Competition Is Dying, and Taking Capitalism with It? - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-11-25/the-myth-of-capitalism-exposed <comment><USER3> > The American skies have gone from an open market with many competing > airlines to a cozy oligopoly with four major airlines.

It is clear why we have reached this point. Most monopolies are allowed to exist because of state influence (which happens thru many forms, regulation, patents, or plain direct support), all increasing the barrier to entry for would-be competitors. You see this in most heavily regulated markets.

There are other markets where the cost of entry is so high anyway (investment- wise) that naturally very few companies can make it - this is something that is not an issue per se.

<comment><USER4> >You see this in most heavily regulated markets.

Except airlines were heavily _de_ regulated in 1978. In my mind it's also "clear why we have reached this point", except that I've come to the opposite conclusion that you have.

<comment><USER5> _> airlines were heavily deregulated in 1978._

With regard to the routes they could fly and the prices they could charge, yes. But they were never de-regulated with regard to the safety requirements they had to meet or the qualifications their pilots and crew and maintenance workers have to have. Those regulations have, if anything, gotten more stringent over time. And those regulations pose a huge barrier to entry for new competitors, and favor large airlines over small ones because a large airline can more easily absorb the costs of compliance.

<comment><USER6> Yes but none of us want to die.

<comment><USER7> Driving is far less safe than flying, but people choose to drive all the time.

<comment><USER3> Yes, and even after 9/11 there is clear data showing that people stopped flying en masse and took the wheel instead, resulting in increased overall death count.

[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/sep/05/september-11-r...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/sep/05/september-11-road- deaths)

> However, Professor Gerd Gigerenzer, a German academic specialising in risk, > has estimated that an extra 1,595 Americans died in car accidents in the > year after the attacks – indirect victims of the tragedy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Milton Friedman always said it's rare to find monopolies form in a free market, and that by and large monopolies only form with government help.

Not sure how true this is, but seems worth evaluating.

<comment><USER4> The author specifically cites large tech companies (Google, Amazon, Facebook) as examples of monopolies that have formed due to lack of state intervention.

He also says bad rules have led to monopolies as well (through regulatory capture, lobbying, etc.).

So bad things (like monopolies) can happen due to the state or due to lack of the state. Maybe the problem here isn't the state at all.

<comment><USER9> I believe overreaching IP protection laws, specifically in regards to patents and copyright are in large to blame for creation of these monopolies. In tech, one of the largest hurdles is patent wars, where the player with the biggest pockets and arsenal screws over little players just about all the time. So the assertion that the lack of state intervention is to blame for formation of these monopolies is perhaps true, but in a different light.

<comment><USER10> While I think copyright was a very relevant law when selling boxed products, it's less clear that copyright is the relevant law in the age of SaaS. I think trade secrets law is much more relevant these days.

And in any case, many tech giants exist around natural monopolies, either in network effects, either obvious ones, or those from two sided marketplaces or simply economies of scale.

<comment><USER11> > _many tech giants exist around natural monopolies, either in network > effects_

Yes, network effect is a huge part of the problem. So much in tech requires user adoption, and typically users won't adopt until others adopt, thus creating chicken and egg problem. Overcoming the network effect is extremely difficult, as we've seen from competing platforms trying to unseat facebook and twitter (tho network effect is not limited to social networks, but they are the most obvious examples)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm not sure how careful this author is with checking his facts. One example that I quickly spotted:

"Delta has an 80 percent market share in Atlanta and 77 percent in Philadelphia, while in Dallas-Fort Worth it has 77 percent."

The last two are fortress hubs for American Airlines (Philadelphia used to be US Airways until they merged with American), not Delta.

<comment><USER12> That line stood out as a potential editing error to me due to the "while in" suggesting contrast but the number being the same.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Speaking of monopolies, anyone heard of JA Konrath? [http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/](http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/) He wrote the blog a newbie's guide to publishing. During that time he discovered publishing his refused books on Amazon KDP because the big 6 publishing companies had rejected them.

He used to be an advocate for signing with a big publishing company, and suffering their 17.5% royalty + marketing costs. Most large published books never out earn their advances your chops.

But his refused books kept growing in sales with Amazon Kindle. The books he did publish with traditional publishes kept insisting on high prices to keep the paper backs competitive. Eventually he switched to just publishing on Amazon KDP as the future and eventually got the rights to his books back.

The above book is published by Wiley. The digital version listed on Wiley's site is $14.95, the hardback is $27.95, while the amazon hardback is $18.27. The Kindle version is listed for $11.99.

</comment><comment><USER14> In many of the industries listed, competition is regulated out of existence, thanks to the large corporations' deep lobbying pockets. I looked into starting an ISP when Spectrum left New York, and wow. It's not too cost prohibitive, except for the licensing and regulatory fees. It's absolutely incredibly expensive.

</comment><comment><USER15> Why does the author refer to this as "fake capitalism"? Isn't this what capitalism _is_?

It reminds me of the arguments that communism must be a good idea because we haven't seen _true_ communism yet. We've seen true capitalism for much longer and much more clearly than we've ever seen any form of communism, and it's exactly what the US has. You can't just hope that maybe with a little more regulation, or a little less regulation, or something, capitalism will magically work. Capitalism sets up incentives for people to figure out regulatory capture and lobbying in whatever regime you come up with. Capitalism sets up incentives for companies to influence the public to believe that certain forms of government intervention are perfectly natural (take copyright, for instance - if you convince everyone to get rid of copyright, you'll just set up incentives for companies to convince everyone to bring it back). If you think this isn't working right, please work with the folks who want to figure out an alternative.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think when people say "fake capitalism" or "true capitalism" they're talking about unrestricted and unregulated free markets. It's also important to realize that the thought tied to Communism and Capitalism is one in the same; I'm sure most would be surprised that Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were the ones that coined the phrase and idea of Capitalism.

> Capitalism sets up incentives for people to figure out regulatory capture > and lobbying in whatever regime you come up with. Capitalism sets up > incentives for companies to influence the public to believe that certain > forms of government intervention are perfectly natural (take copyright, for > instance - if you convince everyone to get rid of copyright, you'll just set > up incentives for companies to convince everyone to bring it back). If you > think this isn't working right, please work with the folks who want to > figure out an alternative.

I like your line of thought but I'm unsure if I agree with the fact that copyright could be incentivized to come back but that's just an opinionated view of mine. It started with the structure of the government from the beginning making it was a day 0 idea. There are also different types of capitalism; China's capitalism is different from US capitalism. So, that also is something to consider with the "fake capitalism" issue you brought up.

Overall, I think one baseline to be able to tell if capitalism is working is if one can actually go from rags to riches in today's time. I also think what people are picking at is the imbalance that happens at an economy of scale when a company becomes so large that it is the market.

<comment><USER16> I think the key distinction is capitalism vs corporatism. Corporatism is feudalism wearing a capitalist mask. The elite companies in the top do operate in a free market, but the story for the rest of society is radically different. I think in the US today we have a corporatist society. Your kid wants to setup a lemonade stand on the lawn? Get ready for a visit from the police. A multinational corporation wants to produce and sell a product that involves a real possibility of poisoning the groundwater? Sure, we're all about capitalism!

It's a really ridiculous system and it's the consequence of the fact that regulatory organizations have started to become a tool for multinationals to exploit at their whims, rather than a tool to effect positive change in society as a whole. So it ends up in a system where individual to small business capitalism is hyper over-regulated whereas big business and multinational capitalism is regulated on paper yet laissez faire in practice.

<comment><USER17> Capitalism is simply the private ownership (including ability to transfer) the means of production. This is still true of the corporatist variety - <USER2> feudal fiefs, corporations can be bought and sold, and that makes all the difference. The only way for a feudal to aggregate more power is to go to war with other feudals for more lands, because a fief is land tenure, not property. In capitalism, because capital _is_ property, it can be aggregated by buying it, and the more you aggregate, the more powerful you become, letting you acquire more capital etc - a positive feedback loop which means that monopolies are inevitable in pure unregulated capitalism.

