Google starts tracking what people buy in physical stores - <AUTHOR> http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-google-ads-tracking-20170523-story.html <comment><USER2> This is probably an unusual opinion, but for me privacy is similar to freedom. Freedom is usually defined as a negative: people are free of oppression, have freedom of speech (freedom from speech being constrained), freedom of movement (not forced to stay in one place), religious freedom (freedom to believe what one will and not be limited in practice or assembly), etc.

Privacy is the freedom from being watched, from having one's movements and actions and consumption and words observed, tabulated and stored. I hope that one day whether by laws or technological solutions, privacy will again be the norm in our lives.

<comment><USER3> I think it's important to note the definition of privacy you use is important.

For me, in my daily life, all of this is completely "private". Google having my data in mass and an identity profile on me that no human will ever specifically look at is just as good as private to me. The fact that computers will be handing this data, not other humans, is an important distinction for me. No human will ever see my individual data in all likelihood.

I don't think the lack of privacy is a problem, but rather the centralized power. It's really tough right now with so much power in information, but the only real information power coming in volume.

<comment><USER4> > the definition of privacy you use is important

Yes, it is. Defining privacy to mean the very opposite of "private" is pure doublethink/newspeak.

> Google having my data

You're not giving your data _only_ to google. You're also giving it to anybody that hacks Google's servers to take their data at any point in the future (and anybody that buys it from the hackers), and any government (or other entity with sufficient power or influence) that orders (legally or illegally) Google to turn over their data, _and_ anybody that Google might sell the data to should they have unfortunate financial troubles. This list will probably grow as the value of data grows and creative new ways to exploit data are discovered.

I commend Google for taking security seriously. You data is probably saver with them than than many business. However, they are still human so they make mistakes. Hacks will happen even with the very best well-funded security teams using impossibly good practices. When governments are involved, it may not even be Google's choice.

You need to remember that data doesn't go away, so the risk of who it may spread to only increases with time.

> other humans

Humans don't need to see your data for it to harm you. Your insurance company doesn't need a _human_ to feed data from Google (or whomever) (possibly blinded through some sort of "rating service"?) through the machine learning and/or "risk assessment" heuristic _du jour_ to raise your rates or deny coverage.

> centralized power

Pretending the world is just[1] - that your data will somehow be limited to _only_ Google - gives Google a _lot_ of power, that will be hard to reclaim. If by some miracle they are able to do better than most people throughout history that acquire power and only use their power for benevolent reasons, the same cannot be said indefinitely into the future.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just- world_hypothesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis)

<comment><USER5> I agree with what you are saying but given the probabilities (I don't see the big 5 having a significant data breach any time soon) it is something I'm willing to trade off or sacrifice so to speak. I guess the ideal scenario would be that all corporation and the government does not store my data, even anonymously. But this is unrealistic and I haven't bothered looking for alternatives that are safer/have more privacy.

Focusing on unlikely events is inefficient in that the preparations or measures taken against them often are not worth the expected benefit. Pointing out that there is always risk of improbable events is not always useful especially when mitigating these risks is costly. We increase the chances of being hit by a car when we leave the house or when we jaywalk.

Personally for me, the benefits from using services provided by Google or any other company outweigh the risks of my information falling into the wrong hands. The worst that I can hypothesize would be a political opponent using some data to pin a crime on me and throw me in jail. Or maybe some of this data could lead to me losing my job. Both unlikely scenarios. I am fortunate however because I live in a country where politicians are less likely to abuse their power (still a possibility of course) and I am not a political dissident nor a criminal. The same can't be said for everyone, so for people where the risks are far greater, they take extra precautions because it is worth it for them.

<comment><USER6> I emphatically opt out of all of Google's services and tracking. I have done everything I can to avoid having them track me, short of quitting my job (we use google apps at work...).

When you (I think, naively) traded your privacy and freedom for their services, you also traded a bit of my privacy and freedom, and that is unacceptable to me.

The same can be said about any of the other big surveillance capitalism companies (facebook, microsoft, etc).

I don't know why you think they will only hypothetically use this information against you. You are bombarded with machine generated attempts at psychological manipulation on a daily basis, and your private information is regularly leaked/sold to bad actors and out of control law enforcement agencies on a continuous basis.

You even say you are lucky you are not a political dissident, so you admit that, in your own mind, you have given up the right to participate in our democracy as you see fit.

<comment><USER5> I opt out when when it's convenient (ie. located in the settings I don't dig further than that) I deleted by FB.

I value it different and am fully rational in what I have done. Psychological manipulation? You mean ads and recommended youtube videos? If you could elaborate, this would interest me.

With regards to bad actors and overreaching LE, I really haven't felt the negatives to warrant changing my behaviour.

I have no idea what you mean giving up participating in democracy. How does choosing not to be a dissident mean I have given up the right to participate in the democratic process? I'm not American by the way. I'm in a country where I have my vote and I can speak up against my government without repercussion. If I were in an authoritarian one I'd be much more concerned.

<comment><USER7> Political changes can happen very quickly. Countries can go from free democracies to authoritarian dictatorships in 20-30 years. You cannot know what the world, and your country, will look like in 50 years. Being okay with giving companies ammunition against you is the same as making bad decisions like driving without a seatbelt because "I'm a good driver and I will never crash".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> A Googler gave a talk at Real World Crypto in January describing a system that might back this. The relevant part of the talk starts around the 10 minute mark: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ee7oRsDnNNc&t=10m1s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ee7oRsDnNNc&t=10m1s)

In short, they're able to compute the intersection of the set of users who have viewed an ad with the set of people who purchased a product in a store, without either party disclosing their side of the set.

<comment><USER9> After studying the slides, it looks like they do a Diffie Hellman-like exchange of user identifiers.

g_i = Google's identifier for customer i. s_j = Merchant identifer for customer j.

If g_i == s_j then customer i == j. These identifiers might be phone numbers or email addresses or other identifiers that both parties have.

Neither party wants the other to learn any identifiers it doesn't already known about.

So Google picks a random secret value G and sends g_i^G to the Merchant. The Merchant picks random secret value T and sends g_i^(G* T) back to Google. Additionally the merchant sends s_j^T to Google.

Then Google calculates s_j^(T* G). If s_j^(T* G) == g_i^(G* T) then s_j == g_i and i == j. So know Google knows the exact set of their users who purchased something at the Merchant.

Additionally, for each s_j^(T), the Merchant sends a homomorphically encrypted value for the amount they spent. Then Google can perform a homomorphic addition on these encrypted values of only the intersection it calculated. The Merchant can then decrypt it to get the total sum and share it back to Google.

So in the scheme I described

1) Google still learns who is purchasing at which merchant. 2) Google does not learn individual amounts. 3) Merchants can't perform the same calculation to learn which users saw their ads unless Google sends s_j^(T* G) back to them (not pictured in the slides).

<comment><USER10> It's not a new and a very common process. A personal identifying variable is calculated in the same way on both sides (usually by a third party), then hashed. Hashed values are then compared/matched.

<comment><USER9> What makes you think they are just comparing hashes and not this diffie hellman algorithm that they say they have been using?

<comment><USER10> No idea how Google is doing it. Was referring to how others have been doing it for years.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The European Union is often made fun of with "the Americans innovate, the EU regulates", but in the meantime GDPR[1] is coming into force in 2018

> The primary objectives of the GDPR are to give citizens and residents back > control of their personal data

[1] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regu...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation)

<comment><USER12> Doesn't this fall squarely into "the Americans innovate, the EU regulates"?

Whether that saying is derogatory or not obviously depends on your point of view, but this new regulation isn't contradictory to the saying.

<comment><USER13> The point was that it's usually said in a derogatory fashion, insinuating that European innovation suffers as a result of this.

<comment><USER14> Those also aren't strictly tied together. I absolutely believe that EU's internet regulations make it less desirable to start interesting new internet companies there. In many cases, I would also gladly trade that for the benefits of being an individual living under such a system.

<comment><USER13> Indeed, but again the point is that it's usually _said_ , so as to imply that the EU suffers from these policies.

Whether or not that's actually the case is a different question. To your point, it's a much less cut-and-dry question as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> FTA: "Google says it has access to roughly 70% of U.S. credit and debit card transactions through partnerships with companies that track that data."

Wow.

<comment><USER16> MasterCard and Visa not only make money from each credit card transaction but to add insult to injury, they make money selling that transaction data as well! That's what I call a ludicrous business.

<comment><USER17> I've heard that this is not a very big business for Visa/Mastercard. That's because the credit card processors don't get many details on the purchase, they just know the amount, the user, and the bank they are sending the money to.

<comment><USER18> My bank seems to know the origin and destination of all the plane tickets I buy (for example), so presumably the CC processor has this sort of information as well? I'm sure someone reading this is in the industry and can explain.

<comment><USER19> Plane tickets have an odd setup in CC processing systems where it actually shows origin/destination in the transaction information itself. The only other similar example I've seen has been in payment processors like Square or Paypal where they'll include both that it was a Paypal transaction and some customizable string showing the merchant who actually received the payment.

