Be Careful Celebrating Google's New Ad Blocker - <AUTHOR> https://theintercept.com/2017/06/05/be-careful-celebrating-googles-new-ad-blocker-heres-whats-really-going-on/ <comment><USER3> _What ads would get blocked? The ones not sold by Google, for the most part._

I can see it coming - "Host on AMP, and your ads will get through". "Use Google Ads, and your ads will get through." "Pay dues to the Acceptable Ad Consortium, and your ads will get through."

Look what happened with TrustE and their ratings. It started out as a good idea, and ended up as a cover for scumbags. Today, a TrustE seal has negative value.[1]

[1] [http://www.benedelman.org/news/092506-1.html](http://www.benedelman.org/news/092506-1.html)

<comment><USER4> I'm a little more hopeful. They have a clear incentive to keep really bad ads off their own services because if they don't a lot of people will just reinstall another ad blocker. If I didn't have to deal with unmutable autoplaying video ads or ads spouting malware I'd be more willing to browse with a limited ad blocker.

<comment><USER5> Google will never be able to pry uBlock Origin from me! Stay away!

<comment><USER6> And if Google takes steps to prevent third-party ad blockers from working in Chrome? Or renders them worthless through exceptions to the filtering API?

Even if you ignore Google's Funding Choices and its potential to increase adoption of view-ads-or-pay (a lose/lose for privacy, btw) you are very vulnerable if you use Chrome and/or a Google controlled OS. The Coalition for Better Ads won't be helping you by keeping Google in check. It is more or less the same companies you are fighting right now (check membership and note NAI, IAB, DMA, and other trade associations).

<comment><USER7> Hello again Firefox

<comment><USER8> You mean Waterfox, of course?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > Web users will quickly recognize their only options: pay to use the > internet, or uninstall the ad blockers and surf the web for free.

Or they could disable Chrome ad blocking and install their ad blocker of choice.

If I'm reading this correctly then no portion of the user population is hurt by this. Power with religious objections to advertising are free to continue using them. Typical users who don't care don't have to deal with awful and broken stuff. People who feel charitable enough to pay for advertising get to do so.

But doesn't it hurt the advertisers? That's not a given either. This article makes it sound like all non-Google advertisers will be shut out. But that's clearly not true: plenty of non-Google advertisers are represented in the decision making process, to the point where one can be convinced that a variety of views were considered.

Ad blockers are a response to the absolutely worst of ads, to the detriment of better-behaved networks like Google, Facebook, and friends. While I agree it's a little creepy that an advertising company shoulda put out an ad blocker, Google is in a unique place to tackle the problem of poor advertising by filtering truly bad experiences, and doing so hurts no one except truly abusive networks.

<comment><USER10> I think that you are too naive and part of the problem why the Google has become so dominant.

I actually installed an ad-blocker because I could not stand video ads (I would call it TV-cation of the Internet) and that was the easiest way to eliminate them.

You argue that people can install another browser and use an ad-blocker with that.

This is true for now (given reasonably motivated and knowledgeable users), but Google is also pushing DRM into web browsers.

This opens a possibility to restrict access to a website to all browsers but Google one. Given their market dominance they can do this.

<comment><USER11> I'm not disagreeing that this is possible, but I don't think jumping straight to such a nightmare scenario really does any good. The reason being is that they just don't go that far and it's suddenly seems okay in comparison to what "could" happen.

More realistically, I think Google hurts other ad blockers and expands their oligarchic position in the ads space (especially on mobile).

<comment><USER12> > I'm not disagreeing that this is possible, but I don't think jumping > straight to such a nightmare scenario really does any good.

Ten years ago I thought that the level of tracking and corporate surveillance we see today was a nightmare scenario. I was clearly an optimist. Don't be me.

<comment><USER10> I think that the point of GP is that we did not get here suddenly but step by step.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> >According to the Financial Times, Google will allow publishers what it's calling "Funding Choices." The publisher could charge the consumer a set price per page view to use third-party sites that block all advertising. Google would do the tracking of how many pages users view, and then charge them. Users could then "white list" particular sites, allowing ads to be shown on them and removing the charge. If users decided to pay to block ads, Google would receive a portion of that payment, sharing it with the publisher.

Pay for use ad-blocking is _exactly_ what I want. Did you hear me? Exactly. I don't want to manage a zillion news subscriptions at $15+ a pop. I don't want to get nagged to turn off my ad blocker.

I want a reasonable amount of money to to spent towards the people making the content that I'm vaguely interested in because other people on Hacker News are interested in it too. I've already solved the problem of content I really care about, I just buy a darned subscription.

This is a huge market opportunity and I'm just absolutely silly with glee that Google finally decided to jump on it. Because only Google has the scale to make something like this work. Finally I'm going to see the end of mob rule and the establishment of law and order in web advertising. Couldn't have happened fast enough for me.

Please please, just charge me for the content I consume. Why did it take the industry so long to figure this out?

<comment><USER14> > I'm just absolutely silly with glee that Google finally decided to jump on > it.

There is no "finally" here - this isn't new. Google Contributor is from 2014 [1].

Google and other companies have tried this idea many times already. It's true that people like you exist, but there haven't been enough to make this viable.

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

<comment><USER13> Nobody cares because it's not a real solution. Making content sites buy into it means only 10% of the ads I see might get mitigated. Everybody else's solution has the same problem.

It needs to be universal to be of any use to the end user. Otherwise it's only of slight use to Google, marginal use to content creators, and no use at all to consumers. That's what I'm hoping for from the new content blockers. A way to force a new order on the content world.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> > Google, a data mining and extraction company that sells personal information > to advertisers

The content in this article, is, for the most part, good content. What annoys me is that The Intercept seems fit to act like a heroic good guy insofar as being completely biased against Google from start to finish in what could have been a mostly informational article. An opening lead like this serves no purpose other than making this bias known.

Are we really beyond "just the facts" journalism, even by new journalism companies?

<comment><USER16> Google is a data mining and extraction company. That's hard to argue with.

Are you complaining about the "sells personal information" part?

<comment><USER17> Google does a lot of different things, but people with an axe to grind often like to label Google as something specific that they dislike.

In this case they call it a data mining company, which is both meaningless due to how vague the term is, but also slightly menacing sounding.

Does Google do things that would fall under a reasonable interpretation of data mining? Definitely. Is it their primary activity? Not by a long shot. Even the people who want to label Google an advertising company have more of a point on a revenue basis. But these characterisations are needlessly reductive and lead you to believe false conclusions like "Google wants all of your data"

<comment><USER18> > slightly menacing sounding

As it should be. They are aggressively capturing and selling people data from phones and browsers, as proven by large amounts of evidence. This is pretty factual, please don't call it "bias".

<comment><USER19> > They are aggressively capturing and selling people data from phones and > browsers, as proven by large amounts of evidence.

I'm interested, where can I go and buy some user data from Google?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> The fox is in the henhouse, but he brought along a hammer and some nails and he really really doesn't like coyotes, so it's all good.

Part of the article was a bit confusing, though: "According to the Financial Times, Google will allow publishers what it's calling 'Funding Choices.' The publisher could charge the consumer a set price per page view to use third- party sites that block all advertising. Google would do the tracking of how many pages users view, and then charge them. Users could then 'white list' particular sites, allowing ads to be shown on them and removing the charge. If users decided to pay to block ads, Google would receive a portion of that payment, sharing it with the publisher."

Third-party sites that block all advertising? I think the author has this confused with third-party ad blockers. And the part where Google does the tracking means that now is certainly the time to switch to Firefox and keep ajax.googleapis.com, google-syndication.com, google-analytics.com, and all the rest of them firmly on the banned list.

At times I almost feel nostalgic for the bad old days of Internet Explorer 6... (But then I remember what IE6 was actually like, and the feeling passes.)

</comment><comment><USER21> The company distributing the ads is controlling the ad-blocker. We have seen this before in other industries. It is never good.

</comment><comment><USER22> The key part here is they are deciding to make it enabled by default. Does it not really amount to malpractice against their competitors in the guise of user experience. Anti-trust?

Because just saying that one can always disable it and use something like uBlock Origin is missing the point that most of the people will not bother to do that except a tiny minority and that would essentially mean this coalition, which by all measures comes across more of a sham, will succeed in monopolizing ads completely.