Regulation is orthogonal to all that, so long as it does not interfere with the ability to aggregate capital. You can tax the corporations heavily, you can impose various safety standards on them, you can have consumer rights commissions etc - it makes it harder for them to make money from the capital that they own, but it doesn't change the fundamental equation of capital -> money -> more capital, and therefore the result is still capitalism. The only way you can stop this cycle is by imposing a limit on how much capital can be held in one hands.

<comment><USER16> Artificially limiting the 'means of production' (which is such an increasingly inappropriate and dated concept to use for these sort of discussions) is precisely the issue. Imagine a kingdom where a king created rules that, in effect, named exactly one black smith owning [puppet], one tavern owning [puppet], one brothel owning [puppet], etc. And these individuals were free to buy, sell, and trade these businesses so long as the transactions remained within the regulations of the king. That's not capitalism, not even a little.

And that is really the issue. The further you limit the ability of people to engage the market (as buyer _and_ seller) the further away you move from capitalism. And that is precisely what our current system is doing. Repeating the same example just because it's so stupefying. In most places in America today you cannot legally setup a lemonade stand and start selling lemonade on your own property. We're creating a culture of passive consumers driven by extreme regulations against everything except such!

<comment><USER17> We don't have a problem with monopolization of lemonade stands, though. But we do have a problems with large corporations monopolizing their respective markets, and they are doing that not because they are granted said monopoly from up above, but because they are able to consolidate it.

Limiting the amount of capital one can own is not equivalent to your scheme, by the way. The rule isn't that only one guy can own a tavern, or that there can only be one tavern - the rule is that one guy cannot own _more than one_ tavern (just as an example - I don't think that's the level at which we should actually cap capital).

<comment><USER16> The issues are intrinsically connected. People don't just start out e.g. going from nothing to building let's say a telecoms company. Entrepreneurship and creating businesses is a cycle of growth. For instance Bezos' first 'gig' followed a summer of work at McDonalds, which he hated. The next summer he setup a week long education camp for younger kids. He only got a dozen or so signups, but he probably made more from those signups than he did in last year's work at McDonalds. When you start making entrepreneurship difficult from the bottom up, you're going to end up with a really distorted picture of capitalism at the top since you're going to have some sort of strange bias in the companies represented.

And this is where I think corporatism excels. There are now just an immense number of rules and laws that are all increasingly esoteric even to operate quite simple businesses. And that's before you get into the countless fees and costs the government demands before you've even sold your first product. In other words when you kill off entrepreneurship and start moving away from capitalism, you invariably head towards corporatism which is itself headed much closer to feudalism than capitalism.

As for the king example, this was relating to the feudalism -> capitalism -> corporatism -> feudalism loop, not your specific suggestion. As for your suggestion, there are two big issues. The first is the same as discussed here. Capitalism and competition is a growth system. The reason e.g. Elon Musk was able to create a competitive rocket and vehicle company was because he earned hundreds of millions of dollars in another venture. No individual has any personal need for hundreds of millions of dollars, but it is strictly required if this individual wishes to engage in large scale ventures - the sort of which stand to massively improve society.

The second issue is probably the bigger point. We already have countless laws, on the order of thousands of pages, of laws relating to competition, anticompetitive behavior, restrictions on mergers and acquisitions, etc. These were all geared minimizing anti-competitive ownership. But the general rule in a corporatist society holds true. We have the FTC approve mergers between e.g. AT&T/Time Warner/Charter while rejecting mergers between far smaller companies that could eventually become the competitors for these sort of behemoths that increasingly stand above the law, and perhaps even above government.

In other words, write the laws and expect to see you and I only be able to own e.g. one tavern. But expect to see the king's friends somehow manage to own thousands. Corporatism in a nutshell.

<comment><USER17> Our anti-monopoly enforcement is actually much scaled back compared to what it used to be for most of 20th century. More importantly, the focus was changed. The original monopoly busting approach, at its peak under FDR, was all about ensuring that the markets stay competitive - it was hindrance to competition that had the feds cracking down on you, not e.g. jacking up prices on consumers.

That was changed under Reagan, and the new approach was that monopolies were only to be regulated if they start to affect consumers. And that's very much by design - according to the people who devised this regime, monopolies are not in and of themselves bad, because they're more efficient due to economy of scale. So, for example, if a merger happens, the reason why they can block it is if they can demonstrate that it would raise prices or reduce quality of service. If they can't _prove_ that, that's too bad - even if the sheer size of the resulting behemoth is obviously a problem for market competitiveness, it's just out of scope.

I don't think it's a coincidence that monopolies dominate the market under these new rules, in a way that they haven't done before.

<comment><USER16> Mostly agreed - we're saying the exact same thing here.

You'll also find that going back in time there were also far fewer rules against individual entrepreneurship. And where there were rules they were enforced in a more sane fashion. E.g. - even if a kid's lemonade stand isn't obeying regulation 3753 section 3, or city ordinance 4725-4 or whatever, you don't go and shut down the stand as the stand is doing nothing but good for everybody.

But as we transition towards corporatism rules against large companies start to disappear or fail to be enforced, while those rules against small companies and individuals start to grow and become unreasonably burdensome as well as extremely actively enforced.

The one part we don't agree on is why corporations are allowed to merge. For instance it's quite evident that Time Warner alone has already exploited their monopoly to increase prices unreasonable. Internet service in America is far more expensive than in many parts of the world, yet the quality is not particularly remarkable. And there's no justifiable reason. It's just companies agreeing not to compete and then jacking up their prices. Because of this it's not reasonable to suggest they're being technically allowed to merge/acquire further competitors because there's no evidence that they won't do what they're already doing. This is just another aspect of corporatism where rules disappear as companies grow large enough.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Both The Economist and Bloomberg have focused on new monopolies in the past few months, and a key problem has been quantifying the "moat" that provides companies with a lasting advantage.

Seems to me that a "moat" is most easily quantified by the share market total capitalization, and to disrupt monopolies, simply introduce a tax on total market value for a firm.

</comment><comment><USER19> "Competition is the essence of capitalism, yet it is dying."

Sorry to have to point out something that should be blatantly obvious, but _no_. The essence of capitalism is capital, the accumulation of wealth in private hands that own the means of production. And capitalism has a nasty tendency toward fewer, more powerful players as they gobble up market share, muscle out competitors, erect legislative and logistical barriers. This is what capital does. It buys the power to continue itself. What you are seeing is _absolutely_ capitalism running its normal course.

<comment><USER20> This misinterpretation is all over this thread.

"Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit."

I wish people would do some cursory research before trying to argue about it.

<comment><USER21> The person you are responding to said exactly that.

<comment><USER20> Yeah, I know.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> There are many ways in which the big get bigger, until they become oligopolies. Some are fair (network effect, economies of scale). Others are not (predatory pricing, regulatory capture). Regulation alone can slow this process and mitigate its worst effects, but it can't stop the process entirely because there are just so many mechanisms involved. If you're OK with the idea of companies large enough to rival or even exceed the power of governments (as with the East India Company mentioned in the article) then that's the end of the story and I'm not here to argue that point. If not, then sooner or later you'll have to come to grips with the idea of a tax on size itself. Few people start out liking it (I didn't), but it's really the only alternative to the imposition of a corporate state.

</comment><comment><USER23> I've commented about this before with the same quote. But since the propaganda campaign against all that is coming from the East has left an enduring mark in US, it will always be received with a sneer. But, irrespective of that, Lenin, more than 100 years ago, said something like this: _This transformation of competition into monopoly is one of the most important — if not the most important — phenomena of modern capitalist economy._ He gives ample evidence of this with official market and financial data regarding the steel industry. Even then, a few conglomerates dominated the marked.

But, again, since the story of how capitalism is the greatest, the one and only salvation of the people (does it sound like religion?) is so pervasive, no amount of evidence can undermine its foundations. If reality proves that it doesn't work, the reason HAS to be that "it wasn't implemented right in this or that country. So we must take bolder steps to implement it right". Sounds like slaughtering goats to me. If the gods didn't favor our army in battle it surely must be that we didn't slaughter enough goats at the altar and NOT that our army was ill prepared for the task at hand.

