A World of Surveillance Doesn't Always Help to Catch a Thief - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/18/technology/a-world-of-surveillance-doesnt-always-help-to-catch-a-thief.html <comment><USER2> Growing up in the UK and living in the US has given me the odd distinction of being strongly against online surveillance of private space, and strongly in favor of regulated visual surveillance of public space.

CCTV surveillance can protect the people I care about (especially women at night) from horrible violent crimes I'm actually scared of. It's surveillance of public space, so the privacy compromise seems kind of moot (though uses of the footage should be strongly regulated). It makes policing violent and petty crime extremely cheap and effective (ask anyone who's ever won or lost a fight outside a pub). CCTV makes me feel safe. It has utility.

On the Internet by contrast, the privacy trade-off (my thoughts, political opinions, contacts, location, in real-time) is extremely large, and the benefits largely hypothetical, and at least some part smoke and mirrors.

<comment> dumb-saint I find it extremely creepy to visit the UK because of all the cameras, sometimes actively pointed at me. It is one thing to not expect privacy in the public space, in the sense that others can see you. It is another to be actively targeted by a gigantic network of cameras connected to who knows what -- in an age where automatic face recognition is becoming trivial.

I would like to ask people who make the "you have no expectation of privacy in the public space" claim if they wouldn't mind if I hired a guy to follow them everywhere they go and then report to me.

In the end, I am aware that this is a losing battle, and that people who feel as strongly as me about not being constantly under surveillance will have to move out of big cities. Big cities are becoming highly controlled environment, where one doesn't feel like a sovereign human being anymore. In a sense they are an externalisation of corporate culture.

<comment> semi-extrinsic Regarding automatic face recognition: I believe most US/European citizens, at least those who travel on airplanes, are in the facial recognition corpus of the intelligence services by now. What they do (I'm guessing) is use the cameras at passport checkpoints in airports. There they get many thousands of frames of your face from various angles, and due to the strict ordering in the queue they can match all those to your ID when your passport is scanned/entered into the computer.

<comment> dumb-saint Yes, I think modern airports are a good prototype for the sort of dystopian environments we can expect in the future. It will only get worse until the entire thing collapses, as it always does -- Stasi, McCarthyism, Gestapo, you name it. This time it's more scary because the technology is sci-fi compared to the previous iterations.

I am more and more convinced that the cyberpunk guys got it right in terms of predicting future trends :(

<comment><USER3> [ _Apologies for off-topic_ ]

As a relatively new cyberpunk fan, let me give you a few points:

(1) Cyberpunk is very much about being realistic about human nature. Some of us (like me) assume malice by default. You might not believe me but I get saddened _every time_ I am proven right. This is coming from a 36-year old programmer supporting his mother and girlfriend.

(2) We don't assume altruism by default because (2.1) history is [mostly] not on the side of this sentiment and (2.2) we are touched by ambition and greed ourselves and we realize that we could become just as bad (if not worse) given the same power as the current spy agencies / corporate hires / whatever else.

(3) We understand that "pure capitalism" and "corporatism" leads to the 0.5% having 95% of the capital, assets and anything else valuable. So when you see a dark art piece on DeviantArt showing people miserable on the streets while a high-tech shiny vehicle surrounded by police-men passes by, and a few huge adverts are glowing in the background, don't be quick to say "2edgy4me". ;)

(4) We also know technology is seen as a way of gaining an unfair advantage over everybody else -- and most of the time technology is not used to the majority's advantage. If somebody invents AI by themselves, do you think they'll just share it with the world? LOL no. The "Transcedence" movie script is the most likely scenario -- the AI becomes sentient, escapes to the internet to evade attackers, and then talks to you through a smartphone or a tablet.

=== The general cyberpunk audience is wide and interesting but it mostly boils down to two types:

(1) Rebelious teenagers who would give everything just to prove the bad adults that if their thoughts and feelings are ignored, the world is gonna go to shit (and to be fair, they might have a point). Some of them are toxic, some are not -- but they're mostly an okay bunch. Still, I give them kudos for going outside the typical teenager boxes. Getting engaged in cyberpunk fandom consciously implies some level of critical thinking, IMO.

(2) A group of rather dark-souled adults who stopped believing in the "bright future" a long time ago. Again, we're touched by greed and ambition ourselves, we're very conscious about the balance of power around the world and we don't kid ourselves.

I hope this helps you understand the cyberpunk bunch a bit.

 _EDIT_ :

As mentioned by @Fnoord a few comments below, "Ghost in the Shell" is your absolute Bible of a starting place in the cyberpunk genre. The anime movies and the series touch on a plethora of problems that don't even exist yet but are extremely likely to exist pretty soon. And they are a masterpiece in exposing the corruption which all of us would be vulnerable to.

Order of watching:

[http://anime.stackexchange.com/questions/2922/in-what- order-...](http://anime.stackexchange.com/questions/2922/in-what-order-should- i-watch-the-ghost-in-the-shell-series)

<comment><USER4> Thanks for that. Can you suggest some additional reading?

<comment><USER5> Not sure if manga qualifies as reading but for manga/anime cyberpunk I can recommend Ghost In The Shell. It deeply touches these subjects, from multiple angles.

Then, since you specifically said read, there's Philip K. Dick, who wrote loads of books on this genre. When people think of Blade Runner they don't even know its based on a novel by him [1]

If you're referring to a book which _studies_ cyberpunk as a genre from a documentary PoV then I wouldn't know.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Androids_Dream_of_Electric_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Androids_Dream_of_Electric_Sheep%3F)

<comment><USER3> +1000 for "Ghost in the Shell", I am ashamed to have forgotten to mention this absolute masterpiece which remains unbeaten in this genre to this day.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> white-flame This is selective enforcement, not equality under the law.

I understand the load police tend to be under, but I really wish they would have some lottery enforcement style that grabbed one random instance of "common" crime like this at a time, and went whole-hog with it. They do it for speeding, so they can make a bit of money with fines, and have the hope of finding connected crimes; what's different about theft like this that they can't do the same?

But back to the all-seeing eyes, I'd far, FAR rather have surveillance footage in the hands of individually distributed private entities, than centralized and auto-analyzing anybody for behavioral pre-crime indicators. If your local McDonald's truly is just its own independent operator storing the footage, then IMO it can still be generally considered "lost in the crowd".

It's only when automatically aggregated and its contents cataloged that stuff like this truly becomes dangerous.

<comment><USER6> Would you consider the idea that if someone has murdered, they are more likely to murder again (compared to those who never have) an example of "pre-crime"?

<comment><USER7> You're getting a rare down vote from me because this is such an obvious straw man. At least pretend to try to understand his point.

<comment><USER6> Can you explain? I agree with the parent poster. I was curious what he considered pre-crime.

My original question was an honest one (as is this one). Yeah, maybe the question was ignorant or stupid... my bad, I suppose. I don't understand why I'd need to pretend to understand anything... that seems dishonest.

I do not understand why an honest question deserves your downvote.

<comment><USER8> I didn't down vote you, but I did ignore your original comment because it was hyperbolic (bringing up murder and pre-crime). It didn't have any direct bearing (or seem to) to its parent post or the article. If you (and you seem to be) are just genuinely curious about their opinion on pre-crime that's fair, but it didn't seem related, it really did feel like a hyperbolic non- sequitur.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm led to believe that all that surveillance isn't for thief-catching. Surveillance is valuable, otherwise so many cameras wouldn't watch streets all over. I counted 15 cameras between my bus stop and my office 3 blocks away last winter.

So what's the surveillance for? Probably preventing property damage, maybe keep hobos from whizzing in doorways and such. But please, let's stop pretending that the surveillance is for the benefit of those surveilled. It leads to pitiful narratives like this article.

<comment><AUTHOR> > _So what 's the surveillance for?_

To prove to insurance you had something stolen as well as to give you "warm and fuzzies". (On surveillance being there to protect property, note the comment in this thread about a surveilled garage being burgled [1].)

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13217539](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13217539)

<comment><USER10> I've not heard of insurance policies that require video evidence of theft before they pay out. Have you any evidence of this claim?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The difficulty of enforcing the law is actually a useful part of our overall system because it provides a check-and-balance against the overeager enforcement of bad laws. Imagine a world where ubiquitous automated cameras sent you a ticket every time you jaywalked, or if your car automatically reported you every time you exceeded the speed limit. Yes, it becomes annoying when criminals get away with things they really should not be able to get away with (like the theft in this article) but even in situations like that there are grey areas, like stealing a loaf of bread to feed your family (not the case here, but it does happen). That the law does not get enforced with 100% efficiency can be a feature as long as you don't go _too_ far towards the other extreme.

<comment><USER12> _Imagine a world where ubiquitous automated cameras sent you a ticket every time you jaywalked, or if your car automatically reported you every time you exceeded the speed limit._

I'm probably being naive, but I think having rules that are universally enforced would be much better than our current approach of selective enforcement. I'd expect that as soon as those with power to change the law are negatively affected by poorly written laws, those laws would soon be changed.

Should jaywalking itself always be illegal? No, it should depend on whether there is an actual danger and the degree to which it impedes traffic. A more sane law would differentiate between calmly crossing at midnight on an empty street and causing an accident by darting into busy traffic.

