NHS and the BBC. This may be a broken model in the current World and many people may understand this, but changing it will take a generation of persuading a nation that the delivery method should change. Murdoch has been trying for at least 25 years.

</comment><comment><USER26> This seems like a worthy cause, but wouldn't it be easier to just make a browser that spoofs location in an undetectable way?

I've recently run into some sites that I can't trick even with a VPN and using Chrome dev tools to spoof location. (As a side note, if anyone knows of ways to get around more sophisticated geoblocking, please let me know)

</comment><comment><USER27> Android is useless where I live because all paid apps (or with an in app purchase) are impossible to install. I'm still wondering why Google doesn't want my money, it's just another Visa card afger all. (Apple store works perfectly)

<comment><USER28> There are very many good Android apps that do not cost anything, nor do they have any in-app purchases. You shouldn't write off the entire platform just because they won't let you buy apps.

<comment><USER27> There are really cool free apps but they're drowned into scams and poor clones. And most games are impossible to install. Feels like having Windows and being stuck with minesweeper and sharewares floppys.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> If you're in the UK, vote "remain" or expect to be ten times as geoblocked.

<comment><USER30> Can you provide a reference for the "ten times as geoblocked" please?

I support "remain", but hyperbole from both the leave and remain sides has made the referendum a bit of a farce.

<comment><USER29> I don't need to provide a reference because it's obvious that negotiations of rights are currently on an EU basis (because that's the big legal bloc) and they would suddenly have to be UK-specific, and what big company can be bothered to prioritize that?

<comment><USER4> Unfortunately negotiations of rights are on a country by country basis. Copyright is not unified nor properly harmonized across the EU (...yet?). To show copyrighted content to all of Europe you need licenses for 28 territories.

This might change, or at least gain some new exceptions ("roaming" for your Netflix account will come for sure; the other measures this campaign demands are up in the air at this point). These improvements of course would not apply if the UK leaves.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Before the EU could forbid geoblocking they would have to introduce a common level for IPP.

And I am pretty sure nobody (apart of the copyright holders) would be pleased with that.

</comment><comment> ibn-alfatal Good guy EU: sensors the internet for its citizens, gets upset when sensored by third parties.

</comment><comment><USER31> Australians also know this pain..

<comment><USER32> And get called out as Pirates for trying to circumvent Geo Blocks

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> geoblocking is better than some other types of blocking i can think of

</comment><comment><USER34> Also, end locks on doors.

</comment><comment><USER35> This site looks geoblocked to me - getting a 503 error: [https://imgur.com/9AYpo5N](https://imgur.com/9AYpo5N)

<comment><USER36> I'm seeing the same, I'm assume it's being hugged to death instead of actively blocked</comment></comment>


Nginx security advisory (CVE-2016-4450) - St-Clock http://mailman.nginx.org/pipermail/nginx-announce/2016/000179.html <comment> St-Clock Nothing on Ubuntu USN for now: [http://www.ubuntu.com/usn/](http://www.ubuntu.com/usn/) :-(</comment>


My Postmortem failed - <AUTHOR> http://cateches.is/fiction/2013/10/09/postmortem.html

<comment><USER2> to be clear, this is obviously a satire.</comment>


Build a better RepRap: $80,000 Prize - <AUTHOR> http://blog.reprap.org/2010/01/build-better-reprap-80000-prize.html

<comment><USER2> The requirement to win this prize are very very high. The prize is relatively low. And to win the prize , you need to make plans open-source.

It doesn't make sense.

If you design this much better machine , it would make more sense to commercialize it.

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree... the open-source idealist in my likes the open-source stipulation, but I think the prize should be an order of magnitude higher.</comment></comment>


Productivity Isn't About Time Management. It's About Attention Management - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/28/smarter-living/productivity-isnt-about-time-management-its-about-attention-management.html <comment><AUTHOR> > A better option is attention management: Prioritize the people and projects > that matter, and it won't matter how long anything takes.