Other than those sorts of situations though, Visa/MC or the bank issuing the cards only know where the transaction occurred and how much it was and don't directly get SKU-level data on what was purchased barring some other sort of partnership with the merchant.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I was under the impression that Google already did this.

A Googler already described this to me years ago as "closing the loop", where Google's ad network already exposed a customer to a brand/product, but Google only gets credit for the conversion if it happens in the same browser session online. By tying together stats between impression and conversion (purchase, even in-store), the ad network becomes more valuable -- or less, if there was already an assumption of this effect with previously overestimated results.

<comment><USER21> Lots of companies have been improving attribution online. Offline is quite a different beast.

<comment><USER22> I remember reading an article a few years ago about Facebook doing this. It's also why some merchants will ask for your phone number, even if you pay in cash. With your phone number, the merchant can identify you. In Facebook's case, they know what ads they show you online, then they can tie any subsequent purchases tagged with your phone number back to your FB account.

<comment><USER23> Sounds like another company claiming credit for something it didn't actually do.

facebook showed me ChristianMingle ads for years despite marking myself as agnostic. I have a fair amount of experience with the Ad-words network and all I can see of facebook's ad network and target is that it sucks. I've never seen any place I've worked have much success deriving any meaningful value from facebook ads.

<comment><USER24> What if ChristianMingle was OK with attracting agnostic to their site? I mean, you don't have to be Christian to want a partner and agnostic can also be synonymous with open.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> My former employer Square (generally a great company) has been doing a similar thing for a while, in partnership with Facebook [1].

[1]: [https://techcrunch.com/2016/06/14/facebook- knows/](https://techcrunch.com/2016/06/14/facebook-knows/)

</comment><comment><USER26> I'm interested to read about where people believe this progression of technology will take us in the near and far future. Are there thought out considerations of what type of world we are heading towards? Has Google revealed their vision of advertising for 2032? I don't mean this rhetorically, I genuinely want to know what vision there is for advertising in the future because I believe it's something we really ought to be thinking about and judging so we can make informed decision about what's best for us.

<comment><USER27> I love this question too. I think we're heading for a full blown "société de contrôle" (see Wikipedia). So the locus of power is changing. Before it was repression, now it is control. It's not inhernetly good or bad. But my gut feelings says that we're transtionning to that society. And while we're transitionning, the first movers, the fastest movers (Google, FaceBook, etc) have an advantage and therefore may look dangerous to us. So in complement to your question I'd like to hear about what are the forces that are here to balance the powers.

<comment><USER28> > what are the forces that are here to balance the powers.

Well there's no chance of a David vs Goliath so the only one I can think of is _governments._ Yeah...

<comment><USER27> Yep, I know that but somehow, at my age (and I'd say even at a younger age), one must think that change does exist and that change is for the better. So maybe there's a David somewhere... Right now I'm thinking about the Pirate Party, but I have no ideas of what they're doing...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Now I will have to seriously consider getting off the Google ecosystem now. Deactivating facebook was okay, but Google might be tricky considering many of website accounts use Google authentication.

<comment><USER3> Okay, this is a small rant that is not directly aimed at you, so nothing personal. This is aimed generally more at people in the privacy at all costs camp and the like. If there's some viewpoint I'm missing here I'd also love to hear it, so it's not really a mean-spirited rant either.

Google owns the internet at this point. For general use purposes, they ARE the internet. So avoiding them should really have at least SOME effect before it's even seriously considered.

What does getting off Google do?

It doesn't hurt them, as there's no way a significant number of people will take action, at least in the near future.

So, then it must be done for you. By not being in these services and having all this data collected on you, what do you actually gain? Likely, nothing at all. You won't be able to be tracked down as easily if Google turns evil, sure. If their data is breached in a meaningful way, sure again. But, for both of these, emphasis on "as easily". At this point, if you're looking to maliciously track down just about anyone, it's not hard at all. You'd have to go fully off the grid to get this. And in that scenario, what do you gain again? We follow down the same road of "I only gain something in very unlikely scenarios" again.

So to me, the only way this type of perspective makes sense is if you believe those very unlikely scenarios (from my view) are much more likely. And if they are, we're all fucked already, and being one of the few to be off the grid probably won't matter in the end.

Basically, at this point, you've already given yourself to Google. Rather than decide whether or not to trust them, I think putting more effort into trying to influence them towards "not being evil", as they say, is much more of a realistic move for someone with concerns over data, privacy, power/security of all this, etc.

Am I missing something?

PS: I understand Facebook - for some, there are no significant benefits you give up. For most, you're going to give up a lot more with Google.

<comment><USER30> I don't know, I think it's easier than you make it out to be. I don't use gmail, I have Duck Duck Go as my main search engine, I don't log into Google in my main browser. I just don't use anything on a regular basis that needs a google login. When I do, I open Chrome and log in there, so it doesn't taint my main browser. It hasn't affected my life or my career negatively (or at all, really).

<comment><USER3> That's a fair answer, and I'm sure one that many share. Thanks for addressing the question directly - I see how for a minority of users, the switch makes sense.

I guess for me, I don't care enough to make all those changes. As a Chrome user, the sync across things is nice, and I enjoy the interface. I'll take the ease at risk of someone having my data in a catastrophic situation. Obviously, your choice makes great sense for you.

<comment><USER31> > I guess for me, I don't care enough to make all those changes.

Up until I read this article, I used to feel the opposite way. I think there is some value in everyone having privacy and personal space. It gives us an opportunity to decompress and relieve some of the stresses of our increasingly connected world.

However, discovering that Google (and others) are merging my online and offline behavior is making me doubt my viewpoint (the 70% figure really hit hard). If I can't escape it, why not just be apart of it? Surely life is a bit simpler: not having to pay for email, better search results (DDG vs Google)... It seems that whether you want to or not, you _will_ become part of the google/facebook/etc ecosystem.

The other reason I used non-google services was in some ways to "hedge" my position. By using a non-google email with a custom domain, I am not tied down to any email provider (note: I bought the domain explicitly for email use). If I ever became unsatisfied with my email service, I could always switch to a different provider without the hassle of creating a new email address. Now, maybe this is just a defeatist view, but I think google/facebook are too big to fail. If google disappeared tomorrow or in 10 years, there would be chaos -too much of the world depends on it. Does this give them enough power to exist in perpetuity? Maybe it's time to just cave in and use all google services. It sure is cheaper.

<comment><USER3> > "I think there is some value in everyone having privacy and personal space."

I never got how Google having my data as part of a larger picture ever affected either of those in my daily life. They use it for power in mass, not over individuals. It's an important political conversation, but it's doing everything but affecting me specifically/individually in my daily life (in negative ways at least)

Edit: Just wanted to say I appreciated the comment. As far as too big to fail goes, I don't think Facebook is yet - they are fighting hard to become that right now though. You can easily function without Facebook - right now it's basically only serving as an address book and messaging service for me, and I have good alternatives for both of those. Google's integration into everything is what makes them too big to fail. I've given up on fighting Google, but I'm still careful to some extent with Facebook.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> There are anonymized credit card services, including pre-paid and other solutions. The following is based on notes at least a year old, and I haven't tried them:

* Abine

* Final [https://getfinal.com/](https://getfinal.com/)

* Privacy Inc. [https://privacy.com/](https://privacy.com/)

Also, many pre-paid cards require the user to identify themselves before the card is activated

<comment><USER33> I didn't downvote, but some of those only help so much. Your name is still in the track data, and for credit you generally have to input a zip code. For online purchases, you're entering an address as well.

<comment><USER34> Yes, but even if a panopticon could theoretically piece your entire history back together, using multiple companies to keep the silos separate is one way to reduce the ease with which this can be done.

That's why it's such a big deal when companies sell your info. Merging silos dramatically increases the amount that can be inferred from each piece of information.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> > The new tracking system was created in consultation with "incredibly smart > people" to ensure it's not invasive. He described the program as "secure and > privacy safe."

It's not "incredibly smart people" you need; it's "highly _ethical_ people".

<comment><USER36> Sooner or later people will start to revolt and either go back to use semi- anonymous cash or truly anonymous payment systems like bitcoin. Google and advertising will then be in the dark.

<comment><USER37> Bitcoin is not "truly anonymous" by default. All transactions are public and can be traced back to you, unless you use non-logging bitcoin mixers for every single transaction.

<comment><USER38> No, you just mix a bunch, and then use them. But you must use VPNs and/or Tor, to avoid linkage by IP address. If you want compartmentalization, just mix into separate wallets. And if you want strong compartmentalization, do everything via Tor, and put those wallets in separate VMs (such as Whonix).

<comment><USER39> Indeed, Bitcoin _can_ be anonymous if there is enough critical mass. But that requires far more involment than the average person is willing to do. Cash is easy and simple.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Are there concrete recommendations for being able to use a credit card (i.e. for an airline purchase where cash is tough) and maintain maximum privacy? I know Apple Pay helps vis-a-vis the merchant since the CC number is hidden. Are Visa, AMEX, MC different at all? Are there banks that have better privacy policies or does it not matter since the bank is just handling the final money transfer?