Should it be illegal to exceed the posted speed limit? I think so, otherwise why not just have "advisory speeds"? Rather than making it illegal to exceed a speed that drivers are expected to exceed and then enforcing selectively, a firmly enforced limit seems much saner. If the goal is fuel efficiency, then legislate that directly. If the goal is safety, then "reasonable and prudent" seems sufficient.

 _like stealing a loaf of bread to feed your family_

I think this is better dealt with at the penalty phase than by selective prosecution. I feel the owner of the lost loaf of bread should have the right to prosecute or not prosecute entirely at their discretion, but once the police are involved I think they should be required enforce the law and leave the discretion to the judge. It it would seem terribly unfair to the property owner for the police on the scene to summarily decide that the theft was justified and the shop owner must absorb the loss.

<comment><USER13> You're extremely naive.

The US and its individual states have a litany of laws on the books. There are so many that I can get sure every person breaks at least one law everyday, gay people in particular. It's sad but most laws do not get repealed.

<comment><USER12> _You 're extremely naive._

Likely, although my belief is only that selective enforcement of a "litany of laws" is worse than universal enforcement of that same overreach, and I don't disagree that it's practically impossible to live life or run a business 100% legally. I'm not questioning that there is ridiculous overreach, only suggesting that universal enforcement might be a solution.

 _There are so many that I can get sure every person breaks at least one law everyday_

My usual example when the topic comes up is asking people whether they have been properly self-reporting and paying in-state sales tax on their out-of- state purchases as required by law in most states. I was impressed by one friend (a law professor) who was surprised to learn this, and now strives to be legally compliant.

 _It 's sad but most laws do not get repealed._

Yes, but I think this is because we are relying so heavily on selective enforcement. It's certainly true that universal enforcement would be very difficult, and may have significant downsides, but I'd bet that if our legislators start losing their driving licenses for speeding offenses (or as you point out, if they, their gay friends, or family members were jailed for sodomy), the congressional gridlock would be broken and a lot of laws would swiftly be changed or repealed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> An Uber driver told me about the time he picked up a credit-card thief. The guy just asked to be driven around (in his SUV) from one side of New York to the other. As the fare ended, he'd hail the driver with a new credit card and start a new one. At one point, he stopped at a house and walked out with a new stack of cards.

The driver [EDIT: said he] was prohibited, by law, from kicking the passenger out mid-trip. Right afterwards, he went to the police station and tried to report the crime. He was told he was free to report it, but it was a low- priority crime that was unlikely to get investigated.

<comment><USER14> > The driver was prohibited, by law, from kicking the passenger out mid-trip

That would really surprise me. And he certainly could have declined the subsequent hailings.

<comment><USER8> Indeed, that doesn't make sense. You're witnessing probable criminal activity, and aiding it by providing the ride which could make you an accomplice once you were aware of the activity.

What law could possibly prohibit you from reporting this or leaving the passenger behind?

EDIT: Looking it up I'm not finding anything except stories of Uber drivers kicking people out mid-ride. Perhaps a particular municipality has a more specific regulation? There are lots of reasons to kick passengers out, and criminal activity is #1 (perhaps tied with "they're about to puke/piss in my car because they're so wasted").

<comment><USER15> Because by the time "law" enters into the picture, the driver will have been booted by Uber, the thief will have been released from jail and already started on his next stack of credit cards and being driven by another Uber driver.

<comment><USER8> There is still no law that mandates you must be an accomplice to a criminal or that you cannot boot passengers out. Reading Uber driver stories, it seems kicking out passengers isn't too uncommon. Yeah, it's a hit, but most of them said you need to contact Uber immediately to explain the situation (with mixed results). Personally, I'd rather do that than drive a criminal around to commit crimes (including defrauding my employer).

<comment><USER15> An accomplice is somebody who participates knowingly in a criminal activity. Minding one's business and not making baseless assumptions about whether an uncanny stack of credit cards implies a crook doesn't rise anywhere near being "an accomplice".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I had over $5,000 worth of stuff stolen from my garage (also in SF) a few weeks ago. The police were not concerned in the least. I had cameras, documenting the entire thing with clear faces; it doesn't matter.

Unless you're caught red handed or something, you can basically steal whatever you want in SF. It almost makes me want to turn into a thief myself (if I know I can get away with it), except there's that little thing that my parents saddled me with called morality.

I'd feel too bad afterwards, although sometimes I wish I wouldn't. There's something to be said about just taking whatever the hell you want in this life.

<comment><USER17> It really depends on where you are. In some smaller cities near SF such as Campbell or Los Gatos the police absolutely take residential burglaries seriously. They have closed a number of cases recently based partially on surveillance camera footage.

I'm surprised that SF residents are willing to put up with this crap. Why don't they stand up and demand better service from their city government? Perhaps it's an example of learned helplessness.

<comment><USER18> >I'm surprised that SF residents are willing to put up with this crap. Why don't they stand up and demand better service from their city government? Perhaps it's an example of learned helplessness.

It's politically fashionable to coddle those who commit property crime. It's a form of virtue signalling, since it suggests altruism for the lower class. You see the same thing in Vancouver. There's very little political will to stop the rampant property crime that occurs here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> > After two visits and three calls to the Mission district station, and three > calls and two emails with San Francisco Police Department public affairs (a > route not open to most civilians), the police assigned someone to my case. > That was well over a month after the theft. Walgreens gave them some video, > which has been circulated, but Target had already junked its footage.

OK, it sounds like someone did some substantial work. They got video from one source, and queried another, and then did something with the video.

> Uber, which over its four rides obtained route information and the person's > address, was not contacted.

And yet, the investigator didn't request data from Uber, which apparently learned the suspect's address. I wonder what's up with that? Do they consider it too unreliable? Something akin to hearsay? Or maybe they don't want to violate the suspect's privacy? Very strange.

<comment><USER20> Perhaps you've seen _The Big Lebowski_. "Leads? _Leads?_ "

The odds of the SFPD "investigating" a mere wallet theft are even lower than the Malibu PD trying to figure out who stole Jeff Bridges' car.

For one thing, after Prop 47, stealing anything under $950 is a misdemeanor. A misdemeanor is basically a traffic ticket for anyone already involved with the criminal justice system. Misdemeanors basically do not result in any kind of custodial sentence in CA today.

Only a reporter could get them to care at all. ("Journalist privilege" is real.) Even then, they can only care so much.

<comment><USER19> What you say is true.

And yet, while "journalist privilege" got them to do something, it was a _harder_ thing, and would have taken _tons_ of work to yield anything. But not the easy thing, contacting Uber. It's odd. Maybe they were just messing with him.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Dragnet mass surveillance is not about protecting citizens from theft, is about protecting the government from citizens.

</comment><comment><USER22> I once had a bank card fall out of my pocket at a movie theater. My mistake, should've put it in the wallet but was in a hurrry.

Most likely someone on the cleaning crew stole it. Same pattern, tiny fast food purchases followed by lots of several hundred dollar purchases. My bank (Huntington), did not catch it at all. They drained the entire checking account.

They mostly went to Meijer, three times spending over $300 each time, all on the same night. And every time, they paid with credit and no cashier there asked for ID. (Yeah, I didn't have a lot of money back then, this was around 2008? or so, I believe.)

Filed a police report, went to the bank. Took about two weeks to get the money back, barely made rent that month as a result. A detective called me one time, asked me to call him back. I called him back probably five times leaving messages for him, he was never there, and he never called me again. I never heard anything more on it.

They can easily catch these guys if they want to, they just apparently don't give a shit, as there's nothing really in it for them. Better to go after revenue-generating pursuits like civil forfeiture, I guess. Maybe they just have too many cases, but by not resolving them, all that does is embolden thieves to keep doing this shit because they know they'll get away with it.

Moral of the story: keep separate checking and savings accounts, don't ever carry around cards that can ring up more than you're comfortable losing. Nowadays I keep less than $1,000 in my checking account (which isn't as much for me anymore), the rest in savings. If I want to make a big purchase, I'll bring my credit card along with me that one time only. I wanted to do a debit- only card to require a PIN#, but those are far too restrictive. Way too many places are credit only (fast food, restaurants, parking lot ticket machines, etc.)

Also, wallet chains. They look tacky as hell, but they've saved me more than once. If you wear khakis, they're essential.

</comment><comment><USER23> We are not many years away from facial recognition cameras tracking everyone in public spaces in real time with updates to a centralized database system.

Anyone hiding their face, or not being recognized by the system would be flagged for investigation by on-the-ground units.

At this point, almost all non white-collar crime would be prevented, or the culprits quickly caught - which leads to prevention.

<comment><USER24> >At this point, almost all non white-collar crime would be prevented, or the culprits quickly caught - which leads to prevention.