<comment><USER22> > If the gods didn't favor our army in battle it surely must be that we didn't > slaughter enough goats

Excellent analogy. Thank you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Problem is that big money, aka capitalism, has been winning from government froms like democracy, and communism.

You can see this in rusia where after 1990 communism has been replaced by big money government, not democracy. In china same thing, communism has been replaced with big money government, a capitalist economic system.

And you see the same trend in the US where a democratic government has been replaced by a big money capitalistic government, only interested in serving the needs of money making.

And without a government system making rules to minimize the negative impact of the economic system, we can see all the negative aspects of capitalism. Exploitation of humans, winner takes all.

Capitalism is winning even at the level of government, and this is what it looks like.

Just like we see the need to separate state and religion, we should also separate state from the economic model. Democracy and capitalism aren't one and the same thing. Democratic governments have multiple economic models to choose from, depending on the problem they want to solve.

<comment><USER25> What were in is not capitalism, uts crony capitalism aka not capitalism. The question is, if every form of economy/government is bound to be corrupted, is this form of fake capitalism the best option? Or is there an untested alternative?

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> IMO, the ease of credit has led to lots and lots of consolidation and companies getting into markets where they don't belong. This has indirectly led to big companies getting bigger and even bigger and "competition slowly dying".

But, I think this is temporary. As and when credit tightening starts to happen, and it will with time, many of the companies will be hard pressed to pay what they are owed. And with time companies will start to restructure their businesses back to where things were.

</comment><comment><USER27> Anti-trust was diluted to the point of being completely toothless. Not sure why the public went along with it.

</comment><comment><USER28> People are always confusing capitalism with competitive markets.

<comment><USER29> Few ever bother to separate Money, Markets, Capitalism and Corporatism when discussing this stuff. There's probably others I'm also not differentiating properly. It makes talking about what is and isn't working difficult.

When I argue with commie friends, they frequently conflate collaboration with collectivism. One claimed that the internet was greatest communist project ever.

We're so screwed.

<comment><USER20> What would be the point in separating those ideas, when capitalism is the one that's the biggest problem?

You're arguing semantics.

<comment><USER29> Because they are separate ideas and not all of them are dependent on one another. Money and/or markets can (and did) exist without capitalism.

The point is not to throw the baby out with the bath water.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Another person who writes that essence of capitalism is competition. No, the essence is capital and company which will try to squash any competition.

</comment><comment><USER31> Anyone read "Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism" and care to compare?

</comment><comment><USER25> What were in is not capitalism, its crony capitalism aka not capitalism. The question is, if every form of economy/government is bound to be corrupted, is this form of fake capitalism the best option? Or is there an untested alternative?

</comment><comment><USER32> With the current low interest rates there's no capitalism in the world, just crony capitalism, which inflated some asset classes, like the housing market, stock market and private companies that plan to go to the American stock market.

This problem will be corrected in the next 10-15 years, but it won't be an easy ride.

</comment><comment><USER33> The title states something obvious as news. Have we reached the bottom?

</comment><comment><USER34> Big tech companies arent really monopolies. A ton of them can disappear overnight, its just a trendy thing to harp on. Look at the irrelevance of IBM, CISCO, HP, Intel, Oracle, etc. The list goes on and on, companies fail to innovate after a certain point and most die. Enough with the monopoly narrative.

<comment><USER4> Are you trying to say that because a company can disappear overnight, it isn't currently a monopoly? Because I don't think that makes any sense.

<comment><USER34> I'm saying that its true that some are monopolies, but none really stay that way for long, and so its completely overrated to worry about. It's a similar talking point to how we are in an "AI bubble", good for clicks on an article.

Look at FB stock, it just dropped from 220 -> ~130, they saw almost half of their market cap wiped away in a few weeks. The monopoly idea is a narrative invented to stoke fear, outrage, and page clicks. It's a talking point for psuedo educated people.

<comment><USER35> Monopolies, whether ephemeral or eternal, are bad. Disappearance of a monopoly does not mean the data collected disappears nor does it repair the torn social fabric.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


ResearchCoin – a crypto token to help accelerate the pace of scientific research - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/researchhub/announcing-researchcoin-bc075d4a3235 <comment><USER2> TL;DR: same as reputation on Stack Exchange/Overflow, but a whole lot more complicated for no reason.

<comment><USER3> The first difficult part of a Stack Overflow clone is to get an initial community of experts. Joel and Jeff had both a well known blogs where they can got people to form the initial community. (HN was created from the readers of the pg blog^H^H^H^H essays.)

The second problem is moderation, that is not an easy task.

My guess is that they can keep the homeopathy folks away, but I'm worry that it will be difficult to filter other stuff like the EmDrive.

And using a crytocoin instead of worthless internet points will solve none of these problems.</comment></comment>


Curated Food Delivery Startup Caviar Launches In Seattle And New York City - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2013/11/14/caviar-seattle-new-york-city/

<comment><USER2> This is an awesome idea! I would love to see it in Dallas. We have some similar services. But they are pretty poorly run and inconsistent so far.</comment>


Ask HN: How do I "bet" on Tech City (London's plans for their Silicon Valley)? - <AUTHOR> As I'm sure most people here are aware, the UK's PM David Cameron has pushed for a plan to create 'Silicon Valley 2.0' or Tech City as he calls it in London.
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20101103-723812.html
http://www.itproportal.com/2011/01/07/uk-government-unveils-200-million-tech-centre-plans/
http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/speeches-and-transcripts/2011/01/prime-ministers-speech-on-economic-growth-58486
I'm personally willing to "bet" on this but don't have the capital resources. Can anyone think of anyways to help foster this growth? That is to say, without having a million pounds to invest into things like infrastructure, real estate, etc.
Cheers! <comment><USER2> Subsidising tele-coms infrastructure.

It doesn't have to be to the tune of millions

Revisit the laws which may put businesses offering free web access at risk of prosecution if users break laws on their networks

Also ease up on the draconian and psychotic levels of policing. Nothing shouts not ready for social advancement more than a angry police man with his knee in your back.

Stop the insane process of thinking every child should have a computer and maybe let them discover these things for themselves in a less structured way.

Finally, promote a change in attitude where discovery is seen as a success

These things could be a start.

I'm excited to see what the UK can do with this idea.</comment>


The Mastodon Server Covenant - <AUTHOR> https://blog.joinmastodon.org/2019/05/introducing-the-mastodon-server-covenant/ <comment><USER2> This addresses my biggest pain points with the way Mastodon used to "route" people to an instance. It was either "go to mastodon.social and get to know the place, then eventually move" or "here's a bunch of random instances with varyingly different policies".

As to those that'll cry free speech in response to this, let me preemptively say that if a system allows you to be an ass, it still doesn't have to support you beyond existing.

<comment><USER3> > let me preemptively say that if a system allows you to be an ass, it still > doesn't have to support you beyond existing.

The issue is not that, but the old "who defines what's that". I do have an instance of Mastodon. Conservative, liberals, social democrats and a few communists debate about some issues. My promise is that it will be a space where no controversial idea is shut down, but low-effort posts are not welcomed either.

Now two scenarios can be laid out. One, one of my conservative users have issues with laws that affect trans people.

Two, one of my leftist users is against some trans theory because it's contradictory to his feminist worldwiews.

Will it be transphobia? Who says so? Is being against bill C16 in Canada transphobia? Because it can be interpreted as so, as it has been done.

What if the one that comes to my instance to check if we qualify or not doesn't understand the context of the discussion? What if we are talking about something totally out of the US (or somewhere else) newscycle or kulturwars parameters? This a Spanish speaking place. Some of the users are from Venezuela, identify themselves as social democrats yet they're constantly labelled as right-wingers by US users because they are against Maduro. Some of my users may think that US Democrats are right-wingers too, while voting PSOE in Spain.

You know, this way more complex that "muh free speech", which is the standard meme I see in this debates. IMHO people should do the filter themselves. What's the point of being federated if there's a central server that does the filter for you.