<comment><USER41> I use a service called Privacy.com which is quite convenient for certain types of transactions or when dealing with certain merchants. Check their privacy policy: [https://privacy.com/terms#privacy- policy](https://privacy.com/terms#privacy-policy)

The one thing that stands out to me is this line: "Privacy.com does not disclose personal data to third parties for direct marketing purposes."

I am suspicious that the addition of the word 'direct' in that sentence might be significant. I'd love to hear of other similar services.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> "The kinds of data that Google is collecting also could become an inviting target for hackers, said Miro Copic, a marketing professor at San Diego State University"

As if Google wasn't already a target already?!

</comment><comment><USER43> It's worth seeing the information from the source. The talk[0] and the blog post[1]. Plus, as Engadget called out[2] in an update, you can opt-out by contacting your credit card company, and there are more details at the FTC[3].

[0] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmkRJqnQ2T8&19m05s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmkRJqnQ2T8&19m05s)

[1] [https://adwords.googleblog.com/2017/05/powering-ads-and- anal...](https://adwords.googleblog.com/2017/05/powering-ads-and-analytics- innovations.html)

[2] [https://www.engadget.com/2017/05/23/google-track-shopping- tr...](https://www.engadget.com/2017/05/23/google-track-shopping-trips-ads/)

[3] [https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0222-privacy- choices-y...](https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0222-privacy-choices-your- personal-financial-information)

</comment><comment><USER44> Not Google specific, but some good reading on this topic came out in January - The Aisles Have Eyes: How Retailers Track Your Shopping, Strip Your Privacy, and Define Your Power [0]

[0] [https://www.amazon.com/Aisles-Have-Eyes-Retailers- Shopping/d...](https://www.amazon.com/Aisles-Have-Eyes-Retailers- Shopping/dp/0300212194/)

</comment><comment><USER45> Amazon already has been doing this as well.

They started to recommend some items related with books I have never bought online, just after I got them at local bookstore by credit card.

<comment><USER46> Isn't there a difference? Google is sharing that offline purchase insight with advertising clients, rather than simply using that data itself, as does Amazon.

<comment><USER47> Where the advertising client is the local bookstore that he purchased the book from.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> awinter-py I think everyone remembers the first ad to follow them around multiple websites. For me it was an ASPCA campaign.

The next version of that experience will be researching a purchase and where to get it, then seeing ads on the way that are customized to (a) the product you're buying and (b) your preferences.

If you're 55 you'll get michael jordan advising you to buy nikes. If you're 35 it will be Noel Gallagher (air noels?), and if you're 10 it will be the ninja turtles.

The good news is at a certain point the competition for eyeballs will become so fierce that the ads become honest & informative.

<comment><USER48> If ads were going to become honest and informative, it would have happened already. A sale from a lie is equal in value to a sale from the truth.

<comment><USER49> > _A sale from a lie is equal in value to a sale from the truth._

And a sale from a lie is also _cheaper to achieve_ than a sale from the truth. So even if your ads are always 100% honest, if your competitor starts lying, you're forced to either do the same, or risk going out of business. This is how the market optimizes human values away as inefficiencies.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Where I live we have laws in place that criminalize stalking. Why isn't this considered stalking?

<comment><USER51> Maybe you implicitly agree to their ToS when you enter a partner store? It's a technical detail of creative lawyering. They must have covered the legal aspects and factored in the fines in case they get a slap on the wrist.

I guess it is the same thin line you have between tax evasion and tax optimization and Google has a nearly unlimited budget to try to move this line in their favor.

<comment><USER50> But it's not like agreeing to a ToS allows you to do illegal things, stalking being one of them. And yes, the definition keeps fitting more and more Google's tracking methods.

I know that I sound dramatic, but all of these kind of things that we have let Google do would be considered HIGHLY illegal if instead of a company it was a single, private individual.

<comment><USER51> Not dramatic at all, it _is_ stalking, it _is_ unethical but defining illegal is very complicated and up to the elected bodies.

Powerful entities should not be above the law but in practice they are, no point denying that. I'm sure everyone has an explanation according to taste how come double standards can be the normal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> Earlier, on HN:

Report warns computers may threaten constitutional rights (1982)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14329877](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14329877)

</comment><comment><USER53> Thinking about it, the entire US economy has been about increasing consumption and credit since the 1970s.

</comment><comment><USER54> There are certain products that people are more likely to buy in-store than online (clothing etc) but may be exposed to/advertised to online. I've always wondered how retailers track offline conversions effectively...

</comment><comment><USER55> This is not just starting - Google has been testing this since at least 2014.

I worked at a big online advertising agency from 2013-2014 and we had a lot of fortune 500 companies as clients. Google began offering this tracking functionality as a beta in 2014 to a small number of very large companies.

Here's the thing - Google is basically telling advertisers "just trust us to report on our own performance." They are saying buy traffic from us and we will use our secret algorithms to tell you how much revenue we drove and you will have no way to verify the totals.

As you can imagine this is not an attractive proposition.

</comment><comment><USER56> > Google says it has access to roughly 70% of U.S. credit and debit card > transactions.

I don't get it, does VISA, MASTERCARD or AMEX just gives google the transactions? That got to be illegal, right?

<comment><USER57> Only if you didn't sign a contract that says they can.

In Europe it would be opt-in in all likelihood.

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> Yesterday, I received [1] from a friend. I laughed it off as the usual exaggeration when someone talks about Google and privacy. Today, I read that Google moved one step closer to that story.

[1] [https://www.devrant.io/rants/605665/hello-gordons-pizza- no-s...](https://www.devrant.io/rants/605665/hello-gordons-pizza-no-sir-its- googles-pizza-so-its-a-wrong-number-no-sir-google)

</comment><comment><USER59> Another way companies are connecting your online profile with offline activities is by using one of the many call tracking services. Basically when you visit a site using these you will be shown a unique phone number. When you ring it the service will tie your web session to the call. The company will see the caller's whole web user journey and any subsequent visits.

</comment><comment><USER60> Cash is a great invention.

</comment><comment><USER61> This is likely unpopular, but this makes my job exponentially easier. The number of "What is that click worth" questions to us data driven marketing folks by small businesses effectively closes off a lot of us that focus primarily on the data from that market. With this, there is very real money to be made with small businesses that were too skittish to advertise before. We've been playing with Facebook's online to offline and frankly the brick and mortar folks we work with that we're utilizing it are incredibly delighted.

<comment><USER62> Just because it makes your job easier doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> Hmm I was wondering how some stores show up on Google maps even though I did not use Google maps to get to those places. God damm Google.

<comment><USER64> That is because you have location services enabled on your phone. Google collects your phones location with this on. You can see the details by going to your location history.

<comment><USER65> Yeah I keep location services turned off most of the time. I also have never intentionally clicked on an online ad of any kind.

<comment><USER66> > Yeah I keep location services turned off most of the time.

Even if your location services, wifi and bt are off, they occasionally turns on to get your location. In Lineage OS there is an additional setting to not use wifi (when it is off) for location services.

May be you can look into developer options to disable this setting (Please note that even if wifi is off, your phone searches for wifi hotspots to find itself where it is).

And if your wifi/bt is on, your location is (almost) always available to Google. You know it, right?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER67> Many ways are being suggested as workarounds for maintaining annonimity about where one spends their money. Fact if the matter is, if the money leaves your account in batches these guys will know. So Google, and others, in the age of bitcoin will just partner with banks.

</comment><comment><USER68> Are there any credit card companies or banks offering cards that will not participate?

</comment><comment><USER69> Dr. Stallman and FSF always promoted used of free software to counter surveillance.

</comment><comment><USER70> Next phone will be an iPhone even if I think Android is so much better.

</comment><comment><USER71> I'm not concerned. By the time they've figured out what everyone is buying, people won't have any money anymore to buy anything. So... whatever.

</comment><comment><USER72> Best part about this article, it's talking about Google advertising and meanwhile the page loads with 147 trackers, page entry interstitials, auto- play videos, and pop-up interstitials while I'm trying to read. Many of the ads on that page are all google driven including the massive annoying pushdown at the top of the page.

As to the topic, let's be clear credit card data mining has been going on since before the web was born. I've explained this to people for decades, that and "customer loyalty" programs are amazing sources of data while being very scary at the same time.

What google is doing here is not any different than 100's of other vendors and companies in advertising technology. Their advantage is the retention of all your search data, clicks when it's a google ad etc. Facebook has comparable data as do many companies. Both these companies enjoy a duopoly that is massive and in some markets, they capture more than 70% of all advertising spend. Those resources combined with offline techniques creates a white-hot spot light that ignites a dialog that most likely should have happened before the web was born.