As others have stated, it depends entirely on how seriously the police takes these crimes. If the police actually get the footage and investigate, sure, crime can be stopped. But, at this point, the limiting factor isn't collecting the footage. It's getting police resources to find the crime, and publicize the various film and video footage.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Most cameras are there so insurance can tell it wasn't the business owner ripping them off. /thread

</comment><comment><USER26> This seems to be more about the unwillingness of the police to help, than about a failure of the technology to help.</comment>


Ask HN: Which CLI apps do you use? - <AUTHOR>

Let's turn this topic to usesthis.com of CLI lovers. <comment><USER2> htop (top on steroids)

rtorrent

incron* (like cron but for file events)

* Not exactly CLI but a tool that I use heavily.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Anyway, I'm starting the topic.

CLI apps that I use are tmux (In addition to the previous comments not recommending Screen, I highly recommend Tmux), Emacs, VIM (I use Emacs as an IRC and Twitter client, an IDE and a self-organizer, VIM as a file editor), newsbeuter for RSS and MOCP for music. Finally, My choice of distribution is Arch Linux.

if you would like to see my Emacs configuration, it's in my Github; github.com/azer/emacsfiles</comment>


Ask HN: How to start a headless process and logout, continues? - <AUTHOR> The ultimate thing I'm working on is scraping and storing into database/display into a web application. This is a personal project, I just want something that runs and when I get home I have new things to look at sort of thing.
I can do this from the perspective of a timed event with a web page open using JavaScript/AJAX and PHP/MYSQL. I'll keep the PHP/MYSQL part.
I tried to work with CRON but it didn't work out well.
I recently bought a raspberry pi zero and setup a socket-server so to speak with a usb wifi adapter. So I want to be able to plug that into a wall, and then ssh into it to start a process, then that runs on its own. I'm just not sure what I'm looking for here, where I can have something trigger PHP but the process won't end when I log out of SSH.
I've primarily (pretty much only) used a LAMP setup and haven't done anything server side that involves processes. Usually everything is triggered by a client-facing thing. Whether it's asynchronous loading or a get/post. Not something that runs on its own outside of /var/www/html (public)
I did come across CGI maybe that's what I'm looking for. I've also seen that you can communicate with a MYSQL library with C++ I think last time I looked. It's just that I'm used to using the PHP htmlsimpledom scraper.
I've been listening to a lot of podcasts talking about Go maybe that's something but definitely outside of my scope at this time. <comment><USER2> On the command line, take a look at "nohup". Programmatically, read about how to "daemonize" (which involves calling fork() twice). And if you actually want to run a server more persistently (not just keep a process running that you launched from SSH), modern init systems (such as systemd) make that easy to do by handling daemonization for you, such that your code doesn't need to do anything special.

<comment><AUTHOR> Cool, thanks a lot at least I have a direction to look. Yeah it's just odd to me since I haven't done something like this before, how you keep something running that isn't on the public/client-triggered side.

edit:

Actually a while back I did do a socket.io tutorial where you triggered the process by terminal. Not sure if directly related, node was mentioned below. I just wonder if you left the terminal would it end. Obviously not I don't think since this is in practice now on the web and I doubt they just have terminals open to keep a process running.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> The nohup approach with logging is the *nix way of doing ad-hoc stuff.

You could also look at mosh.org, it works like ssh, but handles disconnects and re-connects well. You could even ^Z; bg to make your program run in background and when you reconnect, you'd just do a fg to get it back into the foreground. Since your shell doesn't get logged out, you'd be Ok.

<comment><AUTHOR> Dang I have to admit I had to look up a lot of words that you mentioned.

One concern too is the ability to terminate it if it's essentially a continuous poll/interval. Something is wrong, need to pass in a false variable to stop the loop.

Thanks, will check this out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Trying to use a repeating timer event in a webpage to call a PHP script is a pretty bad idea. It'd be horribly fragile. Your main options are really either cron (which is a pain but once you get it working you're fine) or a long- running process. If you really don't want to use cron then nodejs or python would be pretty solid choices.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's not that I don't want to use CRON, I just couldn't get it to work when I tried. I tried with Ubuntu (root problem), then I tried debian (no root problem) but it wouldn't execute. I think I did look at the dmesg or something logs I can't remember the reason but yeah it wouldn't execute my test script.

Haven't touched nodejs or python but I am open to it. Thanks. I'm alright with JavaScript (I can build things that I want in general) so maybe Node. Python the syntax I'm not familiar (have to practice/use it)

Anyway thanks for the info</comment></comment>


The Mars company has sponsored hundreds of studies to show cocoa is good - <AUTHOR> https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/10/18/15995478/chocolate-health-benefits-heart-disease <comment><USER2> I've decided that any study presented by the media is the result of hype/marketing by a company with a bias. Year after year I've seen a constant flow of "health news" that eventually turns out to be marginally true or outright false. Here's another one. No, chocolate is not health food. I suspect coffee is the next one to fall.

Most reporters aren't knowledgeable enough to distinguish between hype and true breakthroughs. Because of this, they have to go to experts to determine whether the news is valid or not- if they do it at all. Unfortunately, they then get pointed to experts by the same companies that have a vested interest. Additionally, given the news cycle deadlines, its impossible to do the story justice.

On a related idea, 10-15 years ago, the news media was full of stories reporting on how doctors were underprescribing pain medicines. The big point was that when people needed them narcotics were safe and not addictive. Now, 15 years later see the results. We now have thousands of people addicted and many of the dying. The tragedy is that the narcotic manufacturers were behind those stories. They did it to sell more pills.

The reality is that we need to understand that we can't take these stories as advice but as, what they are, entertainment and as something to research if we have a real interest.

<comment><USER3> > We now have thousands of people addicted and many of the dying.

But isn't it also why Reagan announced war on drugs? So the government does answer when needed (eventually?)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > "Dark chocolate probably has some beneficial properties to it," said Salt > Sugar Fat author Michael Moss, "but generally you have to eat so much of it > to get any benefit that it's kind of daunting, or something else in the > product counteracts the benefits. In the case of chocolate, it's probably > going to be sugar."

Interestingly, the chart just below this quotation shows that it takes ~70 calories of straight cocoa powder to get a "heart healthy" dose of flavanols. With dark chocolate, which has less sugar as the cocoa percentage goes up, they don't distinguish the type but you need 750 calories. That's quite a bit.

70% cocoa dark chocolate is somewhat (not entirely) palatable to most people, but getting up to 85% becomes a distinguished taste even for dark chocolate lovers.

Jives with my first thoughts after reading the submitted headline: that even if they could show cocoa was good for you, there is no way that translates into the standard Mars chocolate bars. I can totally see how it benefits Mars though - I've seen people give way more twisted justifications for eating junk food than "cocoa is good for you" as an excuse when eating a chocolate bar.

<comment> aaron-lebo Not really a dark chocolate connoisseur, but your post got me wondering. Hershey's Special Dark (which a lot of people are probably familiar with and is way better than regular Hershey's milk chocolate) is 45%.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hershey%27s_Special_Dark](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hershey%27s_Special_Dark)

Can't imagine 80%, but it's easy to get on Amazon. Thanks for the extra weight.

<comment><USER5> I recommend trying Lindt chocolate bars. It is a good, entry-level (sort of cheap) chocolate brand that is pretty wildly available.

Try the 70% and then work your way up to 90%. They make a 99% as well, but it is harder to find.

<comment><USER6> I think my next crazy taste test will be straight cocoa nibs whole.

<comment><USER7> crush toasted cocoa nibs with some agave nectar and they are great on spreads.

<comment><USER8> So take the sugar out of chocolate, then add it back on top?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Someone has to do the research and "Big" whatever seems to be the ones with the money to do so. So, what should we expect from them? They are going to look for research that is compelling to their business model, but as long as it's not wholly misleading, why is it bad? All research should be taken with a grain of salt.

I also have another question: Everyone in media is always looking for that story to break about "Big Business" doing something. Big Pharma, Big Chocolate, Big Auto... but what's the alternative? I doubt that mom and pop have the cash to do research. And I sure as hell won't trust any mom and pop research about pharmacology.

<comment><USER10> > All research should be taken with a grain of salt.

The very fact of science is that you can take the same experiment and under the said assumptions; you can repeat the same experiment yourself and come to similar conclusions as the one done by the original scientists.

> I doubt that mom and pop have the cash to do research. And I sure as hell > won't trust any mom and pop research about pharmacology.

AD Hominem fallacy - the status of someone has no relation to the outcome of a scientific experiment.

<comment><USER11> _AD Hominem fallacy - the status of someone has no relation to the outcome of a scientific experiment._

That's not what the parent comment is arguing. The parent comment points out that research is expensive and not available equally to all groups.

The status of mom and pop doesn't effect the outcome of their research. Mom and pop weighing R&D against making their mortgage that month usually means they don't invest much in research.

<comment><USER10> The grand parent comment does venture in that territory the moment the commentator says this

> And I sure as hell won't trust any mom and pop research about pharmacology.

Regardless of Mom and Pop store investments, the outcome of scientific experiments don't depend on who does the experiments.

<comment><USER11> I'll give the grand parent that benefit of the doubt - pharmacology research is expensive, there's a reason that most of the companies who develop pharmaceuticals have multi-billion dollar market caps.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> some random thoughts:

these companies benefit from _vague_ terms like "chocolate" and exploit customer's pre-conceived notion of what these terms actually mean.

Of course no scientific study is going to find that Mars/snickers bars are good for you. The trick is to make sure the good result from cocoa bean studies gets linked to your Mars/snickers/product. So the process might look like this..