<comment><USER2> How about you actually read C16. It passed.

Exactly zero people have been prosecuted for misgendering. Zero. Nada. Null. This was literally FUD of a conservative incoherent old rambling idiot.

I am getting really fucking tired of people that are not affected by any of this except their irrational fear a trans person is going to sue them for accidentally not inherently getting their pronouns right.

The same irrational fear that makes you think you can't explain this to Eugen.

As for your last point... joinmastodon has zero obligation to platform you. Relays and other instances have zero obligation to platform you. To pretend no moderation is "neutrality" is asinine.

Regards, someone who would actually be affected by C16, if I lived in Canada.

<comment><USER3> None of what you said is relevant to the point I was trying to make.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Why So Many Academics Quit and Tell - <AUTHOR> https://chroniclevitae.com/news/216-why-so-many-academics-quit-and-tell <comment><USER2> If you're an academic who has already completed their PhD program, I'd love to hear your thoughts. My wife just finished her minor comps and is in the middle of her major comps. Tonight I'm going to a party to celebrate a friend successfully defending his thesis. I have another friend who is one year post comps, who is torn between finishing or not due to a lot of the issues mentioned here. Would love to hear some more thoughts.</comment>


Redditors design worst volume sliders possible - <AUTHOR> https://www.designernews.co/stories/84443-redditors-design-worst-volume-sliders-possible <comment><USER2> These are hilarious.

I use audio software a lot, and it is amazing how something which seems quite simple in concept, such as a circular volume button, can be so differently implemented via UX.

Every time I see a knob style button on any of my audio plugins UI, I have to think:

* Will the point at which I touch/click on the knob set the knob value to that position, or will it simply be the starting anchor at which I start moving the knob?

* Does this knob work by sliding up/down or in a circular fashion? Or accept both ways?

* How far away, or close to the centre, is the active 'hot spot' that allow me to control this knob?

* Does the knob dynamically display the value as I spin it? If so, where does it show that value and am I inadvertently blocking the display with my finger/cursor?

* Does the knob have the concept of velocity, whereby I can quickly spin it to the approximate value I want, then make tiny incremental adjustments to get the sound 'just right'?

All these tend to break the "don't think, just do" concept of a skeuomorphic interface.

<comment><USER3> Volume is a percentage, and a very analog control. The idea that you would have to have a round knob to twist on a computer screen is ridiculous, almost like some imaginary need for a specific shutter button to press to take a photo on a phone (just touch the screen!).

It's a one-dimensional value, make it a one-dimensional control. Slider. Done.

<comment><USER4> To be honest, I prefer the physical shutter button over tapping my screen on my phone when taking pictures.

<comment><USER5> Especially since screen tapping could be registering a "refocus to this point" action. Also since camera phones have no viewfinder, I use the screen to compose my shot. So to avoid obscuring what I am going to take a picture of, I keep my hand clear of the screen most of the time. That makes the act of triggering the shutter a more visible and deliberate act than just pushing a button that my finger is already touching. These probably don't matter to most people but are fairly frustrating to me. (the fact that I almost always shoot landscape, not portrait, may be the cause of the discomfort for me, since it changes my hold on my phone to something more like the hold on a camera.)

<comment><USER6> With most sensors having a 4:3 aspect ratio and smartphone displays having a 16:9 (or wider) AR, there is no need to block the image being composed with any fingers. The blank areas are filled with all relevant controls and a virtual shutter release button.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This isn't the first time. A few months ago the trend was phone number form fields: [https://imgur.com/a/4f3XB](https://imgur.com/a/4f3XB)

<comment><USER8> The funniest thing to me is that this was started by the very first gif in the article, which looked like a real thing and result of a simple coding error... and the top comment for that was "prepare yourself for a week of volume sliders", referring to that past Bad Phone Number Input fad.

And as predicted/spurred, came the new wave.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> That third "make a noise as loud as you want the volume to be" one would actually be a good idea, if it was a continuous feedback loop: I'd love if there was something I could enable that would make my headphone volume "track" the loudness of the room, the way that phone display backlights "track" the brightness of the room. Instead of setting a target carrier wattage (regular volume) or a target SPL (SoundCheck volume), you'd be setting a target _SNR_ , and then the OS would maintain it by lowering the master gain in quiet places and raising it in noisy places.

Or, to put that another way: _I 'd_ like to be able to hear my music, but I don't want the people around me on the bus to be forced to listen to my music. Electric vehicles (like my local bus system) only make noise when they're moving; they're dead silent when they stop. So right now, I actually have to turn my music _up_ several notches when the bus is moving, and then turn it back _down_ several notches whenever it stops. Why is the phone not doing this for me?

(Heck, while it's at it, why not recognize nearby human speech specifically, and pause and/or duck the playing sound temporarily to let me hear it?)

<comment><USER10> Personally I think changing the volume dynamically like that would destroy the music.

And there's a simpler solution to your problem: intra-ear monitors (IEMs).

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> In research environments we often have to use software with UIs designed by, and subsequently abandoned by engineers. Typically some expensive piece of highly complex equipment that only runs on some older version of Windows that every PhD student is expected to use. They're often buggy, resulting in Skinner pigeon troubleshooting workflows to get anything done.

First guilty party to mind is FLIR. Their software is truely awful and since they monopolise the market by buying out everyone else no two cameras behave the same.

Various CAD packages too are a design mess. PTC could learn an lot from Adobe about UI design. Heck, Blender's UI is miles ahead of anything from the big CAD companies for pure productivity, nevermind install size.

Fortunately my primary overpriced USB dongled bit of research equipment is pretty easy to hack. All the data types under the hood are simple text files that I've got python scripts for handling.

<comment><USER12> The worst offenders by far have to be National Instruments, entirely because they loosed LabView upon the world. LabView essentially makes it impossible to make UIs that aren't terrible. Most of the volume controls in these posts are more usable than the best that can be done with LabView.

<comment><USER11> I've managed to completely block NI from my mind. When I have to use their hardware (which is mostly good) I use pyVISA or the session based interface in Matlab.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> My favorite one was the last one:

\</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>-----

> Login to Change Volume

> You'll need to log in before you can modify the volume. Remember: Be nice or > else.

> Login

\</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>-----

> Register Today

> New accounts can leave comments immediately, and gain full volume > permissions after one week.

> Register now

\</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>-----

<comment><USER14> These will give Microsoft ideas for the new UI upgrades in Windows 10.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> the /r/programmerhumor sub has a really great userbase. I loved watching this one unfold. My personal fav: [https://gfycat.com/gifs/detail/BetterDaringDarklingbeetle](https://gfycat.com/gifs/detail/BetterDaringDarklingbeetle)

<comment><USER16> That's literally the only one I don't get. What is this thing that follows the mouse cursor, and what does the whole idea represent?

<comment><USER17> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curling)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> > Please make a noise as loud as you want the volume to be

I'm not sure this is a bad idea...

<comment><USER19> >TFW no microphone

<comment><USER16> Shake your device as hard as loud you want the volume to be.

<comment><USER20> Drop your device as hard as you want the volume to be.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> I'd love to see the antithesis of this collection - whereby smart UI designers try and improve the current audio controls to move away from the old style knobs/sliders, to something far better represented by todays interfaces, such as this concept for a car audio control: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVbuk3jizGM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVbuk3jizGM)

</comment><comment><USER21> If you like this, search for "worst phone number input", there's more in that genre :)

<comment><USER22> For the lazy: [https://imgur.com/a/4f3XB](https://imgur.com/a/4f3XB)

<comment><USER23> Speaking of bad inputs, the one dimensional slider with space confirmation somehow reminded me of Dasher...

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dasher_(software)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dasher_\(software\))

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I quite like the one with 100 hundred buttons. Often in slider style situations I know exactly what I want the value to be and just want to hit something with a mouse click. This can be faster sometimes.

<comment><USER25> Especially if the 100 numbers are distributed randomly every time you open it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> One of those is basically the same as tilt to scroll, something that actually exists. Why anybody in the history of ever thought it was a good idea I'll likely never understand, though.

