Ask HN: How do I legally run a startup in US while on an F1 or H1B visa? - <AUTHOR> I am working on a startup idea and have received an interview call from an accelerator and very likely to get in. The problem is that I am currently working on F1 (opt ext) and will file for H1B this April. My visa statuses do not allow me to dedicatedly run a startup. Is there any separate visa I could file or any other way I could do this? Suggestions will be greatly appreciated <comment><USER2> You can't.

These visa categories have been specifically engineered to prevent you from working outside of your original job. Trust me, you do NOT want to screw with Immigration.

I'd been on J1/H1B/pre-Green-Card-waiting-list for a total of 10 years, so I had a lot of time to think about this.

Best shot if you are in an insane hurry: Marry a US citizen and really mean it. So better stop hacking in the evenings and go out. Start an interesting hobby. Get a hair cut. Read good books. Make friends that are NOT hackers. Get a tan. Eat good food. Smile at members of your preferred opposite gender and get super-comfortable talking to them.

Do NOT think about get-rich-quick-start-up ideas, it will only drive you mad if you can't actually start them up. Nobody wants to hang out with a person torn by the realization that they are in an impossible situation.

Enjoy the ride. You are young, bright and you work in an amazing field while living in a (presumably) fascinating place.

<comment><USER3> Ridiculous post. OP has options other than marriage.

<comment><USER4> Depends on where OP was born really and how many degrees he has. The employment based Green card process is terrible if you were born in China or India, or don't have a Masters degree. Otherwise, it is not that complicated. There are enough folks who get a permanent residentship through work in a couple of years. Also, the green card lottery is an option that everyone (who is eligible) should try for.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Stay in OPT as long as you can. You get more flexibility that way. Try getting the 17 month (I think) extension.

If you are on an H1B, you need to get a US person co-founder and have them 'sponsor' you. Be wary about the start up failing because as soon as the sponsor breaks their contract, you will be out of status [1]. This means you may have to leave the country immediately.

The E5 visa [2] is the best alternative. If you can secure funding of around $500,000, you get the right to live and work in the US almost as a US person. You can work for yourself, travel in and out of the country as you wish, etc.

[1] [http://www.klaskolaw.com/articles.php?action=view&id=8](http://www.klaskolaw.com/articles.php?action=view&id=8)

> Terminated H-1B employees should be aware that time is not on their side. If > the employee has plans to have another H-1B petition filed on his or her > behalf, or to change to another nonimmigrant status, those plans should be > implemented as quickly as possible.

[2] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EB-5_visa](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EB-5_visa)

<comment><USER4> > Stay in OPT as long as you can. You get more flexibility that way. Try > getting the 17 month (I think) extension.

You need to start working at a company with no more than total 90 days of unemployment between jobs. Also, the 17 month extension works only if the company is enrolled in everify.

<comment><USER6> The e-verify process is very easy and if you have incorporated your startup you can go ahead and do the e-verification yourself. Keep in mind that you are employee of your own company, so as long as the company is registered you should not have the 90 day unemployment problem.

<comment><USER7> I can confirm a friend incorporated and did the e-verification themselves and indeed did not have the 90 day unemployment problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> IANAL but based on experience, in general you can legally "own" a company/startup while on F1/H1B but you cannot "run" it. However, USCIS has come up with an explanation of "Employer-Employee relationship [0]" which is worth looking into if on H1B. The Requirement 1 is interesting:

        + How do I demonstrate an employer-employee relationship   if I own my own company?
        If you own your company you may be able to demonstrate  that an employer-employee relationship exists if the control  of your work is exercised by others.  For example, if your company has a board of directors, preferred shareholders, investors, or other factors that show your organization has the right to control the terms and conditions of your employment (namely the right to hire, fire, pay, supervise or otherwise control the terms and conditions of your employment), then you may be able to meet this requirement.   Some of the evidence you may submit to demonstrate the distinction between your ownership interest and the right to  control your employment includes:

        Term Sheet
        Capitalization Table
        Stock purchase Agreement
        Investor rights Agreement
        Voting Agreement
        Organizational documents and operating agreements

Otherwise, your options are almost none unless you quality for EB5 [1]

[0] [http://www.uscis.gov/eir/visa-guide/h-1b-specialty- occupatio...](http://www.uscis.gov/eir/visa-guide/h-1b-specialty- occupation/understanding-h-1b-requirements)

[1] [http://www.uscis.gov/working-united-states/permanent- workers...](http://www.uscis.gov/working-united-states/permanent- workers/employment-based-immigration-fifth-preference-eb-5/eb-5-immigrant- investor)

<comment><USER9> The H1B petition process requires the employer to show that it can pay the prevailing wage. That's going to be near impossible for a pre-funding startup.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> You can work as an independant contractor or start a company on an OPT, STEM extension and even on a Pre-Completion OPT.

I recommend that you read this policy guidance published by the ICE in 2010.

[http://www.ice.gov/doclib/sevis/pdf/opt_policy_guidance_0420...](http://www.ice.gov/doclib/sevis/pdf/opt_policy_guidance_042010.pdf)

It clearly states that:

On page 18.

 Work for hire. This is also commonly referred to as 1099 employment, where an individual performs a service based on a contractual relationship rather than an employment relationship. If requested by DHS, the student must be prepared to provide evidence showing the duration of the contract period and the name and address of the contracting company.

 Self-employed business owner. A student on OPT may start a business and be self-employed. The student must be able to prove that he or she has the proper business licenses and is actively engaged in a business related to the student's degree program.

On page 19

For a student who is on a 17-month extension, this employment may include

 Multiple employers. A student may work for more than one employer, but all employment must be related to his or her degree program and all employers must be enrolled in E-Verify.

 Work for hire. This is also commonly referred to as 1099 employment, where an individual performs a service based on a contractual relationship rather than an employment relationship. The company for whom the student is providing services must be registered with E-Verify. If requested by DHS, the student must be prepared to provide evidence showing the duration of the contract period and the name and address of the contracting company.

 Self-employed business owner. A student on a 17-month extension can start a business and be self-employed. In this situation, the student must register his or her business with E-Verify and work full time. The student must be able to prove that he or she has the proper business licenses and is actively engaged in a business related to his or her degree program.

Contact me if you are interested in learning more about this topic.

Akshay Bhat (Cornell University)

<comment><AUTHOR> What happens when my OPT stem extension gets over ? Mine ends in June 2014

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I do not think that the comments here are very good advice. I know a very good immigration attorney if you need one. Here are my two cents:

* H1B hit its cap last year, probably hit its cap next year. It's a lottery if you'll get one – I know a lot of people that did not get them – It's also very hard to get a H1B if a) you own _majority_ of the company, or b) if you have raised less than $500k.

* I have never met anyone on the E5 visa. It's supposedly a complete nightmare, and takes forever to process.

* The E-2 visa is good but it requires _you_ investing significant capital – six figures – in your business. If you can do this, get this visa since it is the best one.

* I know people that did not get the H1B and ended up working in USA on a J-1 visa: it's a crappy visa but might work, usually requires you to have more structure in the USA though.

My advice is to get a good lawyer and get an O-1 visa. Everyone balks at this visa but if you match these requirements you are a long way towards it:

* Have press about your startup (techcrunch etc)

* Have been accepted in an accelerator

* Have a degree

* Can get 5 or 10 reference letters from customers / advisors / investors saying how great you are.

One caveat is that again, you need six figures in the bank. Of all the visas though the O-1 is by far the nearest to an Entrepreneurs visa. I know dozens of people with them.

<comment><AUTHOR> What are the odds of getting an O-1 ? Almost all of the entrepreneurs who get funded and get press would fit in the above criteria. Il drop you a dm.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is what most hackers want:

\- residence in the USA;

\- working for a small salary to cover expenses,

\- but with strong guarantees of equity (ownership or something like it)

US immigration law is designed to stop all of this. Because for most other cases, that would mask shenanigans like a foreign worker undercutting a US competitor, or even a foreign worker being exploited.

Bottom line, you may be able to hack this, but in doing so you will probably give someone else a lot of power over you. Even if you succeed, someone else may have the ability to extract a lot of that wealth you worked for.

I happen to be Canadian, so living in my own country is not such a hardship and I still have access to US investors.

This might be a thread derail, but how many people here would consider residing in Canada as an alternative? The country is much more friendly to immigration, and if you live in Vancouver, you're just a few hours from SFO or Seattle by air. Some Silicon Valley companies are starting up divisions in Vancouver for that reason. But maybe there could be a "Vancouver hacker house" doing the same thing for foreign entrepreneurs and startups.