1\. A compound in raw cocoa bean is found to help blood levels

2\. Cocoa powder is made from cocoa beans, therefor cocoa powder is healthy

3\. Chocolate with high cocoa powder content should also be healthy

4\. "Chocolate" is healthy

5\. Mars/snickers is chocolate right? Therefor these products are also healthy.

Posts on health blogs, marketing campaigns, etc. water down the results from (1) and draw their own conclusions, and there you go. People go out and by all kinds of chocolate products.

Similar stuff happen with things like green tea (super healthy, but your sugar drenched matcha latte is not), fruits and vegetables in general. A "productized" version of these raw foods is easier to control and cheaper than the real deal. That's the sad reality I guess.

edit: Key take... it's not that sponsored studies are necessarily misleading or "fake". It's the purpose of exploiting the key results of the study by somehow linking them with your product in a positive way!

</comment><comment><USER13> I noticed a while ago how every three months or so a new big study would be at the top of google news about how great coffee is for you. I decided one time to dig into the sources and of course the study was funded by a coffee industry consortium.

</comment><comment><USER14> I recently pondered the possibility that this is happening in the vegetable industry right now. There are seemingly endless documentaries on Netflix at the moment promoting better health through vegetables (What the Health, Forks vs. Knives, etc). They have some compelling evidence towards their claims, but also towards possible corruptions within foundations such as the AHA and the Beef, Pork and poultry industries.

Sure, it sounds like something a conspiracist would think up, but it'd just be the same tactics that these groups claim the meat industry et. al. have done to us for years, right?

</comment><comment><USER15> >It may be that chocolate eaters are wealthier or have other characteristics, aside from their chocolate-eating habit, that protect them from disease.

May be the main key to take away from this. Correlation != causation etc. etc.

Cant deny though: biting into a square of 90% cacao dark chocolate(make sure it has more fiber than sugar) is an exquisitely divine experience.

</comment><comment><USER16> If Big Chocolate wants to spend money to help me rationalize my 2nd (or 3rd) Twix, who am I to get in their way?

(De Nile is not just a chocolate river in Egypt.)

</comment><comment><USER17> This is a very common move by food companies right? Curious as to what can be done to stop it?

[https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar- in...](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-industry- shifted-blame-to-fat.html)

<comment><USER6> Society either has to fund more researchers with more money and accept the ramifications of that or accept companies funding their own interests. The same applies to campaign funding.

<comment><USER18> Also, stop reading the news, when you see someone healthy, ask them what they do and/or pay for their advice. (A lot of healthy people are in the wellness industries)

Being healthy isn't rocket science, but on the other hand it involves a lot of lifestyle changes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Would be less of an issue if society valued research properly, and enabled scientists to refuse corporate funds

</comment><comment><USER20> [http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html)

" Why do the media keep running stories saying suits are back? Because PR firms tell them to. One of the most surprising things I discovered during my brief business career was the existence of the PR industry, lurking like a huge, quiet submarine beneath the news. Of the stories you read in traditional media that aren't about politics, crimes, or disasters, more than half probably come from PR firms."

<comment><USER20> Upon re-reading that, I wonder how often "politics, crimes, or disasters" occur in the _same_ stories ... ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> It seems most nutritional advice is somehow skewed by commercial interests. The fat vs sugar discussion was influenced by industry and the sugar industry just had better lobbyists.

</comment><comment><USER22> > "... New York University nutrition researcher Marion Nestle (no relation to > the chocolate maker)"

I know this is off topic, but what do you make of the fact that the researcher's name is Nestle? Is it a total coincidence?

Turns out the commonly repeated idea that "Denis's are more likely to become Dentists" (i.e nominative determinism) was proven false [1]. Yet, it seems there are only about 500 people named Nestle in the whole US... [2]

It's of course just one data point, but it's still curious.

[1] [https://www.forbes.com/sites/pascalemmanuelgobry/2014/01/09/...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/pascalemmanuelgobry/2014/01/09/no- of-course-dennis-is-not-more-likely-to-be-a-dentist-but-youre-reading-that-he- is-because-journalists-cant-do-math) [2] [http://www.surnamedb.com/Surname/Map/Nestle](http://www.surnamedb.com/Surname/Map/Nestle)

</comment><comment><USER23> Revelations like this are why I'm skeptical about the current science on eggs. The existence of a huge, well-funded egg lobby makes me wonder whether we'll find out in 20 years that dietary cholesterol is actually bad for you after all.

<comment><USER24> Who knows? Plenty of manufacturers stand to benefit from selling low- cholesterol alternatives to dairy and eggs too, no?

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> There's a story (urban legend?) in Ireland that the Mars company forced a pub to changed it's name from "Mahr's Bar" to another name.

I've always wondered if that was true, or even possible.

</comment><comment><USER26> I was eating a chocolate bar recently and I had this exact thought. Don't trust articles that say "X is good for you" when X is a commonly advertised commodity. Which is most things.

</comment><comment><USER27> > [Fill in the blank company] has sponsored hundreds of studies to show [fill > in the blank] is [good/bad]

Now it's applicable to nearly everything

</comment><comment><USER28> Besides the sugar my main concern with chocolate is that a lot of it is contaminated with toxic levels of cadmium & lead.

<comment><USER29> That's why it's called Cadbury's.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> OP means cacao

</comment><comment><USER31> > Cadbury Jr.'s newest confection loaded just about every buzzy health trend > into a fresh green-and-white package: vegan, ethically sourced, organic dark > chocolate and creamy, superfood avocado.

Hardly incompatible with it being candy. Avocado is super fat, chocolate is super fat. What did you expect? Also fat and even "candy" are not synonymous with unhealthy.

Sidebar: my first thought upon seeing the title: there isn't even that much chocolate in a Mars bar.

<comment><USER32> Yeah that's exactly what the article says two sentences later.

<comment><USER31> I think it says exactly the opposite.

> Wait, what? Make no mistake: This vegan avocado chocolate bar is candy. With > nearly 600 calories and 43 grams of fat per 100-gram serving, the bar packs > more fat and calories than Cadbury Dairy Milk, and just a little less sugar.

> So how in the world could a chocolate bar be convincingly sold as a health > food? You can thank a decades-long effort by the chocolate industry.

I say candy (some, not stuff with lots of refined sugar) & fat can be healthy (in moderate doses, obviously).

<comment><USER24> The latest research seems to claim that fat has been unfairly maligned and you should actually be eating more of it.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Would it be a conflict of interest? - <AUTHOR>

I've been working with a non-profit company for the past five years. I now have been given the opportunity to volunteer at an early-stage non-profit that is in a very similar--if not the same--field. This would just be in my spare time and for fun, but I'm not sure about the legal/ethical issues of doing so.<p>I've asked some other people for advice, but I'd like to hear some more. Of course, I don't expect to get legal advice online. Rather, I'd like to know if I should avoid going into this realm, tread it with caution, or not even worry about it. <comment><USER2> If they're both non-profits, what's the issue?

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm paid by the first one and have signed NDA's, etc. Is there really nothing to worry about? (Disclaimer: I'm pretty clueless when it comes to things like this.)

<comment><USER2> Have you spoken to the ED or HR dept? Better to ask permission and be denied than to go ahead and be fired.</comment></comment></comment>


Minecraft world built with Ordnance Survey GB terrain data - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24177844w

<comment><USER2> I'm getting a 404 - Page not found. Have another link? This sounds like a very cool project.

<comment><USER3> Remove the w: [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24177844](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24177844)

Edit: someone resubmitted here [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6434906](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6434906)

<comment><AUTHOR> You're right, that's what I get for submitting via a mobile.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Startup founders, did you regret applying for a patent? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Ianal. But I hold 4 patents with more pending.

My opinion of the value of patents for a small company is:

\- marketing (many naive customers believe if you have a unique and valuable product, then it should be patented. If you have a patent, then your product must be good. If you don't, does that mean the product isn't valuable?)

\- it can plant red herrings on what your doing to potential competitors.

\- it can be valuable for moral for some employees.

\- it potentially has value for a potential acquirer.

\- it prevents big companies from patenting the disclosed material in the future and reducing the chances of boxing a small company out.

I do not believe it provides protection against a big company. They can litigate you to death even if you are in the right.

</comment><comment><USER3> yes , wasted lot of time and $$ just to get large company like google challenge the patent - lawyers says now it will take few 100'K more - gave up</comment>


Mercedes Is About to Unveil an Entire Fleet of Electric Vehicles - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-05/mercedes-to-challenge-bmw-tesla-with-four-car-electric-lineup?cmpid=BBD080516_BIZ <comment><USER2> I absolutely credit Tesla for showing what an electric car can potentially be, but I think the competition is about to hit like a Tsunami.

<comment><USER3> Which is exactly what Elon Musk has said he is trying to make happen.</comment></comment>


The IBM Selectric and Its Mechanical Digital-to-Analog Converter (2010) [video]  - <AUTHOR> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ASelectric.ogv

<comment><USER2> Many, many years later I used a modified Selectric hooked up to a cassette- tape based storage system to typeset a yearbook for a student society. The system worked on a line-by-line basis, comparable to the 'ed' editor (later bowdlerised and bastardised by Microsoft into 'edlin'). You would type a line, make corrections using the backspace button on the storage system, then press carriage return to store the line on tape.

