Greek Banks, Stock Exchange to Remain Closed From Monday - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-28/running-out-of-cash-greece-counts-on-ecb-to-avert-black-monday <comment><USER2> I recommend reading this short article published on The Economist to get a grasp of the consequences of Greece defaulting.

 _For Greece the gains from defaulting would be slight, and the costs potentially vast. True, the country could walk away from debts of €317 billion, or almost 180% of GDP. But that is worth less to Greeks than it sounds. Although the debt is huge, it is at bargain-basement interest rates and repayable over decades. Interest payments until the early 2020s are just 3% of GDP a year. Even for Greece, that is manageable. Nor would leaving the euro do much good. In theory, with a new drachma and its own central bank, Greece could devalue and gain competitiveness. But Greece's trade is modest. And it has already lowered nominal wages by 16% without a boom in exports.

The costs of Grexit still outweigh the benefits By contrast, the cost of Grexit would be exorbitant: bust banks, slashed savings, broken contracts and shattered confidence (see article). Politics could be devastated. Syriza, Mr Tsipras's hard-left party, is anti-market and anti-enterprise. Neo-fascist Golden Dawn and the Communists, with a combined 12% of the vote, would thrive. Most of the parties in the middle, already discredited, would struggle. This week Mr Tsipras was due to play footsie with Vladimir Putin in Russia. Ejected from the euro, and possibly the EU, a country with a history of coups would risk becoming violent and even more corrupt._

[http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21654598-greece-and- eu...](http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21654598-greece-and-euro-zone- are-stuck-abusive-relationship-my-big-fat-greek-divorce)

<comment><USER3> >For Greece the gains from defaulting would be slight, and the costs potentially vast.

Translation: FUD.

>True, the country could walk away from debts of €317 billion, or almost 180% of GDP. But that is worth less to Greeks than it sounds.

Translation: pretty please don't.

>Although the debt is huge, it is at bargain-basement interest rates and repayable over decades. Interest payments until the early 2020s are just 3% of GDP a year. Even for Greece, that is manageable.

Translation: You may have had to do with massive unemployment and without life saving drugs by kowtowing to creditor demands ( [http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/325955](http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/325955) ), but you'll "manage" if you continue doing it.

>Nor would leaving the euro do much good. In theory, with a new drachma and its own central bank, Greece could devalue and gain competitiveness. But Greece's trade is modest. And it has already lowered nominal wages by 16% without a boom in exports.

Translation: we believe _so fervently_ in the power of suppressing wages to improve economic performance, that the idea of trying anything else is literally unthinkable.

>The costs of Grexit still outweigh the benefits By contrast, the cost of Grexit would be exorbitant: bust banks, slashed savings, broken contracts and shattered confidence (see article). Politics could be devastated. Syriza, Mr Tsipras's hard-left party, is anti-market and anti-enterprise.

Translation : Attention target readers of the Economist - elites, captains of industry, rapacious financiers - Mr Tsipras is your masked villain.

>Neo-fascist Golden Dawn and the Communists, with a combined 12% of the vote, would thrive.

Translation : please ignore the fact that they already _are_ thriving thanks to the Economist-stamp-of-approval austerity measures.

<comment><USER4> > Translation: FUD

The Greeks have always been perfectly free to stop paying their existing debts, at the cost of not being able to borrow any more money. The only reason they've been negotiating with the Troika and agreeing to the austerity measures you disagree with is that they believed that defaulting would be _even worse_. Even if default is currently the best option, there is plenty of actual uncertainty, and some amount of fear seems justified.

<comment><USER3> What's left for them to fear?

After years of enormous unemployment and the country's slow decline into near-3rd world status, even having your savings seized and forcibly devalued loses its sting.

<comment><USER4> 1\. I'm not sure what you mean by "near-3rd world". Their economy has fallen to about the pre-Euro trend-line ([http://www.vox.com/2015/6/28/8858727/greece-gdp- chart](http://www.vox.com/2015/6/28/8858727/greece-gdp-chart)). There's still plenty of room for them to fall ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_\(PPP\)_per_capita)).

2\. If The Economist is too capitalist for you, the current Greek finance minister also thinks (thought?) default would be very bad: [http://yanisvaroufakis.eu/2012/05/16/weisbrot-and-krugman- ar...](http://yanisvaroufakis.eu/2012/05/16/weisbrot-and-krugman-are-wrong- greece-cannot-pull-off-an-argentina/).

<comment><USER5> The Greek finance minister recommends defaulting in (2). Also note one of his points is defaulting would poison the Eurozone. That's one more reason this isn't as simple as "default would be bad" for Greece. It's a lesser evil for Greece and it's bad for the Eurozone. It gives Greece leverage.

" _Does this mean that Greece ought to grin and bear the massive and misanthropic idiocy of the bailout-austerity package imposed upon it by the troika (EU-ECB-IMF)? Of course not. We should certainly default._ "

Defaulting could lead to further negotiations if Greece stays in the Eurozone, like slashing a big part of a loan handed out when projections showed Greece would not be able to pay it.

Why do you loan to a country when projections show the country can't pay? Is it to keep the country economically enslaved for years?

That's probably why the second-to-top-level comment translated the following as FUD. The gains for Greece from defaulting would be better than accepting the austerity measures.

      >For Greece the gains from defaulting would be slight, and
       the costs potentially vast.

       Translation: FUD.

<comment><USER4> 1\. He's talking about default within the Euro, which doesn't seem to be in the cards any more. As he notes (in a linked article), their ability to stay would depend on the ECB continuing to support the Greek banks. In reality, the ECB froze their Emergency Liquidity Assistance program yesterday, and Greece has imposed capital controls to avoid further bank runs.

2\. This article was written three years ago, when the rest of Europe was in worse shape. It's not clear how a Greek default would affect the rest of the continent right now.

3\. I have nothing against a reasoned argument that default is Greece's best remaining option (like yours, thanks!). What I object to is the semantic stopsign "FUD" in response to a situation that is legitimately uncertain and scary.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> As an argentinean, who lived the same experience in 2001, I can say this is very bad.

I live in Europe now, and most people in this part of the world does not understand the idea and consecuencies of an economic issue like this.

My hope is that the greek government, in some way, find a new agreement soon.

<comment><USER7> Can you provide some color on this? What was it like when a gov't closed banks to avoid a financial apocalypse?

edit: would be interested in your experience if you feel comfortable giving it. Interested if new mediums of exchange took place and just generally how it played out as I am not familiar with the Argentinean crisis at all.

<comment><USER8> Argentina is still experiencing some monetary controls. When I visited Buenos Aires two weeks ago, the official exchange rate was ~9 pesos to the dollar, however there are prevalent 'blue' (black) market exchanges that will readily give you over 12 pesos (I got 12.3) to the dollar.

<comment><USER9> Argentina has a notorious counterfeit currency problem. Did you have any problems on the black market exchanges ensuring that all the currency you were getting was real?