Advertisers want to know the money they spend is effective and works. We can all debate for eons about the effectiveness of advertising, but let me tell you de facto that it works. These types of systems are designed to help them optimize the spend.

Sadly, meanwhile you have perfectly good outlets like this newspaper where that optimization has led to downward pressure combined with user habit changes. They are desperate to stay in business and allow their digital offerings to be turned into graffiti pages in hopes to make up for lost revenues in the physical business. This leads to turning users off (157 trackers now as I write this) and they stop coming to the site. The leads to a vicious cycle where the users stop coming, the advertisers notice and stop spending or start discounting the money they're willing to pay. Digital death is horrific, rapid and all automated.

I don't know the answer to all these things, what I do know is people do want to have intelligent dialogs with other people who are offering something of interest. But advertising has always in the past been about injecting itself into people's lives in unwanted ways, from the kid screaming on the street corner "Come and get it, hot off the press" to a page on latimes.com with now 158 trackers and more ad space than content.

I dream of a world where I can have intelligent dialogs with people offering things that could enhance my life in some way. I spend every day of my life thinking about how to do this, and I'm building technology and products to address this idea. I would love nothing better than a single ad on a site like this, the right one, the one you wouldn't mind hearing from and one that pays the site owner 20x what they get now with their graffiti strategy. I can tell you advertisers also want this, they don't want to be on a page with 158 trackers, and a graffiti layout where their message is diluted by all the noise.

It's a real problem, it will get much worse before it gets better, but those who say advertising is evil are missing the point. Effective advertising is about communication, and should be person to person. The most powerful advertisement is a friend telling another friend about something new and exciting they discovered. However, to have that dialog you must have the first experience, the discovery, the friend of a friend had to learn about this amazing new product and advertising sets out to do that.

</comment><comment><USER73> Does who advertise for products sold offline doesn't care about clicks though, only views.

</comment><comment><USER74> Tracking more please google. Im really happy that you violate my privacy with fancy new terms and ideas.</comment>


Hexaflexagons - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIVIegSt81k

<comment><USER2> Growing up, before the internet, I fell in love with libraries. I discovered Scientific American and it's regular column "Mathematical Games" by Martin Gardner. I eventually read every one of those columns written by Gardner and picked up a lot of science from the rest of the magazine along the way. When I discovered his 1950's column on hexaflexagons I introduced them at my junior high school where dozens of us carried them around and played with them at lunchtime. Several other diversions I learned from Martin Gardner also made the rounds at that school.

I highly recommend the Mathematical Games columns written by Gardner; many of the more interesting ones are available in his books as collections, for example [1], which is less than $5 on Amazon. (Equally fascinating to me then was the Scientific American column "Amateur Scientist", this went back decades farther than "Mathematical Games" and showed projects, actually built by readers, that were often completely over the top--atom smashers, x-ray machines, sophisticated seismographs, etc. Thank goodness I didn't kill myself in my homemade lab in the basement.)

For an up to date treatment of the flexigon see [2].

[1] My Best Mathematical and Logic Puzzles, Martin Gardner, Dover, 1994. [2] Flexagons Inside Out, Les Pook, Cambridge Univ Press, 2003.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> This is one of these things I feel a lot of hackers might know already but I only discovered them yesterday :)

When playing a nice pen and paper roleplaying game of Cthulhu, our GM had us trapped in a non-euclidean manor where the doors through which you went changed the configuration of the space. We had an insane clock device with us (in the shape of a symbol-ridden hexaflexagon as a playing aid on the table) that allowed us to eventually navigate through the thing.

The only catch was none of the players had ever heard of hexaflexagons and the GM flexed the device hidden from view. So we did an unspeakable amount of diagrams trying to figure out how the device might work. Good times.

Anyway, this is awesome and everybody should know about them.

</comment><comment><USER3> related: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFUyXWlObLw](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFUyXWlObLw)</comment>


OpenProfiler launches beta; promises synchronization of various online profiles. - <AUTHOR> http://openprofiler.com/

<comment><USER2> I'm surprised people haven't done this before but that leads to my main question for you: what's the business plan/how will this service support itself?

<comment><AUTHOR> I have some things in mind, but all that I am worrying about right now is seeing if people actually show interest in the site/idea.</comment></comment>


Why Not Build Your Own Self-Driving Car? - <AUTHOR> http://www.zeroequalsfalse.press/2017/12/18/car/ <comment><USER2> You know the 80/20 problem? The last 20% percent of the work require 80% of the effort? Well, with self-driving cars it's the reverse. Most start ups spend the first year getting a team of car hackers to hook up a bunch of ROS machines in the trunk to the car's controls and rigging up a bunch of sensors. And then once they're done, they have this one task left, writing the actual algorithms. And they realize that the best they can do is a car that makes laps around their parking lot (see above article), and even that takes them another year.

<comment><USER3> I don't think you meant the reverse. I presume you meant it is even more extreme. The "nearly there" edge cases - the last 1% is 99% of the work.

<comment><USER4> The 80/20 rule is just recursive. On the bright side, that makes the last 1% closer to 98% of the work instead of 99%.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> You know those five self-driving "levels"? Hands off, eyes off, attention off, mind off, or something like that? I think we need a sixth, "mind off, but this time you're driving in India".

Every time I go on the road, I am reminded that what works in the US has no way of working where I live, unless the car can also automatically honk its horn and cut people off. Otherwise, in high-traffic conditions it would just stay put behind the guy who double-parked in its lane for two hours, politely never cutting anyone off.

<comment><USER6> > You know those five self-driving "levels"? Hands off, eyes off, attention > off, mind off, or something like that?

See

> > [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Autonomous_car&ol...](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Autonomous_car&oldid=816746579#Levels_of_driving_automation)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This isn't how to do self-driving. It's how to do _road-following_. There's a big difference.

</comment><comment><USER8> This is pretty neat, perhaps the author should integrate with the comma.ai platform, which is open source (except for the vision part, which this post implements), has a vehicle dynamics model and hardware integration with several recent Honda and Toyota cars.

</comment><comment><USER9> I wonder if there's any chance for George Hotz's project to come back...

<comment><USER10> it's very alive and well!

<comment><USER11> I wish them well, but they're doing hobby robotics.

They claim to be at the level of Waymo/Tesla/Uber/Cruise, etc, but a quick glance at their github shows sub-DARPA Grand Challenge levels of technical development.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> The article doesn't ask this dumb question.

</comment><comment><USER12> Because it will crash.

<comment><USER13> You are likely to provide more of the actual things needed to make a self- driving car work than any car company is, though. No car company will give the engineers the time, resources, or control over the project to make a self- driving car that is trustworthy. But an individual might at least provide themselves a quiet environment, the tools they need, the time they need, and never be forced to rush or forge ahead with uncomfortable reservations simply because an MBA wants to meet his metric projections and knows that no court in the land would ever levy criminal charges no matter what happens.

<comment><USER12> The important thing is, though: will it be able to self-drive on street? No.

It will be the most comfortable car there is for the maker, but it won't drive itself.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Automobile²</comment>


Steven Sinofsky Twitter Thread on Mac/OS X on ARM - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/stevesi/status/1100228961097797632 <comment><USER2> Arm based Macs is solving no problem.

<comment><USER3> It's solving apple having to rely on intel...

<comment><USER4> Intel is probably their only supplier they can't dictate terms to.</comment></comment></comment>


States Burn Through Cash for Unemployment Payments - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/states-burn-through-cash-for-unemployment-payments-11587412810 <comment><USER2> So many republishes this seems pretty moot. Just search for the headline but here's the usual mirror, update 2 of 4 times apparently.

[https://www.morningstar.com/news/dow- jones/2020042013562/sta...](https://www.morningstar.com/news/dow- jones/2020042013562/states-burn-through-cash-for-unemployment-payments-2nd- update)</comment>


Rails Debug Bar  - <AUTHOR> http://brycekerley.net/chronicle/post/Rails_Debug_Bar <comment><USER2> Checked it out. Not quite enough functionality yet

Would probably be better to extend: <http://github.com/drnic/rails-footnotes></comment>


Robotic surgery linked to 144 deaths in the US - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-33609495

<comment><USER2> Previous submissions:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9920913](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9920913)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9923294](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9923294)

\---

My response from a previous submission:

> _Their paper says 144 deaths, 1,391 injuries and 8,061 device malfunctions > were recorded out of a total of more than 1.7 million robotic procedures > carried out between January 2000 and December 2013._

So that's 0.00847% death rate, 0.082% injury rate, and 0.47% device malfunction rate.

<comment><USER3> Thank you for your statistical analysis.

Is there matching statistics comparing the death and injury percentage of non- robotic surgeries?

<comment><USER2> Sadly there's not; this is one of the complaints about the article that has come up in previous discussions.

Another commenter did come up with equivalent statistics that showed humans with a much higher error rate; however others disputed the comparison as the time frame and other factors did not match exactly.</comment></comment></comment>


How to translate your Eagle libraries to KiCad - <AUTHOR> https://www.snapeda.com/parts/add/ <comment><AUTHOR> You can now convert your Eagle libraries to KiCad (and other formats) on SnapEDA.