</comment><comment><USER27> Very funny concept. Especially liked the catapult[1].

1\. [https://jsfiddle.net/w1mvkjjj/](https://jsfiddle.net/w1mvkjjj/)

</comment><comment><USER28> After a while these start boiling down to "a difficult minigame where your score is also the volume setting".

<comment><USER29> I was kind of expecting a flappy bird volume control to be there.

If you want to buck the mini-game trend. Just have a simple up/down button that bumps the volume up or down a percent, but requires a reboot first.

<comment><USER23> You mean Windows 95 volume control? ;)

Have Clippy ask you repeatedly if now is too loud or too quiet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I really like the collect the dots one!

Awesome in a twisted way.

</comment><comment><USER31> And they follow a logarithmic scale, too.

</comment><comment><USER20> Redditors, you knuckleheads. :)

</comment><comment><USER32> Running to the north to volume this one up:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN75im_us4k](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN75im_us4k)

</comment><comment><USER33> Someone please change the link to the appropriate reddit page: [https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgrammerHumor/comments/6evbfd/who...](https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgrammerHumor/comments/6evbfd/who_can_make_the_best_volume_slider/)

<comment><USER34> Argh, please don't. The source is linked in the post, but trying to pick them out of that Reddit thread is painful. I appreciate what you're saying, but the post serves as curated collection.

I'd prefer it if the author had attributed each one, but it's better than just dropping people into that thread.

<comment><USER35> Clicking on the images links you to their respective threads</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Babydook – a digital journal to document your baby's first years - <AUTHOR> http://www.babydook.com

<comment><USER2> I like the idea of 'a digital journal to document your baby's first years', but your website isn't telling me much more. It looks like a can create stories, add photos and post the stories on FB if I had an iPhone and a FB account (I have neither).

A couple of questions that might help you improve your landing page:

\- Where does the data get stored? Does it stay on my device? Can I get it off the device somehow?

\- Can I share without FB?

\- Have you got some screenshots or a demo of how the stories are presented?

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi!

I'm in the process of updating the landing page with more information on the way. Facebook is not mandatory for using the application - you can also signup using an email address. At the moment, this app is only for iOS.

To answer your questions:

* All data is stored in the cloud - i'm using Parse. Images are cached on the device once they are downloaded but data is always fetched from the cloud. This also means that you can get all your data if you delete the app and install it, or even if you switch to another iOS device. The UI provides an option to delete stories from cloud and you're in full control of your data.

* Right now, users can only share on Facebook. An update scheduled for this build will cover other platforms using Apple's Activity sheet.

* The screenshots on the iTunes store cover the steps that a user goes through to publish a story. With the next scheduled release, i'm also going to add a small video preview.

Thanks for your feedback. I appreciate the questions. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Nice concept, and best of luck developing it. I would second junto's comments on additional information, in particular sharing options.

This could be a perfect platform, for example, for my beautiful wife and I to share our (as yet, imaginary) baby pictures with close family who also have the App. My mother could then, in theory, open the App and have an album for each of her grandchildren instead of them being all spread out over Facebook and Instagram. I would value such as closed network more than the ability for me (or others) to share onto wider social networks.

Friends of ours have a 'Family Photos' dropbox folder with these sort of categories, by way of understanding the alternatives to your product. Clearly the additional story-telling and caption features in Babydook would give you the upper hand.

<comment><AUTHOR> At this point, the application is an MVP which allows posting stories with optional tags and organising them under Albums. These stories can be shared on Facebook, but in upcoming releases, you can expect:

* More sharing options other than Facebook

* Find Facebook / Contact friends inside the app and share your albums with them (Closed network)

* I started this concept for a baby's journal, but I guess this could easily be expanded for family photos like you've mentioned.

Thanks for the feedback - sincerely appreciated! :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Such a cool app - a really nice idea with excellent UI

</comment><comment><USER5> the name sounds a lot like Babadook, a horror film, which ironically show cases a very very difficult child.</comment>


Looking for a Date? A Site Says Check the Data - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/13/technology/internet/13cupid.html <comment><USER2> Some interesting info and numbers in there. For example, the most recent blog post [http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/2010/01/20/the-4-big- myths...](http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/2010/01/20/the-4-big-myths-of- profile-pictures/) has received 750,000 visitors in the three weeks since it's been published. Those visitors resulted in 10,000 new members. That's about 34,000 visitors and 450 conversions per day and the overall conversion rate was 1.33%.

If OkCupid had to buy that much traffic and conversions through a CPC program they'd pay tens of thousands of dollars (or more). At $0.10 per click they would pay $75,000 for 750,000 visitors, at a more realistic $0.20+, they'd pay $150,000+. At a 1% conversion rate that would be $10-$20 per new member, or $100,000 to $200,000 total for 10,000 new members. Sensitivity test the variables up or down, but this shows the blog value-creation potential. Nice work, guys!</comment>


Show HN: Try, the art of repeating tweets like Guy Kawasaki - <AUTHOR> http://www.socialchamp.io <comment><AUTHOR> Based on The Art of Repeating Tweets, by "Guy Kawasaki", following Guy's social media strategy for Twitter

[http://www.socialchamp.io](http://www.socialchamp.io)

We developed a platform to increase your reach on twitter in an automated way. "Social Champ" empowers social media users, specially Twitter users, to have more traction and reach by auto repeating their content so that it can be covered by all times zones.

Let's say you tweet something at 1:00PM, however your target audience checked twitter at 8:00PM. They'd definitely miss your tweet. So repeating good content will generate more traction and bring more value.

The users can add photos, delete previously posted tweet from twitter, see their upcoming tweets and customize repeating timings.

"Guy Kawasaki" uses the above theory to post his tweets, repeats them 10 times a day, and sends 50+ tweets per day!

Any questions or feedback to improve will highly be appreciated? ( If you are extensive twitter user, I can share few voucher coupons too for full access, PM please!)

PS: It's in testing mode.

<comment><USER2> This is basically a spamming tool. Downvoted.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for your feedback. However, do posting automated tweets count as spamming?

<comment><USER2> Put on your [hypothetical] black hat and consider all the myriad ways you could abuse a tool like this before you start selling it as a service. (Because abusers _will_ flock to any new service as soon as it becomes available, in the hope that it will bypass existing defenses.)

<comment><AUTHOR> Hmm, you have a point. The worse that could happen for those abusers is get instant unfollows. Abusers user Buffer, Hootsuite and other services to repost their content, there it takes them a while to setup the entire stuff.

I think I need to rethink the value it gives. The future features include providing curated good content so people can tweet them, and a tool that fetches image from a link and adds a text on it for the user to post it as a picture with a single click.

This is just a start. Thanks for valuable feedback.

<comment><USER3> > and a tool that fetches image from a link and adds a text on it for the user > to post it as a picture with a single click.

I'd use that. I end up saving an image to Downloads, uploading to Twitter, then deleting the file pretty regularly.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey, now [http://socialchamp.io](http://socialchamp.io) can do all above in one click. It can fetch an image from a link and post it as separate image. Try it out.

PS: It's being optimized to fetch images from more websites.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Study traces evolution of acoustic communication - <AUTHOR> https://phys.org/news/2020-01-evolution-acoustic.html <comment><USER2> You kind of expect the environment, ecology etc. shape the signal evolution. The reasons behind the signal evolution in diversification is difficult to pin-point.

One interesting thing from paper: "We show that origins of acoustic communication are significantly associated with nocturnal activity."

> Acoustic communication also appears to have been secondarily lost in several > mammals and frogs (but not in birds)

For birds, they have their fitness closed tied to vocal communication.

We're studying song birds and perception of songs. It's really interesting how sensitive the perception of song is. Even slight change in frequency or note can change the response of bird.</comment>


Microsoft Edge records browsing history in InPrivate mode - <AUTHOR> http://betanews.com/2016/01/30/stop-using-microsoft-edges-inprivate-mode-if-you-value-your-privacy/ <comment><USER2> I'm betting this isn't a bug but isn't malicious either. Possible scenario:

Product: So Sue, how's the restore-session-after-crash feature going?