I think the least they could do to even look impartial is keeping it disabled by default rather than making it opt-in.

</comment><comment><USER23> I'm curious to see how Google reacts when Brendan Eich's new browser project gets traction....

"Brave Browser Will Reward Users with Ethereum-Based Tokens for Switching on Ads":

[https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/brave-announces- blockchain-d...](https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/brave-announces-blockchain- digital-advertising-platform-with-ethereum-based-token-rewards-for-users/)

<comment><USER24> Is there any reason to think this will actually gain traction with a significant portion of the population? This seems like the kind of thing HN gushes over but the general population couldn't care less about.

<comment><USER14> Sure, that part of Brave is focused on tech people. But all these trends start with tech people - then we recommend it and install it for our friends and family.

Also, that's just part of the Brave strategy. It's going to block a lot more ads than Chrome by default. That has the potential for general appeal, not just for tech people.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Google's bold move only works this well because other browser developers like Mozilla (or even OS developers) were too hesitant to ship ad-blocking by default. Sad, a missed opportunity. I've said this a long time ago. It's unfortunate that Google does the first step when it really could have been one of the last if browser developers acted properly. Ad blocking is a more or less solved problem and could have been firmly integrated into browsers at least 5 years ago. And I mean free OSS ad blocking without bullying advertisers into paying fees to be unlocked.

<comment><USER26> There is a serious chance of backfire though. Calling it adblocking normalizes it across all the users. Once the genie is out, shipping a defective adblocker makes for a inferior product.

I think the opportunity window is still open, and can't for the life of me understand why Mozilla is not doing the right thing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> > Web users will quickly recognize their only options: pay to use the > internet, or uninstall the ad blockers and surf the web for free.

Or switch to an open source browser like Chromium/Firefox and go on using the ad-blocker of choice and avoid the pages that charge you.

</comment><comment><USER28> I still dont understand why simple endorsments dont work for some sites. Just put a text banner somewhere prominent that says "thanks bobs burgers for being our sponsor" there is no way ad blockers could pick that text out of all the other text and block it. And there is no reason anyone would want to block it anyway.

<comment><USER29> How much should you pay for that endorsement? Normally, you'd pay based on how many people see the ad. That, then incentives lying about how many people saw the ad, or creating fake views with bots. To deal with that, you add in Javascript that checks if the ad is genuinely visible and, try to validate that they aren't a bot, and whatever other fakery they try.

Adding a layer on top of that, people generally have a target audience, so if you want them as a customer, you might have to inject some more Javascript to determine if the user is part of the target audience.

And pretty soon the site is full of tracking beacons and blobs of JS.

<comment><USER30> Do we really have to track everyone? What ever happened to a flat fee per month to have a static banner in place on a relevant website?

<comment><USER31> Aside from tracking, I assume they like the JavaScript because they get more metrics, a/b testing, etc. So they can tweak the ad to perform better.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> If this actually results in an internet mostly free of super annoying ads, then I can't get too broken up about that even if it does give Google a major advantage over its competitors.

The question, of course, is whether Google can/will abuse this in anti- consumer ways. Some people have said that Google's criteria for "good" ads aren't that great. The article implies that Google can somehow force adblocker users to either pay per pageview or turn off their adblockers, which is awful if true, though I'm not clear how it's supposed to work.

<comment><USER33> > The article implies that Google can somehow force adblocker users to either > pay per pageview or turn off their adblockers, which is awful if true, > though I'm not clear how it's supposed to work.

And that's when you download a different browser...

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> > According to the Financial Times, Google will allow publishers what it's > calling "Funding Choices." The publisher could charge the consumer a set > price per page view to use third-party sites that block all advertising. > Google would do the tracking of how many pages users view, and then charge > them. Users could then "white list" particular sites, allowing ads to be > shown on them and removing the charge. If users decided to pay to block ads, > Google would receive a portion of that payment, sharing it with the > publisher.

Assuming the price is reasonable this doesn't sound horrible (but it doesn't sound too great either). How much would a publisher charge for an article view? $0.01? Or something like $0.50+ ? If the price is too high then I'd have to ditch Chrome for Firefox or Safari; I do not like ads.

<comment><USER35> Maybe they will make the article views like a reverse auction system which they have in Adwords.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> _" What ads would get blocked? The ones not sold by Google, for the most part."_

That is hilarious. Talk about self-serving. How can they do this with a straight face?

I guess "Don't be evil" doesn't imply "Don't be slimy".

<comment><USER37> Well, to be fair, it seemed to me from the release announcement that they were blocking ads on webpages where the _publisher_ set their pages up for a frustrating experience (pop-up display ads, auto play video ads), irrelevant of which ad systems were serving the ads on the pages. They aren't blocking ads from certain ad systems or advertisers. In theory this means the ad blocker shouldn't treat any ad system, including Google's, preferentially.

In practice, who knows?

<comment><USER38> Someone is going to make that argument however: Google Ads disallows displaying their ads that way, and is extremely good at finding websites that do that, and not only banning them but keeping any potentially earned money as well.

EU has already tried to make similar arguments to "break up Google" (lol, it's an American company, glwt) by basically blaming them for having a fair ToS and enforces it like no tommorow, thus producing services that attracts users.

Thus, having an ad service that bans shitty publishers and advertisers both makes publishers and advertisers (sometimes exclusively) do business with Google.

So, Google making Chrome ban shitty publishers and ad networks that harbor shitty publishers and advertisers ... makes Google look like they're not attacking themselves: which, well, they aren't, because they simply don't engage in that behavior on their ad network.

There's probably a shorter way of explaining this.

<comment><USER37> This makes sense. Thanks for explaining. I don't really know the ads ecosystem that well, so those were just my inferences from the blog post. I'm sure that was the intention of the post :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Honestly, I think the methodology of charging a small amount per page is necessary for the continued success of the internet.

The advertising model of revenue seems to be extremely difficult to pull off in practice.

<comment><USER40> >The advertising model of revenue seems to be extremely difficult to pull off in practice.

It seems to work well enough for Google. Not so much for everyone else.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Let me tell you what will happen:

\- Google creates built-in adblocker that allows google ads

\- Google removes the adblockers from Google Store due to some reason

\- You don't have an adblocker anymore

<comment><USER42> The fact that Chrome automatically disables extensions that don't exist in the web store, in the name of security, is probably not a good sign. If it is for security, then advanced users should've been given a way to bypass this restriction, but it doesn't exist. If the adblockers get removed from the store, there would be no easy way to use them without abandoning Chrome.

<comment><USER43> Chrome is open-source, you could use an alternative chrome based browser, like srware iron.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> company that sells ads says it will develop an ad blocker. why not stop selling ads as well? what is the goal?

<comment><USER45> Company that sells ads says it will develop an ad blocker for their competition ads.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Having Google decide what ads to block is like leaving the fox to gard the hen house.

</comment><comment><USER47> I feel an European Union Anti Trust case coming up.

</comment><comment><USER48> I don't think many people were celebrating it. The vast majority of people saw it as a grubby power grab and a hit to the fairness of the internet.

</comment><comment><USER49> "Be Careful Celebrating Google's New Ad Blocker. Here's What's Really Going On." I really don't like these kind of titles.

<comment><USER50> More than that even, the article seems pretty heavily biased against Google. They bring up a good point which I hadn't considered before, but the way the article is written is awfully slanted. For example, this paragraph:

> So this is a way for Google to crush its few remaining competitors by pre- > installing an ad zapper that it controls to the most common web browser. > That's a great way for a monopoly to remain a monopoly.

It seems like the author is really trying to paint Google in an unflattering light. Maybe that's how it is, but the facts should speak for themselves.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> The state of online advertisement has to change. Customers and publishers are unsatisfied and there are massive bot scam networks out there.

I am hopeful that Brandon Eich's brave browser[1] will make the ads economy less vulnerable to Google's dominance.

[1] [https://brave.com](https://brave.com)

</comment><comment><USER52> For me the solution is simple. More of my preferred content is offering honest donation-based support (and receiving fully sufficient funds to operate. The rest is free (the real kind) or paid.

My router just refuses to route to ad servers, and my DNS resolver refuses to resolve their domains.