<comment><USER8> I took a local with me on my first visit (as I had been advised). There are people on the street hawking exchanges 'cambio cambio cambio' and they will lead you off the street into a store where the shop does the actual exchange (in my case it was a jewelry store). After completing the exchange, the man in the store took a moment to show me the security features of the bills and what I should be looking for to spot counterfeits. I had no problem spending any of the money I exchanged there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Hey there, are there any Greeks in startup/tech scene that want to express opinion on whether the government is doing the right thing about this referendum?

I'm really short on quality, direct feedback about what Tsipras is doing. All I can read about the topic is politics influenced.

<comment><USER11> Greek here. It seems that Tsipras is trying to pull his last card by going nuclear but the general consensus amongst non government supporters is that he did more harm than good. There was a belief that even a bad deal with EU was far better than a non-deal and it seemed that finally they've found some common ground and an agreement was a matter of days. The referendum announcement caught pretty much everyone by surprise.

There is a strong trend towards the Yes vote in the referendum and most people I've talked to view it as a consensus towards Euro regardless of how the government will try to put it. And there is still hope that even in the last minute a deal will be made for the sake of everyone involved.

You have to understand that to most people in the tech industry or any other person with some kind of liberal thinking, Tsipras is like an alien. An idealist of a communist era that was never popular in Greece and whose decisions and actions seem insane. We don't understand what his strategy is and whether he's bluffing or really want to take us out of the euro.

<comment><USER12> I'm a (classical) liberal, but a lot of the current Greek position makes sense.

1\. To get future investment, it's more important that Greece starts growing again than that it pays off existing debt. While socialist policies can stifle growth, it seems in the current situation growth is stifled more by a strong Euro than by tax evasion, corruption or overspending.

2\. Greece was the fastest growing state in Europe before the Euro. With all its natural advantages, there's no reason why it couldn't return to fast growth w/a devalued currency.

3\. Syriza doesn't seem as "far left" as described. I certainly don't think they will go down the totalitarian communist route, vs becoming a democratic welfare state like the Nordic states.

4\. As constituted, the Euro favors exporting economies over tourist/shipping economies like Greece. Switzerland is in many ways similar to Greece structurally .. a tourist mecca of about 10 million people and a service oriented economy. It does export a lot, but mainly specialty items (watches, cheese, chocolate etc). Greece would seem to be better off as a Switzerland on the sea, with strong EU relations but independent monetary policies.

<comment><USER13> Dude living in Switzerland here.

Could you elaborate more on the structural similarity to Greece?

Yes, Switzerland has tourism but - unlike Greece - I doubt that they depend on it. Also, watches and cheese are only the tip of the iceberg. Switzerland's wealth probably derives from mega-banks like UBS and the not well-known, but enormous industrial sector (e.g., Nestlé, Novartis, Roche, ABB).

Before I moved here, I thought Switzerland is only about cheese and chocolate, but it really is an oasis of wealth unparalleled in Europe due to various reasons; here is my medium blog post about how it is living and working here: [https://medium.com/@iwaninzurich/eight-reasons-why-i- moved-t...](https://medium.com/@iwaninzurich/eight-reasons-why-i-moved-to- switzerland-to-work-in-it-c7ac18af4f90).

<comment><USER12> For sure, Switzerland is an amazing wealth-generator. In addition to all you mentioned, it also exports great tennis players, my personal favorite Swiss product :)

I meant that it is a strategically situated, naturally beautiful, culturally strong state of about 10 million people.

Greece shares all of these traits, and can build up industries like Switzerland has if it has a more independent state and implements Swiss-like policies.

They won't be the exact same industries .. they both attractiveness for tourists, but people come to Switzerland to ski and trek, and go to Greece to sail and relax on the beach. Similarly Switzerland might make drugs, chocolate and watches, while Greece excels in shipping & shipbuilding.

Certainly Switzerland is far ahead of where Greece is now. But it's proof that a similar state can become a economic powerhouse without the Euro. With a devalued currency, in addition to boosting existing industries, Greece will become an attractive place for foreign multinationals to setup factories, so it can grow new industries from scratch as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Banks are to remain closed until at least July 6th: [http://en.protothema.gr/breaking-capital-controls-taken- bank...](http://en.protothema.gr/breaking-capital-controls-taken-banks-to- remain-closed-for-one-week/)

The stock exchange will also remain closed according to Reuters: [http://www.cnbc.com/id/102793367](http://www.cnbc.com/id/102793367)

<comment><USER14> Did you mean July 6th?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, thanks. I have updated the comment.

As a sidenote, this doesn't have to be a huge deal necessarily. Recall the US closed every bank for 8 days in March 1933. Life goes on.

<comment><USER15> Well that was a pretty huge deal in the U.S. in 1933.

Life goes on, but as many can attest having gone through the crisis worldwide at varying levels from 2008 -> 2013/2014/present, it's not always pleasant.

<comment><USER16> exactly. Life will always go on, but I can attest that it is a big deal, especially for businesses that already have a hard time surviving in the hostile Greek environment...!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This is really bad for the people of Greece. I have seen small bank runs with my own eyes where folks queued for hours to get their savings rescued. ($bigCorp going down with internal bank). Bad sad bad.

<comment><USER18> It worked out quite well in Cyprus in 2012. So just by itself, capital controls aren't the end of the work.

<comment><USER17> Greece is much larger than Cyprus, their debt is much bigger in absolute values and the outcome of the current status so unknown that it's very difficult to compare the current capital controls against those implemented in Cyprus.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Well this is terrible for the Greek people in the short term but its probably for the best in the long term. They have to default and the ECB just won't allow that.

<comment><USER20> History is full of examples of disallowed things happening.

<comment><USER21> This a really good system design example, if a situation is possible and you don't design that situation into the system, then you will run the system in uncharted territory, eventually. Probably running it off the rails.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> The worst thing is the duration of this. If you're a young Greek, like some of my friends, you're screwed. You either leave your family and go to a foreign country, or you stay and try against hope to get a job so you can start a family. Now it's been several years of this crap and it's going to leave a lasting scar on just about everyone who's old enough to remember it.

Whatever they decide, they should have decided it long ago. Go bankrupt, or get a (sensibly sized) haircut from the creditors. But decide before everyone's life is ruined living in a zombie economy.

</comment><comment><USER23> I'm not very well educated in this area, for anyone else like me, this infographic video really helped explaining the European Debt Crisis.

[0] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8xAXJx9WJ8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8xAXJx9WJ8)

<comment><USER24> The first half was reasonable, the second half just bad.

It literally portrays Greek people as drinking grappa on the beach while hardworking Germans pay for their lifestyle. Greek people as immoral, Germans as respectable and responsible. That kind of cultural stereotyping is toxic.

It's also analytically bad. It argues the problem is fiscal irresponsibility, even though Spain had a budget surplus before the crisis hit. Spain was a model of fiscal responsibility (and was lauded as such), and yet they too went into a deep depression with 50% youth unemployment.

The video doesn't even mention the most important cause of the crisis: balance of payments between the north and south.

<comment><USER25> Spain was wildly fiscally irresponsible in numerous ways.

Their total government spending went from $280 billion Euros in 2002, to $450 billion Euros just six years later in 2008. That's a 60% increase in government spending in six years.