We managed to enter the entire book - which was quite long and wordy - onto a stack of cassette tapes. Once this was done, all that was left was to run those cassettes through the storage system, having it print the result on good quality paper which would be cut into page-sized bits to be glued on templates.

...and then the motor in the Selectric burned out. I managed to find a replacement motor and got the thing working just in time to run the text through. Adjusting the tilt and rotation cables was quite an effort, initially the text would dance up and down the line, characters half-printed and all.

The end result was quite good, actually. The Selectric offered proportional spacing and the film ribbon have excellent contrast.

Had I not used the Selectric I would have used runoff on a PDP-11. The latter was deemed to cumbersome to my co-authors (who were less computer-minded than I was, this being an agricultural university, and thus could not stand the half-second wait between pressing the 'backspace' key on the VT52 and the cursor responding...). They did not like the 'near letter quality' print from my Panasonic KXP-1081 either, for which I can not blame them anymore (but did back then).

</comment><comment><USER3> The Selectric is an elegant mechanism. Typewheel typewriters go back to the late 19th century; if you want a typewheel machine, Blickensderfer machines are available on eBay for a few hundred dollars. IBM had electric typewriters, including ones that could communicate, decades before the Selectric.

The Selectric has a mechanism with a modest number of moving parts, and rotational joints rather than sliding elements. This keeps the noise down and reduces the need for lubrication. That's what made this device suitable for general office use. Teletype machines, which do roughly the same job, are much louder and need considerable lubrication. (I restore pre-WWII Teletypes as a hobby, so I know.)

There's a variant of the Selectric for computer interfacing, the IBM 2741.

</comment><comment><USER4> Here's an appendix he made with some more details about the mechanical DAC:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_SC7oWL78A&list=UU2bkHVIDjX...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_SC7oWL78A&list=UU2bkHVIDjXS7sgrgjFtzOXQ)

</comment><comment><USER5> Bill Hammack is a national treasure. I can't highly enough recommend subscribing to his video series: [https://www.youtube.com/user/engineerguyvideo/videos](https://www.youtube.com/user/engineerguyvideo/videos)

</comment><comment><USER6> I have this idea for an art project: Cross-connect two Selectrics with a long cable so typing on one keyboard outputs on the other and vise versa. They two people could chat with each other. (Analog point-to-point teletype?)

</comment><comment><USER7> My dad thought this was so cool back in the 60s, he actually dismantled a Selectric to determine if he could use it as an input keyboard for a desktop electromechanical computing device he worked on at Xerox.

</comment><comment><USER8> Selectrics were used as I/O devices on machines like the IBM 1130.

<comment><USER9> Yes, in 1973-74 I used to submit college FORTRAN programs to an IBM 360 sixty miles away via an IBM 2741 Selectric console [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_2741](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_2741) that was connected to an IBM modem device/leased line. We used a line-oriented editor of a remote job entry system to create virtual 80-column decks of cards ("jobs") that included the job control language as well as the programs themselves. In the second semester we exchanged the Selectric's regular type ball for one with APL symbols (the 2741's keys had both regular and APL symbols), and used IBM's time-shared 360 APL system via the 2741. This was considerably more fun than FORTRAN because of a) the immediate interactivity and b) APL's amazingly compact notation. APL one-liners were like nothing before or since in computer languages.</comment></comment>


Astronauts have never explored space - <AUTHOR>

SIR - I am a retired aerospace engineer who worked on the design of components for the Apollo Command Module. It is a common mistake to think that humans in space conduct "space exploration" and "space science" ("The end of the Space Age", July 2nd). Space exploration, in the sense of discovering new information about the space environment, is done with sensoring and data-gathering instruments, supported and controlled by robotic spacecraft. This was true in the earliest days of the Apollo programme, and will be true for any future human-crewed space project. Humans would not be sent anywhere in space without our first obtaining a thorough understanding of that environment.
Nor do humans carry out significant science in space. High-precision, ultra-clean instruments, designed to measure specific parts of the electromagnetic spectrum and other aspects of the space environment, are used to generate scientific data in space. Human crews would interfere with, rather than contribute to, the ability of the instruments to perform their mission. Human crews would provide biological contamination and disturb the ultra-high stability required of typical scientific instruments in space.
Al Barrett Santa Monica, California
-- http://www.economist.com/node/18956507?story_id=18956507&fsrc=rss <comment><USER2> And yet another salvo in the engineers versus astronauts argument.</comment>


Unicode separators in urls make sites appear down in some browsers - <AUTHOR> http://daniel.lubarov.com/is-facebook-down?

<comment><USER2> But what gets placed into the (Firefox) URL bar is:

[http://www.facebook.com/%E2%80%A8](http://www.facebook.com/%E2%80%A8)

I'm wondering how many people would look at that and think it was fishy.

<comment><USER3> Same with Safari. Only Chrome seems to display his way, but even then it's just a 404 page. I still get the toolbar and notifications up top, so it's clear that Facebook is not down.</comment></comment>


Who said Android apps can't look good? - <AUTHOR> http://devblog.bu.mp/who-said-android-apps-cant-look-good

<comment><USER2> Unfortunately I agree with Mike (on site) on his comments.

Consumer apps used to compete on functionality - now everyone can mostly do that part.

Design (both graphic and interaction) is where companies will compete for consumers.

Bump has needed a TON of help in the past and even does tdoay (even with their iphone app, [http://www.iwebsnacks.com/wp- content/uploads/2011/02/Bump-2....](http://www.iwebsnacks.com/wp- content/uploads/2011/02/Bump-2.4-App2.jpg)).

Please - start with a new logo.

<comment><USER3> Thanks for your feedback. That screenshot is pretty old; iTunes Preview has newer ones which reflect our newer, more attractive refresh. As always, we are hard at work at awesome new stuff.

<http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/bump/id305479724>

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Um, no one. Mr Strawman sir.

<comment><USER5> That's what I thought, too. I don't think I've ever seen anyone say that it's flat out impossible to make something look good on Android, just a bit more difficult than iOS because the Android SDK doesn't have the UI/UX helper methods that the iOS does.

<comment><USER6> Actually I'd say the difference is MacOS/OSX/iOS has a culture of ultra- criticism of UI decisions, meaning developers for other platforms don't have the same pressure to produce fantastic interfaces (just read Pierre Igot or Gruber's early works). Of course this isn't universal - there are many iOS apps with terrible UIs. But the overriding principle remains.

<comment><USER7> Apple also provides very detailed human interface guidelines for all their OSes. They are all more than 100 pages long, and describe how every single UI element should act and what the user should expect. When designing a UI using Apple's provided graphical tools, it actually guides the programmer to follow those guidelines, in terms of button sizes, spacing, etc. Apple cares about UI/UX, and it trickles down.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> A lot of Android Apps look nasty because they were created by individuals with the intent to solve a problem, and that problem is rarely - that Android Apps look bad.

Then, when they have solved the problem, why not put it in the Market.

Any Android App can look great. It's just a matter of taking the time to make it so.

<comment><USER9> I couldn't detect a value judgment either way from your comment, but I agree, and I think that's a feature, not a bug. I've got plenty of utility apps on my Android phone that I interact with very rarely to change some setting on the phone or run some background service. I'm glad that the developer of each of these didn't feel the need to divert resources to making a beautiful UI before releasing or improving the functionality.

Not to say I don't appreciate beautiful UI design, but I think there's room for beautiful apps and ugly but functional apps.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Android being open-source, there's probably an expectation from Google for the community to provide a range of solutions to a 'boring/inconsistent/shit UI' problem, be it through providing boilerplate code or UI component libraries or whatever.

I'm going to say though that if anything is at fault, it's not necessarily the learning curve but the base assumption of expert knowledge applied to every bit of documentation Google produces.

For a purely technical piece of writing they'd win many awards, because they can get down to the nitty gritty for sure. To the guy who's new to it all who wants somewhere to start, he's fucked. It's documentation for people who already understand it (personal experience: the C2DM doc, maps API, their PHP library that makes it harder to use their APIs than rolling your own code, etc.).

So thanks to that those fabled UI solutions turn up in the form of PhoneGap, jQuery Mobile, Sencha Touch, etc. All of which abstract the concept of app development to merely be a case of designing a website for a small screen. With HTML and JS and CSS. (Of course the other reason is platform agnosticism but application homogeneity is another thread entirely.)

And, thanks to the point raised in the article ('Android UI design is easier coz it's XML so you can do it programmatically!'), the people who do know how to create an app are the developers who may or may not be very good at working the UX side of things and may settle for the utilitarian solution.

<comment><USER11> > Android UI design is easier coz it's XML so you can do it programmatically!

That is absolutely not the point raised in the article. XML based declarative UIs help to keep your view code separate from the application's logic allowing for faster iterations. I don't think anyone manipulates XML views in code except in corner cases.

The simplest way to get a big picture idea about Android's XML based UI is to think of them as HTML+CSS with the addition of good layout managers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Hah! My strongest memory impression of using Bump is that it's hideous. Good work.