</comment><comment><USER53> I wonder what Mozilla did wrong that this thread is not full of "I'll just switch to Firefox"

I'm on Firefox all the time and it's a RAM saver ;)

Full disclosure: I'm not related to Mozilla in any way but definitely a fanboy.

</comment><comment><USER54> Thinking about it, printing money using basic income might make the demand for ads increase. The economy would be basically based on how much basic income consumers spend.

</comment><comment><USER55> This article really has an apocalyptic tone, for what is essentially just an alternative adblocker.

AdblockPlus already does most of this anyway (showing ads they get paid for).

</comment><comment><USER39> Also, technically all major browsers have featured a limited ad blocker for years. It is called a pop up blocker...

</comment><comment><USER56> I think this will be very beneficial to non-savvy web-users who may be tricked by misleading ads like the download buttons, and the like.

Ads aren't really a problem for me (and I am guessing a lot of others), it's bad/misleading ads like pop-ups, auto-play video ads, etc. I think the idea to block ads that do not follow an established industry standard is definitely a step in the right direction.

Savvy users will continue to use 3rd party ad blockers- no change there.

<comment><USER57> Google hosts most of those download button ads...

Also the biggest source of pre-roll auto-play video ads, youtube.

<comment><USER58> I feel like auto-play ads make sense on youtube because youtube is a video service and you go in expecting a video anyway. It's like a TV commercial.

I get super pissed by auto-play ads on non-video websites, but when it's in front of a video such as on youtube I find it only a minor annoyance.

[EDIT: I don't know if there are auto-play ads in the sidebar on desktop, I use adblock on desktop so I only see those video ads on the mobile version, which doesn't have anywhere else to put ads]

<comment><USER59> There's no shock of audio but it's still stopping you from getting to the content. It's just as bad as full-page interstitials. (By the way, does anyone else get unreasonably mad that the button to leave such an ad usually says "skip" even when the ad was already shown and stays up indefinitely?)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> It's really frustrating that we cannot have a browser that is both great and not out to get us.

</comment><comment><USER61> >GOOGLE, A DATA MINING and extraction company that sells personal information to advertisers

Right off the bat this person couldn't even get his facts right. Google doesn't sell personal information to advertisers.

<comment><USER62> Came here to say exactly this. Google doesn't sell your personal information. It personalizes the ads it serves you, but that personalization happens in Google, advertisers don't see it.

[https://www.google.com/settings/ads/](https://www.google.com/settings/ads/)

<comment><USER63> It might be wrongly implying Google is selling the content of your Gmail - <USER2> between Google Analytics and stuff like: [https://www.google.com/insights/](https://www.google.com/insights/) Google certainly helps tracking users?

<comment><USER64> Yes it seems that a determined advertiser could find out quite a bit about people who saw its Google ads...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> I had to do a double-take when I read the title, forget about the article. _Google_ developing an Ad Blocker? Ha! I'd never use it.

<comment><USER66> It's saying to be careful when celebrating. Don't take anyone's eye out with the champaigne cork. Make sure there is a designated driver. Etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> This article is so much garbage

</comment><comment><USER68> the crown jewel in the google-oligopoly

</comment><comment><USER69> It is worth remembering the The Intercept used to (still does?) work with and publish material from a Oracle-funded nonprofit that existed for the sole purpose of creating bad PR for Google:

[https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/08/anti-google- rese...](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/08/anti-google-research- group-in-washington-is-funded-by-oracle/)

<comment><USER35> That may be true, but what is untrue about the article? How is it ok for a company to be the largest ad company in the world, while controlling the most popular browser on the planet and just announced a service that will kill off its competitors (as if they have many at all?) That's monopolistic behavior. Ask yourself, if Microsoft did this or something similar, would they get hit with anti-trust? Yes.

<comment><USER69> No, it isn't monopolistic. Look at ad prices continuously going down.

"Monopoly" isn't a buzz word that you throw around randomly. It doesn't even have to do necessarily with market share or control or the market.

There is no monopoly on the ad space, not by very, very far.

<comment><USER35> Microsoft was brought up on anti-trust charges because it packaged a browser with its operating system.

Google controls the majority of ads on extended networks, it controls almost all publisher ads (even Microsoft network sites run Google ads.) If publishers have no where to go but Google, how is that not a monopoly? Ignore search, ignore Facebook and Twitter, those are first party. Google has 0 competition on extended network sites, and this ensures it never will.

<comment><USER69> "Ignore search, ignore Facebook and Twitter, those are first party"

You're not getting the point: extended network sites is not an isolated product. It exists as a part of a large sub-segment (online ads) which part of an even larger market (ads).

You can take a single sub-sub-segment and call it a monopoly. Its doesn't matter if Coke had 95% of the colas market (it does in several countries), it isn't a monopoly, because it competes with thousands of other drinks.

And you can't just look at market share, you need to look at prices. CPMs are falling dramatically across the board, which is completely incompatible with a monopoly.

There is the economical definition of a monopoly, and then there's the layman definition, which means whatever you want to mean.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Minimal command line time tracking - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/derhuerst/time-tracking#time-tracking- <comment><USER2> Or you could use the Terminal plugin for WakaTime and have your time tracked automatically.</comment>


The Doctor Is In. Co-Pay? $40,000 - <AUTHOR> https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/06/03/business/economy/high-end-medical-care.html?referer=&pagewanted=all <comment><USER2> > For five-figure annual fees, boutique medical services offer the wealthiest > Americans the chance to cut the line and receive the best treatment.

Whether this buys you the _best_ treatment is highly contestable and, I think, unlikely. It would probably buy you the _most_ treatment, which is not necessarily what you want.

On the other hand, the long wait time to see physicians is a real concern, and it is advantageous to be seen sooner rather than later for essentially every condition. I think the moral hazard lies in the fact that you can buy access to earlier care, rather than with the fact that you can buy access to "top" physicians.

These are empirical questions which can/should be studied.

</comment><comment><USER3> As someone who lives in a country with socialized medicine, (Canada), the discussion of hospitals removing "normal" (shared) rooms to replace them with more-profitable private rooms is disturbing.

Here, private rooms have become the standard that all new hospitals are built to. Not only are patients generally happier, but they drastically reduct the spread of germs between patients in hospitals. When my kids were born, (they're quite young - <6 years old), my wife had a private room. When my son was hospitalized for a couple of months last fall, he had a private room, with a couch-ish thing that I could sleep on. We didn't pay extra for these, the were the only options at the hospitals we were at. These are not special, private, hospitals in any way, they're just renovated and/or built within the past decade.

It seems like the profit-based healthcare system south of the border is keeping patients in shared rooms, which are nearly a generation out of date here.

<comment><USER4> Can you explain your first sentence? What is the discussion surrounding shared vs. private rooms?

<comment><USER5> If it's anything like Europe, doctors and hospitals get to charge extra (not covered by the state medical insurance) if the patient is in a private room. Plus the private room itself costs extra too.

It has different names depending on the country.

PS. private medical insurance may cover the private room thing. Also, doctors are effectively incentivized to give private room patients preferential treatment. So it is one source of inequality in Europe's health services.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > "They're taking him to a local hospital," Mr. Battelle's wife, Michelle, > told Dr. Shlain as the boy rode in an ambulance to a nearby emergency room > in Marin County. "No, they're not," Dr. Shlain instructed them. "You don't > want that leg set by an E.R. doc at a local medical center. You want it set > by the head of orthopedics at a hospital in the city."

So, tying up an ambulance for a couple hours because they "too good" for an ER (which would be completely capable of dealing with a broken leg)?

<comment><USER7> Yeah, setting a leg bone isn't normally a challenging or delicate procedure. I feel like either there were complications we don't know about or Dr. Shlain was bullshitting them to justify his bill.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> > _He sees no reason that the medical world should not respond to consumer > demand like any other player in the service economy. "Whenever I bump into a > bleeding-heart liberal, which I am, I mention that schools, housing and food > are all tiered systems," he said. "But health care is an island of socialism > in a system of tiered capitalism? Tell me how that works."_

I can't decide if this is the "two wrongs make a right" fallacy or the "whataboutism" fallacy.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_make_a_right](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_make_a_right) \- [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism)

</comment><comment><USER8> I just love how seemingly everyone involved in this is like "Wow this is so much, I mean I can't believe money gets you this, but I have the money/have been given the money so I guess we should do it" like this somehow manifested out of the thin air and everybody was just going along with it. Horseshit.

