The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement - <AUTHOR> http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/10437.html <comment><USER2> Maybe I misunderstood, but I'm not seeing how this is bad.

Sony wants to write a BusyBox that doesn't use BusyBox's license? What exactly is the problem? If they don't like the license isn't that the best approach they can take?

"A couple of weeks ago, this page appeared on the elinux.org wiki. It's written by an engineer at Sony, and it's calling for contributions to rewriting Busybox. This would be entirely reasonable if it were for technical reasons, but it's not - it's explicitly stated that companies are afraid that Busybox copyright holders may force them to comply with the licenses of software they ship. If you ship this Busybox replacement instead of the original Busybox you'll be safe from the SFC. You'll be able to violate licenses with impunity."

Wait, didn't GNU and the GPL start off for the completely non-technical reason that Stallman didn't like the original license?

I'm also not sure I like the idea of using BusyBox as a backdoor to examine the rest of a product's source code. I didn't realize that was a condition of the GPL, but it makes me glad I've switched most of my projects over to the BSD and ISC licenses.

<comment><USER3> This is bad because Busybox has copyright holders that actively enforce the GPL on their product.

They're not asking for this because they dislike Busybox'es GPL license. They're asking for it because they know Busybox actually goes to court to enforce it, and asks for the other GPL products to have their license respected too.

I'll spell it out more clearer: they want to get rid of Busybox, because its one of the only things whose license they cannot violate with impunity.

<comment><USER4> So, if they switch to (say) a full BSD-licensed stack, what is the problem? They can use it for whatever, modify the code for whatever, and there shouldn't be any problems.

Why is this a bad thing, other than that it weakens the importance of the GPL?

<comment><USER5> If they were going to switch to a full BSD-licensed stack, there would be no problem.

They want to switch to a mostly-GPL stack, except for the one component that causes them to have to live up to their GPL obligations.

<comment><USER4> Ah, so, that's kind of a dick move. Thanks for the explanation!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> So an analogy would be that Pirate Steve wants to put the entire criterion collection (<http://www.criterion.com/library>) on the pirate bay. However, he knows that Fox is really litigious about their movies, so he replaces all of their movies with garage remakes (like "Be Kind, Rewind") so that he can safely pirate the rest of the movies since the other motion picture studios are lazy.

Is my analogy correct at all? Essentially Sony wants to be able to pirate (that's what it's called when you're redistributing things that are copywritten), so they're removing the only project that actually litigates against them?

<comment><USER5> That's the gist, yes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> So much for the Holy Sacrament of "Intellectual Property". When it suits a corporation, the Most Holy Eye Pee Must Be Protected By Any Means, Including Taking Away of Civil Liberties. But when it also suits a corporation, they get to take what, if they owned it, would be Most Holy Eye Pee.

What a bunch of hypocrites. If BusyBox made Sony money, they'd fight an attempt to replace it tooth and nail, as AT&T did with BSD.

</comment><comment><USER8> In case someone from Sony is reading this - things like this result in lost sales. I research my buying options extensively and usually make a ranking of alternatives. The following sony products were at the top of their respective lists but I chose to not to buy them a) Camera - Sony Nex-5N (Bought a Canon S90 instead) b) Laptop - Sony Vaio Z with the 1920x1080 screen (Bought an HP Elitebook instead) c) Camcorder - HDR-CX700V (Bought a Panasonic TM900 instead) d) Noise cancelling headphones - MDR-NC100D (Bought Sennheiser ones instead, dont remember the model number)

<comment><USER9> I don't know about that; at this point anyone who cares about high standards has been boycotting Sony since the rootkit fiasco. Of course, this makes things worse, but that's not saying much.

<comment><USER8> When I said things like this, I definitely meant to include the rootkit fiasco. The last couple of years I do try my best to not buy from companies that I think have an antipathy to the hacker ethic.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Someone should re-write this blog post and re-submit it to Hacker News. It's so confusing what the problem really is, or what the author is really saying. I had to read this about 3 times to understand it. He should just say: many hardware manufactures use several GPL projects on there embedded devices, one of those projects is BusyBox. Since BusyBox copyright holders allow SFC to defend their copyright, the SFC is able to force this manufactures to comply with the licenses of all the GPL projects they use. Sony and other manufactures are looking to have a BusyBox alternative so that they can infringe the other GPL product licenses they use, since they know no-one enforces this licenses. Those who own GPL licenses should contact the SFC and allow them to enforce there copyrights.