<comment><USER13> I'm a Canadian in the US. I'm exploring moving back to Canada . Specifically, I'm looking at the Toronto area. I'm not impressed by all the process around incubators and raising small amounts of funds. It is a bit discouraging.

1) The govt seems to be putting money into encouraging startups, which is great. The way they are doing it seems to be broken. The programs all require gatekeepers with silly processes (e.g. applying months before, talking about IP protection from the get go[this makes me think lawyers run the show]).

2) The govt programs mostly have lots of strings attached to how you can use the money.

3) Some accelerators charge people for "program delivery". WTF!

4) I make over 6 figures in the US. Toronto jobs seem to be paying around half my salary (60-70K). So if I screw up, I don't want my fallback option to be move back to the states.

Here's an idea: any student who finishes a PhD or Masters from a Canadian school .. invest 30-50K in their company. Ask them for matching funds. Stipulate you can only use the funds for hiring employees.

Anyways ... sorry for the random rant. I'm just really frustrated. I guess this is good training for when I'm in the trough of sorrow :-p

<comment><USER12> No, I agree with you quite a lot.

It amazes me how much time startups in Canada devote to getting grants. But, when you lack private investors like SV, and the government is a willing partner (with lots of strings attached), this is what happens.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> __* You can do this on the OPT __*. Without OPT F-1 employment rules are strict. But the OPT is basically a green card when it comes to what kind of work you can do (anywhere, you don 't have to ask anyone's permission to change employers, you can freelance, you can start a business, you can work for multiple employers).

You need to work full-time on OPT. I don't know how they check but you need to be prepared to prove that you're working full time. (I know about this because if you're freelancing, my school told that I need to keep extensive paper trail to prove that I'm employed.) There's limitations about how long you can be unemployed in the OPT.

You need to register your company in E-verify for OPT extension. To register for e-verify you need tax ID numbers and a DUNS number as well. It's a pain but I was able to do it myself. (They make you study for a quiz, etc). You actually don't need to e-verify yourself. Just registering the company and getting an e-verify number was enough for us.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi, So I'm on F1 OPT stem extension which is about to end in June 2014. How to tackle things after the stem gets over? H1B sponsored by my company ?

<comment><USER4> Once the stem is over, you need to switch to the H1B. Also if you were born in Canada, Singapore, Chile, Australia, things are easier.

<comment><AUTHOR> Im from India. I will have to go on an H1B, even if I apply for a green card (EB2), it will take me 5 years with the current queue.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> There's no such visa unfortunately. If you qualify for an EB-1A you could self petition without a job offer and receive a green card that would entitle you to work wherever you'd like. But that requires you to be among the best in your field. It's a pretty high bar.

<comment><USER4> > But that requires you to be among the best in your field. It's a pretty high > bar.

Surprisingly, the bar is not that high. They have weird rules like people who are "good" in your field need to recommend you, you need to have something published somewhere. The nitty gritties mean that say a random fashion model who has appeared on some magazine somewhere can suddenly become an alien with extraordinary ability.

<comment><USER9> I've helped put together a few, all successful. You are right that it isn't as hard as it might seem at first blush. You can get through some mid to late career professionals who are fairly successful in their chosen field, even if it might be a stretch to call them extraordinary. But the OP sounds like someone just out of school.

The heart of the petition is the need to provide evidence for at least three of the following:

1\. Receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence.

2\. Membership in associations which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their fields.

3\. Published material in professional/major trade publications or major media about the alien and relating to the alien's work field.

4\. Participation as a judge (individually or as a part of a panel) evaluating the work of others.

5\. Original scientific, scholarly, or artistic contributions of major significance.

6\. Authorship of scholarly articles in professional journals or other major media.

7\. Artistic exhibitions/shows.

8\. Leading role within an organization/establishment with a distinguished reputation.

9\. High salary/compensation for services in comparison to others.

10\. Commercial success within the performing arts, as shown by either box office receipt figures or cassette, compact disk, video, or DVD sales figures.

<comment><USER15> I'm currently a sophomore and I _might_ satisfy these - any idea if these would work?

3\. I've been covered on CNN, Quartz Magazine, Business Insider, Valleywag

4\. This one seems a bit iffy - I control entrance into a pre-accelerator program (would this count?)

8\. Founded and currently running Startup Exchange at Georgia Tech. I'm not sure how they determine distinguished reputation, but I run a pre-accelerator program, and I'm about to launch a student-run venture fund. (this might also fly as #2)

Any idea if I'd qualify?

Also, getting extraordinary entrepreneurs to recommend me definitely wouldn't be an issue.

<comment><USER9> It's impossible to make a complete evaluation based on what you've provided here, but I'd lean towards no.

One problem is that I don't know exactly how you'd define the field. That turns out to be a critical step in putting together a persuasive narrative.

The other thing, at least on the cases I worked on, we never had a case that was just sort of scrapping by. We got a 2-3" binder and filled it with evidence. We tried to hit as many categories as possible, not just the minimum, and in each category provided more than one example.

On the other hand, I only worked on a half dozen, and they were all successful (although we did get an RFE on one), so I can't really say I know exactly where the line is.

<comment><USER15> That makes sense. I guess it isn't one field per say - the media was for computer security, but the rest is all about helping entrepreneurs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> IANAL, I believe you cannot work on your startup or any other company with an F1 (you can only work part-time on campus edit: I forgot about the OPT, worth looking into) or H1B (you can only work for the company that sponsored you). You may want to look at the L1 visa.

<comment><USER10> Please your information is incorrect, with proper authorization (OPT or STEM extension) a student on an F1 visa can start a company.

Please look at my other post for reference to the guidance published by ICE.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> [http://watsonimmigration.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/h1b-visas-...](http://watsonimmigration.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/h1b-visas- for-entrepreneurs-self-employed-h1b-visa/)

Hi, if you are on your OPT and have an H1b pending, you can extend your OPT until October 1. Depends when in April your OPT expires but H1bs must be filed by April 1 so you could very well utilize that opportunity.

Depending on the country of citizenship, you could consider an E2 visa also.

I am a strong advocate for the Startup visa which would have helped you.

I assist startup founders with visa options and would be happy to help.

</comment><comment><USER18> Here is a link to USCIS own guidance for the above question. [http://www.uscis.gov/eir/visa-guide/entrepreneur-visa- guide](http://www.uscis.gov/eir/visa-guide/entrepreneur-visa-guide)

IMHO, its not impossible and you have options, but it will not be hassle free. You'll have to jump a lot of hurdles before you get through.

</comment><comment><USER19> You can do this by filing H1B through a consulting company and start working for the startup as a contractor through the consulting company. One catch is that consulting company has to pay a minimum h1B salary for you which shouldn't be a problem if you do get into the accelerator. If you need help for filing H1B, let me know through email. Good luck.

</comment><comment><USER20> IANAL, you can start a startup on H1B if you can prove that you are not sponsoring yourself. The way few people I know did is, by having a board of directors with the power to fire you (maybe through majority vote). You need to list a member of board-of-directors as your manager.

</comment><comment><USER21> I'd suggest you don't take legal advice on a forum such as this. Contact a lawyer.

</comment><comment><USER22> How I hacked my US startup visa: [http://qz.com/151333/how-i-hacked-my-us- startup-visa/](http://qz.com/151333/how-i-hacked-my-us-startup-visa/)

<comment><USER23> This is an interesting tale. When I read these, and all the we should have an "entrepreneur visa" stories, I can't help but feel sorry for all the others who aren't as well educated and will never be able to hack our system.

<comment><USER4> This is true for everything in life. E.g. I became a permanent resident after winning the green card lottery. The process of getting together nearly five pounds worth of documents, spending thousands of dollars talking to lawyers in three different countries, reading enough legal jibberish to understand that the way the law works in the U.S. is always subject to interpretation and knowing what that interpretation actually is makes me very certain that if I had got the lottery at any other previous point in my life, I would never have made it. In fact, thousands of the "poor, unwashed masses" who this lottery is supposed to help make it easier for, never get in for stupid silly reasons.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I think you are ok if you are still on OPT status. As you long as you can show that are applying skills you learned from school.

But try checking with your international office at school.

</comment><comment><USER25> Go look up Phillipe Kahn. Unless they fixed them, there are some holes that can be specifically exploited when creating your own company.