</comment><comment><USER13> If you use a non-standard UI, your app does not look good. Nobody wants to learn a new interaction paradigm for every application they touch; that simply doesn't scale.

<comment><USER14> Used the web?

<comment><USER15> Yeah, and its a pain in the arse. While native widgets aren't perfect, I'm much happier to deal with them instead of a reimplementation of one. Even when the web guy tries, they never work exactly the same, and they hardly ever try. The browser is a box where users have to throw away all the assumptions they have about the way controls behave because everything is done wildly different everywhere.

Users are forced to return to figuring everything out as they go, and then start over again at square for the next website. Visual cues are frequently sacrificed for the visual mess someone called a "design". For people highly familiar with native widgets, they just can't navigate around as easily in a webapp as they can in a first-class gui citizen. Not only because everything is different, but because the extended functionality that comes baked into real toolkits just isn't present in the web reimplementation. Things like the history api are even further eroding what assumptions can be made about gui behavior on the web.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I have this vague, disquieting feeling that Three20 became self aware and ported itself to Android

</comment><comment><USER17> I think the belief that Android apps have been less than well designed grew from earlier generations of Android. That current versions have built better UI tool sets, that more UI/UX level testing packages are becoming available, and builds using web technologies have made some apps equal to the iOS levels of design is clear.

However, a purely native approach (without titanium or phonegap for example) still has many issues in developing well structured UI.

It is clear however, that BUMP's application, while better than their previous design, does lack something. Android design is not particularly easy and I personally think that the various screens, disparate versions of the OS, and capabilities of the phones make development that much more complex. In a very real sense we need UI testing that automates this as much as possible. It really is too much work.

Still I think that there are UI frameworks coming out for Android that will alleviate all this complexity and allow us to build consistently well designed apps. Just not right now.

<comment><USER18> I'm curious, what UI frameworks are coming?

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Hehe. If the app didn't still look half as good as the iOS version, this post might be onto something.

Clearly, this post was posted by the resident Android dev. :)

</comment><comment><USER20> I would say the app looks fine from these screenshots. However they put it up as great design, and I disagree. It's nothing special.

</comment><comment><USER21> Who said Android apps look bad?

<comment><USER22> I've said it before. Most are bad. Which do you feel are examples of great design?

<comment><USER23> Google+, Viber, Maps, SPB Shell 3D?

Yes, many Android apps looks bad (a lot of them appeared in the beginning of Android, made by hackers that dont care about design or poorly ported from other platforms) but this is not the case anymore.

<comment><USER24> Add to that Foursquare, GroupMe, Spotify. Maybe it's not fair to include Google apps, but YouTube, GMail, and the current incarnation of the Market app are great.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> The margins are off.

</comment><comment><USER26> > Who said Android apps can't look good?

Apple. They spent the time to "get it right" with iOS, and when Android came along they had to settle for second best in most areas to avoid looking like an iOS clone.

<comment><USER27> I agree with you mostly. Android is slooowly catching up in the looks department, but Apple is still way ahead. My first impression of Android was that they desperately copied Apple UI, but failed to make it as good either because of lack of skill, care or not wanting to look like an iPhone.

If you want examples of how well Android can look try the MIUI rom. These guys built mostly everything from scratch to create a pleasant, unified look (contacts, phone, messaging, browser, music player etc. and they all are best Android apps I've seen). Sadly, it does look much like what would Apple do.

Disclaimer: not a fanboy, I have both, iOS and Android powered devices and I actually develop on them both.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> There are three painfully obvious reasons Android apps do not look as good as iOS apps. iOS has UIKit and Android has fragmentation along with a myriad of devices with different resolutions.

1\. UIKit - Apple made it easy for developers to implement consistent navigation, views, and transitions. Android Ice Cream Sandwich is providing a new UI library which will bring this much needed iOS advantage to Android. Is it possible to mimic UIKit on the current Android devices? Yes, but it's a pain in the ass and not practical for most developers on a deadline.

2\. Fragmentation - Device Android version lock has caused problems with development. You are only as strong as your weakest link which unfortunately rings true with some developers who choose to develop on an older version of Android to remain compatible with as many devices as possible. Google has addressed this issue by obtaining agreements from many manufacturers to update their devices on a consistent basis.

3\. Screen Resolution - Any web developer will tell you it's much easier to create a beautiful and consistent website if the site is fixed width. This is especially true for mobile development because you dont have to concern yourself with repeating tiles, resolution detection, and adjustable spacing when you know the exact dimensions of the device. There are only 2 iOS resolutions (not counting retina) making it easy to utilize space and perfect the UI in the most efficient way possible. Can it be done on Android? Sure, but without a UIKit to handle many of the little nuances it will yet again be a big pain in the ass and will take up time that the developer does not have.</comment>


Your personal corkboard - <AUTHOR> http://corkboard.me/ <comment><USER2> Great, except people don't use stickies on a corkboard. They use push-pins. If you had custom push-pins, that would add something aesthetically. Also, if you could embed something on the corkboard, like a scribd document, that'd be very useful.

<comment><USER3> > people don't use stickies on a corkboard. They use push-pins.

Don't judge me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I've tried various to-do managers, notes apps, etc over the years. Everything from Google tasks to 37 signals stuff, Remember the Milk, etc, etc. Nothing has stuck for me.

Until this. Don't know what it is about it, perhaps the free form nature of the UI, but it is one of the tabs I keep open all the time with a big pile of 'to-do' items on.

My main concern is actually having it just disappear! I'd like to see the opportunity to pay for it just to know there is an account there and be more assured it will stay around.

<comment><USER5> This makes me happy. If you had to name a price what would it be?

<comment><USER4> Something in the $4.99 a month range would be a no-brainer.

Going forward I'd see the most important features to add as:

* some _simple_ text formatting: bold, italics, bullet points. * clickable URLs (opening in a new tab) * a way to cycle throw the Z-order of the stickies, I keep moving them around to uncover the ones underneath * fixing the weird bug where by new stickies appear off screen sometimes (Chrome 12 on Windows 7) * Iframe integration -- let me create a sticky that embeds an arbitrary iframe. This would open up a whole pile of possibilities. * Integration with a mobile app that replaces the corkboard metaphor with a simple pile of notes.

<comment><USER6> Except for the mobile app, everything you want is right here: <http://www.spaaze.com/>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1962554>

<comment><USER8> Ya, I was about to say, I saw this at least a year ago. Doesn't seem to have changed much.

<comment><USER5> It was released Dec. 2nd, so not that long. There are competitors. Big things coming soon.

<comment><USER8> Hasn't the project been live for much longer than that? I feel like I used it a long time ago... maybe it was one of these competitors you speak of...

<comment><USER9> This sort of reminds of something I saw in the Lively Kernel (<http://labs.oracle.com/projects/lively/>) a while ago.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Good stuff.

In terms of UX I'd propose one small change. Creating a new post-it by a simple click is too easy and becomes too accidental. An alternative way might be best.

Also ideally, implementing ctrl+z/y for undo/redo would be a big plus.

But good stuff.

</comment><comment><USER11> Beats the one we hacked together over here a bit back, although we've got pins. <http://corknik.com>

</comment><comment><USER12> This is cool. Realtime? Awesome.

Some thoughts:

* As others have mentioned, it's too easy to single-click accidentally and create a note.

* Pasting a URL to an image isn't discoverable. An explicit button for this on the toolbar, or one that appears when a new note is created, would be better.

* That aside, I really, really want to be able to just drag and drop images from my computer onto the page.

* As others have noted I wish I could zoom out to see more notes. The "map" is a good start but I think it should be fully zoomable.

* Chat is cool but it sort of takes you out of the experience. Try experimenting with integrating the chat into the corkboard metaphor, maybe: Instead of a pop-up in the lower-left corner, let me create post-its that are actually live chat rooms.

Anyway, this is a great start. I hope you keep improving it!

</comment><comment><USER13> What's with having to drag to pan? Is there some reason you decided to not use native scrolling?

<comment><USER14> Just a guess... but I'd say they wanted to make it tablet-friendly.

<comment><USER15> Hmm...doesn't seem to play well with Safari on iOS...no obvious way to move or resize a sticky.

<comment><USER9> But it is working fine on Safari on OSX. Something the dev needs to look at.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This is pretty amazing. Very well done!

It would be fantastic if it had a Gmaps-style zoom feature. A ZUI of a sort.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zooming_user_interface>

(I added this comment to the HN corkboard above but it got removed very soon afterwards!)

Edit: This was already suggested in <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1963075>

</comment><comment><USER17> I really liked this, until I used the shared HN one and it got really laggy / Chrome kill button came up

</comment><comment><USER18> I like it. I don't think this will replace my stickies in OSX dashboard...but overall well done.

</comment><comment><USER19> HN official corkboard

<http://corkboard.me/jm6XtCnV8k>

<comment><USER20> everything disappeared when I dragged the viewport/board.

<comment><USER5> What browser were you on?

<comment><USER20> Chrome 10.0.648.205 on Ubuntu 10.10 with Adblock (which sometimes gives me wonkiness)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Very cool, I wrote something similar for my company's clients to annotate various online documents. The UI on corkboard is nicer but I have arrows,drawing tools and you can rotate the notes around so text can vertical if you want.