At some point, someone sat down with a few other people and proposed "Hey what if we charge rich entitled people insane fees so they never need to wait among the proletariat for medical care, you know, the ONE TIME in life when everyone is more or less equal" and they went along with it and now it's a business. Because apparently, when you're wealthy, the best thing you can find to do with your money is demonstrate to everyone else (or at the very least shield your delicate eyes from the suffering of) those less fortunate.

Crap like this really makes me look forward to capitalisms inevitable collapse.

<comment><USER9> This, until it is your child who is waiting with a broken leg and crying with pain.

This is the moment where theoretical political ideas go down the drain and you pull your gold credit card.

<comment><USER8> I guess my theory is take more of that persons money via taxation and make the hospital work faster and better for _everyone_ , not just his lucky offspring.

<comment><USER9> This has never worked in the history of humanity, except maybe in some remote tribes.

The closest was communism and French Revolution, which failed, among others, the idea of equality.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Google Will Eat Itself: using AdSense revenue to buy Google stock - <AUTHOR> http://gwei.org/index.php

<comment><USER2> Does that say 202 million years? :)</comment>


The Glider: A Universal Hacker Emblem  - <AUTHOR> http://catb.org/hacker-emblem/

<comment><USER2> We need this like politics needed the American flag pin.

<comment><USER3> This is just asking for a bunch of territorial squabbling about who is a _real_ hacker and who is a _poser_. Arguments about identity tend to produce lots of heat and very little light.

(As to Eric S. Raymond and his incessant volunteering to speak for all hackers: No comment.)

<comment><USER4> I actually put one of these on my site back when I was 16 and thought it was cool. Apparently someone else didn't think I was 'hacker enough.' It was the only time I ever had my site defaced :/

<comment><USER5> If it makes you feel any better, whoever defaced your site was no hacker either.

<comment><USER6> Wait.... i've got it! If you think you're a hacker you are definately not a hacker. Is this entry criteria we can agree upon?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I shall proudly display the absence of this logo to signify my solidarity with non-conformist hackers everywhere.

</comment><comment><USER8> Now if you excuse me, I gotta go and try submitting the "Hacker Manifesto" to Hacker news ;)

</comment><comment><USER9> I always considered a big, threateningly bushy beard to be the de facto symbol of hackerdom.

Just try imagining RMS without his beard.

</comment><comment><USER10> Hacker sub-culture doesn't need logos so it can become mainstream and cool.

</comment><comment><USER11> Makes a great bumper sticker too - <http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/6499/glider.jpg> :)

(edit) converted to jpg

<comment><USER12> Super huge image alert!!

Hot mother of God can you please use your hacker skills and compress that image. It's nearly 1.5 megs

<comment><USER13> Easy there: 150.99 KB (154611 bytes)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> If hackers use the glider, what are Game of Life enthusiasts supposed to use?

<comment><USER15> Spaceships?

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Awesome. Now I need a patch of it for my backpack, along with my nerd merit badges.

</comment><comment><USER17> We think Very Proper Dog outranks Glider: [http://hackerdojo.pbworks.com/f/1242009351/abs-hackerdojo- cl...](http://hackerdojo.pbworks.com/f/1242009351/abs-hackerdojo-classy.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER8> Never thought this would be famous in "Hacker News" coz this isn't quite the latest news :D

No offense to the people who didn't know about it but isn't this kinda old news to the people aware of the Hacker Culture?

<comment><USER18> I try my very hardest to ignore any notion of "Hacker Culture"

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> The definition of 'news' should be googled by anyone who voted this up. This is not recent!

</comment><comment><USER20> I made it my favicon just so rails stopped dropping that whole class of errors into my logs <http://akkartik.name></comment>


Squoosh: Make images smaller using best-in-class codecs, right in the browser - <AUTHOR> https://squoosh.app/ <comment><USER2> Squoosh does not use best-in-class codecs [1]. Lossless PNG compression is 5-15% worse on average and lossy PNG compression (color quantization) is limited to PNG-8, which is not enough to maintain image quality. Lossy JPEG compression is only tuned for 4:2:0 chroma subsampling and causes blurring of fine details because trellis quantization is guided simply by the variance in DCT domain.

[1] [https://optimage.app/benchmark](https://optimage.app/benchmark)

<comment><AUTHOR> I tested it yesterday, and it seems good enough for me.

I'd love to use ImageOptim, but I don't have a Mac, and the web plans are too expensive for optimizing maybe two images every three months.

<comment><USER3> You could try the online version of Imageoptim (with not as many options) here:

[https://imageoptim.com/online](https://imageoptim.com/online)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you!

Is that even linked from somewhere on the ImageOptim site?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> JPEG-XL: Next Generation Image Compression Codec Open source / Royality free NEW public software repostory [https://gitlab.com/wg1/jpeg- xl](https://gitlab.com/wg1/jpeg-xl)

</comment><comment><USER5> Didn't this come out a couple of years ago? Is there a reason we are seeing it again now?

<comment><USER6> JPEG XT, JPEG XS, JPEG XL are all for completely different use cases and built with different technology. XT and XS are more mature standards, but less appealing for the internet use case than XL.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> They have also made a talk about the the design process of the squoosh webapp: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipNW6lJHVEs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipNW6lJHVEs)

</comment><comment><USER8> How does it compare to Squash -- other than being browser based?

[https://www.realmacsoftware.com/squash/](https://www.realmacsoftware.com/squash/)

<comment><USER9> It has more tools and a GUI.

Squash is in the AppStore, so it can't contain any GPL-licensed compressors.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> For some actual thing which you can use in your projects to automatically optimise images, check this:

[https://www.gumlet.com](https://www.gumlet.com)

</comment><comment><USER11> I really like the UI design and PWA hints to add this to your mobile. Great work.

</comment><comment><USER12> I usually use TinyPNG, but its not open source, and does send the images server-side, so shouldn't be used for sensitive files.

</comment><comment><USER13> mb != MB.

<comment><USER14> Given that literally nobody has ever needed, nor will they ever need, to talk about file sizes in _millibits_ , there is no ambiguity involved.

<comment><USER15> Even though it's unlikely anyone will think it's referring to millibits, there's still a decent chance some will assume Mb (Megabits) due to the lowercase 'b' instead of the intended MB (Megabytes).

<comment><USER16> game cartridges used to be specced in megabits

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I wonder how much this will be obscoleted by JPEG XL.

<comment><USER6> JPEG XL reference codec includes a slower encoding mode for high density photography compression (iterating with butteraugli guidance like in guetzli). Of course there will always be some room for external optimizers, just I'd expect the gains to be smaller.</comment></comment>


Euclidean Drum Machine - <AUTHOR> http://www.groovemechanics.com/euclid/ <comment><USER2> My patch...

var patch = [ {steps:11,pulses:4,offset:0}, {steps:7,pulses:1,offset:8}, {steps:5,pulses:2,offset:0}, {steps:3,pulses:1,offset:0}, {steps:1,pulses:16,offset:0}, ]; patch.forEach(function(hit,index){ index = index + 1; $('.space-'+index).val(hit.steps).trigger('change'); $('.fill-'+index).val(hit.pulses).trigger('change'); $('.offset-'+index).val(hit.offset).trigger('change'); });

just drop that into your F12 tools' watch window and we can share configs/patches

<comment><USER2> Double-bass metal

var patch = [ {steps:11,pulses:13,offset:2}, {steps:8,pulses:2,offset:6}, {steps:5,pulses:7,offset:4}, {steps:1,pulses:3,offset:1}, {steps:15,pulses:8,offset:8}, ]; patch.forEach(function(hit,index){ index = index + 1; $('.space-'+index).val(hit.steps).trigger('change'); $('.pulses-'+index).val(hit.pulses).trigger('change'); $('.offset-'+index).val(hit.offset).trigger('change'); });

<comment><USER3> Could you post a screenshot of how you did this? My browser dev fu is weak.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm fascinated by this concept and I've even had some ideas about making something similar, though I haven't worked them out

I'd love to look at the source code for this.