</comment><comment><USER26> The only visa intended for starting a business is the E5 visa. You need at least $1 million in capital to qualify.

<comment><USER3> Misinformation. The E-1 and E-2 exist specifically for starting businesses in the US. H1B and even L-1 can also be used in some cases.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I believe the guys who started interviewstreet were on an H1B visa. Maybe talk to them?</comment>


The Weakness of Anthropic Arguments - <AUTHOR> https://ineffectivetheory.com/weakness-anthropic-arguments/ <comment><USER2> I feel like the challenge of explaining fundamental constants understates the strength of anthropic reasoning. Most regions in space are empty voids — why aren't we in such a void right now? Being anywhere near the orbit of a star is extremely unlikely a priori. Why are we on a planet with oceans teeming with other life forms, instead of a barren rocky desert, which seems to be the norm for planets in general? Why are we exactly on the _surface_ of that planet, as opposed to being 1,000 kilometers up in the sky or down underground, swimming in hot magma?

These are the questions where "Because those are the only conditions suitable for your existence to happen" is so obviously correct the questions make you roll your eyes. Applying the anthropic principle to fundamental constants is a speculative extension that might be right or wrong, but there are plenty of mundane coincidences that have no other answer.

<comment><USER3> Empty space is like the pencils lying on the ground in the article's analogy. We can observe both habitable space and empty space, and we have a good theory to explain why we don't find ourselves in empty space. With some effort we can go to empty space and see what it's like.

But we can't observe parts of the multiverse with different fine structure constants, which puts it in a different category of entities that Occam's razor recommends not to multiply.

<comment><USER2> Agree completely, but a lack of direct observation isn't the only evidence we have, at least in principle. If you had an unimaginably powerful computer that could run simulations to determine whether life could form for other values of fundamental constants, the answer would say something about the plausibility of an anthropic explanation for their values. If it turns out that any slight adjustment makes life (of any form, however alien) impossible, anthropic explanations are more likely. If it turns out that any choice of constants produces _some_ form of life, anthropic explanations are less likely. We can't run this simulation, but we can make at least weak inferences about what parts of the parameter space preclude life.

More speculatively, as we've gathered more observation, we've repeatedly found a world consistent with the theory, "Things could be different; your local conditions are unrepresentative; there was a de facto parameter sweep and you're in an odd corner of it." Humans are in a very specific place with respect to their surroundings on many, many scales. Admittedly, though, not on the very largest scales we can observe. The cosmos does appear homogenous eventually. Anthropic cosmology is tantamount to the claim that this homogeneity isn't the end of the story, and that on some "larger" scale (which might not correspond literally to spatial position), the non-homogeneity resumes and explains why our region is the way it is. If there were some a priori theoretical reason to suppose that constants actually do vary, just so slowly that they appear constant within any given Hubble volume, it would add credence to the explanation that we're just once again in an odd part of a parameter sweep.

<comment><USER4> Isn't the issue there verifying that our simulations of other values are accurate?

For example within a certain range of values Newton's law of motion hold but outside of that they don't. We can simulate outside of that range as if they do but luckily can observe that those simulations don't hold experimentally.

<comment><USER3> Yes, it's hard to verify simulations. Not because we don't know what the equations are, but that solving the equations with finite amounts of computing requires a lot of clever approximations which are hard to verify except by comparing with experiments, which we can only do for the laws of physics that operate in our neighborhood of the multiverse.

The ultimate experiment would be to start simulating at the big bang with slightly different parameters and see if intelligent life evolves on one of the simulated planets after several billion years of simulated time. But we're very far from such an experiment being feasible.

<comment><USER4> The point is that we've worked out the equations based on what we observe from our Universe. We don't know and can't demonstrate they necessarily hold for other constants or Universe configurations. Just like Newton was correct with his laws of motion for the range of values he had access too but subsequently we know they don't work for both much smaller scales and much larger scales. And we have no way to verify that our equations do accurately model other universes even if we could argue that they do. So no amount of fidelity of simulation (and associated problems therein) necessarily demonstrate anything.

We shouldn't confuse the map for the terrain in other words.

<comment><USER3> We may be talking about two different things. I'm talking about a multiverse where different parts have different values for constants (like the fine structure or gravitational constant) but the equations are the same. If you're talking about a universe with structurally different equations implying different conservation laws, then indeed we can't demonstrate anything about it.

<comment><USER4> But we don't know either way... and importantly don't (yet) have a means to know.

Axioms aren't helpful in that regard.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think this post's assumption that intelligent life is inevitable is unsupported. Just because lots of systems are Turing complete doesn't at all imply that intelligent life or even life in general is likely to arise from a random initial state. There's no support in the post for this jump in logic.

I think the solution to the Fermi paradox is that intelligent life is just spectacularly unlikely, and that we're the only intelligent life in the observable universe. I think most people reason that we're probably not that special, that our conditions aren't too rare, and that the likelihood of intelligent life given those conditions must be somewhat good, but I don't think any of this reasoning is valid given the anthropic principle. I think the fact that we find ourselves in a world where we're alone is evidence for the sheer unlikelihood of life.

If there were many values of the fine structure constant that could create a universe with any life at all, then I would guess that across that range of values, there would be more variation where some values would create a universe with rare lonely life and some values would create a universe where life was more plentiful. In that case, we would be more likely to find ourselves in a universe where life was more plentiful. But if there were a tighter range of possible constant values that create a universe with any life at all, then I would expect less variation with only universes with rare lonely life. Given that we find ourselves in a universe with rare lonely life, that seems like evidence that there isn't much room for variation in the constants while staying life-supporting.

<comment><USER6> It's somewhat reasonable to assume that we're the only intelligent life in our corner of the galaxy (the practical reach of an artificial radio signal), but the observable universe is a really, really big place.

<comment><USER5> It's been estimated that self-replicating Von Neumann probes could populate our galaxy in 10 million years. I haven't seen an estimate about them populating multiple galaxies, but I assume many could be hit within some multiple of that, and the growth would be exponential. Even if most intelligent life generally doesn't decide to make self-replicating probes, it only takes one civilization in the history of the (observable) universe to do it to make a huge effect.

It's possible that life is just likely enough that none of them have yet chosen to or have been alive long enough to create self-replicating probes, but I don't think it's correct to assume that the likelihood value for life would be on the extreme upper end of the range that's compatible with our observations.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > In this universe, where α ≈ 0.007297352569, you're reading an article about > the anthropic principle; in the universe where α ≈ 0.007297352569, at the > very least, it's reasonable to guess that you would not be. (Good news: in > that universe, you're a billionaire playboy philanthropist!)

Both values of α look identical to me, but the text implies that they're subtly different - is this a typo in the article, or am I missing something?

<comment><USER8> I read this as putting all the weight on the wavy approximate equals; the alternate universe described is incredibly similar to, but not quite the same as, ours.

<comment><USER9> I'm sure he must have meant to change the last digit, but something went wrong. We exist because of a typo!

<comment><USER10> Thereby exposing God as nothing more than an average _copy editor_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The Anthropic principle idea that this universe's physical properties can't vary much and produce carbon/hydrogen/oxygen (CHO) based life on the surface of planets is probably not correct and was just popularized many decades ago when the understanding of nuclear physics was not as complete as it is now. The possible paths to a CHO universe with acceptable planet surface conditions were not well explored.

From the linked article: "Suppose the fine structure constant were in fact 10% different — enough to prevent stellar fusion from producing carbon."

This is an old idea and is probably false (I am not an astro/nuclear physicist) but the author of this in-depth paper is[1]. Fred Adams is at the Physics and Astronomy departments at the University of Michigan and in this 2019 paper[1], with over 500 references, states the fine structure constant can vary by 4 decades/orders of magnitude (decade=log10(max value/min value)). See table two on page 140 for that range and ranges of some other fundamental values. The most constrained value ranges still vary by an order of magnitude (down quark mass and the up-down quark mass difference).

[1][https://arxiv.org/pdf/1902.03928.pdf](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1902.03928.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER12> I find the argument against anthropic arguments to be weak.

* The terms _life_ and _intelligence_ lack formal definitions.

* The predicate _why_ lacks a formal definition.

* The argument does not address the maximum number of possible configurations of the universe, which dilutes any quantitative arguments. Most importantly, the cardinality of the maximum number of possible configurations is not addressed. For example, the possibility of an aleph number [0] was not addressed.