The government premised their spending on the real estate bubble, which was floating their growth for years prior to the crash. The fall-out from that behavior of course was a tripling of their debt to GDP ratio in just seven years when the crash hit.

Their household debt to income ratio went from about 70% in 2000, to 125% by 2007.

Spain was living far beyond its means for years, with the bubble temporarily holding off the consequences of that behavior. They weren't being fiscally prudent, they were being fiscally irresponsible by spending as though the bubble would go on forever.

<comment><USER24> Not so.

Spain's gov't spending to GDP ratio developed in the same way as the Netherlands:

[http://imgur.com/I5AZaN9](http://imgur.com/I5AZaN9)

Spain had a housing bubble, of course. And the housing bubble was the primary cause of the crisis. But there was a bubble in the responsible northern countries too. And in the USA. So it's not the case that Spain was an outlier in terms of fiscal responsibility.

Don't forget that Spain had a lower debt to GDP ratio than Germany at the start of the crisis:

[http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/07/finally- spain/](http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/07/finally-spain/)

If Spain was irresponsible, then Germany and the Netherlands moreso. Private and commercial borrowing in Spain was a big part of the problem, but because the Eurozone has no trade barriers the government in Spain can't stop it. I'm not saying Spain isn't partially to blame for the mess, but it's not a case of fiscal irresponsibility.

<comment><USER25> Yes, it is so.

Spain's total government spending increased by 60% from 2002, to 2008. That is a fact [1].

Spain's household debt to income ratio, increased from 70% to 125% from 2000 to 2007, another fact. [2]

Both are clear indications of fiscal irresponsibility. How could increasing total government spending by 60% in six years, be anything but? How could households taking on so much leverage so quickly, be anything but?

You reference the Netherlands, which has the most indebted households in the Euro zone, and is in the midst of a debt disaster. That's a really bad example [3]. Their GDP hasn't increased in nearly eight years.

[1] [http://i.imgur.com/tSu2htA.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/tSu2htA.jpg)

[2] [http://i.imgur.com/z8VUtFs.png](http://i.imgur.com/z8VUtFs.png)

[3] [http://www.cnbc.com/id/100905782](http://www.cnbc.com/id/100905782)

<comment><USER24> I don't dispute the accuracy of your numbers.

Spain's household borrowing was unwise/irresponsible, no question about it. No good comes from a housing bubble like that. Of course, this housing bubble was funded by foreign banks. When people see an opportunity to live in a big house for cheap they just sign on the dotted line. That's human nature for ya.

Household debt in the Netherlands also way too high, although it's unclear whether it will become a disaster in any meaningful sense. Stagnant GDP caused by austerity. No surprise there. I specifically mentioned the Netherlands because they're portrayed as a responsible country, in contrast to GIPS countries.

Spain's labor costs also increased by 50% during the boom ([http://i.imgur.com/pdHgmf4.png](http://i.imgur.com/pdHgmf4.png)), so gov't spending had to go way up just to provide the same services. Besides, spending a lot of money for a couple of years is no big deal when the country doesn't have a big national debt, and Spain didn't. Doesn't mean Spain's fiscal policy was beyond reproach, of course. Ideally speaking a government should have anti-cyclical fiscal policy.

Bubbles followed by recessions happen all the time in Western Europe and the US, but the consequences are usually pretty manageable. When it comes to Spain the government was no more irresponsible, but because of the Euro they got pulled into a crushing depression.

If you want to argue that _every_ modern government is irresponsible, fine. But if you want to demonstrate that Spain was fiscally irresponsible compared to the rest of Europe or the US you're going to need better stats.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> This is a perfect reminder for everyone about how the fractional reserve banking systems works and where the limitations and risks are.

We as a society (all of us including the rich and the poor, the bright and the dumb) need to rethink how we allow the banks to (be it accidentally or not) destabilize a financial system only by the volume of its debt.

Some say capital controls are only of temporary measures but still, I feel that this is something which must be avoided by future rules and regulations.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional- reserve_banking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking)

</comment><comment><USER27> At this point, we can safely say that whatever the scenario, it's going to be very ugly for Greece and not only in the short term.

In Europe, there is little compassion for this country though, due to their reputation for laziness and huge tax evasion schemes. I actually remember my holidays there some years ago (beautiful country btw) - most things were paid in cash and in many grocieries I didn't even see a cash register.

</comment><comment><USER28> I don't understand the munchhausen syndrome-like attachment to the Eurozone that Greece seems to have. Are we not noticing some hugely important positive benefit from eurozone membership that Greece has enjoyed? Enough to virtually completely give up sovereignty and self-determination? Enough to subject the nation to foreign oppression by technocrats and bankers? How is it even a close question?

<comment><USER26> No exchange rates for trade are considered "hugely important positive" for all countries within the EU who are part of the Euro.

But yes, your other points sure are valid remarks and I bet those questions are being posed nonstop within .gr.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> What's crazy is that EU won't give Greece an extension for the referendum. The negotiations stalled over small issues like if they're going to raise the retirement age to 67 in 2022 or 2025. This all seems like political moves, the EU wants to force a failure of the leftist party and make an example of the country.

<comment><USER30> I don't see it the same way. A referendum can be acceptable (but why so late and why behind the backs of the Eurogroup?). But what is not acceptable is that Tsipras is telling the public to vote No. Why would anyone want to extend loans to someone who does not want a deal to come through?

<comment><USER29> The EU is also free to tell the people how to vote, and they've already started doing this. But they don't like populism, they'd rather governments impose austerity via diktat.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> This sounds terrible but how should I invest to capitalize on this? Is there something on Vanguard I can throw some money at and be glad I did in 5+ years?

<comment><USER32> If you feel the need to ask on an Internet discussion board where you should invest to profit from $X, that's probably a good sign that you should just keep your money where it is. Flippancy aside, the most likely result is going to be downward pressure on stocks generally and European stocks in particular.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Official now, latest headline:

GREEK PM TSIPRAS SAYS ECB'S ACTIONS HAVE FORCED THE CENTRAL BANK TO RECOMMEND A BANK HOLIDAY AND CAPITAL CONTROLS

</comment><comment><USER33> Bitcoin is not the solution for the Greek government, but could probably be the solution for the Greek people.

Why Greece Should Not Switch To Bitcoin [http://techcrunch.com/2015/02/28/why- greece-should-not-switc...](http://techcrunch.com/2015/02/28/why-greece- should-not-switch-to-bitcoin/)

</comment><comment><USER34> I really hope Greece does not cave in to ECB:s demands. Because if they do, it will spread first to Portugal and then to the rest of the EU. And I don't want to have to work until I'm 75, have my vacation weeks cut and my future pension decimated.

And I don't think the EU should interfere in how Greece wants to raise their state's income. If they think it is better to raise corporate taxes rather than decrease pensions, the ECB can't just say that's wrong and if you don't do as we say you won't get any money.

<comment><USER35> As far as I'm aware it wasn't so much the ECB that were worried about the debt sustainability of the latest greek proposals as the IMF, who felt that more of the gap should be filled with cuts to benefits as opposed to increases in taxes.