Whether it's time or attention, the best management is that which you didn't have to do! I built Pony [0], an email platform that sends and receives messages once a day. It's great for your attention and helps you correspond without distractions. It manages your time and attention at no cost to you.

[https://www.pony.gg/](https://www.pony.gg/)</comment>


'Monstrous' robot going up on space station - <AUTHOR> http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/space/03/10/space.shuttle.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories <comment><USER2> That's pretty cool, although the writer pissed me off in the beginning by likening it to Frankenstein, and not his -monster-. A slightly crazed scientist who gets chased to the arctic before his death isn't really much to fear, the big thing that killed people by accident was something to fear... at least if you're a scientist.</comment>


Ask HN: Idea for web app which I could deliver for free as tech skills showcase - <AUTHOR> Hello HN community,
I'd like to develop a web app in my free time so I could showcase my technical skills. The idea is to deliver it for free, backed by donations (to cover infrastructure costs).
I thought it would be nice if it is something of a value, i.e. something, that people already have to pay for.
Please provide your ideas, backed by personal experience/observations + URL to the app :)
There are not many limitations when it goes to technology: I'd like it to be modular monolith written in Java+Spring, backed by AWS, frontend written in React and possibly mobile app in React Native.
Thanks for your suggestions, Przemek, Poland <comment><USER2> Few years ago, I made a simple web app using a non-profit's API (I was bored) with no expectations. I haven't touched it in like 3 years, I still have at least a few dozen people using it daily and once in a while, I get a nice thank you message.

If you hang out in forums frequented by enthusiastic supporters of non profits, you can find tons of ideas.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for you answer, could you please provide me with some links to the forums you mentioned? :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Hi Przemek,

Could you please drop me an email email@example.com so that we can discuss further.

Thanks Wesie

<comment><AUTHOR> Email dropped ;)</comment></comment>


Former NSA contractor designs 'surveillance-proof' font - <AUTHOR> http://vimeo.com/42675696

<comment><USER2> So if I change the font for my e-mails to this I am safe? :D

edit:

also there an article about it: [http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/30/tech/web/nsa-contractor- su...](http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/30/tech/web/nsa-contractor-surveillance- proof-font/index.html?hpt=hp_c4)</comment>


The GMO debate won't be settled technocratically - <AUTHOR> https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/why-science-cant-break-the-gmo-stalemate <comment><USER2> related:

[https://undark.org/2019/06/27/monsanto-gmo- crusade/](https://undark.org/2019/06/27/monsanto-gmo-crusade/) 06.27.2019 / BY Kavin Senapathy "I Was Lured Into Monsanto's GMO Crusade. Here's What I Learned. Public debates about science and technology are rarely ever just about the science and technology."

 _"...Monsanto hired Crowe, a communications strategist, as their director of millennial engagement. ... Crowe preached a scientific gospel of GMOs that went something like this: If you're pro-science, you must be pro-GMO. If you're anti-Monsanto, then you're anti-GMO. Therefore, if you're anti- Monsanto, you're anti-science. His objective, it seemed, was to render opposition to GMOs as ridiculous as belief in Bigfoot, and to amass a movement that could be counted on to shout that message from the rooftops. ..."_

 _"... catalyzed an awakening, and suddenly I saw the landscape of the GMO battle with aerial clarity. Everything I'd written and said in support of GMOs was factually correct, but my approach had been all wrong. It's impossible to have a constructive conversation about GMOs without acknowledging that underlying the unscientific claims made by many GMO opponents is a legitimate desire for trustworthy behavior from the companies that dominate the agricultural marketplace. ..."_

 _"... The entities that push unscientific, fear-based narratives about GMOs will never be defeated if the powers that be neglect to sincerely tackle the people's underlying mistrust. As I said in a speech to fellow skeptics this past fall on the steps of the Sacramento capitol building, "While the scientific method may be the way we interact with the world, largely by choice, the scientific method is wielded by people, and what drives those people are values." I'm hopeful that Monsanto will get the message, but I'm not holding my breath."_

<comment><USER3> It's ironic that right after criticising the conflation of science, GMOs and Monsanto, there's a sentence that conflates GMOs and Monsanto. Surely Monsanto's communcations director had the objective to render opposition to _Monsanto_ as ridiculous as belief in Bigfoot.