</comment><comment><USER11> >The SFC will grant a new license, but on one condition - not only must you provide the source code to Busybox, you must provide the source code to all other works on the device that require source distribution.

Wait what? This has actually happened?

<comment><USER12> That's more than fair: you can use our code as long as you don't rip anybody else off either.

<comment><USER13> fair as long as theother rightsholders involved are informed..... it is their choice whether or not to force the license issue - for all we know they decided to let sony have software X..... if this is done without implicit cooperation with other rightsholders, its sort of stretching......

<comment><USER14> If Sony has received licenses to software X, then there's no problem:

> "you must provide the source code to all other works on the device that > __require source distribution __"

If Sony has a different license from the copyright holders of software X that means they're not required to distribute source, presumably all they need to do is produce that license if their claim is challenged, or get said copyright holders to confirm it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> As a thought experiment, it's funny to think about what GPL enforcement could have done with SOPA, had it passed. Especially if software/firmware updates were distributed via the web.

On the one hand Sony is pushing for SOPA, but on the other hand Sony is violating the GPL. They could end up actively pushing through legislation that ends up significantly harming their bottom line.

<comment><USER16> I'm confident that regardless of the ultimate outcome of the Battle For Freedom on Internet and Intellectual Property, it will remain that the most wealthy most often gains financially from their own wrongdoings. The judiciary system will remain the warhammer of giants, way to heavy financially for most individuals and small companies.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> This article mostly seems to be suggesting that vendors derive more benefit from GPLv3 - which is more focused on coming into compliance, rather than punishing companies that get it wrong.

I'm not sure what this has to do with busybox, save that under GPLv2 there are vendors who are afraid to use them because they have actively been pursuing an aggressive course of action under GPLv2 for several years.

</comment><comment><USER18> I'm not saying it's OK to violate the terms of open source licenses, but the GPL has never fit with my idea of what Free Software should be like. I see Free Software as a gift given to the world as a whole, regardless of what they plan to do with it. Thus I see GNU and the FSF as terrible gift-givers.

<comment><USER19> Free Software is not a gift. That is where you go wrong. Just because you want it to be does not make it so.

Free Software, as advocated by the FSF and many others, is an attempt to remedy the ethical problems posed by closed source software, which has a strong tendency to lead to monopolistic behavior and unfair power balance between the consumer and the producer of a program.

Free Software may be many other things as well, depending on who is writing the software and releasing the code, but it's almost never a gift. The developers almost always want something in return, whether that is recognition, assistance with development or support for their ideals.

People who give software as a gift, release it into the Public Domain or use the most liberal of the BSD licenses. :-P Those who chose other licenses, do so for reasons you should respect if you intend to benefit from their work.

<comment><USER18> "Those who chose other licenses, do so for reasons you should respect if you intend to benefit from their work." Of course. Authors are free to release software under whatever terms they like, and people who use the software are bound to abide by those terms. Let me be clear, I don't think that it's OK to violate the GPL. I was just saying that I don't really like the GPL.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> SFC enforces copyrights on others behalf's?? Isn't that where Righthaven failed because it isn't actually allowed?

<comment><USER21> Looking at SFC's website, it appears that people actually assign their copyrights to SFC.

<comment><USER20> I can see why other projects are hesitant to join in.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> SFLC is far from a well supported organization in the GPL world. You say that the busybox settlements are necessary because most authors lack the means or the time to pursue violations, but in fact anyone who wished SFLC to act on their behalf is free to let them - and yet no one does.

It is telling that not a single mainline kernel copyright holder will allow them to, including your employer and many of your coworkers. As noted elsewhere in the comments, Rob Landley regrets assigning them rights for busybox, and no other authors have been represented in the suits.