The problem with not "caving in" to the demands of their creditors is that if Greece defaults, it's likely to have serious consequences for the affordability of their pension arangements. Whether those are more, or less, serious than the consequences of acceding to the requirements of their creditors is unknown.

<comment><USER36> _...more of the gap should be filled with cuts to benefits as opposed to increases in taxes._

What's their reasoning behind this?

<comment><USER37> Because tax evasion is so rampant in Greece, the IMF reasons (correctly) that tax increases wouldn't raise anywhere remotely as much revenue as Syriza claims they would.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> It is interesting to speculate how the climate in Greece might be different if bitcoin had been more widely adopted there prior to this meltdown. No central control. No banks to close.

It is something that Greek officials joke about: [http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/05/us-digital- currenc...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/05/us-digital-currency- greece-idUSKBN0OL0JR20150605)

<comment><USER35> In some ways it might improve things in the short term as financial transactions could continue absent banking requirements, however in the long term I would suggest it would be a bad thing for the greek economy.

One of the major recurring themes of the greek economic problem, has been tax avoidance/evasion which has reduced the amount of money that the government have to support themselves.

With bitcoin's less traceable nature, it seems likely that it's introduction would make the job of efficient tax collection even harder, which would in turn cause even more problems for the greek economy.

<comment><USER38> Recent events in the Silk Road criminal trials suggest that governments have the ability to trace BTC transactions to a useful degree--witness the guilty pleas of two former federal law enforcement personnel for enriching themselves via extorting bitcoin. Yes, it does take a different mind set from conventional banking records, but ultimately everything is recorded in the blockchain.

<comment><USER35> Those were 2 very specific cases, I don't think you can usefully extrapolate to a government level ability to track blockchain transactions to real identities, especially when one of the main selling points of bitcoin transaction is that (if done correctly) they cannot be tied to a real identity!</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The 'climate doomers' preparing for society to fall apart - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-51857722 <comment><AUTHOR> Versions of the Deep Adaptation paper

[https://jembendell.com/2019/05/15/deep-adaptation- versions/](https://jembendell.com/2019/05/15/deep-adaptation-versions/)</comment>


A Woman Who Preserved over 30 Years of TV History - <AUTHOR> https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/marion-stokes-television-news-archive <comment><USER2> There are people who recover teletext from VHS tapes, for example: [http://www.uniquecodeanddata.co.uk/teletext76/bbc1_1983-06-2...](http://www.uniquecodeanddata.co.uk/teletext76/bbc1_1983-06-23/)

<comment><USER3> Is there an FFMPEG type of filter that can translate information recorded in the vertical interval space like CCs or even VITC? All of the equipment I ever used expected an incoming video signal for processing. For archival processing, it would be an interesting approach when finding the proper video based equipment would/could be difficult.

<comment><USER4> $ ffmpeg -f lavfi -i "movie=test.ts[out0+subcc]" -map s output.srt

[https://stackoverflow.com/a/27780366/7106583](https://stackoverflow.com/a/27780366/7106583)

<comment><USER3> Finally had a chance to look into this further. The filter you found requires an MPEG2 Transport Stream. That tells me that this filter is just extracting the CC data within the MPEG stream. We've had tools to do that since MPEG2 was a thing.

I'm specifically talking about a full raster SD video capture at 720x486 NTSC with the VBI information visible. Is there a filter that will read the white dashes in the VBI and do some sort of optical translation of the dashes into something like an SCC file. A long time ago in a galaxy far far away, I used to actually be able to decode the VITC in my head by reading the dashes. It started out as a joke while bored working 3rd shift where we'd offset the H/V delay on a monitor. It actually became a useful skill when we started digitizing the full raster video image but the time code was not captured/saved in the resulting digital media. Reading the white dashes allowed me to then reset the time code of the digital file.

For those wondering, there were 2 types of time code in video tapes. LTC (linear time code) was an encoded audio signal that would sound like a series of tones that would be decoded into time. VITC (vertical interval time code) was visibly encoded into part of the video signal that consumer televisions would not display. Normally, the player would "listen" to the LTC while playing and fast scan/rewind. While a player was paused onto a video frame, it could no longer "hear" the LTC. It would instead then switch to decoding the VITC. The VITC was also not able to be decoded at fast speeds since it went by too quickly. When the VITC and LTC did not match, all sorts of interesting things would happen in an edit bay.

<comment><USER4> Oh sorry, this lib should handle it: [http://zapping.sourceforge.net/Zapping/Zapzilla.html](http://zapping.sourceforge.net/Zapping/Zapzilla.html)

<comment><USER3> You my friend, are a steely eyed missile man.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> IA collections:

[https://archive.org/details/marionstokes](https://archive.org/details/marionstokes)

[https://archive.org/details/stokestvarchiveexperiment](https://archive.org/details/stokestvarchiveexperiment)

</comment><comment><USER6> This sounds really cool but won't the original broadcasters be all over the archive for publishing these files? How could anyone get permission to release all that copyrighted material?

<comment><USER7> archive.org is also an officially recognized library for the state of California, which gives them some leeway:

[https://archive.org/post/121377/internet-archive- officially-...](https://archive.org/post/121377/internet-archive-officially-a- library)

<comment><USER8> Very little incremental leeway for digital content. It's much more that relatively few copyright owners are much interested in chasing after old TV show and news postings even if they're aware of them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > While many people assumed that television networks held on to everything > they aired, that wasn't the case. Studios were constantly erasing and > recycling broadcast tapes in order to save money and free up storage space.

I've heard about this happening during the early days of TV. For example, there was a lost episode of Dr. Who that finally turned up and part of the story was that most studios just re-recorded over the old stuff.

I didn't realize the practice continued into the 80s.

Are there any estimates for how much TV footage was never preserved by the networks?

<comment><USER10> I would expect scripted TV to be shot and mastered on film until ~2000 and you'd hope the negative would be stored somewhere but maybe not.

It's a lot easier to imagine live TV such as news or sports not being recorded or saved. Broadcast-grade tapes probably weren't cheap.

<comment><USER11> TV was not recorded on film. Older TV looks different than older film, for this reason.

<comment><USER12> Some stuff was shot on film, some stuff was shot on videotape. _Really_ early TV was either recorded on film or not recorded at all since video tape recorders didn't exist until the mid-50s.

<comment><USER13> To add another wrinkle, some stuff was broadcast live via video and recorded to film by basically pointing a film camera at a TV. This was then used to broadcast the content in another timezone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> That's crazy. Like the architect scene from The Matrix Reloaded

</comment><comment><USER15> Calling Quantified Self! ([https://quantifiedself.com/](https://quantifiedself.com/))

Damn, that's astonishing. I hope it ends up on youtube: I still watch grainy recordings of HBO from ~1980 for laughs, would love to see what "real" TV with commercials and programming was like over 40+ years.

<comment><USER16> It's on archive.org, though there are so many tapes that they are still digitizing them. If you live in the SF bay area, go volunteer.