Dev: Great, just about done.

Product: So it's working for all sessions now? Fantastic!

Dev: Yep! Well, all sessions except private ones of course.

Product: ... so you haven't finished private sessions yet?

Dev: No, it's just that we don't store anything on disk for them, so there's nothing to restore.

Product: ...

Dev: ...

Product: Users don't know what "stored on disk" even means. They're going to be very upset if we lose their work after a crash, just because the session happened to be private. Maybe even more so.

Dev: But with nothing on disk, that would be impossible.

Product: You devs have such a fixed mindset. If I had a penny for every time I'd heard one tell me something was "impossible." So store what you need on disk, and ...

Dev: But history ...

Product ... and flag it so it doesn't show up in history or as a visited link. Wouldn't that work?

Dev: Well, kind of, but ...

Product: Great! So we have a solution. How long to get that coded up?

[Later] Product: "Impossible" _laugh_ Hah!

<comment><USER3> Microsoft makes a huge amount of money from enterprise sales. I would see how large companies would be worked up if employees could use private mode browsing to circumvent monitoring. I fear (without any evidence) that private browsing mode would be a tough feature to push in the enterprise space.

<comment><USER4> Monitoring in an enterprise environment (for browsing) works on a network level; even SSL sites are monitored by on-the-fly certificates that are trusted by the users machine. There's no need to persist history to disk for an IT team to capture that information.

<comment><USER5> My favorite days are the one where central IT screws up the system, and we get certificate errors everywhere we go. Uh, do you think they're tracking us and snooping all supposedly secure communication? Naaaaaah. Luckily, I avoid most of those days working from home and NOT using the VPN. I SHOULD make sure I never log into something I care about (like iCloud) while on their network. The problem is that I can't get reception on my cell phone inside the building.

<comment><USER6> If you don't want your employer to see it, do it on your phone. Everyone should realise that by now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I can't believe how stupid Microsoft is. This is never a bug. You can't be that amateurish.

They've just started earning some trust and respect from the users and then this. Also, the Windows 10 privacy nebulosity. Why not just leave the user's privacy alone? There's still enough business with Windows itself. No need to be so greedy and try to compete with Google.

How shall I trust Microsoft enough to put my data on Azure? Or by a Windows 10 phone?

So stupid. What the hell did they want to do with private browsing data? Was it worth it?

<comment><USER8> Really? This is an _extremely_ easy bug to write, and given the way Microsoft APIs tend to work, I'd bet the layering of their code made it difficult to spot.

You have a process that needs to work for, in its mindset, "all tabs," which tries to recover them after a browser crash. You have a different flag on these tabs which is supposed to signal that disk-writing and history are not stored. Sounds easy, but the reality is that there are probably dozens of parts of the code that could potentially write recoverable history. Cookies, cache data for images and resources, the normal history writing functions, those are all the obvious ones to check. The anti-crash feature? Yeah, I can see it being missed.

Yes, their security audits _should_ have caught this, but don't call it an amateurish bug simply because it seems obvious in hindsight.

(Though to be entirely fair, this is also why I won't use Microsoft products. If a reporter hadn't called them out on it, would it ever have been fixed?)

<comment><USER9> The only way security issues are ever fixed is when reporters call them out on it.

Or do you think Stagefright on Android would have ever been fixed if the exploit wasn't publicly disclosed? The threat of public disclosure is the only thing security researchers have as leverage to get a company to do the right thing.

<comment><USER10> Oh, Stagefright was fixed? I wonder when someone will tell my phone manufacturer...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> So my question is: did Microsoft do this on purpose, or was it simply a failure in software design?

I'd like to think the latter, but the fact that Win 10 has had well documented privacy issues already, and the fact Microsoft is probably the most experienced and among the most well funded browser development companies in the world, I get a bit skeptical. A private mode that still writes history WebCache. Did they really overlook that?

<comment><USER12> Windows is the most used desktop OS and Microsoft has a history of conspiring with nation state adversaries. It's not implausible that the NSA and GCHQ would ask Microsoft to slip in a few bugs here and there that makes surveillance much easier.

Remember: This is the company that took an end-to-end-encrypted communications platform (Skype) and completely turn it around into a mass surveillance platform by being the first to join PRISM. It's the same company that builds a full disk encryption system (BitLocker) that sends your encryption keys back to Microsoft's servers. And finally, it's the same company that pushed for an "always on" HD webcam and microphone bundled with an "always online" video game console.

<comment><USER13> >It's the same company that builds a full disk encryption system (BitLocker) that sends your encryption keys back to Microsoft's servers

Every time someone says that as though it's not the absolute correct thing for MS to do given it's standard home-user technical level/expectation I'm super confused. I would expect it to be possible to turn that off, but you can be damned sure that swathes of their users expect to be able to ring MS when they forgot their bitlocker key.

>it's the same company that pushed for an "always on" HD webcam and microphone bundled with an "always online" video game console.

They want you to always be able to use voice and gesture controls with your console - because if you have to stand up and press a button to turn the damned thing on then what's the value in half the functionality?

I'm confident MS are actually more interested in their profit margins than they are by any conspiratorial opportunities with the security services. Casting the latter as their primary motivation all the time is disingenuous.

<comment><USER14> _ring MS_

How do you even do this? It was hard enough to report a bug as an MSDN subscriber. I don't think they have a vast array of consumer support phone agents, or if they do they keep the number very quiet.

<comment><USER15> Search google for something like "microsoft tech support phone number"?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I could be totally wrong and I'm going to get downvoted for this but...

Regardless of the browser, "private mode" is kind of a misnomer. You're still hitting the websites and unless you're using Tor, this can be easily logged by whoever has control of the LAN/router.

The point of "private mode" is to avoid logging to browser history so that someone can't casually inspect what URL's a user has visited (eg, when hubby wants to visit websites that wifey doesn't approve of). The problem here is that MS is storing the browser webcache even in private mode and it is relatively easy to get to it?

If so, the solution is to publicize this issue and microsoft will likely fix the problem. Then hubby will need to worry about wifey interrogating the router.

It just seems like an oversight and not a big deal in terms of privacy and security.

<comment><USER17> Doesn't have to be Tor, any VPN should do.

<comment><USER18> PPTP/MS-CHAP won't do. It is the most common/popular VPN protocol and trivially decrypted[0]. I'd stick to L2TP/IPSec, SSTP, or OpenVPN.

PS - L2Tp/IPSec can be a "nightmare" to NAT traverse. OpenVPN is best for mobile applications.

[0] [https://github.com/moxie0/chapcrack](https://github.com/moxie0/chapcrack)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> If you don't fancy what Microsoft is doing lately, support an alternative. If *nix can not fit the bill because of a dependence of some sort on Windows, support ReactOS. ReactOS is supposed to launch a major version these days (from 0.3.X to 0.4) and then aim for beta stability. The chance of ReactOS becoming real lies in our collective support.

<comment><USER11> Our collective support of using Windows NT4.0-Windows 2000 graphical interfaces? I apologize for being abrupt, but nobody is going to use this operating system in this day and age.

<comment><USER20> Not everyone are end users or gui designers.

It is not for me but it might be an option for a lot of companies that depend on older software for industrial automation etc.

Smooth GUIs doesn't matter too much there.

<comment><USER21> Neither does private browsing?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> The response from Microsoft makes it look like this is a bug, not just related to tab.

This is... horrendous, how did they get such a basic feature that broken?

<comment><USER23> Microsoft being a software company is amazing. There are plethora of issues with MS core products like Edge, OneDrive, Store not to mention the release of Windows 10 mobile in alpha state for some of their phones. It's just mind- boggling how broken software can a software company ship and show no signs of caring at all beside the generic responses.

<comment><USER24> I was thinking about this earlier, and while I've been in the industry ~8 years, I've only worked at two companies, and they've both had some pretty fundamental dysfunctions from a strategy/leadership/management perspective (e.g. projects building software that no one likes/uses, major flaws in delivered products, huge delays/delivery slips), that I want to see what a "successful" company looks like.