 _The SFC will grant a new license, but on one condition - not only must you provide the source code to Busybox, you must provide the source code to all other works on the device that require source distribution._

Quoth wikipedia:

On 7 December 2007, a case was brought against Verizon Communications over its distribution of firmware for Actiontec routers; this case was settled March 17, 2008 on condition of license compliance, _appointment of an officer to oversee future compliance with free software licenses, and payment of an undisclosed sum._

On about Aug 03, 2010, BusyBox won _triple damages of $90,000 and lawyers' costs and fees of $47,865, and possession of "presumably a lot of high-def TVs"_ as infringing equipment in the lawsuit Software Freedom Conservancy v. Best Buy, etal., the GPL infringement case noted in the paragraph above.

The suit against High-Gain Antennas was settled on March 6, 2008 with the company agreeing to comply with GPL and _paying an undisclosed sum to the plaintiffs._

On October 30, 2007, an SFLC press release announced that the lawsuit had been settled with Monsoon agreeing to comply with the GPL and _pay a sum of money to the plaintiffs._

etc.

<comment><USER23> Please don't confuse the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC, providers of legal services to numerous FOSS projects) with the Software Freedom Conservancy (SFC, a GPL enforcement organization who holds some of the copyrights to Busybox). In particular, even if you don't like the work of the SFC, please don't use that to complain about the SFLC, an entirely separate organization.

<comment><USER22> Rob Landley sure seems to believe the SFLC is in control, as he repeatedly faults the SFLC for their judgement in what suits to bring regarding busybox. They share a number of directors and staff and a few years ago the conservancy's web presence was hosted on a subdomain of the sflc.

In the SFLC's own press releases on the subject they note that they (the SFLC) identified organizations not in compliance, set the terms for getting into compliance, and decided who and when they should sue. At least at the time, the director of the SFC was a paid staff member of the SFLC.

Doesn't really sound like entirely separate organizations to me.

[http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/SFC-and-SFLC-sues- Sam...](http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/SFC-and-SFLC-sues-Samsung- Zyxel-Western-Digital-and-others-over-GPL-violations-885777.html)

EDIT: quote: _Because many of its clients could benefit from the protections of having a legal entity as well as tax exemption status, but were reluctant to pay the fees associated with formation or dedicate the time necessary to start and maintain a tax exempt nonprofit, the Software Freedom Law Center has established The Software Freedom Conservancy. Since its launch in 2006, the Conservancy has grown to include free and open source software projects active in a wide range of fields._

[https://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/foss- primer.h...](https://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/foss- primer.html#x1-190003)</comment></comment></comment>


Umple: Model-Oriented Programming - <AUTHOR> https://cruise.eecs.uottawa.ca/umple/ <comment><USER2> This seems like it is primarily an academic/learning project but I think it could be a good way of learning UML. I especially liked this part of the philosophy - "P2. An Umple programmer should never need to edit generated code to accomplish any task. The need for round-tripping (editing generated code and then reflecting the edits back into the model) common in the Model Driven Engineering world is not needed."

<comment><USER3> It wasn't that great as a tool for learning UML. Was forced to use this in my soft Eng courses at uOttawa and it was not very helpful

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Umple was a huge amount of work. The bidirectional nature of the text form and the graphical form is very impressive. However, it is fatally flawed system IMHO because it adopted wholeheartedly the doomed OOP paradigm, and when you see how many classes you end up using, it makes it hard to understand programs. But a very powerful project, and probably thousands of hours of work to build it. I would be very interested to know how many man-years were put into the program.

</comment><comment><USER5> I like aspects of this; shame it has no C# support.</comment>


Using Scala in Bump for Android - <AUTHOR> http://devblog.bu.mp/how-we-use-scala-in-bump-for-android

<comment><USER2> > Scala runs a little slower than Java (I've heard about 6x in benchmarks, but > I'd bet it's worse in Dalvik),

[citation required]

<comment><USER3> I found this odd as well. I have always heard that it runs faster. For example: [https://days2011.scala- lang.org/sites/days2011/files/ws3-1-H...](https://days2011.scala- lang.org/sites/days2011/files/ws3-1-Hundt.pdf)

<comment><USER4> That paper explains that the Scala engineer performed numerous algorithmic improvements, whereas the Java one "refused" to (he reported somewhere else, on a mailing list? that he wasn't told it was for a paper). The paper also explains that using Scala idiomatic for-comprehensions produced very slow results.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "Scala works very well with existing Java frameworks. Android is, of course, one big Java framework and we were going to have to interface with it a lot. A number of people asked, given the above, why not use Clojure--this is why."