[https://archive.org/details/stokestvarchiveexperiment](https://archive.org/details/stokestvarchiveexperiment)

<comment><USER17> Someone needs to populate the about page. I was hoping for a gist summary to be found. [https://archive.org/details/stokestvarchiveexperiment&tab=ab...](https://archive.org/details/stokestvarchiveexperiment&tab=about)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> This is a ridiculous question: would any of these transmissions, via VHF or satellite uplink, have been capable of escaping our solar system and be receivable by some distant intelligent life in some distant solar system? Or would the signal be completely lost to background solar radiation or otherwise simply not be capable of transmitting that far?

How much of what's transmitted around the Earth escapes?

<comment><USER19> Well, the signal escapes but would be very hard to pick out and very weak. You'd probably have to have something like a better version of the radio telescope they used to get a black hole image. It's hard to say it would be impossible though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> This sounds really expensive! No mention in the article of how she managed it.

<comment><USER14> her husband had money

 _rom 1968 to 1971, she had co-produced Input, a Sunday-morning talk show airing on the local Philadelphia CBS affiliate, with John S. Stokes Jr., who would later become her husband. Input brought together academics, community and religious leaders, activists, scientists, and artists to openly discuss social justice issues and other topics of the day._

<comment><USER21> The article has a better explanation later on:

"She eschewed Tivo, and although she was an early and evangelical investor in Apple Inc., she never sent an email in her life. She even managed to convince the rest of the already-wealthy Stokes clan to buy Apple stock, which paid off in spades. She funneled these funds into her recording project and the massive storage space she required as the sole force behind it."

It comes down to savvy investments on her part and family money, not just "she spent her husband's money".

<comment><USER22> And interesting dedication to a large venture.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Lunch with Sean Parker: on how he's coping with his new reputation - <AUTHOR> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/8383ab06-45e3-11e0-acd8-00144feab49a.html#axzz1FkqxeoCx <comment><USER2> I thought this was a great quote:

"You have got to be willing to be poor [as an entrepreneur]," he says. "There was a time when I was living out of a single suitcase. I had a rule that I wouldn't stay on one person's couch for more than two weeks because I didn't want to become a bother."

You've got to be willing to make sacrifices if you want to chase your dreams. A lot of people don't fully grasp that when they are coming in.

<comment><USER3> Even small-scale stuff that nobody writes articles about like putting a personal guarantee on a 2-year commercial office lease or a line of credit qualifies as sacrifice and is actually quite risky.

I'd offer a small edit on the premise and say that it isn't necessarily a willingness to be poor, but a willingness to _go broke for your convictions_ that is important. Being poor/impoverished is a mindset, being broke is a temporary condition.

Somewhat tangentially related is the derivatives trader mindset which I have been reading about recently.

<comment><USER4> "Being poor/impoverished is a mindset, being broke is a temporary condition."

I'd say being poor/impoverished is a lack of money and a lack of friends or family with money (otherwise whose couch are you going to crash on?). (Only) being broke is just the former.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Loved the attitude in the quote: "So is a billion dollars cool? He ponders the question carefully. "No, it's not," he says. "It's not cool. I think being a wealthy member of the establishment is the antithesis of cool. Being a countercultural revolutionary is cool. So to the extent that you've made a billion dollars, you've probably become uncool." "

<comment><USER6> It's a good idea to ask yourself what your goal is. Do you actually want to make a billion dollars? At what expense? Some things correlate much better with happiness than cash.

<comment><USER7> Money has made more happiness than has poverty.

<comment><USER8> Sure, but "have enough money to avoid poverty" is a much different goal than "make a billion dollars".

<comment><USER9> Yes. Once you reach a certain level of income the increase in happiness levels off. (Around 60k in the US apparently.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Here we have a headline that for once is exquisitely accurate: the article is more about lunch than it is about Sean Parker.

<comment><USER11> I completely agree. While sitting in my basement in a t-shirt and sweatpants, I happened upon a very interesting headline on Hacker News... (I'll stop, I'm no good at it)

I found it really excruciating to read this article. I realize that there's a sort of _formula_ for telling a story in news magazines (and I appreciate that it is an art form), but it drives me crazy when the _story_ is more about the interview circumstances and less about ... anything, really.

... Then I realized something that I've found unique about Hacker News over the last several years: The submitter added the bit about "how he's coping with his new reputation". So I can neither fault FT for writing a _story_ , nor can I fault the submitter for finding something about the story that I'd find interesting (to the contrary, I greatly appreciate the service).

Perhaps it's a new startup idea (or an old one done in many different ways [newser or even wikipedia]) ... _the point_ in more than 200 characters and less than 4 paragraphs. Bonus if it includes customization to the reader's interests.

EDIT: phrasing.

<comment><USER12> All of you thinking about this is such a long article with no meat, why he describes food so much, hold off a bit. This is THE format of the column, he does this every week with interesting people (mostly in showbiz), its just relevant to HN due to Sean Parker.

<comment><USER10> I guessed that from the format of the article and from its original title, which as I pointed out is unusually accurate: the person being interviewed is secondary, after the lunch.

It's a strange argument, though, to say that criticism must be less valid because they do this every week.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> his character in the film was my favorite. i didn't think he was portrayed as an asshole at all; in fact, he seemed pretty badass. and the scene with the stanford girl was like the quintessential moment every geek dreams of. "you just slept _on_ sean parker." classic.

<comment><USER14> I'm happy to see I'm not alone. I wondered if the fact I saw the film dubbed to Spanish made me lost some nuances.

To those who think that the character is an asshole, maybe you could answer if it's because the interpretation (demeanor or tone of voice) or the behavior.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> What's the purpose of including the entire bill?

They also left out some key details:

(1) Who paid? (2) How much did they tip?

<comment><USER13> it's the format of the piece. he goes to lunch with interesting people at interesting places and includes what they ate.

<comment><USER16> That's great and all, but what I really wanted to know is how he used his napkin? Was it folded in a triangle in his lap or a rectangle...gasp, did he use one at all?!

Superfluous information is superfluous information.

That said, I still skimmed it for the bits and pieces I found interesting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Its a pretty interesting read. I've got to say i can see the similarities between his portrayal in the movie and his portrayal in the article and while both of those might be untrue, its still interesting. Personally though, i dont really think hes an asshole.

</comment><comment><USER18> I also noticed the similarities between the article and his character's introduction in The Social Network. In fact, the similarity is a bit suspect. Either Sean is actually a socialite robot who operates the exact same way every time he enters a restaurant or the author saw the movie first and has some unconscious drive to make the real Parker fit that mold. Either way, he doesn't seem like an asshole, he seems calculated. He's branded himself; he makes you hate him then like him...he keeps people interested and as a result hes extraordinarily successful.</comment>


Uber's baffling claim that its drivers aren't core to its business, explained - <AUTHOR> https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/9/16/20868916/uber-ab5-argument-legal-experts-california <comment><USER2> Uber considers that human drivers are just a temporary solution until autonomous cars become available.

More broadly, drivers are not what makes Uber Uber. Their app and tech are.

</comment><comment><USER3> Uber: Our drivers are not a core part of our business.