<comment><USER5> There's a popular paper on the technique by Godfried Toussaint that explores it in depth: [http://cgm.cs.mcgill.ca/~godfried/publications/banff.pdf](http://cgm.cs.mcgill.ca/~godfried/publications/banff.pdf)

<comment><USER6> He has a bunch of interesting material and a book called _The Geometry of Musical Rhythm_. Being a CS prof, though, he has the intensely annoying habit of counting everything from zero. Musicians don't do this, they count from 1 (like everyone else except programmers), and so all his diagrams, notation etc. have to been mentally shifted by one step every time you reach for an instrument or talk to another musician.

I personally think that counting from zero is a really harmful habit. I understand how it originated and of course switching to counting from 1 would involve all sorts of kludges and result in all sorts of bugs. But it strikes me as a classic case of abstraction gone wrong, as 'the _n_ th step' is going to mean entirely different things in the problem and the software domain.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Reminds me of Axon: [http://www.audiodamage.com/instruments/product.php?pid=AD026](http://www.audiodamage.com/instruments/product.php?pid=AD026)

</comment><comment><USER8> The top level site ([http://www.groovemechanics.com/](http://www.groovemechanics.com/)) has some other cool instruments like a virtual analog sequencer and synthesizer. It would be awesome to be able to use multiple instruments at once in an integrated session - who doesn't want to be a JS-plug-in one-man-band?

</comment><comment><USER9> Warning for all those with headphones on:

If you navigate to a different tab, and then come back to groovemechanics.com, the sound pops in VERY LOUDLY...it was painful and a bit scary to my eardrums.

Other than that, though, this is really cool!

<comment><USER10> I did not heed this warning. It is VERY LOUD! Heart attack loud :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Holy coolness, can you make a version that runs in node-webkit so I can hook it up to ableton and other DAWs via OSC? That would be 100% groovy. Do you mind if i do it myself some time?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! Yeah, I plan to open-source the project. So of course that would be great to port it node-webkit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Suggestion: a random button.

<comment><USER2> (function(){ for(var i=1;i<6;i++){ $('.space-'+i).val(Math.floor((Math.random() * 16) + 1)).trigger('change'); $('.fill-'+i).val(Math.floor((Math.random() * 16) + 1)).trigger('change'); $('.offset-'+i).val(Math.floor((Math.random() * 8) + 1)).trigger('change'); } })()

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Suggestion. Update the url hash with the settings so you can share links.

</comment><comment><USER14> I don't understand why and how it periodically resets.

<comment><USER15> If the least common multiple of two elements is high, the rhythm would have a very long period, which doesn't sound very well. Three elements of periods 16,9 and 7 would have a period of 1008 steps, which at a tempo of 100 would take 10 seconds to reset. That's not a rhythm, that's a tune.

<comment><USER16> I actually thought it would be interesting to do a tune along those lines.

Have a quartet where each one is playing something with a different time signature. Hellish to coordinate, but could be interesting at the same time, as instruments wander in and out of sync with each other. Chord progressions forming with two and three instruments while the others are doing something else.</comment></comment></comment>


An Exemption to the DMCA Would Let Game Fans Keep Abandoned Games Running - <AUTHOR> https://www.eff.org/let-game-fans-keep-abandoned-games-running <comment><USER2> I actually wrote one of the comments included in this piece, and I'd like to encourage all of you to donate to the EFF so they can continue to work on important issues like this. They do not pay their lawyers extravagantly, and most of the authors of this piece (myself included) were doing so, and will continue to do so, on a volunteer basis.

The original document is at [https://www.eff.org/document/eff-comments-dmca- exemption-aba...](https://www.eff.org/document/eff-comments-dmca-exemption- abandoned-games)

You can donate to the EFF at [https://supporters.eff.org/donate](https://supporters.eff.org/donate)

And if you feel as if we missed something in the document, you will be able to comment to the Copyright Office yourself when there is an open call for comments in a few months. This work helps gamers on the outside, but really, it's helping the developers, both of the games and of the after-market patches.

The original developers get to see their work live on, regardless of the business deals around their IP, and the fans who take the time to write these patches get to have some cover for their work. It's really a no-lose situation, and if an entity is couching it as otherwise, be suspicious.

Finally, if you are hankering to play old PC games online, go download GameRanger [http://www.gameranger.com/](http://www.gameranger.com/) It is amazing, and it is also an entirely one-man developed piece of software. He will happily support your game if you ask him, and will do so for free.

<comment><USER3> For those unaware, in addition to donating directly you can also have 0.5% of your Amazon purchases go to the EFF as they are one of the available organizations for Amazon Smile[1].

[1] [https://smile.amazon.com/](https://smile.amazon.com/)

<comment><USER4> Thanks that is a great tip. Just added EFF to my amazon profile!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Many of these abandoned games are effectively orphan works. I think if anything, there needs to be a definition of "digital orphan works", because digital IP suffers from bit rot in a way traditional media doesn't.

A 50 year old book is still there, but even a 10 year old game might not even be available for purchase anywhere (and even if it is, it's probably not immediately playable on modern hardware).

Fundamentally, we need to overhaul copyright in light of the fundamental changes to intellectual property sales brought about by digital goods. I'm not optimistic that it will happen, but for a shitty game to be copyrighted for 100 years is just ludicrous. At some point, things need to pass into the public domain.

<comment><USER6> My rule of thumb is, generally, "Is the creator still earning from this product," and in the vast majority of cases where gaming software is concerned the answer is no. There _is_ a push through sites like GOG.com to put many old games back on sale, but often it's through middle-men and holding companies and I doubt a dime of some of the more obscure titles goes anywhere near anyone who actually helped create the things.

The result is assorted holding companies picking up a few extra pennies, but a huge range of more obscure works are still the domain of abandonware sites and efforts like the Archive.

<comment><USER7> "Is the creator still earning from this product" is a test that congress believes doesn't matter.

Walt is dead, Mickey lives on (with copyright restrictions)...

<comment><USER8> This also isn't an apt comparison, because no one is claiming that enthusiasts should own the copyright to Mario Kart.

A better comparison would be Steamboat Willie, but even that is confusing because copyright is so caught up with trademark Disney characters. IANAL, but it seems to be that Disney should be able to have exclusive ownership over Mickey the character, but not the work in which he first appeared. (Which muddies the water, I know.) Does Disney make any significant money off Steamboat Willie? (They actually might, given its culture status, I just don't know.)

<comment><USER9> You can still buy Steamboat Willie on DVD. Using it as an example is sort of problematic, because it is not an orphaned work, and a lot of people don't see the problem with Disney maintaining control over it. A better example would be the many orphaned animated features from the late 20's and 30's who languish in legal limbo instead of being released into the public domain (if you can't think of any examples, that's a symptom of the problem more than anything else).

<comment><USER10> >You can still buy Steamboat Willie on DVD

On an expensive (~$100), out-of-print DVD, only released in 2005. The work has been orphaned for far more of its lifetime than it has been available.

<comment><USER11> Well, that's the Disney Vault in action. (Which is a legitimate release strategy, and it's hard to claim that Disney doesn't generally try to keep its historical works available. I imagine it'll be re-released at some point in the future.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Repealing the DMCA would also work. Completely overhauling the copyright system from the ground up would be even better.

I know that when you're the little guy, you have to pick your battles wisely, but there are a lot of things we can no longer do as a society because our public domain is no longer growing.

Making an exemption to the DMCA is a temporary fix. For software, we should probably have a completely separate system of granted monopoly, wherein the protections are contingent upon deposit of the source code with the patent and trademark office, which would then become public record when the protection expires (on a completely independent time scale from anything to do with Mickey Mouse).

<comment><USER13> > but there are a lot of things we can no longer do as a society because our > public domain is no longer growing.

Serious question: what useful advance is being held back by a bunch of abandoned entertainment not going into the public domain?

<comment><USER14> Calvin and Hobbes action figures and the Disney XD Calvin and Hobbes cartoon.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> How do these games enter the public domain?

They can't. They can't be offered to the public domain after the relevant term expires in exchange for the _demos_ protection of the IP by punishment of tortfeasance.