Keeping closely related concepts separate in mindspace is hard work.

<comment><USER4> I lack knowledge. Are there competitive alternative OGM makers than Monsanto? Otherwise, GMO and Monsanto can be conflated _currently_

<comment><USER5> Bayer, Syngenta, Dow, Pioneer and the list goes on and on and that's for crops.

The most common GMO product sold to consumers isn't even a crop but rather the blue rose.

As far as crop GMOs go then the majority of the yield is soybeans for fuel not for human consumption.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> GMO debate will be settled by development of crops that will be order of magnitude better than existing varieties. It is easy to dismiss the current GMOs that are a bit cheaper, but something like non-toxic cassava, perennial wheat, or twice more productive variety of any staple crop used in poor countries will get widespread use despite all protestations of anti-gmo people because it will save lives in an apparent way. And after some time people in rich countries too would have to accept that gmos are useful.</comment>


Show HN: JackDB — Database development in your web browser - <AUTHOR> http://www.jackdb.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> JackDB was created to solve a personal itch of mine for better database developer tools. We'd love your feedback. If you're interested signup or email me at sehrope [at] jackdb [dot] com.</comment>


Do Android, iOS and Other Mobile Operating Systems No Longer Matter in Mobile? - <AUTHOR> http://appdevelopermagazine.com/783/2013/10/15/Do-Android,-iOS-and-Other-Mobile-Operating-Systems-No-Longer-Matter-in-Mobile?/

<comment><USER2> If the actual article [http://www.visionmobile.com/blog/2013/10/how-to-win-in- mobil...](http://www.visionmobile.com/blog/2013/10/how-to-win-in-mobile- without-making-your-own-os/), is correct, why has Blackberry fallen so hard when you can run Android apps on it?

I don't think people actually by a device because of the apps that run on it. They are influenced more by advertising and friends.</comment>


Natural nuclear fission reactor - <AUTHOR> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_reactor <comment><USER2> I found this story some time ago before I knew Hacker News.

The sites where I found it at the time were:

an excerpt from The Ages of Gaia, James Lovelock (story like): [http://www.alamut.com/proj/98/nuclearGarden/bookTexts/Lovelo...](http://www.alamut.com/proj/98/nuclearGarden/bookTexts/Lovelock_Oklo.html)

and department of energy (fact like): <http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0010.shtml>

<comment><AUTHOR> My source was <http://kottke.org/09/11/natural-nuclear-reactors> which also has some more links</comment></comment>


Actually Amazon Tablet will "!" Bury Ipad - <AUTHOR> http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/08/29/forrester-amazons-tablet-will-bury-the-ipad/

<comment><AUTHOR> ...was trying to say not bury but HN won't take a bare "!".</comment>


Nextbit Unveils a Dead-Simple Way to Sync, Store Data Across Apps, Devices - chris-at http://techcrunch.com/2014/10/27/nextbit-2/?ncid=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29 <comment><AUTHOR> So syncing all of your data to a 3rd party server?

I can't see how that can go wrong.

</comment><comment><USER2> I think this is a very interesting move. Watching the video, it looks a bit like NFC tap to beam (which most android devices use) or bump (now shut down) except with the OS level integration.

I'm not really sure how good doing it at an OS level is. It could create a real barrier to adoption - you can't just download it from Google Play.

</comment><comment><USER3> Hey folks. Thomas from IDrive Online Backup here. We actually already offer a simple mobile backup and sync solution for unlimited devices with no extra fee. And we secure your data with the strongest encryption available in the process.

<comment><USER4> "strongest encryption available" is a loaded statement.