* The argument does not address qualitatively different structures of the universe, such as universes with discontinuous lengths or types of affine spaces [1] where measurement as we understand it does not exist.

The list of concerns above is not exhaustive, and I don't think addressing them individually will necessarily salvage the argument. While stronger arguments for or against the anthropic principle are possible, I think they deserve much more rigor.

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

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

</comment><comment><USER13> The key most people miss about the anthropic principle, and that seems to be the confusion here, is that when you're filtering out false hypotheses (those inconsistent with the observed facts), all remaining consistent explanations increase in probability equally. This means, for example, if you want to explain how Derren Brown won the lottery, the probability that he cheated raises in line with the probability that he just got lucky, which is exponentially low, hence it is almost certain he cheated.

The base probability is, as always, based on some form of Solomonoff induction, which is invariant to 'scale', hence why we can explain away seemingly-arbitrarily low probability events (α≈0.007297352569) by talking about universes that contain a continuum of different α. In the lottery example, the hypothesis 'lots of people tried' is simple, even if the probability of each individual winning the lottery is low.

You might ask instead, but what's the probability that _that specific person_ won the lottery? Surely that is exponentially less likely? Yes, indeed, but unlike the Derren Brown case, where P(Derren Brown cheats the lottery) is fairly high prior to him winning the lottery given the public attempt, P(that random guy cheats the lottery) is very low, as most people don't cheat the lottery.

Thinking about alternative observers and question-asking is a distraction. _Other_ people asking _other_ questions are not you, so they are not compatible with your observations.

</comment><comment><USER14> If we start with the theory that universal constants are random (big if) then the question he is pushing towards doesn't make any sense. Why does a random number take on a specific value? That is a question for philosophers, not physicists. If we were observing a truly random number then it doesn't mean anything for it to be a specific value.

It is a fair point if nobody has proven (or indeed, can prove) that something in physics is a random number. But alas that does not mean the theory is weak. It is perfectly consistent with the evidence, and mathematically satisfying.

It would be quite exciting if someone can find a reason why we observe specific values and rule out the random number idea. But at some point we know we'll run up against the impossible questions of "why does anything exist at all?", "is it possible for something to not exist?" and "what separates existence from non-existence?". We can't expect to find causal answers for everything.

</comment><comment><USER15> But I thought the purpose of the Anthropic principle was not to answer, "why is this thing?" but rather, "why is this thing so perfect for us?". Those are very different questions.

<comment><USER16> As our n=1, how can you claim that it is indeed the best of all possibilities ("so perfect")?

<comment><USER17> We need a large number of samples when we lack sufficient understanding of the system in study. But if we assume our current knowledge of physics and biology are good enough then we should be able to find the best(whatever definitions is used) without needing multiple samples. We use multiple samples to create a model but if a model exists then non-contradicting samples add nothing. Although we could have a large discussion about bayesian epistemology regarding my last statement.

<comment><USER16> > But if we assume our current knowledge of physics and biology are good > enough

That's a bloody big _if_ , but let us let it ride for now

> we should be able to find the best(whatever definitions is used)

Agreed it hinges on that, assuming the preceding _if_ is accepted. What 'best' do you nominate? I have no idea what it might be.

<comment><USER17> It is a big if. My choice of words was very deliberate as I didn't wish to convey that our knowledge is sufficient. But the question here doesn't hinge on real knowledge(our ability to ever gain it is in itself a huge question) but rather on belief in possessing the said knowledge. Otherwise every real world calculation of probability is meaningless as physical systems can't have proofs but rather more and more tested models acting as the prior in our calculations.

I don't nominate any best. I don't have an idea either. I merely used a word used by a parent. Best could be minima, maxima or any other criteria of the function they choose to refer here.

My point is if you have a belief that your model is good enough, you don't need a large number of trials to calculate a probability on whatever characteristic you choose.

The accuracy of this result is a question but the question would remain similar to the scenario where you calculate the probability from a larger number of trials.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Isn't this just a form of "survivor bias"? I don't get why anthropic arguments are considered "weak".

The article seems to just be complaining that anthropic arguments cannot explain the precise _value_ of the fine structure constant. Well, nor can Occam's Razor, but we don't seem to have a problem quoting that!

<comment><USER19> My understanding is that they are an attempt to explain away something that may or may not be random.

We wouldn't be debating it if the universe were substantially different, but that doesn't explain why the universe we observe is the way it is.

<comment><USER18> OK fair enough, to me the opposition to the weak AP just seems to be people "unhappy" that a physical constant should need to be that precise.

In other words, for some reason they expect the universe to be more "understandable" or "sensible" than this . . .

Of course the strong AP is ludicrous in the extreme ;)

<comment><USER20> It wraps up a concern that there are these seemingly random constants in our models that don't seem to be a product of our measurement system.

There's no number system you can invent where the fundamental constants turn into simple integers or have obvious ratios.

So why do they have those values? What gave them those values? The anthropic principle is disliked because it rejects further inquiry and progress.

<comment><USER21> I don't think we can reject it though. We may not / shouldn't "like" it, and we can sort of shove it to the background and try to come up with other explanations or theories that are more explanatory, but we do have to acknowledge that at least the weak form does make a kind of sense and we can't ignore it.

<comment><USER19> AP can't really make sense because it doesn't explain anything. We know a universe with our values works because we are observing one. Any set of values that "work" in this sense will have someone to make the same observation.

Unfortunately, that doesn't explain how these values are generated. _That_ is the important question.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Sean Carroll (theoretical physicist) and Nick Bostrom (philosopher with a very technical background) discuss Anthropic arguments on Sean's Mindscape podcast a few weeks ago.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EffcY6tnbcA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EffcY6tnbcA)

</comment><comment><USER23> It seems to be the final answer in a game of "why"? with a 2 year old.

<comment><USER24> I think that game should end at the question of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_there_is_anything_at_all](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_there_is_anything_at_all).

I don't actually think the anthropic principle is capable of tackling that one.

<comment><USER25> "Because nothingness was bored."

( Original intention of the backstory of [https://andromeda.fandom.com/wiki/Trance_Gemini](https://andromeda.fandom.com/wiki/Trance_Gemini) )

(Yeah, not quite anthropic principle, but definitely popped into my mind as something to give a 2-year-old)

<comment><USER24> My attempt at an answer would be that emptiness/nothingness is just a made-up concept. Not a good answer, I know, but idk what else to think.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> If intelligence is 'extremely resilient' then we will find it everywhere in our universe.

If you use the cellular automata analogy that is being alluded to, 'intelligence' is being essentially equated to some limit of 'complexity'

This is all very hand-wavey so it doesn't appear to add much to the discussion?

<comment><USER27> Yeah, there needs to be evidence backing up a claim to extreme resilience. Invoking scifi scenarios and Turing completeness does not count. One can easily counter with the Fermi Paradox and only one species on Earth asking anthropic questions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Anthropic principle has been used by too many people to meaning too many different ideas. It really should just refer to the mere tautology that "I can only find myself exist, and the world in a state compatible with my existence". That is a perspective specific statement. It answers questions formulated from my/our first-person perspective: "why do I find the fundamental constants compatible with my existence?". However, it does not apply to questions formulated objectively (i.e. when it requires a perspective invariant response), for example "why are the fundamental constants have these values?". That question calls for an impartial causal model or scientific answer. Anthropic principle simply isn't it.

That doesn't mean AP is wrong, it is a tautology, correct by definition. Neither is AP useless. It is the correct counter to teleological arguments such as fine-tuning. However, treating it as a scientific explanation is not correct.

That being said, that confusion is totally understandable. The current state of anthropic reasoning is quite messy. There are contending theories on many related paradoxes. The sleeping beauty problem, the doomsday argument, the fine-tuned universe, the simulation argument, etc. Like before, I find these paradoxes are caused by ignoring the role of perspectives as well. I explained my solution to the related debate on my website [https://www.sleepingbeautyproblem.com](https://www.sleepingbeautyproblem.com) if anyone is interested.

</comment><comment><USER29> `Why is this question encoded as string of 385 characters and why is there a set of 385 character long strings? I mean there could be just a set of strings of length 95 and the question could instead ask "why is this question of exactly 95 letters long and why is there a set of 95 char long strings?" but still this specific question is asking why it is 385 chars long, why is that so?`

<comment><USER12> One answer to "Why is this question..." is because we have defined it so. And why did we define it so? One could make an argument that notions of sets, counting, length, and so on are anthropomorphisms -- we project our bodies onto the universe around us so we can reason about the environment using our specialized brains. (Human brains are specialized to operate in the context of our bodies.) In fact, the Whorf hypothesis [0][1][2] addressed this subject in the context of linguistics.