As many know, Autodesk moved Eagle to a subscription model last month. As a result, many have been asking how they can translate their Eagle files to other formats (particularly KiCad).

I think the subscription model will bring much-needed features. But I also understand that it is (for many) a showstopper. Hopefully this free tool is helpful to those for whom this is the case.</comment>


Hidden Information in Famous Logo - <AUTHOR> http://activeclass.blogspot.com/2011/05/hidden-information-in-famous-logo.html <comment><USER2> It's actually about multiple famous logos, not just one. Some of these really surprised me, like Continental. (Though I think the author means 'tire', not 'tyer'.) I thought it was a worthwhile read.</comment>


Ask HN: Can I legally work on my startup during my paternity leave? - <AUTHOR>

I'm on paternity leave from my day job. I've already been spending nights and weekends on my startup prior to having the baby. I'll have more time to spend on the startup (between dirty diapers and puke) and would naturally spend some of that on the startup.
Realistically, what are the pros or cons of doing this?
I'm in the state of California and using FML and PFML (both state benefits). <comment><USER2> That depends on your employee agreement. Do you have an IP agreement?

If you do, then there may be rules on what you need to do.

If I recall correctly, leaves are basically employment pauses to protect people for the reason of the leave (i.e. if you get fired when you return, then you can sue).

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't recall the specifics of the employee agreement except that I can't hire former coworkers after leaving. I disclosed IP from this startup prior to joining.

<comment><USER3> Recent California law says they can't lay claim to what you do on your own time with your own materials (this has been discussed in prior HN threads and it's only a few decades old vs. the anti-non-compete law which as I recall is around a century old).

I would suspect paternity leave counts as "your own time", particularly given the issue of trying to account for the 24x7 taking care of the baby labor, which what you're getting paid time off to do if I'm matching PFML correctly to the California Paid Family Leave, but IANAL. Still, it's hard to see California not being friendly towards what you're thinking about doing (says someone who's spend less than a total of 2 months in the state...).

<comment><USER4> There was a case between Mattel and MGA over the Bratz doll line. Apparently the designer Carter Bryant worked for Mattel between 1995-1998, took family leave from April 1998 - January 1999 to take care of a sick relative. It was during this time that he claimed he developed the Bratz doll concept. He then resumed working for Mattel until 2000. After leaving Mattel, he joined MGA Entertainment, who made the doll line and sold a billion dollars worth of merchandise. Mattel originally claimed that they owned the doll line because he was still employed during the leave (though it was later determined that he drew the initial concepts before the leave, and now Mattel owns the rights to the Bratz line).

<comment><AUTHOR> I'll look this up. Much thanks.

<comment><USER3> Very clearly the protections in Sections 2780-2782 of California law (see link in other posting) would not apply to this case, as the doll line was " _Relate[ed] at the time of conception or reduction to practice of the invention to the employer's business._ "

BTW, a quick skim of the Wikipedia article on the contrariety indicated it's not entirely settled and one of the issues was if the designer was truly employed by Mattel between what was claimed as two separate periods of employment.

A very messy case, but a good warning to be careful about these sorts of things just in case your startup is a really big hit.

<comment><USER4> _one of the issues was if the designer was truly employed by Mattel between what was claimed as two separate periods of employment_

I remember during the case this was a big issue...did the leave of absence and subsequent return constitute a termination of employment and reinstatement. At first Mattel argued that he continued to be an employee, and therefore they owned the designs.

 _Bryant went to work for Mattel in 1995 as a designer of fashions, hairstyles and makeup for its Barbie line. While at Mattel, he signed a "confidential information and inventions" agreement which gave Mattel the exclusive rights to all "developments, designs, know-how, data" and other items created by Bryant while he worked for the company. However, Bryant took a leave of absence in 1998 and returned to Mattel approximately 8 months later. It is during that critical time frame that Bryant contends he created "Bratz"._

[http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/copyright- trademarklaw/b...](http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/copyright- trademarklaw/blogs/copyrightandtrademarklawblog/archive/2008/06/19/Barbie-v.-Bratz_3A00_-Copyright- Litigation-Gets-_1C20_Dolled-Up_1D20_.aspx)

I believe they later agreed that there were indeed two separate periods of employment, but that the designs were still Mattel's because he came up with the ideas while at Mattel, and later sketched them during the leave. Furthermore, it was later revealed that he had used Mattel company time and resources to develop the idea after he returned from leave, including asking coworkers to help create a prototype, and using the phone and fax to make deals with MGA ([http://www.iplawforstartups.com/startup-launch-bratz-doll- de...](http://www.iplawforstartups.com/startup-launch-bratz-doll- designers-100-million-dollar-mistakes/)).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Ask your employer. The industry norm may not be your company's, and it's better to be safe than sorry.</comment>


What Safari's Reading List means for Instapaper - <AUTHOR> http://www.marco.org/2011/06/06/safari-reader-and-instapaper <comment><USER2> I think marco is totally right that this can only help instapaper in the long run. Let me tell you a story from my own experience:

My partner and I created an iPad game for cats. We wanted to get some extra marketing boost so we contacted friskies (purina). In Nov (2010) I exchanged a few emails, and talked to them on the phone about our game. I sent them a video and they told us they loved the idea and they would get back to us. Then one day, silence. We didn't hear anything for months.

Then a couple weeks ago they released the Friskies "Games for Cats" which are suspiciously similar to our game. The blogosphere exploded. "Friskies releases creative iPad game for cats" "Friskies is oh so clever etc."

We were pissed. But sales improved. A lot.

I tried to track their rankings so I searched for them on the AppStore. Hmm, thats odd. I couldn't find them. It turns out /they didn't make native apps/ they were "simply" HTML5 pages on their website that you open in browser [1].

So what was/is happening is people see "Friskies iPad Game for Cats" they grab their iPad and search for "game for cats" on the AppStore and then they find our game and we profit.

Also, most people who have cats and iPads don't even think to look for a game for their cat. So by Friskies putting marketing into this they actually increase the size of the market (to be honest, I hope they run a TV commercial advertising their "ipad game for cats").

Moral #1 of the story is: BigCo might steal your idea, but they will likely mess it up and it can end up helping you.

Moral #2: high water raises all the boats

[1] I realized HTML5 is a "real" app, but most normals don't yet view it that way. They expect to find apps in an app store.

UPDATE: formatting

<comment><USER3> That's a lot different than functionality being added to the OS. What Apple is doing is effectively what MS got in trouble for. Apple is adding functionality to the OS that exists as a standalone application out of the OS (this is probaby the main reason why antivirus doesn't ship in the box with Windows).

The question MS had to answer was if this functionality was crucial to the operation of the OS. The TCP/IP stack apparently was deemed so. IE wasn't deemed crucial.

The difference between MS and Apple is that MS had a desktop monopoly. Apple has no such monopoly in mobile devices. Although if Apple keeps touting their 90% tablet market share, they could inadvertantly put themselves in the middle of antitrust crosshairs again.

I know Marco has said that he would not use legal means to stop Apple -- but he shouldn't rule it out forever. Because trust me, Apple would have no problem doing it to him.

<comment><USER4> You're confusing Microsoft's illegal anticompetitive actions with their defense.

They tried to destroy Netscape through a number of illegal means. Their defense was to argue that IE was nothing more than a component of Windows, which was and is correct. If they had merely shipped IE with Windows they wouldn't have broken any laws, but that was never really the issue; it was only the issue MS wanted people to focus on.

<comment><USER3> Not correct. See my other response. <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2627487>

<comment><USER4> Microsoft had a very real monopoly on personal computers, and they engaged in illegal anticompetitive practices to maintain that real monopoly, illegal practices this simply wouldn't have worked in a fair market with real alternatives for consumers and manufacturers.

The only monopoly Apple has is a monopoly on iPhones. Their only interest is to make their product as attractive as possible in a market jam packed with innovative alternatives, and history is filled with instances where features are added to an OS at the expense of a previous 3rd-party add-on.

I don't think there is any comparison between Microsoft of the late 90s and any tech company today, when it comes to monopolies and anticompetitive behavior.

<comment><USER3> Wrong product. Apple itself states it has 90% marketshare in tablets.

If I were Apple legal I would advise against explicitly stating tablet marketshare.

<comment><USER5> Why? They have not engaged in any illegal practices—at least as far as anyone here knows—to secure this position, and the tablet market is in its infancy.

If the market were years-old and Apple was buying out competitors and paying retailers to _not_ stock alternative devices, then there would be a problem. But they're not.

<comment><USER3> _Why? They have not engaged in any illegal practices—at least as far as anyone here knows—to secure this position, and the tablet market is in its infancy._

This is something that people continously get wrong. What are perfectly legal practices for a non-monopoly may no longer be legal once you're a monopoly.

For example, if Apple had a monopoly on mobile phones it might be illegal for them to block "replicated" functionality in their app store. Today its perfectly legal, but in a monopoly situation, its not.