<comment><USER3> We offer military-grade 256 bit encryption with a private key option that keeps your key off our servers and ensures that only you can access your data.</comment></comment></comment>


Non-Photorealistic Rendering Using a Painting Robot [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://graphics.uni-konstanz.de/publikationen/Lindemeier2015HardwareBasedNon/Lindemeier2015HardwareBasedNon.pdf <comment> transistor-man I've tinkered with 'hobby grade' acrylic painting with robots before [1] and this is a wonderful paper. Getting the visual feedback on brush strokes alone working well is impressive. The line "Real paint strokes interact in a complex way that is very hard to simulate on a computer" really hits home.

Always nice to see art robotics progressing along.

1: [http://transistor-man.com/bluebot_revival.html](http://transistor- man.com/bluebot_revival.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> Charles "Chuck" Scuri at OSU worked on plotter based painting. He was known as one of the very first computer graphics artists. I had the fortune of meeting him in the 1990s

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

</comment><comment><USER4> There was a neat demo in the science museum in London in either the late 80's or early 90's - they had an industrial robot arm (wearing a beret, of course) hooked up to a video camera, and some variety of edge detection running - <USER2> it painted portraits of museum visitors in a sumi-e style, with a brush. I've still got mine, aged 7 or so, kicking around somewhere, and from what I recall it was a decent likeness.

</comment><comment><USER5> Very cool, has anyone tasked a painting robot with reproducing images generated from a neural network? I've seen plenty of both, but nothing so far merging the two.

<comment><USER6> The problem is current conv neural nets are extracting textures, which may not necessarily translate to brush strokes that translate to the same physical rendition. A new net would have to be trained on the mechanical processes of paintings.

I built a robo painter that captures brush stroke movements: [https://www.instapainting.com/blog/research/2015/08/23/ai- pa...](https://www.instapainting.com/blog/research/2015/08/23/ai-painter/)

With enough input data here a neural net could be trained to produce physical results.

<comment><AUTHOR> However, how do you measure the quality of the painting accurately? I think in their first paper on e-David Oliver Deussen mentioned something like that for future research :-)

<comment><USER6> Painting through that motion capture robot isn't exactly like painting with a brush in hand... I've tried creating prototypes with analog motion capture arms where the artist can physically guide the arm. The artist guided version would be the source of truth used for training, and you can evaluate results with cameras.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Golang – bare bones pixel graphics window - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/MickDuprez/go-window <comment><AUTHOR> OP here, this is my naive attempt at using Go to create a basic GUI window to render basic graphics to. I couldn't find anything like this for Go in my searches so I thought I'd have a go at it myself. I welcome any suggestions and comments on better ways to do this and improve the code base, thanks.</comment>


Why Google is Today's Most Powerful Brand - <AUTHOR> http://discussionleader.hbsp.com/haque/2008/02/the_shrinking_advantage_of_bra_1.html

<comment><USER2> "Stop and think about that for a second: the top brand in the world belongs to a player that…uhhh…doesn't advertise."

"Ads by Google" alongside most ads on the internet doesn't count as google advertising its brand?

<comment><USER3> No more than Gillette razors having "Gillette" written on them does.

<comment><USER2> Do you show your Gillette razor to thousands of people every day?

<comment><USER3> No, but millions of people see Gillette on their razors every day.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> They've gotten some publicity - remember the ad that was like {first 10 digit prime found in consecutive digits of e}.com?

But for the most part they haven't really advertised in the traditional way. Instead, they've used the best form of advertising - make a product so good that it speaks for itself!

<comment><USER5> As soon as I saw that ad, I thought "Google." When I got to the office, I checked with Trevor, and sure enough he had already figured it out.</comment></comment>


When Whites Just Don't Get It (Part 5) - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/30/opinion/sunday/nicholas-kristof-when-whites-just-dont-get-it-part-5.html

<comment><USER2> "We aren't racists, yet we buttress a system that acts in racist ways... This occurs partly because of deeply embedded stereotypes that trick us, even when we want to be fair."

That made me think.</comment>