</comment><comment><USER22> I like it as a demo, but if I were ever to actually use it I would want to have an account, a login, not just a URL to bookmark.

That said, don't know if I would find something like this useful if I were to try using it.

</comment><comment><USER23> Looks awesome. I small issue though: I tried collaborating with a friend and everytime I have to hit refresh to see the changes he has made. I'm not sure if this is intended.

</comment><comment><USER24> I love it, but it would be awesome if there was some way to persist the corkboard. As a minimum save the url in a long term cookie or something.

But definitely useful.

</comment><comment><USER25> What is it built in?

<comment><USER5> Rails and Javascript (about 93% Javascript) with python app handling real time updating.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Wow, if you step back and to the right the post it notes look real like they are really on your screen. Neat.

</comment><comment><USER27> A timeline would be a great feature too. Being able to scroll back to my old notes and check things.

</comment><comment><USER28> Wow I thought about making something similar, but you guys hit it out of the park!</comment>


Boy Who Hid in Plane's Wheel Well Beat Long Odds in Surviving 5 ½-Hour Flight - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/22/us/boy-who-hid-in-planes-wheel-well-beat-long-odds-in-surviving-5-hour-flight.html?hp&_r=0

<comment><USER2> Not all identical, some simply related, all from the last 24 hours:

        You Can Survive A Flight In A Jet's Wheel Well,
        But Probably Won't (npr.org)

\-- [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7623300](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7623300)

        Experts stunned by local boy's Hawaii flight in
        wheel well (sfgate.com)

\-- [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7622257](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7622257)

        Teen Survives Flight To Hawaii In Jet's Wheel Well,
        FBI Says (npr.org)

\-- [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7622231](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7622231) (discussion)

        Teen OK after riding in wheel well of Hawaii jet
        (boston.com)

\-- [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7621054](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7621054)

        Survival at High Altitude: Wheel-Well Passengers
        (faa.gov)

\-- [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7620736](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7620736) (a few comments)

<comment><AUTHOR> Boh! I saw the FAA discussion but the document was undated and I thought it was upvoted out of it pure interest...I hadn't seen this story until I woke up but didn't really watch the news yesterday.

<comment><USER2> Obviously something that's caught a lot of interest - plus it's useful to have links to different versions and different (but related) stories.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> If it is this easy to climb under a plane, I wonder why they waste every one's time with those "serious" security checks.

<comment><USER4> Security theater. Providing an illusion of security while acclimatizing the public to encroachments on their personal freedoms.

I'm more angry that hundreds of millions, or even billions of dollars are spent to train a workforce to identify tubes of toothpaste on a screen, but anyone at an airport that wants a knife can just order a steak from an airport restaurant.

It makes me sad that the public can tolerate such ignorance and waste.

<comment><USER5> Airport restaurants only use plastic cutlery when they are located past the security checkpoint.

Edit: US airports. Since this article was about a US airline operating in the United States I thought that went without saying.

<comment><USER6> At US airports perhaps. It certainly isn't the case in Europe.

<comment><USER7> The Wetherspoon in LGW only provide butter knives due to security reasons. Not too useful if you order a steak...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It makes me happy that exactly not a word of this article is about panicking over the fact that he could have been carrying a bomb. Are we (the population at large) finally calming down enough about flight security that we can have a rational discussion about what makes sense?

That said, airport perimeter security is pretty high on the list of things it does make pretty good sense to care about. After all, he could have been carrying a bomb :)

<comment><USER9> The true lapse that this incident demonstrates is that security cameras were installed to provide a multiplier for one's ability to monitor an area, with the added bonus of being able to record what's monitored. Instead of having 100 workers walk the perimeter, strategically placed camera can multiply the effectiveness of a significantly smaller staff while securing the same area. But what's happened is that in many instances, cameras are being used as passive monitors. They're intended to either serve as deterrents or to collect footage that can be reviewed at a later date if-necessary ... disregarding the effectiveness multiplier they provided, and instead reducing the overall effectiveness of a facility's security.

I wonder whether technologies like Oculus might change the effectiveness of security cameras. A single man could theoretically "be" in multiple places at one time from a security perspective. And the sense of actually being on- location, as opposed to having something on a screen that can be ignored or missed, might return that multiplier to monitoring a location using a network of video cameras streamed to somebody's headset.

<comment> D-Train Yeah, CNN posted this morning about how the airport cameras at San Jose actually did capture/ record the boy jumping the fence and walking on the tarmac to the plane. Cameras are one thing, but having watchful eyes are another.

Implementation of more automated surveillance to help SUPPLEMENT (not replace) existing security guards watching monitors is ideal. It'll be interesting as security ramps up to include things like facial/ body recognition.

CNN article: [http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/22/travel/plane-stowaway- security...](http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/22/travel/plane-stowaway- security/index.html?hpt=hp_t1)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> It's pretty laughable that with all the ridiculous extent to which certain organisations go to try and make flying 'safe from terrorism' no-one has been worried about some people sneaking through the high security fence surrounding the airport and planting their nefarious tools on board.

I guess at the end of the day it is more the perception of safety than actual safety we are getting

<comment><USER11> A useful term that I recently learned to describe this is "security theater" ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theater](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theater)).

And that is exactly what I think that the TSA et al. provide.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I don't see how this couldn't be prevented by having ground crew take a quick look inside the wheel wells before the plane taxis to the runway. Is it too elevated to see in easily?

<comment><USER13> Do you check the wheel wells of your car before you drive? The chance of something being wrong there is so slight that the convenient option is taken.

<comment><USER14> True. But I also don't ask passengers to pass through a metal detector before boarding my car.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Unless I have misunderstood something, that article says the mortality rate is 76% for people who do this, making it only a 4-1 chance of success, which isn't long odds at all?

<comment><USER16> FYI: that would be a 3-1 chance against, i.e. 3 failures for each success (expressed odds are a ratio, not a fraction).

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I'm amazed anybody could survive 5 hours at those altitudes- the lack of oxygen in the air means someone who hasn't acclimatized to altitude would pass out in minutes.

<comment><USER18> Make that seconds. At 38,000 feet, time of useful consciousness would be something like 25 seconds. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_of_useful_consciousness](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_of_useful_consciousness)

However, it does take a bit longer than that to climb to that altitude.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> From the BBC, a story about the people that sadly don't survive similar journeys and land somewhere in London on the approach to Heathrow:

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19562101](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19562101)

</comment><comment><USER20> This is shocking. Hight time that the airport security starts checking wheel well too or put a camera for Pilot to check before the take off.

</comment><comment><USER21> Are we sure he travelled on the wheel?

Lets say this person was found loitering in the area and someone asked him how he got there and he told he hid in the plane's wheel's.

Most people would term that as a impossibility and decide he got there some other way.

if he was found unconscious on the plane's wheel, then isn't it a "black swan" like event that breaks down most of our existing assumptions on the subject of human endurance.

edit : still have not read news other than headlines and trying to make a point about perceptions/assumptions.

<comment><USER22> It's not really a black swan. The mortality rate from wheel well stowaways is 76%. There have been 105 documented cases, and 80 of them died.

Often they fall out of the wheel well when the landing gear deploy and are found some distance from the airport.

Most people easily survive with only 20% of the oxygen level found at sea level, but quickly become unconscious and enter a sort of hibernation state. Then they may slowly succumb to cold, or simply are not awake and able to respond sensibly when landing gear deploys, or die from complications from high altitude pulmonary edema or high altitude cerebral edema.

The media angle appearing in some articles that this is some astonishing thing that has never been seen before and for which there is no scientific explanation is just the standard media hysteria tactic used to collect eyeballs and views by making exaggerated claims.

<comment><USER21> What is the limit of human endurance.

If earlier it was assumed that -40 c would kill in 5 mins and now we have proof that someone has travelled at -62 c for 5+ hrs and with minimal oxygen.

Isn't that a black swan like event.

Obviously we can't test for these things but we can find limits through such incidences.

PS : whats with the downvotes. Do some folks want everyone to parrot the same line?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I'm thinking this is a hoax. I'd like to see any kind of evidence that he was actually in the wheel well.

If it's not a hoax, it's seems like it would be more of a medical miracle than people are realizing? There's way less oxygen at that altitude than at the top of mt everest, plus I've read it got as cold as -65F.

Edit: Tried to explain better. :-(

<comment><USER23> Can anyone explain how this isn't a medical miracle, instead of just downvoting?

<comment><USER24> I suppose it depends on the p-value threshold you assign to "miracle" status. Where did you estimate his probability of survival? As stated elsewhere, 25 out of 105 people known to have tried something like this are known to have survived.

The wheel well isn't out in the slipstream and probably stays significantly warmer than the ambient temperature, both from having a human in there to heat it and having warm aircraft components nearby. After takeoff, the tires will be hot from hysteresis losses, and the hydraulic fluid will be hot. I'm not sure what other equipment is up in the wheel well for easy maintenance access, but I wouldn't be surprised if the wheel well had several pieces of equipment providing heat throughout the flight. There's also plain heat conduction from the aircraft cabin into the wheel well. The cold also helps survival in hypoxic conditions. Clearly it's not a good idea, but it has been survived many times before.