It is not possible for them to be copyright works then as all copyright works must eventually enter the public domain. Unfortunately this was always a truism within publication. It's part of publication itself that mode of reproduction of the work is laid bare; arguably that is what publication meant in the first instance within the purview of those writing copyright laws. Because it is not contemplated that publication could not make the work public, as that would be self-contradictory there is no really strong rendering of this need. It is, I'd argue, there though. Vis:

Berne Convention, Art.3(3)

>"The expression "published works" means works published with the consent of their authors, whatever may be the means of manufacture of the copies, provided that the availability of such copies has been such as to satisfy the reasonable requirements of the public, having regard to the nature of the work. [...]"

This section of Art.3 goes on to list works that are made public but are nonetheless not considered published and so are not protected by copyright. To my mind works that are inhibited with DRM fall in this category. That is, games - as with other works protected by DRM - are _not_ being published. Publication to the mind of those drafting the law means making the work available to be reproduced. In terms of Berne Art.3 with regard to the nature of games they don't meet with the reasonable requirements of the public either, eg continued playability.

[Thoughts/knock-downs/rejections with reasoning happily received!]

<comment><USER16> In some ways they may be more like a public performance. The venue is constrained and the ticket agreement restricts ability to reproduce artifacts from that performance. Do illegal bootlegs ever become public domain? I'm thinking they can't - they would always be an illegal bootleg.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I'm not sure why the proposal would not cover MMO games. If a game studio abandons an MMO game it is completely destroyed for the players, an exemption would be very useful in that case. Perhaps the EFF is trying to avoid too much resistance from big companies that make a lot of money on MMO games, which is understandable but unfortunate.

</comment><comment><USER18> This is the kind of work I like to see EFF do. In particular it states that the legislation is bad, but accepts that it exists. Identifies a small part that can be changed. Campaigns to change just that small part. Rinse and repeat enough times that the legislation eventually collapses due to the number of holes in it.

It's an approach taking in account the realpolitik, and its an approach that other FOSS groups could learn a lot from as the attempt to make change happen.

<comment><USER19> Thanks!

One difficulty with the "collapses due to the number of holes in it" theory in the context of the DMCA triennial exemption process is that the exemptions expire automatically after three years and have to be re-applied for.

"the prohibition contained in subparagraph (A) shall not apply to such users with respect to such class of works _for the ensuing 3-year period_ " (17 USC §1201(a)(1)(D))

(The Copyright Office has also taken the view that the decision to grant an exemption is not directly precedential in the way that a court decision would be -- that there isn't a presumption that it should be renewed, that you can't just say "I propose to renew exemption #2 from 2012 because the Librarian of Congress found it was appropriate then and the same reasons still apply, thanks!" and get a renewal on that basis. So it's quite different from impact litigation that way.)

So, for example there's nobody currently directly benefitting from some of the legal work our lawyers did in, say, the 2003 or 2009 exemption processes.

Our relationship to the exemption process is complicated. In addition to participating in it every triennial cycle but one, we have also strongly criticized it. Here's an example from 2005 (with the super-retro green and blue logo):

[https://www.eff.org/document/dmca-triennial-rulemaking- faili...](https://www.eff.org/document/dmca-triennial-rulemaking-failing- digital-consumer)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> General question: who enforces DMCA? Legal _protection_ would be nice, but if the company in question (say Nintendo in the MKW example) doesn't care and doesn't pursue legal action, does it matter in practice?

The only reason the company might care is because the use weakens their overall copyright case (e.g., Nintento's right to the Mario / Mario Kart brand). Enthusiasts don't care, so the interests are aligned, but the lawyers might not be.

<comment><USER20> The DMCA imposes criminal penalties for certain acts. The state prosecutes alleged criminal acts, not the alleged victims (in this case, owners of the copyright).

It matters not a whit if the owner of a copyright doesn't pursue legal action if some federal attorney somewhere decides that this is an important issue.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I really want the source code for warhammer dark omen to be released to the public. It just doesn't run on my PC anymore, and I want to make the modifications to fix it.

<comment><USER22> Or legal WoTLK servers, please :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> The exemption already exists.

(1) The DMCA, and for that matter copyright law generally, creates private rights of action in the copyright owner. Even if something is infringing on their rights they need not act. The decision is up to them.

(2) Copyrights do not pass automatically. Nobody can pick up the torch by asserting the rights of an inactive copyright owner.

(3) True abandonware involves either a disappeared copyright owner or one that no longer cares about an old title.

So ... do what you want with abandonware. If the copyright owner reappears and asserts his/her rights, then it wasn't really abandonware in the first place. That's the risk you run.

Also, copyright isn't what stops people from maintaining old games. It might be the easiest means of enforcement (ie takedown notices) but it isn't the meat. Nobody cares if you make copies of the original Civilization. The copyrighted game is valueless. But they do really really care about you using the "Civilization" trademark. That tidbit of intellectual property has nothing to do with the DMCA.

<comment><USER24> "The exemption already exists"... where? The rest of your comment only talks about how copyright is often unenforced in these cases, not that there exists an exemption.

<comment><USER25> > "The exemption already exists"... where?

17 U.S.C. § 1201, which is both named in the article and otherwise trivially googleable.

<comment><USER19> But this "exemption" that "already exists" isn't a matter of statutory text, it's a claim that some people won't get sued in practice.

<comment><USER25> What kind of answer are you looking to see wrt the question "where?"</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Spend less time hiring, more time hacking - <AUTHOR> http://blog.devtest.net/2012/05/13/devtest-launched/

<comment><USER2> Nice explanation. From a marketing perspective, the key for me is:

 _"I've been able to administer coding tests to hundreds of candidates, and found the results to be very accurate at predicting programmer success after hiring."_

That's really confidence inspiring. So much so I'd say the front page would be a good place for quotes and testimonials to that effect. Perhaps some quotes from hires would be useful too.</comment>


Ask HN: Finding an advisor or cofounder? - <AUTHOR> Hi all,
I am a software engineer who is making a lot of progress on a personal project that I believe would make a great business. I am able to handle the technical work by myself for now, but I really need someone with experience in the industry I am targeting - healthcare & medicine.
I am not keen on blindly reaching out to healthcare professionals in my city/abroad, but I am willing to do it. I am just curious if there are any people on here who work in my target industries and might be willing to discuss my concept. I am open to anything from a quick email conversation to a possible co-founder for this business, should it get to that point. For those who are interested, you can reply here or find my email in my profile.
For the sake of discussion, any insight into finding non-technical founders in other industries would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks! <comment><USER2> "personal project that I believe would make a great business"

You are way too early to think of co-founders yet. What you need to do is to validate your potential market first and see if there is any interest. This will not be easy. It cannot be automated in the beginning. Not to mention that Healthcare and Medicine is a real beast to tackle due to the red tape and regulations that you will have to deal with.

My advice: forget co-founder and find someone well connected in the Healthcare/Medicine industry. Or directly approach your target clients. I am guessing they could be Doctors, Hospitals, Clinics ? Use the initial contact to learn and understand the problems that you think you could solve with your software. Start there.

<comment><AUTHOR> My primary goal is to reach out to as many people in these industries as possible. I am not actively looking for a Co-founder really, I just meant that option was on the table if someone on here was a particularly good fit.

Thank you for your insight! You are correct about target clients.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I wish you a ton of success in your project. I just have a question, have you validated this proposal with some of your target audience and if so, how you've done it? Thank you very much for taking the time to answer me.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for the well wishes! I am in the process of validating this idea and getting other suggestions and feedback from healthcare providers.</comment></comment>


Doctor who fought a risky medical procedure has died - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/24/us/amy-reed-died-cancer-patient-who-fought-morcellation-procedure.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fm.facebook.com&_r=1 <comment><USER2> I remember when I first heard about that equipment, how cool it sounded that you could remove large pieces of material through a tiny hole, effectively with a tiny hand mixer and a hose.

The smaller the holes the simpler the recovery, but clearly the consequences are a lot more dire than they lead on. I was under the impression that the material was extracted at the point of removal, not through a separate mechanism. Sounds like there's some significant contact time and loss of material.

Which makes one wonder what kind of surgery one of these would be useful for. Precancerous cells? Nope. Infection? Same problems.