Since when does Clojure not work well with existing Java frameworks? I wouldn't advocate Clojure or Scala one way or the other since I have little idea of what they're doing, but the above doesn't strike me as sound reasoning.

<comment><USER6> Using Java classes and interfaces from Clojure is straightforward. Instantiating objects is easy. Implementing Java interfaces is easy. Both are fluid and feel idiomatic.

On the other hand, extending an existing Java class is quite awkward, requiring the use of gen-class, and does not (IMHO) feel idiomatic. I found the gen-class facility poorly documented. It also has a potentially small performance penalty due to an extra dereference (though in my testing I could not measure a meaningful difference between a gen-class object and a native Java implementation).

So Clojure is nice for using Java stuff from Clojure, however it becomes awkward for using Clojure stuff from Java.

<comment><USER7> I've never found it to be that awkward to extend existing classes from java. Part of the problem in clojure are there are so many different ways to do it, all with different shortcomings.

For simple adding of a protocol to a class you can always just use (extend- class)

Proxies are simple and work well in other cases.

the gen-class documentation is a bit confusing, it helped me to look @ some examples. I used a different site that I can't find now, but this one seems helpful.

[http://kotka.de/blog/2010/02/gen- class_how_it_works_and_how_...](http://kotka.de/blog/2010/02/gen- class_how_it_works_and_how_to_use_it.html)

<comment><USER6> Ya. I was implementing an abstract class so gen-class was the only way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I've fixxed a _getting started_ project using the latest Android SDK and Scala 2.9: <https://github.com/danielribeiro/HelloScalaOnAndroid>

_Edit:_ The pull request was accepted at: <https://github.com/gw111zz/HelloScalaOnAndroid></comment>


Image Dithering: Eleven Algorithms and Source Code - <AUTHOR> http://www.tannerhelland.com/4660/dithering-eleven-algorithms-source-code/ <comment><AUTHOR> previous discussions:

2016: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11886318](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11886318)

2017: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15413377](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15413377)</comment>


[project critique] Gift Automation Service - <AUTHOR>

Hey all,
I'm looking for feedback on my latest project: www.gifthandler.com
Elevator Pitch: Receive reminder emails for upcoming events (birthdays, mother's day ...) which suggest the perfect gift and a personalized message based on how users described their gift recipients.
What I'm Looking for: Sign up for the service, test us out, sign up in the "Gift Yourself" section to give us some direction on picking out gifts for other people. I'm looking for design and usability feedback - I've only begun building the site over the past few weeks. I love the concept, but understand it still looks like middle school club's website.
Thanks so much YCombinator readers! <comment><USER2> Your best bet is to post this as a story linking to your site (i.e. put your url in the "url" box), put "Show HN:" at the start of the tile, and then add your text asking for feedback as a first comment in the thread. If that doesn't make sense, email email@example.com and we'll help.</comment>


Top geneticist loses 3.5M grant in first test of landmark bullying policy - <AUTHOR> https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06009-9 <comment><USER2> I think many people here are caught up on the word "bullying" and think that perhaps her actions weren't very serious. The reality is that none of us here know what she did. I'm just going to go ahead and trust that the granting organization knows what they're doing with their money.

<comment><USER3> In the absence of information, I default to siding with who I see as the recipient of the final punishment/jab who never got a trial. The resigned researcher may have just lost her entire career without a trial. Maybe she is guilty - maybe not. And I do not consider knowing how someone reacted to information equivalent to having that information.

<comment><USER4> Wrong.

According to the article, the "punishment" on table was a disciplinatory hearing. The PI decided to resign rather than undergo that.

The situation is not materially worse than someone getting fired for a reason, and I don't see many stories on HN about that.

<comment><USER3> Regardless of what she chose (resign or be disciplined), her career may never recover. I meant "punishment" in a more abstract sense.

<comment><USER5> You complained they never got a "trial." The person you're responding to was quite correctly pointing out that was completely their choice, a disciplinary hearing would allow all sides to present information, but she effectively plead guilty instead (i.e. take the ultimate sanction).

<comment><USER3> That isn't necessarily true. Even being accused of things can cause significant damage. Also, a huge grant organization had already pulled their funding.