Driver: Okay, then I'm an independent contractor and I get to set my own prices.

Uber: You're fired.</comment>


HOPE X Streaming Live - <AUTHOR> http://hope.net/stream.html <comment><USER2> If you want to watch it in VLC and not the web player:

        vlc "http://livestream-f.akamaihd.net/686369_3195566_97867750_1_2096@120921?v=3.0.3&fp=LNX%2011,2,202,394&r=TISMC&g=UNUKFSXFPFLU"

<comment><USER3> Is anyone else having issues with this stopping every 30 seconds or so? I can't get a continual stream going at all w/ VLC. The site flash players load nothing for me either.

<comment><USER2> Their streaming is real bad, if you're on wireless you're somewhat SOL. It would stop a ton on wireless I had to plug in to get a good stream.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers in 1971. More details: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg)

</comment><comment><USER5> Live transcription of Ellsberg/Snowden talks: [http://piratepad.net/hopex- ellsberg-snowden](http://piratepad.net/hopex-ellsberg-snowden)

</comment><comment><USER6> I'm pretty amazed at how well the streaming is working. It's all volunteers, and they're doing a great job.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! I'll relay on your words to those responsible.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is a relevant and interesting read from Ellsberg's book Secrets: [http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/02/daniel- ellsber...](http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/02/daniel-ellsberg- limitations-knowledge)

</comment><comment><USER8> I hope all of the talks are put on Youtube or somewhere soon. I want to watch all of them.</comment>


KeenWrite: A Text Editor - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/DaveJarvis/keenwrite/blob/master/README.md <comment><AUTHOR> KeenWrite[0] is my desktop text editor that supports interpolated strings, R statements, and simple TeX expressions[1], all in real-time. The screenshot below shows a -π approximation found by tweaking inputs to the quadratic equation. An older video[2] shows some non-math scenarios.

Would appreciate reading your thoughts on integrated interpolated strings.

[0]: [https://github.com/DaveJarvis/keenwrite](https://github.com/DaveJarvis/keenwrite)

[1]: [https://i.ibb.co/MSxVyHM/keenwrite- hn.png](https://i.ibb.co/MSxVyHM/keenwrite-hn.png)

[2]: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_dFd6UhdV8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_dFd6UhdV8)</comment>


Javascript Hacks for Hipsters - <AUTHOR> http://berzniz.com/post/68001735765/javascript-hacks-for-hipsters

<comment><USER2> Pretty lame, beginner's stuff, some of it not useful

Leave stuff like

        statement1 && statement2

to code minifiers</comment>


Google Pays Its DeepMind Tech Professionals a Huge Salary - <AUTHOR> https://insights.dice.com/2019/08/08/google-deepmind-professionals-salary/ <comment><USER2> I don't understand why this is news, or on the front page here. Google pays highly skilled, highly technical people a lot of money. End of story.

<comment><USER3> It's unusual in the context of Britain, I'd say, usually there's quite a well defined pay scale, with grades of worker, skilled worker, management, senior management, etc. It's all very class based. The exception is for self-employed contractors, which can be higher. But in general the notion of non-management salaried workers getting paid £300k upwards would be very surprising for a lot of people.

<comment><USER4> Experts at the top of their field in an advanced industry getting paid $300k would be surprising in the UK?

<comment><USER5> Yes. Outside of the US, salaries for non-managers rarely break $100k. Switzerland is probably an exception, but that's just because the average salary in Switzerland is really high, as are living costs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > ...no doubt it's working on impressive, world-changing things behind the > scenes.

Not really. Those salaries are there to keep these smart people from doing something world-changing that might contest Google's Internet domination.

For Google, the less productive they are, the better.

<comment><USER2> That's awfully cynical

<comment><USER7> Not really, professional sports salaries often work the same way- teams who have a superstar can't afford to have the star play for the competition even if they could win without the star playing for their team.

<comment><USER8> Sports isn't an equation. The human elements by far outweigh the "on paper" strength of the team. Also you never know who is going to get injured or when, so teams will stack their roster. The only thing that stops the biggest teams from having all awesome players is financials (either salary cap/financial fair play, or simple economics)

Look at how the Patriots succeed, for example. On paper, they are nowhere near the best NFL team. But they contend for championships almost every year.

The only example I can think of recently is Kimi Raikkonen in F1. Ferrari paid him his usual salary after removing him from the first team (each team in F1 only has two seats, then sometimes there is a reserve and an additional test driver role, mostly for the simulator). The agreement was they would continue to pay him his regular F1 driver salary, as long as he didn't race for any other F1 team.

He spent a year doing rally, did a couple of NASCAR races, snowmobile, motocross, and came back the following year for Renault.

Funnily enough, a few years later he returned as a first team driver for Ferrari for a few additional years and now races for Alfa Romeo.

His main thing is he hates promotional appearances (stuff like commercials and autograph signings) and restrictions (he has a private motocross track and shop, and he refuses to race for any team that won't let him ride motorcycles and snowmobiles and whatever the F else he wants to do).

<comment><USER9> _Sports isn 't an equation_

Tell that to Billy Beane, general manager of the Oakland A's, who used statistical analysis and team interaction models (i.e. "equations") to turn propel the team into the top ranks with salary expenses of only 1/3th of the other top teams. The story was described in the book Moneyball and dramatized in the film of the same name.

<comment><USER10> This is a common misconception. Beane did use statistics, but the central point of Moneyball was how he found market inefficiencies and exploited them. Other teams were using statistics as well, but it was Beane who applied market principles.

That's basically what early Michael Lewis books were about: exploiting market inefficiencies.

(Agree with your larger point about sports, however.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This includes benefits, retirement, etc. According to levels.fyi, not far off from other Bay Area tech companies.

<comment> blaser-waffle Yeah when you consider the total comp, 400k doesn't sound crazy if there is stock, sign-on bonus, retirement/pension/401k, expected bonus, insurance (health/dental/life/whatever isn't covered by the UK NHS), etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> 1% acceptance rate of new hires — they have to compensate those they hire for making it through the gauntlet, because if the process works, they've just hired the best of the best and the best of the best would qualify for some ridiculous salaries given their likely high opportunity costs (one would think a duo or trio of Google engineers would make for a compelling startup team potentially worth millions so paying high figure salaries as guaranteed income could be a good compromise).

<comment><USER13> _1% acceptance rate of new hires — they have to compensate those they hire for making it through the gauntlet_

But there are loads of companies, universities, whatever making that claim. If you get 100 applicants and 90 are just spamming their resumes everywhere or are recruiters doing it, 9 go elsewhere or stay put for whatever reason, and you get 1 then you get that 1% but it doesn't really mean anything.

<comment><USER9> Most companies may say "we hire the best", but what they really mean is "we hire the best we can get".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> If a few people making $500,000 come up with breakthrough ideas that lead to AGI, then Google would be able to easily recoup their entire DeepMind payroll many times over. Because, how much would that really be worth? $100 billion? $1 trillion?