<comment><USER3> Plenty of examples available in the Journal of Minimal Access Surgery:

Pavlidis TE, Pavlidis ET, Sakantamis AK. The role of laparoscopic surgery in gastric cancer. J Min Access Surg 2012;8:35-8

Pai A, Melich G, Marecik SJ, Park JJ, Prasad LM. Current status of robotic surgery for rectal cancer: A bird's eye view. J Min Access Surg 2015;11:29-34

'I feel that my cancer was aggravated for medical negligence and laparoscopy' is a fair and very good question, but must be studied and answered correctly.

<comment><USER3> This case after the use of a morcellator is interesting

"Uterine myomas are the most common female genital tumour and occur in ~25% of reproductive-aged women"

"Parasitic myoma after laparoscopic surgery is very rare condition, there are almost 35 cases in the literature"

 _Temizkan O, Erenel H, Arici B, Asicioglu O. A case of parasitic myoma 4 years after laparoscopic myomectomy . J Min Access Surg 2014;10:202-3_

Here we have a first measure of what "risky medical procedure" means in this case. Less than 0.07%. It seems that those are extremely rare cases, not justifying returning to old procedures that involve more pain and more health risk for 50.000 women. More invasive procedures equal to more people dying in operating theathers or in post-operative phase by the risks of surgery. Cancer is a drama of course, but this looks like a "lets kill thousands to save tens". More research is needed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Actual title:

"Amy Reed, Doctor Who Fought a Risky Medical Procedure, Dies at 44"

Why was her name removed?

<comment><USER5> So people could be click-baited into thinking it's about "Doctor Who".

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> It surprises me that a community so reliant wouldn't have at least pushed for some studies until the FDA stepped in, and even then, it wasn't enough.

<comment><USER6> So reliant in science that is.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> An earlier article that goes into some of the institutional root causes: [https://nyti.ms/2kQj1Yd](https://nyti.ms/2kQj1Yd)

</comment><comment><USER8> what a horrible idea, implementation and careless disregard for patient safety.

whomever thought this was a good idea should be disqualified.

<comment><USER9> I am sorry to say that your reasoning is simplistic. The mortality risk implied by a potentially longer excision is not that trivial. Actually, this is exactly why the morcellator made it to widespread use. If that wasn't the case, you would be saying things on the order of "why use such primitive techniques when you can do it through less risky incisions? Whoever thought this was a good idea should be disqualified" Benefit versus risk of the use of a morcellator remains to be established. Which is why the FDA did not ban it altogether. But in an overly legalized society such as the US, manufacturers will often find beneficial to push the complication risk back onto the practioner by discontinuing their product in hope of avoiding trial.

<comment><USER8> I see your point and its valid.

But damn man, cancer cells are known to spread like hayfire. I imagine using a blender like instrument on cancer would be an obvious disaster.

Thank you for the contra though, i will give this more thought.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Am I the only one who started reading this as "Doctor Who (famous doctor who regularly battles Daleks) fought a risky ... " ?

<comment><USER11> You are not alone. I had terrible trouble parsing the end of the title because I've literally just finished watching yesterday's episode of Doctor Who.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> you just spoiled me 10 seasons

<comment><USER13> The title is kind of misleading, you're right.

<comment><USER14> It really. It's perfectly valid and descriptive English.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> To eliminate the ambiguity, Ill suggest to change the title to "M.D. Red, who..."

The idea is that surgery with a probe trough small holes (that allow a much faster recovering and produce much less scars in patiens) could spread the cancer cells and should not be used in this special cases.

I wonder if this is an idea or a confirmed fact. Some machines could suck the remains in the same time and be safer than other, and quimiotherapy treament following after the operation (killing the possible non vascularised remains left behind) is often rutinary to deal with this risk.

Is a risky procedure, but the other option is opening directly the uterus with a scalp, that should atract other problems, could lead to bleeding, and is not lacking a fair amount of risk also, both in the present and in case of future pregnancies for the mother.

On one hand we have some probability X of that removing a benign tumor spreads a hidden cancer, very bad of course

But to avoid that risk, should we condemn ten thousands of women to cesarean sections and "having a third son is too risky because your uterus wall is weakened and could burst by the previous suture that we did to remove you a small benign tumor"?.

> Only then were Dr. Reed and her husband told that her surgeon had used a > power morcellator to slice up her uterus.

This is a strange aseveration. First, because normally your surgeon explains you the procedure in detail and its risks, and give you a document that you need to read and sign in advance. Moreover, her workplace was operating theaters, and the absence of a big scar after the procedure should not be passed unnoticed for this experienced woman

<comment><USER9> While you seem to have some elements of clinical medicine, you miss the point in my opinion. Anyone working in a hospital daily know that most operations are explained rather succinctly to the patient, and that such a detail (as it was perceived at the time) as the use of a morcellator would be missing in 90% of cases. This women realized the problem only after she was diagnosed with cancer, which is why she did not complain immediately. Moreover, withholding the use of a morcellator in my opinion does not reduce one to obligated uterotomy.</comment></comment>


Show HN: A Covid-19 case and testing tracker by state - <AUTHOR> http://virustracking.net/ <comment><AUTHOR> I quickly hacked a website together last weekend based on the COVID Tracking Project data because I wanted to see how much testing was being done and where.

I think that it's pretty interesting to sort by the columns and browse the data.

The site's not great on mobile, but I'll be working on that this weekend.

[http://VirusTracking.net](http://VirusTracking.net)

</comment><comment><USER2> Cool site, but can you fix the numbers for Virginia? Currently shows only 19 confirmed infections, but e.g. on [1] it's 604. Spot checked some other states and the others look correct.

1\. [https://studylib.net/coronavirus#country- us](https://studylib.net/coronavirus#country-us)

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, I've seen that Virginia's numbers are strange. I'm just using the data from the Covid Tracking Project[1], and they seem to be scrubbing the data pretty well, but for some reason they haven't gotten Virginia's right.

I'm trying to not source the data myself, since they seem to have a good methodology that they generally follow. I'll ping them and see if that have an explanation.

Another issue is that I need the historical daily data for Virginia since the site is showing the time series, so I will have to find that specific information too.

Thanks for checking out the site, and stay tuned for some improvements to it.

[1] [https://covidtracking.com/](https://covidtracking.com/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I really like that you can see the doubling rate.

Would love to be able to drill down by county but that would likely be a PIA to do as would most likely require finding and integrating lots of different data sources.

<comment><AUTHOR> I've got a bunch of improvements that I want to make on the site (mobile version coming soon!) and once it's looking good, I might try to tackle some drilled down hyper-local data.

Thanks for the suggestion, I've added it to the list.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Yeah, even corrected for tests/capita, Cuomo/De Blasio have really botched the situation in New York.

</comment><comment><USER5> Unfortunately this, just like many others, is inaccurate because it is only based on reported cases and so far America hasn't tested very many people

<comment><USER6> Yes, they're only reporting on cases they know about. They're not reporting on cases they don't know about. Thank you Captain Obvious, once again you save the day!

<comment><USER7> Maybe could make a site that tracks the Bayesian probability of infection rate? (not 100% sure if I'm using those words right)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> ...and I put the wrong URL in the submission. The correct URL is [http://VirusTracking.net](http://VirusTracking.net)

If a moderator could change the URL that would be great.

<comment><USER8> Sure thing. Fixed now.</comment></comment>


Checking Email Less Often Leads to More Productive Workdays - <AUTHOR> https://www.studyfinds.org/study-checking-email-less-often-more-productive-workday-managers/ <comment><USER2> The headline, at least in my head, reads as "being less distracted leads to more productive workdays".

Mind-blowing discovery.

<comment><USER3> Do you remember the first time you saw a headline that was basically that?

1997, I'm riding BART to SF, like 20/yr old, reading a similar article in this rag called Wired.

Wasn't it about Slack last year tho?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> How do you infer the direction of causality here? I've noticed that there are days when I am hyper focused and I don't check my email once.

Other days I am not feeling focussed (or tired) and I end up checking email often.

<comment><USER5> I have had to point out to colleagues that I might always check mail when I come in and again at lunch time.

But if I am engaged in a task I might not look at mail for several hours.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> you mean not interrupting yourself is better than constantly interrupting?! I would say pretty much everyone knows this, however until expectations change around responsiveness, nothing will happen.