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

[1] [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/linguistics/#SoCalSapWhoH...](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/linguistics/#SoCalSapWhoHyp)

[2] [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B008043076...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B0080430767030424) , [https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/03042-4](https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/03042-4)

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Were you guys ever curious as to what the word "anthrop" means exactly?

Here's an interesting explanation from Socrates:" Socrates I will tell you. The name "man" (ἄνθρωπος) indicates that the other animals do not examine, or consider, or look up at (ἀναθρεῖ) any of the things that they see, but man has no sooner seen—that is, ὄπωπε—than he looks up at and considers that which he has seen. Therefore of all the animals man alone is rightly called man (ἄνθρωπος), because he looks up at (ἀναθρεῖ) what he has seen (ὄπωπε)."

[http://perseus.uchicago.edu/perseus- cgi/citequery3.pl?dbname...](http://perseus.uchicago.edu/perseus- cgi/citequery3.pl?dbname=GreekFeb2011&getid=1&query=Pl.%20Cra.%20399c)

And yet the English "man", Spanish "hombre", Russian Мужик mean the same yet different thing, namely a (working) hand. As in "how many hands do you have in your factory?"

</comment><comment><USER31> 》This would prevent carbon-based life from existing, sure; but would it prevent intelligent life from existing?

We are yet to find another primitive carbon based life form. Anthropic principle works just fine with Occam's razor.

</comment><comment><USER32> Max Tegmark goes into detail on the potential pitfalls of anthropic arguments in "Our Mathematical Universe". Very interesting book.

</comment><comment><USER33> This is a little new to me, but as described, isn't it like a form of a proof by contradiction?

I mean, it doesn't have to bring in "we wouldn't be here" questions of survival, it seems to be just of the form of...

(1) Question whether A is true. (2) If A were not true, then it would necessitate that B is true. (3) B is clearly impossible. (4) Therefore... A must be true.

<comment><USER34> Proof by contradiction only applies to mathematical/logical theorems, which are also known as tautologies.

It's useless for statements about the physical universe.

Edit: IIRC the form is

        !(!A || B) && !B

which reduces as

        (A || !B) && !B
        (A && !B) && (!B && !B)
        A && !B && !B

Given B == false

        A && true && true

        A

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> The article gives a crude statement of the principle as

> The universe is the way it is because if it weren't, we wouldn't be here to > discuss the issue.

That can't be right. That statement says we are here _as a consequence_ of the way the universe is. It says _nothing_ about causes (of the universe being the way it is).

What's a better statement of the principle?

</comment><comment><USER35> Perhaps I am missing something, but doesn't the presumed "existential robustness" of intelligent life mean that any affected anthropic principle arguments just devolve to the "well it had to take _some_ value" answer mentioned at the very beginning?

</comment><comment><USER36> Why is intelligent life held as such an inevitable outcome these scenarios? Could it not be the case that we look around and see billions of species (just on Earth) that are no smarter than ants (i.e. pencils lying around) and draw the conclusion that it was just luck instead?

</comment><comment><USER37> The thing about the fine structure constant always bothered me. If it were slightly different, our universe would be very different. But how do we quantify how different is different enough to warrant investigation? How do we know what the range of such a number could be?

<comment><USER38> Ah, well, about a four percent change and you no longer can produce carbon during regular fusion. You need atoms capable of making at least three bonds to produce structure more complex than a chain. Carbon can do four, is lovely, otherwise you would have to make do with boron and nitrogen.

Crank the value up to .1 and you get no fusion at all. This one is super- interesting, because no fusion means no photonic pressure keeping silly large accumulations of gases _up_ and so you will crank your way to neutron stars and black holes much faster, as well as resulting in a universe whose only light is the remaining cosmic background radiation. No more supernovae creating shockwaves and the like.

In the other direction and you have a different problem -- molecules won't molecule and you will just have a bunch of disconnected atoms incapable of covalent bonds.

<comment><USER37> Yes but how do we know what the numbers could have been? It's not like we have a generating theory that says it had to be between a and b, and thus it being x is really unlikely.

<comment><USER38> Ah, okay, that's a different question.

Aside from common sense ("this being negative would be self-contradicting") for a given number and sets of inter-relations, that's out of my wheelhouse. I very dimly recollect some work on allowable sets of constants somewhere in the nineties, something to do with superstrings, but that was never a huge interest of mine. I will admit that such a generating theory may exist and I am just unaware of it.

In some sense, each constant represents a bit of embarrassment to physics. Having this rather large set of adjustable parameters calls to mind the von Neumann quote "With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk."

Why _this_ seemingly arbitrary number? Can we take multiple constants and find some smaller set from which they are derived? Can I make a constant emerge from a physical law, devoid of measurement?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Are we comfortable admitting that this can never actually be answered with the scientific method?

This puts all realms of the discussion in the metaphysical, which is fine, but it should be noted :)

<comment><AUTHOR> It's perfectly fair to complain that these discussions are untestable, at the very least, but unfortunately they're inescapable. We need some heuristic for evaluating which anomalies/patterns are likely to be hints of "new physics" (and are thus worth investing resources in exploring further), and which ones are just coincidence or otherwise not worth investigating.

Anthropic arguments seem to provide a reason to be uninterested in a large class of apparent surprises. Should we invest in investigating those surprises, or not? The discussion may be metaphysical, but the decision has real-world consequences.

<comment><USER26> Thanks for the comment.

I am by no means trying to downplay metaphysical discussions, most lived human experience is in that realm ("what should I wear/eat/do/etc."), so one could argue it is more important than many scientific/engineering endeavors looking to find new ways to serve advertisements :)

I love the discussion of complexity and automata, and I struggle to think how our limited minds will ever work around the problem of unbounded complexity...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Honestly, I think this article about anthropic arguments is weak. Expressing discomfort with an argument isn't an argument.

</comment><comment><USER40> Does anyone know if panpsychism is an anthropic argument?

<comment><USER24> If anything, it uses Occam's razor, reducing {conscious matter, unconscious matter} to {conscious matter}.</comment></comment>


We say end IaaS walled gardens - <AUTHOR> http://www.cloudsigma.com/en/blog/2011/01/02/17-iaas-cloud-customer-security-control

<comment><USER2> As a counterpoint, I'd like to say that it makes a lot of sense to retain some level of control of servers you are renting. You want to avoid your cloud becoming a botnet cloud (what would that be, a virus cloud? O.o).

If you have your own admins keeping things up to date and polished, it removes (1) some grief from the customer and (2) allows you to rest more comfortably knowing your admin (theoretically) knows what he's doing.

The author points out that for conventional electric devices, there is no input from the electric company. True. But, if one puts in an industrial facility, the electric company starts caring, because the loads can not be simply ignored (c.f. inductive/reactive loads). That has analogies to the cloud.

There are decided advantages for the customer to have full control, there are decided advantages for the vendor to have full control.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes you are right, it is certainly easier to snoop on customers as an IaaS vendor if you keep full root access and file system visibility. I'd say that constitutes 'lazy policing' and not needed and that is certainly our experience :-)

Botnets etc. rely on free hijacked capacity not computing resources bought on an industrial scale on commercial terms. The cloud is no more prone for use as a botnet or other problematic activity than dedicated hardware. Although often touted, I've yet to hear a compelling case for IaaS clouds being any more susceptible to such use than VPS, shared hosting etc. etc.

Likewise, such activity becomes very obvious very quickly and it isn't access inside a customer's cloud server that allows you to spot such activity.

As I say, there are not real reasons not to give customers full control of their cloud servers any more than they have full control of their dedicated servers. In fact, the flexibility of the cloud makes policing it more easy than dedicated hardware without snooping inside customer servers or restricting their ability to control their computing.

In terms of administration, customers can choose to use their own in-house admins or that of a third party and many of our customers do. The point is they done have a choice, with other clouds they have one choice, the cloud vendor as the admin. That's overly restrictive and it isn't surprising why you get such concerns raised over security and control in the cloud.

Thanks for the great feedback by the way.

Best wishes,

Patrick CEO CloudSigma

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> There are people moving towards an open source implementation of high scalability cloud services. For example, the OpenStack project at <http://www.openstack.org>.