<comment><USER15> That's up to the AGI to decide! ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> The median salary at google is 246,804. It has about 100k employees. That means 50% make more than that which is about 50k people. I guess they have 700 employee who make about 581k. It seems the are on the right side of the curve.

<comment><USER17> How are you able to make those assumptions using just the median? Did you assume a normal distribution with some arbitrary variance?

>It has about 100k employees. That means 50% make more than that which is about 50k people.

No it doesn't, a typical business has far more people making minimum wage than it does making millions.

<comment><USER18> Yes, it does, median is the value defined as 50% of the set

The "median" is the "middle" value in the list of numbers. To find the median, your numbers have to be listed in numerical order from smallest to largest, so you may have to rewrite your list before you can find the median.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> There's really only one interesting fact in this story for the HN crowd (who already know about tech salaries at the top), and it's this:

 _Pay is basically doubling every year ... Last year, the company earned £102 million (admittedly up from £54 million) a year earlier._

So both pay/headcount and revenue doubled.

Tech firms hiring isn't news. What shocked me here is that DeepMind makes £100 million pounds a year off anything. What are they doing, exactly? I thought they didn't have any products. Is this based on some kind of funny inter-firm accounting where the main Google HQ pays them IP licensing fees? Or do they have lines of business they aren't talking about much?

Anyone know?

</comment><comment><USER20> I think Google pays a lot of its "tech professionals" a huge salary – it's just easier to break out and analyse for a single unit like DeepMind.

<comment><USER21> An anecdote from Reddit on a guy earning >$500k

[https://www.reddit.com/r/cscareerquestions/comments/cdp9yz/a...](https://www.reddit.com/r/cscareerquestions/comments/cdp9yz/another_data_point_on_industry_hire_in_the_bay/)

<comment> blaser-waffle From the link:

"I interviewed at Airbnb, Facebook, Lyft, Uber, and 3 other companies. I received offers from Facebook, Lyft, Uber, and 2 other companies. First year total compensation ranged from 380k~500k from both public and private companies, 2nd year comp was around 400k for most of them. The offer numbers correlated with my interview performance, and from my research, it seems like some companies offer standardized offers to every candidate. Surprisingly the private companies did not beat out the public companies in equity package.

 _Breakdown was around 180~210 base, 500~800 equity, and 0~100 sign-on._ " [emphasis added]

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I don't think that's how these calculations should be done.

Let's assume that all of their estimates are correct, in most European countries the difference between what you cost an employee and what you take home is often more than a factor of two. Now I'm not quite sure about the UK, but I know about France and Italy and in both those cases if you spend 100 your employee takes home around 40.

<comment><USER23> [https://www.thesalarycalculator.co.uk/salary.php](https://www.thesalarycalculator.co.uk/salary.php)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Doesn't this include all the costs of an employee, like health benefits, insurance, and amortizing things like office space, HR and company services...

</comment><comment><USER25> Is this more to keep already grown talent from joining competition, or because there is really huge shortage of talent in this area?

</comment><comment><USER26> Looks like rather flawed back-of-envelope calculations to get those salary numbers... anyone with more credible sources?

<comment><USER26> "... average salaries of Google's DeepMind staff in Great Britain, which amounted to $345,000 per employee."

[https://www.top500.org/news/ai-engineers-commanding-six- figu...](https://www.top500.org/news/ai-engineers-commanding-six-figure- salaries/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Funny... I studied planning, reinforcement learning etc and what was once almost a backwater is now big business.

</comment><comment><USER28> How is deepmind making any money ? i'm surprised they're making any money at all..

<comment><USER27> I would imagine that some of their tech will be integrated into Google/Alphabet projects. Also DeepMind is a long play.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Are they even factoring in the cost of compute required to train their systems ?</comment>


Third Generation iPad: It's All in the Pixels - <AUTHOR> http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/review/third_generation_ipad_its_all_in_the_pixels/ <comment><USER2> This is the best review of the new iPad (3rd generation) you'll find anywhere.</comment>


The IKEA Test for New Hires in Startups - <AUTHOR> https://firstname.lastname@example.com/the-ikea-test-for-new-hires-3e9a50d97241 <comment><USER2> I get it you dropped the ball. we all make mistakes. No problem will get someone in to fix it.

[https://www.taskrabbit.com](https://www.taskrabbit.com)

Don't have a corp card yet. Should I sign us up for this? [https://www.expensepoint.com/](https://www.expensepoint.com/)

Now that the distractions are over, let's focus on what we're here to get done.</comment>


Should Your Mobile Startup Offer a Free App Alongside a Paid App? - <AUTHOR> http://www.readwriteweb.com/start/2011/05/should-your-mobile-startup-off.php <comment><USER2> It's a media piece disguised as content, which is disappointing because this is a topic I wanted to read more about. I tried ditching my free version and my app sales and overall revenue dropped. Curious to hear about the experiences of other developers.

</comment><comment><USER3> 53 submissions in 4 days?

<http://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=jemeshsu>

<comment><USER4> What is the worst it could be? Karma farming?</comment></comment>


The Pentagon still uses computer software from 1958 to manage its contracts - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/pentagon-computers-software-from-1958-2017-3 <comment><AUTHOR> The original link was even better:

What Is the Oldest Computer Program Still in Use?

https//www.technologyreview.com/s/538966/what-is-the-oldest-computer-program- still-in-use/</comment>


Ask HN: What are some niche for Software market? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Openedge ABL is a niche language.</comment>


Cloud Failures Are Serious - Time to Revisit P2P? - <AUTHOR> http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/google_failures_serious_time_t.php <comment><USER2> There's obviously a lot of potential in P2P. Bittorrent video sharing clearly shows this. I think that it could support independent media in the same way that the web supported sharing of information through HTML.

If you abandon the notion of timeslots, a protocol like Bittorrent is quite capable of supporting a weekly or daily TV show. Instead of timeslots, you just have channels which contain series. People subscribe to series, which show up in their app or TV appliance like they do in Tivo. This could be supported using RSS. The big issue is ease of use. If someone could put all of these technologies together, such that a "channel" or a "station" for video shows on the web was as easy to set up as a website, and easy to connect to for a user, you'd see an explosion of such sites, which happened with web sites and low quality video snippets (YouTube).

Web protocols which can support P2P live streaming as well as Bittorrent supports download would be the final ingredient of TV's demise.</comment>


Hashed Time-lock Contracts - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@cryptoshot/so-how-do-i-really-do-an-atomic-swap-f797852c7639 <comment><USER2> This is a very poorly written article. [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=193281.msg2224949#ms...](https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=193281.msg2224949#msg2224949) is a much more clear description of how atomic swaps actually work.

<comment><USER3> [https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Contract#Example_5:_Trading_acros...](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Contract#Example_5:_Trading_across_chains) is also a good description with scripts and all.</comment></comment>


Email Encryption Grew Tremendously, but Still Needs Work: 2014 in Review - <AUTHOR> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/12/email-encryption-surged-2014-still-needs-work-2014-review

<comment><USER2> Is there any way to know if my Gmail message will be protected by StartTLS before I press 'Send'? That is, is there a Google API that takes the recipient email address and tells me if StartTLS will be used?