<comment><USER2> So you're arguing for not accusing people of things?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Hopefully the institution will support Mrs Rahnan's graduate students, postdocs and technicians. Not only did they suffer while working with an abusive advisor, they are suffering again because a lot of funding went away.

</comment><comment><USER7> Interesting to contrast this reaction with what felt like a shrug at MIT in response to allegations in 2006 that a prominent neuroscientist "bullied" a prospective hire -- see [http://tech.mit.edu/V126/N52/52tonegawa.html](http://tech.mit.edu/V126/N52/52tonegawa.html) , [http://web.mit.edu/fnl/volume/191/tonegawa.html](http://web.mit.edu/fnl/volume/191/tonegawa.html) , [http://web.mit.edu/fnl/volume/191/to_hockfield.pdf](http://web.mit.edu/fnl/volume/191/to_hockfield.pdf) , [http://tech.mit.edu/V126/N30/30tonegawa.html](http://tech.mit.edu/V126/N30/30tonegawa.html) , and so on.

</comment><comment><USER8> Will someone please legally define "bullying" and "abusive"? This seems like another kangaroo court system in the making.

<comment><USER9> The article links to another article discussing Wellcome's policy.

"The policy defines bullying as a misuse of power that can make people feel vulnerable, upset, humiliated, undermined or threatened. It says harassment is unwanted physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct that has the purpose or effect of violating someone else's dignity, or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for them."

<comment><USER10> How can we be sure it wasn't just a few disgruntled people who wanted to just put a spoke in her wheel?

<comment><USER6> From the article: _After receiving a complaint in November, it immediately commissioned an independent investigation by a law firm into the allegations. The intention was to establish whether the allegations were substantiated by evidence — rather than to determine a disciplinary outcome._

ICR were playing by the letter of the law - as they ought to - and sound properly contrite. There must have been a lot of substance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Since no one here has the facts, people are mostly just arguing about their different associations with the word "bullying". That makes the thread basically about nothing. This is an example of how an intellectually curious discussion requires a minimal level of information. We don't have that in this case.

</comment><comment><USER12> So "Wellcome Trust" doesn't have ebough information (1) but acts based on.. something?

1) "Wellcome bemoans the lack of information available on the affair. "We have been working with the ICR to understand more about their investigation and the allegations that were made against Professor Rahman," says the statement. "Unfortunately, we do not have the full details of the case because they have not been shared with us.""

</comment><comment><USER13> If a top scientist loses a grant, science loses.

<comment><USER14> A top scientist working with cancer research, losing a grant because of _bullying_.

Someone must have some really twisted priorities to consider cancer research so meaningless.

Sure, the bully should get corrected, but through normal corrective measure such as _calling her in for a meeting_. This is just absurd.

<comment><USER6> _Sure, the bully should get corrected, but through normal corrective measure such as calling her in for a meeting. This is just absurd._

The only thing that works is meaningful consequences. This includes consequences for the institution - it's clear that there was a litany of complaints about the person, all of which went unheeded.

<comment><USER14> If her work is valuable, you'd try to get the behavior corrected rather than burning the witch immediately.

She might be an asshole, but this is not how you would deal with the situation in a normal company where someone has an important position.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Well I'm of two minds about this.

Linus Torvalds is, by all accounts, a bully. But that's how science goes sometimes; it is unforgiving and will make you feel stupid and inadequate, why blame the messenger? And science is hard! People regularly get in your way with shitty ideas, especially when you've hit upon something great like Linux or cancer gene discoveries.

I kind of dealt with this at work recently. We were asked to disable the right click menu on our website. A business analyst thought that it would solve a session management problem and instead of asking us how to solve the problem, thought that they would prescribe this solution to us. I tried to kill this right out of the gate; "This is a bad idea, it doesn't do what you want, if you want better session handling we don't do it this way, so let's close this story and discuss a better approach". Nope, that wasn't good enough. Cue 2 weeks of meetings explaining what the right click menu does and how it doesn't even come close to solving the real problem. I really just wanted to call this BA an idiot and bully the problem away, it would have saved a significant amount of time and frustration for multiple parties.