<comment><USER7> Knowing a fact is one thing, but incorporating said fact into your life such that you live it and reap the rewards is another.

<comment><USER8> Let all your colleagues know that you only ready emails at specific times, eg start of day, after lunch, end of day (replace with actual hours if possible).

And if there's something urgent inbetween times, they have to call you.

It worked for me ;-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I always find it weird when Hacker News gets obsessed with productivity. Productivity is what employers want, as an employee I couldn't care less if our open office plan or our heavy use of slack makes me less productive, that's a problem for my employer to recognize and solve for if they decide they care.

<comment><USER10> Why don't you care about your own productivity? Part of the agreement you struck with your employer is that you provide value, don't you want to provide that value?

<comment><USER11> If you provide value X to an employer for payment Y, they're not going to increase your payment in proportion to your increase in productivity. Frequently employers won't give you any additional compensation for increased productivity. So the game theory really favors workers optimizing the time it takes to provide value X

<comment><USER10> The agreement isn't for X, the agreement was for "whatever you can provide". You don't provide a unit of work, you provide "your brain as applied to the problems of the company".

Game theory is for the company to fire you and find someone who will honor their contract...

<comment><USER11> Your employer hires you to solve a problem, they don't get rights to unlimited productivity. You're held to a specific quality/output of work, and as long as that's satisfactory, you remain employed.

The game theory is to produce enough quality/output to remain employed. An employee increasing their productivity without increased compensation for said productivity is a bit of a sucker.

<comment><USER10> They hire you for whatever they hire you for. If you're hourly, sure what you said applies. Otherwise, no, they bought your brain.

The game theory is to find the people who believe this, and to get rid of people who don't.

<comment> yjftsjthsd-h > Otherwise, no, they bought your brain.

No, they rent some of it. Like a cloud host; you don't own the hardware, you're timesharing.

> The game theory is to find the people who believe this, and to get rid of > people who don't.

Companies prefer to hire suckers if they can, yes.

<comment><USER12> >> The game theory is to find the people who believe this, and to get rid of people who don't.

> Companies prefer to hire suckers if they can, yes.

Pretty cynical, no? Obviously employers make more money off their employees than they pay them, otherwise they wouldn't be in business, but that doesn't make an employee a sucker.

<comment><USER11> An employee is definitely a sucker if they indefinitely keep increasing output without a rise in compensation.

<comment><USER10> You can't/won't justify a rise in compensation without increasing output first.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> What if I didn't check my email but only because I was trading memes on Slack all day?

<comment> yjftsjthsd-h Surely that counts as more productive work day? ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> You can set some email client filter rules that trigger notification for things you should probably see promptly, and have no notification/indicator by default. (Or variations on that, like defaulting to notification but suppressing it for known non-urgent things, and moving lists to folders.)

An alternative thing I've done, when billing time for a client, is to make a client-specific email account, and only have a email client running for that account.

Having aggressive spam filter also helps. (Mine, every sender that's not in my addressbook or from particular domains goes into a junk folder without notification, which I check at least once a day, but I'm almost never interrupted by spam.)

</comment><comment><USER15> I would but I can't avoid people who call me to tell me that they have just sent me an email.

Or worse: people who come by with a piece of paper with the number of the workflow they just initiated.

I manage to remain civil, but I can't help some sarcasm escaping.

</comment><comment><USER16> From the things I hear about email from people online, I must have really lucked out to be so sheltered from it.

I've worked for a number of companies in my life, and I now work for a relatively large corporation - and email has never been a problem. Since Monday I have received 7 non-automated emails (lots of automated emails, sorted into folders) and only one of them required action on my part.

<comment><USER17> I work for a megacorp (~250,000 emloyees) - the level of _spam_ messages it puts out every day to _all_ employees is honestly just staggering. I guess I average 7 such emails a _day_ , never mind a week.

Just as bad, is many of them are repeated, over and over again - some every few days for a while, some every week in perpetuity.

And even worse is that every single company email that goes out is an image. And I don't mean _contains_ images - the actual email body is a single image with crappy 90's graphics and rendered text! On the odd occasion where you want to copy and paste, you're out of luck.

I've got several Exchange rules set up to put them in a "Cruft" folder, but new ones keep popping up, and every once in a while it catches a "real" email, so I still need to check it from time to time.

/rant

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Sure it makes the person who's not checking his emails more productive but what about the guy waiting on his reply?

<comment><USER19> If you are waiting at your desk for a reply and are truly blocked have you considered getting out of your desk to ask in person or similarly phoning them?

If you truly aren't blocked then what's the problem waiting a few hours?

<comment> yjftsjthsd-h > If you truly aren't blocked then what's the problem waiting a few hours?

Flow, possibly. Interleaving is frequently efficient, but it's not always best.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This is the same reason why I hardly participate in Slack and only reply to non-emergency PMs at my convenience. My job is a lot easier when I can actually concentrate on a problem, but for some reason our culture doesn't value enough the state of focus or being in "the zone".

<comment><USER21> I do wonder (and I'm not accusing you specifically) how much people conflate their own productivity with the team's productivity. a particular engineer's productivity is undoubtedly harmed by interruptions, but you can indirectly accomplish a lot just by unblocking several junior engineers in an afternoon. I'm fortunate to work at a company where senior/lead devs get part of the credit when they facilitate someone else's work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> No way. That coworker who spends 40 mins of every hour on email gets way more done. They're sure of it.

</comment><comment><USER23> I found my days much more productive when I close email and slack and I just check it maybe every some hours

</comment><comment><USER24> I'd love to see a comparable study on Slack, I predict there will be a similar finding.

</comment><comment><USER25> I find I'm most productive when I close Outlook altogether.

</comment><comment><USER26> Sure, I barely check email. Why do I get nothing done?

Oh yeah, Slack.

</comment><comment><USER27> I disagree. It keeps me more engaged.

</comment><comment><USER28> Unless you work as a human tester for an email client.

</comment><comment><USER29> > "We found that on days when managers reported high email demands, they > report lower perceived work progress as a result, and in turn engage in > fewer effective leader behaviors," says Johnson.

It seems this is largely a disparity in expectations of work. The managers self-reported feeling like they got less done when replying to more emails. But isn't supporting their team and being able to rapidly answer questions often part of a manager's job? And if not, perhaps they are in the wrong role.

I would be more interested in measuring overall team productivity, not just the manager's self-reported version. I think you might find that the high- email-throughput teams do get more done with that extra emailing, even if the manager feels like they have been less productive.

<comment><USER30> I was about to post something similar. Let's say, as a conservative estimate, a manager oversees 5 ICs. Let's also assume, generously, that the manager becomes 50% more productive if he or she doesn't reply to e-mails until the end of the day. If the "overflow" from that strategy causes the ICs to become even 5% _less_ productive, the gain in the manager's productivity is more than wiped out, and the team as a whole is worse off.

A large part of a manager's job is to shield his or her team from e-mails, Slack messages, and other productivity-sapping interruptions. If a manager is grading him or herself by their individual productivity, they're doing management wrong. If an organization is grading its managers by their individual productivity, rather than whether their teams are meeting their objectives, the organization is doing management wrong.

<comment><USER31> What does IC stand for?

<comment><USER32> Individual Contributor</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Classes I Would Force Every College Student to Take - <AUTHOR> http://collegeinfogeek.com/required-classes/

<comment><USER2> Now my list of classes for all US Students! Worked 4 years at a college on faculty. Most freshmen were already so narrow minded and focused they never learned anything outside of that focus. They didn't develop any skills to think differently than being a hipster.

1) Developmental Psychology (2 Semesters) 2) Language without a Latin Alphabet (2 Semesters) 3) Philosophy (Which was historical and analytical; writing 5 page papers every week on different philosophers of history) 4) Math (Please not Business Math and Statistics but an advance math survey that covers algebra, geometry and calculus) 5) Reading Survey of a culture not American or UK 6) Programing Class (Survey of 3 or 4 languages)</comment>


Shortcutting a Standard Library - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/darklang/shortcutting-a-standard-library-b6a6835f493 <comment><USER2> Wow Dark lang seems pretty cool [https://darklang.com/](https://darklang.com/)

It's like server-side ELM lang with a built-in IDE and DB adaptors.</comment>