For example, one of the things that MS was accused of was not allowing OEMs to put Netscape shortcuts on the desktop. If Windows wasn't a monopoly that's a perfect fine requirement. And as it stands today, Apple has strict requirements for what can get preinstalled on their phone/tablet by carriers -- virtually nothing.

Another thing MS was accused of by Netscape was withholding technical information. Apple does this today. In fact the Camera+ app, not only had to find technical information w/o docs, but once it did find the information, Apple removed their app from the app store. Imagine if MS removed Netscape once Netscape found the info they were looking for.

MS was also accused of "Giving Internet Explorer Away". All of these new features in iOS are basically free. Again, giving away something at below "cost" is fine if you're not a monopoly, but _might_ be illegal when you are one.

MS was also accused of making it difficult (financially or technically) to remove IE. Again, you can't remove IE in WP7 or Safari in iPad, AFAIK. Both perfectly legal.

Now I'm not saying MS was in the clear. They were in fact a monopoly and did these things. My point though is that Apple is treading this line with the iPad. With the iPhone they're too small of a market. But with the iPad being the dominant tablet (by a huge margin), they're behavior, which would be perfectly legal for the iPhone, is now questionable.

<comment><USER6> The point is that Apple _isn't_ a monopolist. They like to _inadvertently_ brag that they are, but they are not, thus any comparison with Microsoft's monopoly abuse is moot.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I knew the guy who made the original faux-MMS app. When Apple added MMS to iPhone, his app died swiftly.

I also knew the guy who made the original, best voice recorder app too. He made a mint, but then Apple made it a native app, and his app pretty much died too.

Never underestimate the potential of the platform-owner to take what he wants from your business.

<comment><USER8> Excuse me in advance for 'edw519'ing out:

             - - - - lots of features w/ mainstream appeal - ->

             - - - - has network effects -- - - - - - - - - - >

             - - - - wants to be cross-platform - - - - - - - >

                                    |                LARGE MARKET
                                    |
                                    |
                                    |  .-- instapaper?
         .-- MMS                    |  |
         |                          |  |
         |
      hard           SPECTRUM of DIFFERENTIABILITY            easy
       <</comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>->
                        |           |                       |
                        |           |                       |
                        `-- voice   |                       `-- music
                            recorder|                          social
                                    |                           network?
                                    |
                                    |
                                    |
                                    |
         SMALL MARKET               |

It remains to be seen where deferred-reading is on this spectrum. My gut is that it's somewhere in the middle, but that the total market for it --- notably unlike special-purpose voice recorders --- is so big that you might not need to work too much harder to retain the status quo.

My point is that it's not as simple as you make it out to be. There's plenty of room on iOS for a better calculator (like PCalc); plenty of room for portfolio tracking, even for special-purpose camera interfaces.

<comment><USER7> How you put MMS as having no network effects and not being cross-platform is beyond me.

<comment><USER8> I didn't. I said network effects are among the things that make products easier to differentiate, because users aren't just shopping for 80% features, but also care about the community of people already using specific products.

That is clearly not the case with MMS functionality.

Your objection is isomorphic to the claim that IP has "network effects", and phone numbers, and zip codes.

Do you _actually_ disagree that MMS is in a different position that Instapaper? Or are you just infuriated by my silly ASCII graphic?

<comment><USER7> I disagree in the ways in which it is different. I think these axes are not good descriptors. And I do not enjoy beating my wife, for what it's worth.

<comment><USER8> Write a glib comment, get a glib response! What are the axes you think are better descriptors?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Thanks to Safari's reading list, I'll likely stop using the Instapaper bookmarklet on my iPad. But the most common use case I have for Intapaper is when I see an article on my laptop in Chrome and want to read it later on my Kindle 3. So I expect I'll be using Instapaper for a while longer.

This is a generalizable pattern for survival for all the other apps Apple "killed" today - you can still compete for any users that don't live 100% in the Apple ecosystem.

<comment><USER10> This is a bit off-topic, but I have the exact same most common use case, and I just switched in the last few days to using the Readability add-on to Chrome, which has a "send to Kindle" button. I was previously using Wordcycler to sync my Kindle with Instapaper by plugging it into my laptop, but this allows me to skip that step. Now I can just hit the sync button on the Kindle directly and it downloads the saved articles.

Readability seems to render articles slightly better, too, and more often keeps the byline, which was the most annoying part about Instapaper for me.

<https://www.readability.com/addons>

<comment><USER11> Cheapshot for link bait.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'm a happy (paid) Instapaper user and hope it prospers, but I'm old enough to remember what happened when IBM brought out its original PC back in the early 1980s.

Apple claimed that IBM's entry into the space was a _good_ thing because it validated the concept of personal computing, of which Apple had been a pioneer.

Then IBM proceeded to eat Apple's lunch, even though (in the opinion of many) Apple had the superior machine.

 _(Edited slightly for style.)_

<comment><USER13> > I remember Apple's response when IBM brought out its original PC back in the > early 1980s: Apple claimed that IBM's entry into the personal computing > space was a good thing, because it validated the concept. Then IBM proceeded > to eat Apple's lunch.

It seems to me you're stopping the story in kind of a weird place, there.

 _Apple's_ market cap is currently something like half-again as much as IBM's. Apple became a better company for the competition, and it's impossible to understate how much their current success benefits from the vast explosion in personal computer adoption that IBM's entry into the market brought about.

Competition makes products better. Increased awareness brings a lot more people and money into the market. Marco is a smart, talented guy who is well- poised to benefit, here.

<comment><USER14> Yes, but Apple still nearly died before they got their act together. That kind of turnarounds are _rare_

<comment><USER13> Apple nearly died because during that period because they were an inflexible organization that reacted slowly to changing market conditions while operating under increasingly out-of-touch management.

Unless the argument here is that Marco is a dumb guy who for some reason isn't in a position to pivot quickly and react to change, I'm not seeing any parallel here with what happened to Apple in the early 90s.

Marco's still the market leader here. He has to fuck up _before_ he's in the position of needing a turn-around. I'm not sure why you're taking it as _fait accompli_ that he will be unable to react appropriately; he's a smart guy.

<comment><USER14> I agree that he is a smart guy with a good possibility of still winning here.

But as for being market leader, as soon as this ships in iOS he won't be that. Would you have wanted to be Netscape when MS started bundling Internet Explorer in their OS?

<comment><USER15> I wasn't around in those times, but wasn't Netscape fighting crap with crap? Marco says that his advertising to Reading List people is how IP is more.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Except that foreseeably, there will be no way for Instapaper to have the same intuitive interface that Reading List benefits from. The only possible future for Instapaper is as a functionally superior app with a inferior interface. There's no way that Apple's going to lend the same degree of control over the functionality of Safari to any third-party app developer.

A pessimistic response is logical and probably the only rational response. There's simply no way to compete with Apple's Reading List because Apple's made it that way.

Instapaper, which is really a wonderful app has this weird workflow for use: Install the app, and to install the bookmarklet (some rudimentary Safari integration), you have to go to a page, create a empty bookmark, go back and edit the bookmark with a copied-and-pasted javascript: url. I'm sure Marco has tried his best to improve the interface, but Apple's restrictions on the platform forbids it.

<comment><USER13> The best, easiest way to install the Instapaper bookmarklet was always to do it through the desktop browser and then rely on MobileMe to sync that to your iPad and iPhone. The problem was that not every iOS user was willing to throw down $99 a year for things like over-the-air bookmark synchronization.

Now that that syncing is going to be free and available to every user of iOS 5, the Instapaper bookmarklet installation process just got simpler, not harder.

<comment><USER16> It might get simpler, but the interface will never be as nice as Reading List has it. It'll never be as intuitive or user friendly. It'll never be able to have Safari integration.

<comment><USER17> OTOH he could achieve superior integration with iCab, Skyfire, Opera, Sleipnir, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Instapaper's killer-est feature for me is "Send to my kindle." I don't think Apple could get away with that anytime in the near future without some legal troubles with Amazon. Features like that are things that will continue to make apps like instapaper better than the baked in stuff. And it takes Marco a lot less turnaround time to deliver them than it would somebody like Apple, so I think there's still a lot of room to grow there.

<comment><USER19> You make an excellent point. You don't just integrate with one platform, you target and glue to others adding additional functionality. This will keep people coming back.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> There seemed to have been a lot of pessimism regarding Apple announcements that seem similar other offerings like Dropbox & Reminder apps.

Marco has the best response.

He's rightly convinced of the superiority of his product. Apple is chasing _him_ at his own game. When people realize that there's a whole untapped market for content reading services he'll definitely stay the upscale, market leader in the field.

</comment><comment><USER21> The true story of audion:

<http://panic.com/extras/audionstory/>

<comment><USER22> This has been posted here many times, and it is absolutely one of the best first person accounts of doing business with Apple.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Take this with a grain of salt. Of course he is going to say it only helps him. That is just entrepreneurship 101. You must always be positive and incredibly self assured in public. Executives always assure you that their business is going great and everything is good news up to the moment they file the bankruptcy papers (and in the case of chapter 11 bankruptcies even for some time afterwards).