But then I thought some more, and I don't know if any companies actually do this correctly.

Do companies exist that can deliver on projects at a fairly steady clip with teams that build solid products generally on time and within budget? Or are we all just floundering around, making buggy apps that take forever to release and don't solve any problems, except for the lucky few who can get everything to harmonize out of sheer statistical happenstance?

<comment><USER25> The few companies I worked in and with, and all the code I've seen, points to the latter case - most of us are delivering utter disasters, thanks to the mix of technical errors, management errors, shifting priorities, internal politics and time constraints.

<comment><USER26> Agreed and same. It's my opinoin that this issue is underdiscussed and that the mess that is often delivered is rationalized by "methodology" and "it's not our fault our requirements force us to deliver this".

But whatever the reason or rational, every time a story breaks about another security exploit or privacy exploit I read that as a condemnation on our profession.

In other professions, part of the certification process is gaining a basic level of understanding of the ethics one is judged against when associating one's work with that of the larger trades group, guild, or association. Often it is well understood that, to some extent, the topic is simply being paid lip service. But,it is also understood that those ethics draw a bright line which those the association serves will not tolerate when openly crossed. Take for instance investment professionals. Everyone knows insider trading happens and it's not uncommon to put profit before fiduciary duty, but when those lines are openly or egregiously crossed it is not tolerated under threat that the understanding between the client and advisor that minor infractions will be tolerated will no longer be honored.

The software engineering profession lacks this basic ethical covenant with its customer. Just look at the utter lack of product warranties. Sure there are SLAs, but there are virtually no warranties. And it shows.

As software begins to function more and more as the linchpin of our society, this issue will morph from technical debt to an Achilles heel. We complain about anachronistic laws. What about anachronistic code? We complain about absurd laws. What about absurd code? It's just as dangerous.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Private mode in a web browser isn't security, and the idea that Microsoft slipped this in at the insistence of the NSA, which has much better tools to track what websites a computer visits that doesn't require access to the local machine, is laughable.

</comment><comment><USER28> To me the neatest thing about this is that since all the major browsers are evergreen (self-updating), while yes, this is a bug and one that seems like the kind that provokes further investigation, it should be fixed and delivered really soon and be a non-issue in a few days. (I think. If this self updating stuff works as well as I think it does.)

<comment><USER29> Assuming it is a bug, and not a "feature".

<comment><USER28> > "We recently became aware of a report that claims InPrivate tabs are not > working as designed, and we are committed to resolving this as quickly as > possible."

<comment><USER30> But is the fix to stop the browser from writing to the cache or to make it impossible for the user to find out it does?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I recently had a bug in Firefox Android which leaked information: after closing a Private Browsing window, if I went to Settings -> Apps, then "Show Cached Processes", then chose Firefox and clicked Stop, to remove it from Android's cache, after opening Firefox again, it would display the closed Private Session from before. Strangely enough, the private session only showed up if I removed Firefox from the cached applications, otherwise it would behave normally (that is, the closed session would not be readily accessible from Firefox).

I was going to report it, but by then version 44 was already available, and it fixed that bug.

But, well, if even Mozilla can make such mistakes, Microsoft surely can too.

</comment><comment><USER32> I think the current best option for privacy-conscious users working with Windows 10 is to install Windows 10 LTSB version[1]. It doesn't contain Cortana, Store, all those fancy widgets, universal apps, IE Edge, and forced updates.

[1] [https://technet.microsoft.com/en- us/library/mt598226%28v=vs....](https://technet.microsoft.com/en- us/library/mt598226%28v=vs.85%29.aspx)

<comment><USER33> "The current best option for privacy-conscious users working with Windows 10 is..." to re-partition the hard drive and install another operating system.

<comment><USER34> With the state of lower level persistent backdoors, I'd almost consider any HDD that windows touched to be comprimised and change hdd completely...

<comment><USER35> Don't forget Windows updates can update your CPU microcode. It's probably best to buy a device that doesn't come with Windows preinstalled. E.g. you can buy Lenovo notebooks that are 100$ cheaper and come with a DOS clone instead.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> This is why I hate sites like Facebook exposing a thousand "settings" to "control" my privacy; any one of them is just a small bug away from not doing what it claims to do. And the more stuff that's going on, the less likely it is that I may notice when something has slipped through that shouldn't have.

These privacy mechanisms should be far simpler, vetted for security, and ubiquitous. Consider the physically separate "secure element" chip on your phone that stores data in a way that nothing else can possibly reach, for example. It should be accepted practice in the software industry that your new app doesn't just get to invent some way of storing potentially-sensitive information; there should be a clear place to toss it in a vault under user control, where the user can see _everything_ you have stored even if your application isn't open (e.g. OS X Keychain).

And yes, this is an argument again for open-source software. Proprietary secrets be damned, there's nothing special about a web browser anymore. The code should be visible so as many people as possible can ensure it is correct.

</comment><comment><USER37> > private tabs

I wonder if it has something to do with the fact that they are tabs. Either way, I really miss private tabs in chrome-ish browsers. They were better for regular use than a separate window I think.

<comment><USER38> What is missing in todays browsers is handling multiple profiles/sessions per browser window. I'd like to open my three gmail accounts in three separate tabs without them knowing about each other. That would simplify a lot of scenarios.

<comment><USER39> As far as I'm aware Brendan Eich's new Brave[1] browser is able to do just this.

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

<comment><USER40> I skipped to the FAQ and wow, this is not a win at all for people who desire privacy (i.e. the people interested in this HN comment thread, in theory).

[https://www.brave.com/FAQ.html](https://www.brave.com/FAQ.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> As far as I can tell, browsers can't prevent the virtual memory system or other parts of the OS from logging/caching as they see fit, which means the private browsing feature is snake oil in every browser unless the only concern is keeping "chlamydia symptoms" out of the search bar drop-down and history list.

<comment><USER42> Surfing behavior not being visible to other users is exactly the reason – the by far most important and absolutely towering reason – for private browsing to exist. Everything beyond that is nice to have but ultimately not really useful, not for what private browsing is actually used for by (most) actual people.

It's not some side benefit, it's the primary reason for private browsing to exist at all, at least as far a product manager (who actually understands and cares about what users actually want from their browser – so not actually a bad one) might be concerned.

That's why I can absolutely understand how this kind of bug can creep in. The most important aspect of this feature (from the point of view of most people actually using the feature) is not that browsing leave absolutely no trace anywhere, the most important aspect is that browsing leave absolutely no trace where _other users of the PC can see it_ †.

I'm consequently a bit confused why everyone is unpacking the big conspiracy guns. This seems like an easily understandable and completely plausible bug to me.

<comment><USER43> Shouldn't other users have separate OS accounts?

<comment><USER42> Oh boy. The filter bubble is real! (That's not meant to be disparaging. We are all in our own isolated bubbles, clueless about a great many things and the details of how people behave.)

People often don't use separate OS accounts (it's often just not necessary) and even if they do they will often still share the PC from time to time (even if just for a brief moment) or just show something off for some other people.

During all those occasions the browser history could be visible, even if people aren't really prying (autocomplete, frequently visited websites, …).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Whether or not it was intentional, it certainly demonstrates that privacy is not high on the priority list at Microsoft.

</comment><comment><USER45> I just thought I'd add some color on why people are using Edge, despite the fact that it has a feature paucity compared to Chrome and Firefox and IE. I definitely want the InPrivate bug fixed, but I'm still using Edge at this moment.

1\. For desktop users, most of us aren't using Edge most of the time. Desktop systems are powerful and features matter more. The only time we use Edge is when some saved feature or history element is there.

2\. For Windows Mobile, all 30 people using the platform have no choice but to use Edge. This bug is pretty important for them, as inPrivate mode has many more implications on a mobile device.

3\. For Tablet and Surface Book customers, generally regarded as the "leading edge" customers & Microsoft's most robust product and software line? We use Edge and will probably keep doing so. Why? _Because it 's te only browser that gives a damn about efficiency._ Chrome is quite fast, but is a monster on battery life. Firefox is quite slow (even without plugins). Edge gets very good speeds, generally good performance and compatibility, and doesn't trigger a battery dump spiral.