The main pieces were contributed by Rackspace and NASA, but dozens of other contributors are involved in the project now.

Full disclosure: I work at Rackspace.

</comment><comment><USER4> I didn't realise fixed instance sizes were a false construct of cloud vendors. Nice little blog post.

<comment> luca-giovanni +1

Definitely. I am a really high CPU user but don't need hardly any storage (I'm doing chess calculations). With bundled resources I always notice I am always over-specced on RAM and storage (in particular). Would be nice to have 'liquid' computing resources. As you say, nice post and nice to see someone doing that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> The post (marketing article) says nothing and doesn't identify what vendor they are trashing. As far as I know my 'IaaS' vendor doesn't retain root access. The article makes almost no sense, it starts be trashing iaas, then suggests paas, with out attempting to explain any difference between a 'platform' and 'infrastructure'.

The only thing missing from the article is an affiliate code on the enstratus link. Then it would be fully clear who wrote it and why. Has anyone not selling something ever uttered the phrase 'deploy best of breed solutions'? I think not.

If my current iaas vendor retains root access then I certainly don't want a more 'managed' solution.

<comment> tobias-ch Having just read the post I disagree. The post clearly says that most current vendors place significant restrictions on the software and networking layers in their cloud. As someone who has used GoGrid, Rackspace and AWS I can concur with this position. You have a lot less control over your cloud servers than you do over say a dedicated server.

CloudSigma are an IaaS provider who presumably take a different approach.

Overall I think it is a valid point for them to make, especially as it seems that a lot of these restrictions are vendor created.

<comment><USER5> I think that most of the problem with IaaS vendors, EC2 in particular is that the IO throughput is absolute shit. I've never had a problem with the software I'm allowed to run on EC2, I've always had a problem with its horrible IO throughput.

There is also a lot of comfort in knowing everyone else is running the same kernel and there will be some difficulty in executing various exploits for the hypervisor.</comment></comment></comment>


A treasure trove of skate culture is being saved - <AUTHOR> https://www.huckmag.com/outdoor/rad-archive-dan-adams-skate-culture/ <comment><USER2> I moved to LA from Rockford, IL in 1973 when I was 14 years old and was amazed by how completely "skaters" were into skateboarding as a lifestyle.

I mean it was shocking to me. There were other cliques, but those guys were obsessive. And I was amazed at what they did on their boards. They did stuff that truly seemed impossible to me.

I was amazed by the boards themselves too. We didn't have anything like those in the mid-west and I'd never seen anything like them.

Compared to the tiny steel wheeled skateboards I'd seen those laminated and curved plywood boards were huge and the plastic wheels and "trucks" were way more high tech than I'd ever imagined anyone would apply to a skateboard. I remember asking them "They make these wheels and axels just for skateboards?" because I really thought they must have some real industrial use and were being re-appropriated. They thought I was a dumbass for asking.

I learned fast to not touch anyone's board, and don't even ask if you can ride it. That, to me, was funny because I'm thinking the best I can do is not fall off if I can get both feet on it going as slow as I can and I'd watch them jumping curbs and making the board do flips and catching air, but they were convinced I'd bust it? I couldn't imagine how?

Listening to a group of them talk was also impressive. They had their own accent and lingo and, again, I'd never really seen anything like that before. They didn't sound the same as kids who weren't skaters and they didn't talk about the same things. They mostly talked about skating and everything else didn't matter. I would listen to them and wonder "how can they only talk about skating?"

Those hardcore skaters were truly a mystery to me, but learning they're preserving their history doesn't surprise me. They really were different, and that history should be preserved. It was as unique as anything I've ever seen in modern American culture.

</comment><comment><USER3> My first trip to SF was a solo trip (20 years ago) to skate all the classic spots in the city. EMB, Hubba, Pier 7, etc.

I remember getting off Bart in the middle of the city and having no idea where I was. This guy skates by as I'm standing there looking clueless and asks if I needed help finding any spots. Once he realized it was my first time in the city, he spent the "entire" day showing me around to every spot. At the end of the day I bought him a sandwich and he pulled out a giant blunt (I used to smoke).

One of my favorite memories of skateboarding and of SF.

<comment><USER4> Similar story in San Diego in 1996 (I had just turned 18). Except I was planning on moving to San Diego from Eugene. I thought I had it all worked out. I managed to sell my Performa 6214 and playstation and came up with 1200 bucks. Enough for a bus ticket and and a hotel for a night once I get there. In the morning I will find a room to rent and a job. Surely I can do that in a few hours.

That didn't work..

I ended up renting a really bad pay by the week hotel where I had to sleep with the lights on because the roaches were aggressive.

It took about 36 hours to realize I would quickly run out of of money and end up back in Eugene living on my sisters floor. So I just rolled with it.

I would catch the bus from downtown to La Jolla and skate back downtown. I loved the long stretches of smooth path that ran along the beach. It is nice to just do flip tricks going pretty much as fast as you can without a tree root messing up a sidewalk. Like butter.

But I broke a kingpin about four days into what was now my vacation. So I was at the skateshop getting a new one and ran into this kid I met a few months earlier in Sacramento when I was on my way to The Tibetan Freedom Concert in S.F.

So we hung out for a few days and he showed me some lesser known spots in San Diego. He also called in a favor to get my stupid broke ass back to Eugene.

I was 30 when I discovered I could no longer skateboard. Nasty handrail thing and I was just done. I could have kept going but I wanted to go out on the top like Seinfeld. So I gave my board to my sisters son who had been rolling a Razor scooter. I would no longer hurt myself daily and maybe he would get a girl to talk to him.

Now I just think about what I would do with stairs and curbs when I walk down the street.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Fantastic to see this on the front page! Thought about this yesterday (while skating), skateboarding is really THE best sport... You're competing with yourself while generating more fun, discovery and advancement for all. Total opposite of zero sum. The best are those magic sessions when everybody gets hyped off each other and lands crazy tricks far above their usual skill. Hope the kickstarter succeeds:

[https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/322122905/rad-the- book-...](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/322122905/rad-the-book-of-the- magazine#)

</comment><comment><USER6> So cool to see skateboarding on HackerNews! My worlds collide.

<comment><USER7> I'm so glad I found this comment! It's cool to see others skate on here.

<comment><USER6> HN Meetup at the Palo Alto Skatepark? I'm in.

<comment><USER8> Looks rad. I'd be up for it if I ever make my way to Cali.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> On a similar note, a great deal of skateboarding's oral history is being recorded and archived by The Nine Club[0], a podcast where a few professional skateboarders and people in the industry sit down for a conversational interview. They've been going strong for over two years now, currently with 105 total weekly episodes. Hearing Jamie Thomas talk for nearly four hours about his career is incredible, especially if you're at all interested in the history of the culture.

They're able to run it from donations, Patreon, and merchandise sales. I support them on Patreon, and I think it's great what they're doing!

[0] [http://www.thenineclub.com](http://www.thenineclub.com)

</comment><comment><USER10> I allways wondered how many skaters are reading hn. Skate and create. Skated palo alto in 92. Keeping it rolling in germany. Any readers in Frankfurt?

<comment><USER8> Born in 92', keepin it rollin in Canada, hoping to make my way to Germany soon. Never stop skating.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Did anyone else here take the irresponsible path in life or am I the only one? I dropped out of college for a job offer as a full-time skateboard videographer and didn't look back for almost a decade. I'm not sure I regret it, but getting real jobs after the fact is pretty strange with this stuff on my resume. I honestly still assume a lot of people who read my resume must think I made it up. Every now and then, someone gets excited and fans out but they still don't take me seriously unless they work in advertising, because people in advertising realize, consciously or not, how action sports expanded the boundaries of what branding is. Very strange to look back on this stuff; especially the earlier days when it was a very genuine and outright spastic culture. Unfortunately, it's also a little embarrassing haha.

</comment><comment><USER12> Semi- retired skateboarder checking in! I was actively skating in the UK early 90s - I recognise some of those spots.

</comment><comment><USER13> Skateboarding is an incredible sport. The amount of discipline and grit engendered in those who get through the learning curve is exceptionally high.

</comment><comment><USER14> Love that this got onto the front page of HN! I started skating in the late 80s, when we had the Bones Brigade and guys like Natas Kaupas showing what you could do it the streets. Then I lost interest and didn't pick up a board again. Until about 3 months ago when I decided to buy another setup and try again. I live in bayside Melbourne and we have this awesome skate park in St Kilda where it's good for beginners. I've been going 3 times a week...