But I doubt he is that optimistic on the inside. This is for reasons other people have already properly identified in this discussion (e.g., the Apple product will always have the better integration).

So Apple just went out and ate this guy's lunch. That's pretty much it. You may argue it is ok, you may argue they have a right to do that, but let's not pretend it did not happen.

</comment><comment><USER24> I get the impression that Marco is putting a brave face on what is an awful realization.

I use the 'reading list' functionality of Instapaper. I have only used the social and editorial aspects to see what they were about and nothing more.

<comment><USER25> I don't use the social and editorial stuff either, but I use two Instapaper features Apple's thing is not likely to have: (1) I use the bookmarklet (and also, ocasionally, read an article from the website) from my Windows and Linux boxes, and (2) in addition to reading on my iPod touch, I download my saved articles as an ePub file to read on my Sony PRS-505 eBook Reader.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Will Apple's solution be limited to Safari? I would think Marco's customers are rather a tech-savvy crowd who wouldn't tie themselves to just one particular browser.

I use Instapaper for the multi-browser support (mostly in Firefox), but also for the Kindle support, both for reading in Kindle Webkit browser and as downloads.

I think Marco has a big chance to catch the long tail of read-later'ing.

If you look at desktop Safari's Reader Mode… It is a fantastic feature but I don't think I ever heard of anyone I know using it.

It should've been implemented in iOS Safari long time ago, btw, this is where it's been missing.

</comment><comment><USER27> Pretty amazing to see Apple building best elements of Dropbox, Kik, Instapaper and more directly into iOS.

Quite the emotional rollercoaster for Marco - [http://www.betabeat.com/2011/06/06/apple-killed- instapaper-r...](http://www.betabeat.com/2011/06/06/apple-killed-instapaper- reading-list-marco-arment-2011-06-06/)

<comment><USER28> Indeed, Marco's initial reaction seems to have been <http://twitter.com/#!/marcoarment/status/77796293510037504>

He's clearly thought of this possibility, as evidenced by his post in late April about the potential impact of _Reading List_ on Instapaper.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Marco is in a tough position because he depends on revenue from _only_ one app available on _only_ iOS.

It's a tough break, I'm sure he didn't expect anything like this before the Lion preview. I hope his business can survive.

</comment><comment><USER30> "And they'll quickly find Instapaper in the App Store."

Until Apple pulls the plug on Instapaper. Let's hope that never happens.

</comment><comment><USER31> The competitive advantage for Instapaper is the ability to iterate quickly. If Apple delivers a growing band of people interested in reading the web later, Instapaper is better positioned to find out what tweaks and features will work best for them by risking changes to the core product.

</comment><comment><USER32> The vast majority of the articles I add to Instapaper, I add from Firefox on my desktop at work. And virtually _all_ the articles I read in Instapaper, I read when I'm off-network completely (I have an iPod touch). I don't think Marco has much to worry about yet.

<comment><USER33> Agreed, in fact offline reading (+Kindle syncing) is why I sought out the app in the first place.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> I cant comment whether this will help InstaPaper or not, having never tried the product, but i love the way that the owner of instapaper rises to the challenge. It inspires me greatly for if and when my business may face similar challenges.

</comment><comment><USER35> So it seems that Reading List does not support offline reading. For me that is the main reason to use Instapaper. I save a lot of stuff and then read it when I am for example on a flight without Wi-Fi.

There is your added value.

</comment><comment><USER36> Instapaper will be ok, it has superior features not in Reading List. Same for Camera+ even though Apple added enhancement to native Camera app. Sparrow vs Mail app. iOS market is big enough for Marco to happily survive.

</comment><comment><USER37> If Reading List gains a lot of ground, it may be time for Marco to think about developing an Android app. I'm a happy paid Instapaper user though, and continue to pay the subscription fee to support the service.

</comment><comment><USER38> I'm surprised that he doesn't start trying to capture the Android market.

<comment><USER39> Having read Marco's blog and listened to his podcast, I can't see an official client for android from Marco ever. His opinion of android is crystal clear. As a Nexus One owner, it requires some effort to disregard most of the hyperbolic insults in his podcast.

So, I'd like to say I'm surprised too but all too often he pans the platforms as well as acts like he's making enough revenue for the hassle.

<comment><USER33> Fair enough, that's his call to make. Meanwhile, I'll keep using InstaFetch for its value added to my Android phone.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Did Time Machine kill SuperDuper? Not for me.

I use Chrome, so no.

</comment><comment><USER35> Dunno about this. It is hard to compete with native features of the OS. Specially on iOS where integration hooks are terribly missing.

</comment><comment><USER41> So the message AAPL is sending to app developers: do your job well enough and we will bake it into the OS.

</comment><comment><USER42> No they won't. Focus on the broader ecosystem (Windows, Android, Blackberry, Windows Phone) and greater integration.

<comment><USER43> This is correct. Once you have a nice feature, you realize Apple's doesn't run everywhere.

Marco is also correct about social. A simple commenting system and a highlighter and a red envelope would be useful. People want insightful quotes highlighted and commented, and want to be validated when people reply to their messages.</comment></comment>


Oral History of Bob Barton and the Burroughs B5000 team (1985) - <AUTHOR> https://web.archive.org/web/20110807012251/http://special.lib.umn.edu/cbi/oh/pdf.phtml?id=21 <comment><USER2> The B5K architecture is the prototype for what modern systems aught to be like. If I ever strike it rich, my next business would likely be reviving the B5K for enterprise. Think TCO, enhancements to support dynamic languages, etc. Oh, and I'd use pascal style strings (32bit length field minimum).

The idea of an instruction set designed for the application is enlightened. Obvious yes, but not obvious enough for people to follow through with it.

EDIT: Also, this and the Carmack keynote in one day makes HN worth all the noise. This is what I came here for.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Follow-up to <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2855500>.

<comment><USER3> Also see

The Summer Of 1960 (Time Spent with don knuth)

Knuth coded the whole Algol compiler in three months, on a computer on which other programmers and a payroll processing had higher priority and received for that money that a top programmer earned for a year at that time:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2856567>

<comment><AUTHOR> Wow. Thanks.

Reading further in the conference transcript I noticed one other major figure who makes an appearance: Ken Iverson. Here's what Barton says:

 _There are lots of funny might have beens in connection with this. You didn't ask the question, why didn't the machine have index registers? [...] Well, I think that what happened really was something like this. We had Iverson as a consultant and I think Duncan MacDonald must have had a lot to do with arranging that. He was a consultant in engineering at the time, but that time when I was a Burroughs employee, I was asked to contribute some money from my budget. I agreed to doing that, and I remember going to a series of talks by Iverson, and my reaction was, "Wow!" He was still at Harvard at the time; he had an unpolished system (it was many years before the book was published), but I sat in that lecture thinking you can do the kind of things he's talking about in a machine with very little more hardware than it takes for three index registers. I used to argue against index registers on the grounds that ALGOL indexing was more general, but in the back of my mind I was hoping that the machine could have vector operations. I wasn't very good at convincing anybody of that; in fact, I failed again with the 6700 program. I failed. One of the customers convinced Burroughs to do a retrofit on vector operations at that time -- I don't think a very good job, either. But that's a perception I have that has nothing to do with the record. I bet Paul cannot produce a single item that will show that there was ever a suggestion that vector operations be built into the machine. Am I right?_

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is a real gem. I've been thankful to have a great career in computers the last 20 years and everyday I'm reminded how little I actually know about our history. We really do stand on the shoulders(and success) of giants.

</comment><comment><USER5> Url changed from [http://special.lib.umn.edu/cbi/oh/pdf.phtml?id=21](http://special.lib.umn.edu/cbi/oh/pdf.phtml?id=21), which no longer works.</comment>


Announcing Ant Design 3.0 - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/ant-design/announcing-ant-design-3-0-70e3e65eca0c <comment><USER2> I picked up react/redux about 5 months ago to reimplement a CPQ that had major prefomance issues. I'm a lousy front end developer and antd has allowed me to create a beautiful and more importantly, extremely functional, user interface with minimal effort. I'm honestly not sure this project would have succeeded without it (and typescript :)

</comment><comment><USER3> What's the difference between Pro and regular? As a casual side project builder, why would I choose regular over Pro?

<comment><USER4> Basicly, Ant Design Pro is a React boilerplate based on Ant Design. So they should be work togerther other than replacing each other.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> awesome. welcome attention mobile.