This is not a unique aspect of the Windows platform (Chrome can roast batteries on Mac OS X as well, and mobile/portable Linux's Power management story is not great either). but it's exacerbated by the new form factors Microsoft is shipping in its Surface line which can easily get >10h battery life with canny apps.

</comment><comment><USER46> I think some benefit of the doubt is allowed here - intern dev Alice codes the in private mode. Intern dev Brian creates the restore tabs on crash feature and integrates it hastily to make the (clearly rushed, if you ever used edge for more than 5 minutes) release. QA you say? But the history tab IS blank! Why would QA ever look into some internal db file? (sigh)

<comment><USER47> > intern dev Alice codes the in private mode

yes, blame the intern...

let's blame all the telemetry snooping in Windows 10 on a bunch of interns too ? it's like Microsoft can't hire professionals to develop its two main products . There is no benefit of the doubt, they know what they are doing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> Internet Explorer had a similar hole in its respect for users' privacy for years: the index.dat file. No matter whether you used InPrivate or cleared your web history, the browser--for years and across several versions--stored all your URLs and search queries for faster autocomplete.

</comment><comment><USER49> What I find ironic is I gave up on using Edge because it did such a poor job restoring previously opened tabs in normal mode. I really wanted to like Edge, but the only way I could get it to reliably re-open tabs was if I manually killed the Edge process in task manager. Any time Windows gracefully shut Edge down, like for a Windows reboot, I'd loose all my open tabs and have to hunt back through weeks of browsing history to re find and re open them. I'll cut Microsoft some slack for having a bug in leaking info in private mode in a new codebase. I refuse to cut them slack for being unable to reliably restore tabs in the normal case.

</comment><comment><USER50> Chrome for iOS has the same issue.

Load an incognito tab, hit the button to return to the main screen, kill the app, then re-launch Chrome.

If you need forensically safe ways to surf, browser "porn mode" isn't your ticket.

<comment><USER45> Chrome doesn't properly instruct the keyboard on Android, ironically. If you visit one website over and over in Incognito mode, the keyboard will start prompting the URL in every field.

For some OEMs, it's hard to even figure out how to clear this data out. I've seen, well... awkward moments during software pitches of mobile products on Android.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> I also love Microsoft's response to the report:

"We recently became aware of a report that claims InPrivate tabs are not working as designed, and we are committed to resolving this as quickly as possible."

Hee. You "recently became aware"? Dudes. This was coded in. It doesn't seem very likely that this was accidental or that you were unaware. The browsing history is getting directly written into the main web cache file, along with a special code that specifies it's from private mode. You just accidentally missed this?

</comment><comment><USER52> Amazing how even when starting a new browser from scratch in the past couple of years they still cannot do it right. I thought Microsoft was a software company?

I don't want to hate on Microsoft but they are making it hard not to. Edge could, no it should have been excellent but it has been out for 7 months now and the updates are minimal.

<comment><USER53> Oh well. New MSIE, same as the old MSIE, in all but the name. (I do distinctly remember the very same marketing campaign running for IE8 like the current one for Edge. Oh, the visuals were different, all right.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> Seriously, does it even matter? Your ISP knows all, the NSA knows all, the free email service providers know all. There is no privacy. Having said that, I still don't like that they know I look at porn. :)

See you back inside the Matrix...

</comment><comment><USER55> "Chrome has Incognito mode, Safari has Private Browsing, Firefox has... actually, Firefox has Private Browsing too."

This is surprising because? I would rather switch Chrome and Firefox in this sentence.

<comment><USER56> Probably was referring to the naming of private mode on these browsers?

<comment><USER55> Ah okay, didn't think of that ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> In a somewhat related note, Chrome on iOS just updated to WKWebView or something and just said it does not suppor Do Not Track anymore, due to iOS limitations...

</comment><comment><USER58>
        or you may have Googled 'how to change the default search engine in Microsoft Edge'

what time is the super bowl?

</comment><comment><USER59> What a coincidence.

</comment><comment><USER60> Why would anyone want to use Edge? There are alternatives on all platforms,no?

<comment><USER61> Many people don't even know what a browser is and will just use whatever is bundled with the OS.

Also, IE is often used to download Chrome / Firefox after a fresh install..

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> and Chrome seems to persist local storage incognito mode

</comment><comment><USER63> >I can't believe how stupid Microsoft is. This is never a bug. You can't be that amateurish.

Apple had a similar bug in Safari.

>Safari's Private Browsing Mode Saves URLs In an Easily Accessible File

[http://lifehacker.com/safaris-private-browsing-mode-saves- ur...](http://lifehacker.com/safaris-private-browsing-mode-saves-urls-in-an- easily-a-1691944343)

Google had a similar bug on Chrome in Android

>Chrome for Android's incognito mode saves some of the sites you visit

[http://news.softpedia.com/news/incognito-mode-in-chrome- for-...](http://news.softpedia.com/news/incognito-mode-in-chrome-for-android- saves-some-browsing-history-492859.shtml)

I find it curious that a huge deal is made out of Microsoft's missteps with over-the-top comments being modded up and same with the articles, but similar or worse things by, say Google or Apple are simply papered over and buried.

It's Slashdot all over again.

<comment><USER64> Slashdot was/is a community of open source nerds.

HN was a community of Silicon Valley startup founders. Though because of its title, more and more nerds switched over from Reddit/Slashdot/Digg. Until early 2015 HN was mainly inhabited from Linux and MacOS people. But Microsoft invaded HN around their Build 2015 conference in May 2015. Nowadays a lot of sock puppets and fanboys with MSFT background are on HN and try to downvote everything slightly not so pretty. Nowadays "Show HN" is already a bit off- putting with cynical comments and harsh critics. HN certainly needs better voting-ring and paid sock puppet detection - hint: they are only active in certain timezones and mainly on a weekdays.

The question is what HN want to be. I visit HN for startup news and occasionally open source news. Who in the right mind would use vendor lock-in mediocre expensive licensed software for a startup? Although, I am okay with Windows 7, I hate Win8/10 with a passion because MSFT turned to a mean company again (bad ModernUI, don't care about consumer anymore at all, privacy debacle of Win10, turns everything to SaaS, evil license changes). And therefore would welcome to see less MSFT sock puppets and less FUD on HN. Remember HN used to be a group of very intelligent people, burn them once and we will remember that forever, burn them twice... you know, better stop that right now.

<comment><USER65> You have an account only 947 days old.

While I can attest that HN has always had a significant amount of startup stuff, that was nowhere near the entirety of the site.

I remember when the front page was filled entirely with Erlang articles, for example, and I'm damn sure no more than a tiny fraction of HN was using or considering Erlang for production at that time.

<comment><USER66> > that was nowhere near the entirety of the site

Nor is it now. Speaking of Erlang, there have been three Joe Armstrong articles on the front page in the last week.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER67> Of course.

</comment><comment><USER68> Privacy concerns aside, it seems apparent to me that if you're trying to hide your behavior, you're probably not being successful.

Someone probably knows or can pretty easily find out what you've been doing.

<comment><USER69> Most browsers tell you you're not hiding from network monitors, ISPs, and such when you start a "private" session. Edge doesn't mention it. Even with that message, I'm sure plenty of people still think they're being stealthy. However, Edge does specifically say it will delete "cookies, history or temporary files" when all InPrivate tabs are closed, but they are not.

</comment></comment><comment><USER70> Oh, really? This can't be a bug, but looks more like it was planned. Looks like Microsoft wants to hit Google hard in their own game, well bad idea :)</comment>


Gistribute - Simple GitHub Gist based file distribution. - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/gbchaosmaster/gistribute

<comment><AUTHOR> I made this because it solved a problem that I was having, and I thought that I'd share. It is very early in development, and things planned for the future, among other things, are:

\- Setting file permissions

\- Requiring some files to be installed as root

\- Support for binary files

Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated. Hopefully it is of use to somebody.</comment>