So I'm imagining this geneticist in similar situations. "Hey, I heard that vitamin C can splice this gene better than how you're doing it, why don't you try?". _Cue angry response that could get construed as bullying_.

All that being said, there _are_ mean people who just fumble about destroying everything in their wake. So lacking any information about this person's bullying... who knows.

<comment><USER6> _Linus Torvalds is, by all accounts, a bully._

Not that again. Some people will defend him because the people he really lets loose on is not newcomers but very experienced contributors from whom he expects better.

It's a cultural issue. Recently I spoke to a US general, who as a young officer served as a liaison officer in Germany. He found the German directness "refreshing".

<comment><USER16> You can be linus style direct, more efficiently, by removing the irrelevant insults and swearing.

They really serve no purpose other than to make linus feel good and others feel bad. So its not net good for the world.

You can say "This commit is garbage I am really angry about it and expected better from you" and not add "you are a fucking abortion" or whatever.

<comment><USER17> Even that is not helpful to the recipient of the feedback.

How about:

"Here is a list of standards every code check-in is required to meet. Here are the standards that your current P/R fails. Try again. Do you need help with anything specific? When can you have a new P/R ready?."

If applicable: "This delays the schedule, what is your recovery plan?:

And occasionally: "At your pay grade, you are expected to know these standards."

<comment><USER18> I find this kind of dispassionate feedback both condescending and nauseating tbqh.

A few f-bombs let me know you care.

<comment><USER17> Dispassionate? Let me tell you, if you have ever had an ex-commando officer from the Israeli Defense Force as a boss, you will know with every fiber of your being that those words can be delivered with passion.

A passion that leaves no doubt in your mind that "What is your recovery plan?" is not a soft-ball question, and that a soft-ball answer will be promptly discarded. In my case, said boss took part in Operation Entebbe. He ran a very low-BS engineering organization. It was refreshing in a very good way.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Google's new OnHub home Wi-Fi router: What is it and who might need it? - <AUTHOR> http://www.networkworld.com/article/2972815/internet-of-things/google-onhub-home-wi-fi-router-what-is-it-and-who-might-need-it.html?nsdr=true

<comment><AUTHOR> Home Wi-Fi routers are often designed as unattractive, dumbed-downed versions of enterprise routers. Google's just-announced OnHub router takes a different approach – designed for consumers to connect everything to Google's and other clouds, it actually looks pretty sweet.</comment>


Worlds first Bitcoin ATM opens in Cyprus - <AUTHOR> http://www.silverdoctors.com/worlds-first-bitcoin-atm-launched-in-cyprus/

<comment><USER2> It's not the first. [http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57570925-38/need- bitcoins-...](http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57570925-38/need-bitcoins- this-atm-takes-dollars-and-funds-your-account/)

</comment><comment><USER3> You can see in the picture that besides the Bitcoin ATM, there are ATMs of banks from Thailand. I doubt this is in Cyprus.</comment>


Apple releases macOS High Sierra 10.13.6, highlights AirPlay 2 for iTunes - <AUTHOR> https://9to5mac.com/2018/07/09/apple-releases-macos-high-sierra-10-13-6-highlights-airplay-2-for-itunes/ <comment><USER2> This is really pro.

What more could developers want?</comment>


The little super-dense singularity of the future - <AUTHOR> http://raganwald.posterous.com/the-little-super-dense-singularity-of-the-fut

<comment><USER2> An interesting counterpoint to [http://www.salon.com/2012/12/01/nassim_nicholas_taleb_the_fu...](http://www.salon.com/2012/12/01/nassim_nicholas_taleb_the_future_will_not_be_cool/), which paid us a visit a couple weeks back.

</comment><comment><USER3> I normally dislike the term "fanboy," but I have to admit that when the shoe fits...

</comment><comment><USER4> I bet even if things got more amazing (like we started traveling around in those smart chairs like in Wall-E) people still wouldn't be happy. I enjoyed reading this because I often forget how amazing smartphones are.

<comment><USER3> Related, but weirdly cool: I can buy you an iTunes gift certificate, and you just hold it up to the camera on your computer to redeem it.

Much nicer in many ways than trundling vinyl discs around.</comment></comment>


Has to Be a Joke, Because If It's Not - <AUTHOR> https://alhambrapartners.com/2020/08/27/this-has-to-be-a-joke-because-if-its-not/ <comment><USER2> The article assumes a shared context of facts and interpretation that makes it unreadable for someone encountering it for the first time.