I've been pretty consumed by skate nostalgia and can't get enough of stuff like this!

</comment><comment><USER15> 16 years on the board for me. From Cornwall, to Oxford, to Boston MA. Weird seeing the pictures of Sean Goff riding a sketchy ramp in Iffley Road in 87. He's still a regular at the new Oxford park, on the same spot as that ramp, and he still destroys it! As others have said, this is a strange mixing of worlds, skating and HN. It's great to see people come out of the woodwork!

<comment><USER15> Tech has got me to the place where I finally have enough space to build a ramp in my backyard! Finished it just a few weeks ago, and it's a dream come true.

<comment><USER13> That's awesome. I've been toying with the idea of building a half pipe on my desert property.

The only problem is it'd very likely attract a bunch of vandalism to my cabin :(.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Skateboarding HN reader in SF, checking in.

</comment><comment><USER17> Any fellow skaters may be interested in an interactive visual essay I recently made about music in skateboarding:

[https://pudding.cool/2018/06/skate- music/](https://pudding.cool/2018/06/skate-music/)

</comment><comment><USER18> Another semi-retired skater here. I mostly just skate to work these days. Can still ollie but that's about all my knees can take.

</comment><comment><USER10> Yeah, great to see it made it on HN

</comment><comment><USER8> Broke Vancouver skater checkin in. Can't donate. This needs more coverage.

</comment><comment><USER19> the photographs from the 90s look so current it's eerie</comment>


Ask HN: Someone have gotten troubles for not show "We use cookies, Ok?" message? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> The cookie law is a symbol of EU red tape that adds no value to citizens. Browser tech is fast moving, there are so many other ways of finger printing a user, from canvas finger printing, session storage and background apps and extensions. The cookie law was invented by some EU non-technocrat that got offended when they found out they were being tracked. The fact is companies are getting away with it in other ways anyway, its a pointless regulation that cost companies thousands to implement across their sites but does nothing for no one.

[http://nocookielaw.com/](http://nocookielaw.com/)

<comment><USER3> Thousands? Message me I'll add 2 sentences of dismissable text for only 1 thousand

<comment><USER2> Developer here, worked at a ticketing company that had to update various sites with different styling for the popup box. Probably cost us a week or so or more work. Multiply that by tens of thousands of businesses.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> We have had advertisers/advertising networks refuse to work with us until we added it. I don't know if that counts, but it sure makes it difficult to opt out if you depend on ad revenue.

</comment><comment><USER5> It's from the EU Cookie Directive, updated in 2015: [https://www.cookielaw.org/the-cookie-law/](https://www.cookielaw.org/the- cookie-law/)

and it's going to get more complicated under GDPR and the ePrivacy directive:

[https://www.informationweek.com/big-data/cookie-law-vs- gdpr-...](https://www.informationweek.com/big-data/cookie-law-vs-gdpr-whats- the-difference/a/d-id/1328344)?

GDPR is NOT limited to the EU, but is focused on protecting EU data subjects no matter where they are, so US companies may be affected. Many US companies are signing up for Privacy Shield, which is updated annually, so it will spread beyond the EU in the years to come.

</comment><comment><USER6> I've always wondered why these cookie warnings are required to be displayed at the website level, with large, sweeping changes, and not the browser level. That seems much smaller, just as visible, and easier to enforce.

<comment><USER7> What do you mean by at the browser level? Should Chrome/IE/Safari 'know' the site uses cookies and show something in the browser as per the https padlock?

As an aside I do find it funny how 'bosses' insist on the cookie notice to make their website official looking.

<comment><USER8> > What do you mean by at the browser level? Should Chrome/IE/Safari 'know' the > site uses cookies

Absolutely! How else does it know to store the cookie on the user's machine.

<comment><USER9> Storing cookies isn't the trigger for the warning; no notification is required for cookies that are essential for the basic navigation and operation of the website.

So how would the browser differentiate those cookies from ones which are being used for data collection and tracking, which do require the warning message? It would require some sort of intent-signalling protocol between the website and the browser, which is probably more complicated than just requiring the site operator to include a bit of HTML.

<comment><USER10> For practical purposes, you could approximate it based on whether the cookie is first-party or third-party and on the amount of time until the cookie's expiration. For the most part, first-party cookies with a short time to expiration are allowed without warning under the EU law, all other cookies require the warning.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It appears not, even this site which is deliberately breaking the law as a protest:

[http://nocookielaw.com](http://nocookielaw.com)

<comment><USER12> With Brexit, it seems this protest is largely meaningless.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is the type of law that only starts getting regularly enforced when there's a big headline worthy egregious privacy event that happens, that prompts the authorities to have to posture to save face and pretend they're acting to protect the well-being of the people. Until then, it isn't going to be meaningfully enforced, it's too comically absurd to be worthy of the effort for now. Enforcing it now would be herding cats. To do it properly they'd need a sizable target or three to hammer down upon, to scare everyone else into compliance; those target/s will be connected to the source of said egregious privacy violation, that will be the chain of events.

</comment><comment><USER14> For those interested, you can use [http://prebake.eu/](http://prebake.eu/) to get a filter subscription to block cookie banners with your adblocker.

</comment><comment><USER15> I heared about Germany lawyers being on the hunt for sites breaking the laws like the cookie law. In Germany being sued can get pretty expensive pretty quickly, especielly for small sites. I wouldn't put anything online without a corporate body protecting my private wealth, which can be sued and go bankrupt.

<comment><USER16> Note that in Germany no corporate structure will protect the owner-operator of a small company from personal liability. This is through something called Geschäftsfüherhaftung which explicitly applies to mistakes regarding competition law (which are the legal actions you talk about) the director of the company makes personally.

The correct way to shield oneself from liability in Germany is to have appropriate insurance plus paying a lawyer to continuously check the business for compliance.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> My solution was to not use cookies. For a static (generated) blog, that's very viable.

</comment><comment><USER18> Generally, when a visitor visits a website, which I call an interaction, then they must agree to its terms of service. This forms a contractual relationship. Contracts are private, and outside of things like not promising to do something illegal, it is up to each party to decide on its terms. In this case the website generally decides on the terms, and then the visitor opts into them through use of the website. Much of the issue lies within contract formation. When a lawsuit happens later, one thing that is frequently questioned is whether the contract is valid. A common angle is to claim the the contract is invalid because it was not correctly formed. Bad contract formation. For example, in a different setting, you didn't sign your name on the dotted line when buying a house or something like that, so there was never a contractual agreement, so there was never an actual sale, etc.

However, there is case law (law made by judges who hear cases and issue opinions) that says that sometimes contracts can be implicitly formed. For example, if you as a website visitor are given proper notice of a website's terms of use, and then you continue to the use website, you have implicitly agreed to the terms of the use. Even if you didn't sign anything, or check any box somewhere saying you agree. No explicit action has to take place.

Except, that is not exactly worldwide statutory law (laws passed by government and written down in the books with codes like Law #1234.56). While the issue of formation is mostly settled, there is still some room for creative legal maneuvering. Aka lawyering the shit of things. Aka screwing things up because someone with deep pockets is paying you to win using any angle you can get.

This cookies notice and agreement probably falls right into this category. And while it is generally settled law that the contract is formed even without this agreement, some schmuck somewhere still thinks there is wiggle room, but it is merely case law and not exactly authoritative, especially not in the international setting.

When in doubt, lawyers adhere to CYA. Cover your ass. Use the narrowest, most conservative, safest interpretation of the law. In this case, there is this tiny bit of doubt, so CYA. Just in case.

I personally believe you can make a good argument that contract is implicitly formed merely from continued use, and the notion of requiring express consent is outdated. The law is catching up to how things are done online, the trend is rather obvious, and anyone whining about it is probably just some established cash cow business that somehow wants to manipulate the market to further extend its antiquated business practices and is willing to spend millions on dollars on go screw yourself legal teams.

So, yes, you could theoretically get in trouble. But you are not likely to, and anyone suggesting otherwise probably has an ulterior motive.

<comment><USER19> case law is generally not as relevant in Europe as it is in the US.

<comment><USER20> Not quite as true in England, where Common Law is meaningful; e.g. only in the last 2 years or so have private car parking companies been able to put pressure on consumers to pay their fines because the Supreme Court ruled in favour of a private parking company.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> test

</comment><comment><USER22> They would have front paged HN if they had, so no.