Edit: [http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation- photos/photos/1/8/8/17...](http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation- photos/photos/1/8/8/1705881.jpg) shows a lot of the equipment in the wheel well, which would have helped keep the well warmer than ambient temperatures.</comment></comment></comment>


Scientists are frantically copying U.S. climate data - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/13/scientists-are-frantically-copying-u-s-climate-data-fearing-it-might-vanish-under-trump/ <comment><USER4> Dupe of [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13168971](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13168971)

</comment><comment><USER5> I recall a post just a few days ago about quitting the news, and how the media focuses on fear. There's no indication that the trump administration is going to do anything to climate data other than ignore it. They even say so in this article.

<comment> semi-extrinsic Really good quote from TFA regarding their motive:

"Something that seemed a little paranoid to me before all of a sudden seems potentially realistic, _or at least something you'd want to hedge against_ ," said Nick Santos, an environmental researcher at the University of California at Davis.

[ _emphasis mine_ ]

They're hedging against an extreme tail risk. Basically this is the same as why people buy life insurance. It's highly unlikely that you'll die before you turn 60, but if you do the consequences for your family would be huge, thus it makes sense to insure against that scenario.

Same goes here, even an extremely remote threat to irreplacable data is a reasonable thing to guard against.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> With the new appointees asking for information about who attended global warming and carbon conferences. The destruction of previous data is a huge possiblity we are talking about Bible thumping evoultio and global warming deniers. And many of these guys are in the pockets of oil in one way or another

</comment><comment><USER7> Hey, remember when info relating to government-held climate records was a big secret and instead of frantically plotting to _release_ the data the same people were frantically plotting to _evade FOIA requests_ for it, on the grounds that if all the raw data and algorithms got out it might be _misused_ to cast doubt on scientific conclusions?

(eg: [http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/252543/cei- files-b...](http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/252543/cei-files-brief- seeking-nasa-records-chris-horner) )

This seems like a massive improvement - fear of Trump has created a huge win for independent public access to US climate info, and he hasn't even taken office yet. Hurray for replicability! :-)

<comment><USER8> This is an incredibly cynical and deceptive comment, as the FOIA request has nothing to do with getting climate data (which has always been public--that's how scientists are copying it to non-government controlled servers) and was instead a fishing attempt to try to find something embarrassing in a scientist's emails.

Of course, AGW denialists have to rely on deception to make any headway, so it's par for course.

<comment><USER7> > _climate data (which has always been public.._

It has not _always_ been public. Most of it is _now_ public, but there was a period (mostly before "Climategate") in which the relevant info absolutely most definitely was _not_ public. There were _reasons_ given why it was not public, but not-public it remained, and FOIA efforts (though not so much this particular one) _did_ finally shake it loose.

[This is all from memory so I'm sure some of it is wrong, but If I Recall Correctly...]

This is practically ancient history now, but prior to the 1990s some of the best raw temperature data was collected and assembled and considered _owned_ by individual national bureaucracies some of whom were sensitive about sharing it - they wanted to stay in the loop about how "their" data was used. To add all those national records together and make a worldwide temperature record, it was necessary to talk to all these bureaucrats and assuage their concerns. Thus, NASA and Hadley CRU apparently collected _some_ of this info under legal agreements that said they wouldn't just let the rest of the world have the data.

So when NASA made GISS and Hadley made HADCRUT, they took the raw data, applied various corrective factors internally, and released a composite already-corrected data product. The outside world could see the adjusted climate data but could NOT view the "raw" data and QA it themselves or apply corrections and QA the effect of the corrections themselves.

This lack of transparency was a problem because periodically NASA would decide they should fix some problem, tweak the algorithm, and release a new temperature chart that had CHANGED, and there was no way for outside scientists to verify what they'd done and that they'd done it correctly - <USER2> was a black box.

Once the IPCC really got rolling and climate started to seem like A Big Deal, people like Steve McIntyre (at ClimateAudit) wanted to sanity-check what NASA and CRU were doing. They wanted to look at the raw, uncorrected data and at the algorithms used to clean it up. So they filed FOIA requests to ask for this data.

But (according to NASA at the time) the raw data was in a legal limbo - <USER3> had collected some of it under do-not-redistribute agreements. You couldn't release the WHOLE data set because it's divisible into parts that are restricted. No problem, says the ClimateAudit crowd, we'll just file separate requests - one per country - so you can give us the bits of data you CAN legally release and we'll work around the problem. Clever, right?

But (it now appears) nobody had carefully kept track of WHICH countries' data was restricted in that way. So it couldn't be done. The upshot was that our fine national scientists couldn't release ANY of the raw data without somebody first going back to ALL the national governments and getting their permission to do so.

Which was eventually (finally) done. And now the stuff is mostly aboveboard.

Alas, a lot of the "skeptic" attitude was generated during the keeping-lots- of-secrets era. There was a popular attitude that if scientists are _hiding something_ it must be because they're doing something _nefarious_. Me, on the other hand, I tend to ascribe most of the secretiveness of that era to greed, incompetence, and embarrassment more than malice.

The "greed" part of it is that if you call up, say, Nigeria, and ask for a plot of their temperature record for the last year, there is some specific person whose _job_ it was to massage that data and do stuff with it using some ancient computer and if he let the data go then some bright 14-year-old could do the same stuff on a cheap linux machine, rendering the bureaucrat's job obsolete. There were people who justified their budget on the basis of "we publish this Very Important Time Series" \- it might not be the most important thing they do but it's the most VISIBLE thing they do - where publishing that time series was once really hard but by the 1990s is something any kid with a shell script could do in a half hour for free if data and algorithms were fully available.

The "embarrassment/incompetence" part of it is that if any of these scientists made some dumb mistake - maybe accidentally overwrote some of the data or had a bug in their corrections - making everything public could reveal this. So it has a possible downside and no obvious upside.

(Some climate data is _still_ being kept private for these kinds of reasons, but mostly not by governments anymore. The main problematic category that still exists is data held by individual researchers. People who collect stuff like tree rings or sediment cores _still_ will publish papers based on data they've never publicly archived - they do this because the data has value to them - they can publish more papers themselves or demand credit on other people's papers without fear of getting scooped. Most journals now require archiving data as a condition of publication but this requirement is widely ignored, delayed, or only minimally abided by.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Fahrenheit 451</comment>


People, stop using "element AND id" jquery selectors - <AUTHOR> http://jsperf.com/jquery-selector-performance-test123

<comment><USER2> I wonder if this is situationally dependent?</comment>


California gave Software Engineers a .50 raise before they are considered exempt - <AUTHOR> California gave Silicon Valley Software Engineers a $.50 raise for the minimum wage before they no longer qualify for over time, effective 01/1/2017.  ie exempt status. From $41.85 to $42.35. =(
Here's the big question, why should Software Engineers not be entitled to overtime?  Just say'n
http://wp.me/p4L0IT-2dN <comment><USER2> > Here's the big question, why should Software Engineers not be entitled to > overtime?

Like all wage and hour protections, overtime is a protection for vulnerable employees against abusive situations. At the $80K+ annual salary equivalent at which computer professions lose overtime entitlement in CA, that's not particularly an issue.

It's a balance between freedom to contract and protection against abusive norms being established that render that freedom illusory.

<comment><USER3> > Like all wage and hour protections, overtime is a protection for vulnerable > employees against abusive situations.

Like all wage and hour protections, overtime is _ostensibly_ a protection for vulnerable employees against abusive situations.

In theory, there's a good outcome in that workers are simply paid more for working lots of hours beyond the cultural norm.

In practice, what happens is that companies are incentivized to make peoples' lives difficult with scheduling and limit them to 32 or 36 hours or whatever instead of having them work over 40 hours. This forces anybody who wants to make more money to deal with big scheduling, extra travel costs, and other headaches involved in working multiple jobs.

Or they increase wages beyond whatever arbitrary cutoff point exists to qualify for overtime protections and then have carte blanche to pressure them into working lots more hours.

These protections actually end up screwing the least well off and poorest people the most. I'm not saying it's all bad, but there are always unintended consequences with economic edicts.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> FWIW, in most (maybe all, I haven't checked) parts of Canada the labour laws are the same: [https://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/es/tools/srt/coverage_g...](https://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/es/tools/srt/coverage_government_it.php)

Part of the reason you aren't entitled to overtime is because you're paid a salary, not a wage. Do you clock-in & clock-out at work to track your hours?

<comment><USER5> Try working less than 40 hours some places and you will find that "you're a professional, work what you need to" only goes one way. Just because I'm salaried doesn't mean my employer is "entighted" to free hours after 40. It's a 2 way street.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> If you follow your logic then, managers, directors and CEO's should be entitled to overtime as well...

<comment><USER7> Looking at CEO salaries, they're already more than well compensated for overtime.

<comment><USER6> For an experienced SWE in San Francisco Bay Area we're looking at a $200K total comp... including base salary, stocks and most importantly, annual bonus (which includes overtime). If you put a lot of effort then you get a big annual bonus.</comment></comment></comment>