<comment><USER3> While the Federal Reserve talks a lot about how its rate policies have improved the economy, actual figures from inflation and unemployment don't back up any of the improvements they're claiming, and haven't for years. Now, the Fed is moving the goalposts -- saying low unemployment can no longer be a reason for a rate increase, only inflation, since inflation has also stayed lower than the target metric. As inflation generally rises when people have more money to spend, this implies that even though the unemployment figures are way down, and the stock market is way up, people and businesses aren't actually spending any more money. Why not? Simplest answer is "they don't have money to spend".

<comment><USER4> Yes, all this money "printing" appears to inflate only asset prices. It is a great generator of inequality.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> How do I go from not understanding economics/finance, to pretending to understand it? I feel like that finance uniquely is a field that every time I have tried to penetrate I get a mix of unintelligible jargon and mathematics as a facade of rigor.

I am comfortable reading both math and programming textbooks, but every finance book I've picked up so far seems to quickly not make any sense to me at all.

<comment><USER6> I have an MBA in Finance, and after getting to the bottom of the math, it's all just bare faced gambling, dressed up with $10 words. I really wish I could say it was not, but this blog analysis of the Fed and the attitude it voices is spot on. The Economists of the world are fucking idiots.

<comment><USER7> I have recently finished 'Lost in Math'.

And that was one of the points, apparently physicists switching to economists say math is simplistic and superflous.

Math is math, but it can be used as a window dressing for you opinions.

On the other hand if your field pretends to be science. Also creates and awards itself a Nobel prize and pretends its an actual thing. Well maybe its a sign of a con.

<comment><USER6> Tip of the iceberg: [https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300249873/whats- wrong-ec...](https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300249873/whats-wrong- economics) There are also multiple Economist blogs lamenting the overly cruel politics of the industry.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The beginning of the text feels really odd, almost GPT-3-like at some points. At least, that's the way it seems when you do not know the jargon. It just rambles on and on. Thankfully it gets more coherent later on, but I am not sure what the author intended to say in this piece.

<comment><USER9> That "we're going to allow even bigger than 2% inflation" is the bullshit of bullshits because they've never even been able to hit that 2. Means all the printing's been useless and things are going to shit. (or have already)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Can anyone summarize this in a more accessible way?

<comment><USER11> Paraphrasing article: US monetary policy has failed consistently because it is predicated on a rise in inflation caused by decreases in the unemployment rate, but this hasn't occurred - probably because the unemployment rate (or how its measured) doesn't correctly capture the change in spending power in the labour market. /Paraphrasing

It's kinda the same in my country - for the statistical purposes of the official Statistics Department unemployment rate, you are no longer unemployed if you a) work 1 hour a week or b) _have actively stopped seeking employment_.

I guess it's designed that way according to international best practice or something, but it means we have rather odd situations where the unemployment rate decreases, but the amount of people seeking income support increases.

<comment><USER12> US monetary policy has not "failed" pretty much since Nixon. Janet Yellen's tenure is really the only blemish, but only because she didn't raise rates when we could have.

I think you're confusing the "Dual Mandate" of the Fed to minimize inflation and maximize employment with some misplaced belief in economics. Every American economist of the last century has realized these are often competing ideals. It's their raison d'etre, without it the Fed doesn't exist.

<comment><USER3> And yet somehow they have in fact kept inflation at less than 2% while bringing unemployment to near zero (well, pre-pandemic, as the rest of the article, this year's numbers are screwy). That's weird, right? What's up with that?

<comment><USER12> That has more to do with globalization and how we measure inflation and unemployment than monetary policy. If you look at markets that aren't influenced as highly by global trade (like housing, healthcare, and education) they are greatly inflated.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The dollar is gonna get f'd. Maybe Thomas Jefferson was right about central banks after all... probably not.

</comment><comment><USER14> > _As I've written here, there's even more to write about this utter stupidity > and I've put together a good deal of it already today for publication > tomorrow._

Hopefully with more clarity, as this is opaque and suggestive as duck (sic)...

</comment><comment><USER15> I feel like this needs some back story.</comment>