It's possible an obscure case might have slipped through the cracks (ie as part of a larger case) but unlikely since it'd be great clickbait on a story.</comment>


Ask HN: When you are drunk and take a self-driving car home, can you get a DUI? - <AUTHOR> So, my wife and I were talking about this.  The discussion started out about us drinking at a bar and taking a taxi home.  Using the app to tell the self-driving car to drive itself home.  Then I thought, well, heck, have the car drive us home.  Then, suppose the car is pulled over or has a traffic checkpoint.  Would you get a DUI? <comment><USER2> Currently, yes.

Right now, laws still require a driver to be "in control" of the vehicle, usually meaning someone in the driver's seat, ready to take control when needed. Even if you never needed to take active control of the vehicle, you would still be unable to if the situation did arise. The "in control" part is how you can be arrested for DUI even if you're in a stopped car while intoxicated.

In the future, when self-driving cars get to the point of not needing someone in the driver's seat, the law will likely still require someone to be "responsible" for the car. In other words, similar to now, someone that could take over control in an emergency and would be held responsible for the car's actions. As is said in the thought-provoking _I, Robot_ movie, "...a robot cannot be charged with homicide.... murder can only be committed when one human kills another".

<comment><AUTHOR> Okay, I get it. Now, what about a robotic Uber car or taxi? Could the passenger get a DUI?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Currently yes, because someone responsible with a driving license has to be behind the wheel all time. A 5 year old kid can't go alone in a self-deriving car today. You can't send a self-driving car to autopark alone, like a horse.

In the future, there _may_ be new legislation to allow kids, people without license, empty and drunk people to in a self-driving car.</comment>


More effective random algorithm; q=n^(1−δ) vs. q=n^(1/2−δ) - <AUTHOR> http://eccc.hpi-web.de/report/2015/119/ <comment><USER2> This would appear to be an update of the paper that lots of people have written about. The main discussion is here:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11719543](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11719543) (157 comments)

Other submissions, some with a comment or two, here:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11754074](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11754074)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11725991](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11725991)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11723319](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11723319)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11715677](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11715677)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11713454](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11713454)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11712636](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11712636)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11709112](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11709112)</comment>


Coronavirus skeptics, deniers: Why some of us stick to deadly beliefs - <AUTHOR> https://news.berkeley.edu/2020/03/26/coronavirus-skeptics-deniers-why-some-of-us-stick-to-deadly-beliefs/ <comment><USER2> Personally, I am more likely to trust sources that appear to think critically. A lot of reports are heavily one sided, and will provide a lot of evidence backing up a point, while appearing to hide the evidence of the opposition.

I find that a much stronger piece comes when a report questions its own assumptions and explains why we are making a judgement given the shortcomings of the initial argument.

When you consume mainstream media you get a lot of one-sided reporting, which inspires me to try to find the holes in their arguments. This puts in the position of question Coronavirus measures etc.

The reality is, the people making the measures are probably aware of the assumptions they are making, and are trying to recommend the best approach given what we don't know. Given the limited information, it is nice to have as much transparency as possible though.

<comment><USER3> > I am more likely to trust sources that appear to think critically

Information-warfare specialists know _exactly_ how to exploit that attitude. Sowing distrust of mainstream media is core to their strategy, so that people will be "skeptical" about anything they say and turn to alternative outlets. How is it done? Easy: create the _appearance_ of greater balance or depth without its substance. Create strawman versions of objections only to knock them down, include data points that appear to make the analysis more inclusive but don't change its outcome, toss in a few dubious factoids or citations, etc. It's not even that hard. Before long you'll have plenty of people who are "inspired" to poke holes in the mainstream narrative (but not their preferred one) and "question" mainstream advice (ditto) to carry on the fight for you.

OTOH, having registered a mere two hours ago and only ever commented on this article, I suspect that you're well aware of those tactics.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The body of the article contains a really good descriptions of the heuristic shortcuts we use, and their limitations.

The title, though, seems to assume the result. Trust in authority, confirmation bias, and sampling based on your peers' beliefs could just as well make you overestimate a risk as underestimate it.

<comment><USER2> I agree, and I'd argue the potential confirmation bias presented by one side easily inspires skepticism from the other side

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Beliefs are bad, mmmkay?

Have faith != belief

</comment><comment><USER6> It's this kind of openly biased article that makes people perceive academia as blind to its own failings and ideological dementia.

I'll summarise the article.

Apparently only conservatives stick to deadly beliefs. They're bad because they don't listen to academics (ever, any of them) in order to follow "authoritarian ideology". People blindly follow the words of authority figures, and that's bad because of an example involving Trump and chloroquine.

What about when people blindly follow what academic authorities say? Well, that's totally rational of course because those experts make smart decisions, so don't think or ask questions, just obey:

 _We all need to be more intellectually humble. We all need to recognize that how certain we feel is irrelevant to how certain we should be. We need to recognize that there are scientists and medical experts out there who have the knowledge and expertise we need to make smart decisions_

The lack of self-awareness in this lady is astonishing. She's a psychologist. Psychology has had its credibility utterly trashed by the growing awareness that so much of what they do doesn't replicate and/or contains major errors. The evidence grows all the time that listening to psychologists is a good way to make dumb decisions whilst feeling smart. Yet she says:

 _As for behavioral and cognitive scientists, we don't yet know if the tendency to hold onto dubious beliefs can be trained out of people_

Indeed we don't. I guess a good place to start would be trying to train her colleagues out of the many, many dubious beliefs that pop psychology and other academic backwaters propagate every day.

In this crisis we see the man who first wrote about the replication crisis once again publicly warning us about the dodgy data and modelling being done by academic 'experts', people who are never held to account for mistaken predictions and thus have no incentive not to constantly give us confident sounding 'expert advice', regardless of their own certainty. Who should we listen to? The article doesn't help answer this.</comment>


VC Aileen Lee, specific advice to female founders looking for funding - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/03/vc-aileen-lee-just-offered-some-very-specific-advice-to-female-founders-looking-for-funding/ <comment><AUTHOR> NB: Title edited for space.</comment>


Which product dev setup would you choose if you could start from scratch? - <AUTHOR>

I'm currently in the position of making these decisions for a new venture. I have a good idea of what I'd like to do but I'd love to hear what others are happy with and/or what they would do today if they could start from scratch.
The question: I'm curious what technical cofounders or product managers would put in place today if they could pick any set of tools and processes they wanted.
The only limitations or requirements here (though I don't think this will really effect many answers) would be that we are using Python/Django/Git. We're big fans of deploy-> measure-> iterate often.
I'm talking everything from project management tools (features, milestones, issues, bug tracking, backlog, etc) to how you deploy. <comment><USER2> Basecamp can be used in replace of redmine while the development team is small, but redmine is generally better suited for bug/issue tracking as the engineering team grows.

As far as processes are concerned at the start, I try to keep it to a minimal as long as everyone is in the room together. If you have a bunch of remote team members, Basecamp/Campfire will probably need to be used more.

We use fabric for python/django deployment and host on rackspace cloud. The long-term goal is to reach continuous deployment but this takes time. [http://timothyfitz.wordpress.com/2009/02/10/continuous- deplo...](http://timothyfitz.wordpress.com/2009/02/10/continuous-deployment- at-imvu-doing-the-impossible-fifty-times-a-day/)

Wireframe the product and customer flows before you touch photoshop or code. But then I generally jump straight into code. CSS can get really out of hand as an application grows if you don't start spotting reusable patterns in the UI as soon as possible.

</comment><comment><USER3> Github for source control, probably Firewall Install if we could afford it.

\- Pivotal Tracker for agile bug tracking.

\- Basecamp for non-programmer interaction and tracking (ie, mocks, UX, QA, etc)

\- Campfire with custom bots for inter-group communication, use Pyro on the desktop

\- Some sort of custom status-board type system (Geckoboard, etc) for tracking in/out status of distributed personnel, system status, etc.

\- Zendesk for customer support

\- Rackspace cloud + Capistrano for dev environments. Or EC2. Either way.

\- Hudson for CI

\- Dropbox + Shared folders for file sharing

\- Google Docs for collaborative editing

</comment><comment><USER4> github for source control, redmine or possibly pivotal for issue tracking, and the wiki on github for wiki info.

</comment><comment><USER5> what do you use for tracking and managing inbound user feature requests and support issues?</comment>