</comment><comment><USER6> wow

</comment><comment><USER7> good job

</comment><comment><USER8> awesome

</comment><comment><USER9> awesome

</comment><comment><USER10> nice design</comment>


Age bias against startup founders is rampant by age 36 - <AUTHOR> https://qz.com/work/1514739/startup-leaders-say-age-bias-is-rampant-against-founders-as-young-as-36/ <comment><USER2> Being 72, I'd never even consider looking for work in tech in spite of being very good at programing. While I have no experience in the current tech market to base my opinion on, I am sufficiently intimidated by the perception of agism that my potential contributions will be lost. Trying to change a tech company's age profile will be harder than just becoming receptive to applicants if applicants do not apply.</comment>


Ask HN: Is it a good idea to invest my lifesaving in facebook shares?  - <AUTHOR> I am 25, and over the past couple[more like 6-8 years] of years have accumulated a net worth north of 450k in liquid cash. I do not have much knowledge of the stock markets besides what the average joe knows. Over the next couple of years I am looking to take it easy, quit my consulting job, and work on some stuff on my own, and with that in mind I wanted to maximize my return on my savings. I have/had been too consumed in my job to learn about the workings of the stock markets, and as such I do not want to be a stock whiz kid.
I have been considering buying facebook shares on second market for a couple of months now, and the prices are now around 25-30 range for a min of 10k shares, and though some mild research suggests that big names are not investing at these prices as they seem too inflated [I think there was an article on HN regarding the same]. Plus there is all this talk of a bubble, so I guess I am curious to know whether any of you would buy facebook stock at this stage, or if you have in the past, and/or does this sound like a smart/foolish idea.
This would be a sizable portion of my savings from the past decade of my life. I do not have any other assets like houses, etc, and after this, I would have around 100k left over to live for a couple of years/ till the IPO? My burn rate for living is pretty low. I stay with my girlfriend who has a considerable annual income, and as such our expenses aren't all that much. I still need to convince her, but I just wanted to get your feedback/advice/suggestion.
Thanks. <comment><USER2> Definitely not. And despite the other calls, angel investing is a terrible idea as well, imo

$450,000 may seem like a lot of money, but in the grand scheme, if it's your entire life savings, it's not. Investing in one company on a secondary market or investing in a handful of startup companies is pretty much as high risk as you are going to get.

If you were a normal 9-5 worker, the traditional advice would be to invest for retirement using normal means. Index funds, stock market, bonds etc. I don't think that's a bad idea here.

Instead of going for big returns, which also comes with the more likely result of big losses. I'd suggest you invest in yourself. Use the money to be able to have a bit of a runway for your own projects. There will be expenses, but fortunately you have some funding for yourself. Hopefully you won't have to use most of that money before you start turning a profit on your projects. Then continue to save money for long term retirement, or maybe you'll want to buy a house eventually.

</comment><comment><USER3> You don't qualify as an accredited investor with only $450k of savings, so you won't be able to angel invest or invest in SecondMarket shares.

Start off by contributing the maximum amount to a Roth IRA every year, even if it's just for the tax deduction.

Personally, after that I would put about 25% into a no-load index fund, and the rest into high-interest savings (like ING Direct). I would optionally invest no more than 10% of my savings in speculative stocks.

The nice thing about this setup is you can make a decent compounding return with your index fund and you won't lose the farm if it tanks, but the majority of your money is immediately available in case you need it for your side projects or just want to blow it on a vacation (and you won't have to pay the higher taxes for cashing out stocks early). If you don't need it, it's at least not sitting around doing nothing.

<comment><USER4> You don't get a tax deduction for contributing to a Roth IRA. And if you have high income (above 100Kish) you won't get a deduction for a traditional IRA either.

<comment><USER3> Oops, I'm thinking of the Saver's Credit, which does seem to be available for Roth IRAs, but you're right that it's only for under a certain income.

<http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=107686,00.html>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> NO. Hell, if you have that kind of cash saved up consider doing some minor angel investing. Spread your money out among a handful of promising startups and you could get a vastly greater turnaround on your investment. You'd not only be doing a greater deed by giving new companies a legup, you'll be doing a slightly more responsible thing too. Do research on new YC companies and see which ones are most promising, and focus on them.

<comment><USER6> If I had that kind of cash, I think I'd probably turn toward angel investing as well. It seems that returns can be significantly higher that most stock transactions.

However, you did see how Google stock skyrocketed after their IPO; Facebook will (I think) do the same, so it's likely a good investment but I certainly wouldn't sink my life savings.

Hell, I just wish I had savings at all!

<comment><USER7> Its always better to invest in multiple areas. One is Angel investing (check with PG if he is willing to join you as YC partner :), one might be stocks of Google/AAPL (if I were you), Gold and some charity(increase your positive life Karma..as we call it in India)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> In a word, NO!

Others have provided more detailed advise that whatever I could. So, I will keep it simple. Grandma says: Never put all your eggs in the same basket.

Even if you are young and not risk averse, you may want to put not much more than 60% in high risk/high return investments. And the way to do it is to bet on a bunch of things that have potential. You should expect that 80% of those will flop, 16% will give modest returns and 4% will be big hits that turn in your original invest many times over.

If you recover 33% of the money invested on the flops, and your regular winners produce a 50% return, you need the big hit to be at least 12x you initial investment, so you just break even with the opportunity cost of putting your money on the bank. And you need many, many bets so you hit a 100x winner or better.

</comment><comment><USER9> Your best bet is an s & p index fund.unless you want to actively manage your portfolio.

</comment><comment><USER10> Forget what company it is for a moment. Buying private shares of a pre-IPO company whose financial details aren't known is a very risky form of investing. On IPO day you could quite literally lose 90% of your investment before being able to sell it. You say you're not a stock whiz... so if you don't know how to trade the public stock market where information is plentiful, what makes you think you can do it on the private market where you are an outsider?

Take one guess what Goldman Sachs and their buddies will do when this thing goes public.

</comment><comment><USER11> Invest in what you understand.

Also:

"The key to investing is not assessing how much an industry is going to affect society, or how much it will grow, but rather determining the competitive advantage of any given company and, above all, the durability of that advantage. The products or services that have wide, sustainable moats around them are the ones that deliver rewards to investors."

-Warren Buffett

</comment><comment><USER12> Don't you need to be an accredited investor (USD $1M - in liquid assets) to trade on second market.

</comment><comment><USER13> Definitely not. Check out the values of Bebo and MySpace and how much they are worth now. News Corp is trying to sell MySpace for $150million when they paid $500million for it a few years back. Don't bet that the same thing won't happen to Facebook.

</comment><comment><USER14> My suggestion is to start your own accelerator program or join an existing one. Investing in FB is a blind bet. With $150k you could fund 8 promising companies while still having some left over for design and legal work.</comment>


Show HN: Leaving jQuery behind with Backbone.Native - <AUTHOR> https://www.inkling.com/engineering/leaving-jquery-behind/

<comment><USER2> "jQuery doesn't always offer enough of an upside to be worth loading. Backbone itself only uses a very small subset of the functionality provided by jQuery, so why bother with it?"

Is the overhead of loading jQuery really in any way a detriment to the overall performance of your application? I've seen comments like this a lot around HN lately, and I wonder if they're not a hyperbole. The size of jQuery, loaded once initially and then never again, cannot impact apps that much, can it? I've never considered all the wonderful benefits of jQuery to not be worth it.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't think it's the size specifically that makes an impact. For me, the main question is why load a library to do something that is pretty straightforward with the existing APIs. Most DOM manipulation is just as easy. AJAX can be more complicated, but it depends on your needs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> how does this compare to just making a custom, stripped down jQuery 2.0.1 build? you could shed a lot of weight, including the Sizzle elephant.

<comment><AUTHOR> That definitely reduces the size of jQuery, but you still end up duplicating a lot of the collection and DOM manipulation logic. That's definitely an option though depending on what you are looking for.</comment></comment>


It sounds crazy but nuclear accidents show nuclear safety instead - <AUTHOR> https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/03/11/it-sounds-crazy-but-fukushima-chernobyl-and-three-mile-island-show-why-nuclear-is-inherently-safe/#529726d51688 <comment><AUTHOR> This brought a lot of the learning that has been gathered from the Fukishima aftermath to light. In particular the LNT theory of Nuclear risk has been completely discredited and the WHO should throw it out. There is no data set that supports it.</comment>


Ask HN: I am underpaid and overworked – how much equity do I deserve? - <AUTHOR> <this is a throwaway account>
Background: For the past 2 years, I have been part of a custom software development company run by myself and two relatives, one of which owns 100% of the company. I've been quite severely underpaid for the past 2 years, but I had agreed to it because I knew the company couldn't afford it yet and I ultimately wanted to have equity in the company. I was under the impression that I was going to be part of a hustling team that would work together to build something great. In reality, the owner has effectively checked out and expects me and my other relative to run the company for him. I need to have a talk with him for how much equity myself and the other relative deserve, in addition to salary increase. The company has sustained positive YOY growth, but the actual finances and how the money gets spent is more of a shady subject.
How do you think I should approach this? How much equity does someone in my position deserve? I realize I haven't provided all the details, but any advice would help. <comment><USER2> This post was killed by a spam filter. We've marked your account legit so this won't happen again if you repost it, which you're welcome to do.</comment>