<comment> mike-cardwell It's not possible to know if STARTTLS will be used before you send a message. Because the sending system will only use STARTTLS if it's advertised _during delivery_.

 _Unless_ both the sending and receiving system support DNSSEC+DANE. GMail doesn't support DANE.

<comment><USER3> Thank god.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> A while back I documented the steps necessary to encrypt GMail using Thunderbird on Windows. Does anyone have a working list of instructions for encrypting e-mail that are significantly simpler?

[http://davidjarvis.ca/encryption/](http://davidjarvis.ca/encryption/)

In other words, how can the number of steps to achieve desktop e-mail encryption be reduced to the point where the majority of users can accomplish this task autonomously--and what are those steps?

Happy New Year!

</comment><comment><USER5> There's only a passing mention of end-to-end encryption. I'm concerned that email content encryption would break basically all anti-spam technologies... Here's some previous discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8275970](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8275970)

<comment><USER6> I don't get it.

Full end-to-end encryption means you can validate the identity of the sender. Once you can do that blacklisting bad actors or whitelisting known-good actors is trivial.

Even hijacking accounts in this model for the purpose of sending spam doesn't work unless you can also gain access to the private key, which itself would be non-trivial. Encrypt that private key with a strong passphrase and you're in even better shape.

What am I missing?

<comment><USER7> _you can validate the identity of the sender_

No you cannot.

 _Encrypting_ and _authenticating_ are two separate acts. Mutt with GPG/PGP support makes this clear -- your options are to _sign_ (authenticate + integrity) and/or _encrypt_ a message (you can do either, both, or none).

It's possible that you'll still be able to do header checks, though if people move increasingly to onion routing their Internet traffic, a lot of source- based validation (IP checks) will fail.

A great deal of spam detection works on noting the origin _and_ contents of messages, and yes, absolutely, encryption makes that harder.

It does, however, also increase the costs for the spammer. And there might be other ways to improve protocols. But it's a challenge.

<comment><USER6> I'm quite aware that encryption and authentication are separable elements in a PKI cryptosystem. But I don't believe that invalidates my point.

Assuming a PKI cryptosystem, I can (and I contend should) greylist all emails that aren't signed by senders in my whitelist.

Again, I accept I could be missing something here. Maybe that model doesn't scale effectively or something. I don't know, I admit I haven't thought the use cases through that thoroughly. It certainly adds a burden on the receiver side, but it works (unlike today where whitelists can be defeated by forging the sender address in the email header).

Of course, it's true that the original comment is fundamentally correct: encryption basically obsoletes existing anti-spam technologies if the payload is encrypted. It just seems to me that e2e crypto provides the tools for a whole different range of anti-spam options that aren't possible today.

<comment><USER8> End-to-end encryption does not invalidate most existing anti-spam technologies. However, these technologies will need to run after decrypting the content, which may mean on the end user's machine(s). Less processing horsepower will be available than with server-side techniques, but the same techniques can still apply. If your mobile device and desktop PC both possess your decryption key, then your desktop PC could act as the anti-spam engine and transmit a list of good messages to your mobile device.

A bigger problem would be ISPs who wish to keep their anti-spam techniques confidential and evaluate them only on their own servers. Allowing the end- users to download the scanning logic and run it locally would create a risk of divulging their proprietary techniques. The ability to keep software truly confidential and under its creator's control is one of the motivating factors behind the rise of software as a service.

Whitelisting can also go a long way toward allowing only preapproved authorized senders to communicate with you using end-to-end encryption. The remaining senders might communicate with messages that are encrypted to your ISP instead. The DIME protocol anticipates this sort of layered encryption: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8816806](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8816806) When someone wishes to communicate with you using end-to-end encryption, they might first send an "introduction" message encrypted to your ISP, which can be scanned. Then the receiver can decide to authorize the sender for E2E or not.

<comment><USER7> The thing about post-receipt decryption is that:

⚫ It's expensive. Far cheaper to block in TCP or SMTP sessions.

⚫ If you cannot make and SMTP-time determination, you're going to end up with a nondelivery status message rather than an SMTP bounce. If you remember the days when these were common, the principle problem is joe-jobbing users with spoofed sender addresses. One option is not to send the NDS, which means that email becomes less reliable (than it already is).

⚫ TCP/SMTP time adjudication means you can leverage information in realtime. Waiting until keys are available means that the spammer has more time to spam before being detected (and possibly reported to spam-detection systems).

⚫ Receiver needs to spool potentially large volumes of spam.

None of these are killers, but they do change the game.

I'm leaning toward systems with 1) pervasive whitelisting, or 2) hold-and- notify, or 3) ticket-based permissions. Several of these would require extensions to or replacement of bits of present SMTP.

Pervasive whitelisting means that you've got an approved sender list, and non- whitelisted mail is either rejected or deferred. Deferral might well be sufficient to avert much spam.

Hold-and-notify would be a radical change. A system sending mail would effectively poll receiving servers "hey, I've got a message for you" (possibly with metadata), and the _receiving_ system would then poll the sender to fetch the message. This allows receiving systems to pre-fetch any verification / validation data it needs to assess message quality. It also puts the burden on the sending system to both 1) hold outgoing messages for retrieval and 2) persist online (many spam boxes are booted fairly quickly). As a bonus, nondelivery will be easier to assess (if your message isn't requested, it's not delivered). I don't see this being compatible with SMTP at all.

Ticket-based permissions would require a sending system to request a ticket -- essentially an allowance to be able to deliver mail -- from the receiving host. It's a form of host-based whitelisting. This allows receiving hosts to allocate specific access levels / quality of service to specific hosts. Tickets could (and likely should) be PKI-based (to prevent forging / transfer), and would allow for a specified number of messages to be delivered within a given timeframe, after which a new ticket would have to be requested. No tickey, no laundry.

This sounds in principle similar to DIME.

Other concepts include wrapping or encrypting various parts of a message to different levels. Headers could be encrypted to the MX key of the receiving host, so that they would not be readable except to the server (and ultimate recipient). This is effectively what SSL accomplishes, though in a live-on- the-wire rather than static encryption model.

<comment><USER9> It makes receiving more expensive, but it also makes sending more expensive, and it's the people doing so in bulk that are going to feel that the hardest. I don't see how this makes things worse.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> StartTLS seems weaker than even regular TLS as a protocol. Looking forward to Google's E2E.</comment>


Tesla owners protest over drastic price cuts - <AUTHOR> https://electrek.co/2019/03/04/tesla-owners-protest-price-cuts/ <comment><USER2> The idea of buying a car as an investment that should retain value is totally alien to me. The thing starts to lose value as soon as you drive it off the lot. By the time you're done with it the car will be worth a couple hundred to a few thousand bucks. You agreed to buy at the listed price, and that's on you.

<comment><USER3> When your back two tires hit the road outside of the dealership, the car is instantly worth 20% less.

Cars don't appreciate unless they fall under the classics category, and the time frame involved is decades. Who's going to hang on to a car for 60 years in case its the next 57 Chevy?

<comment><USER4> > When your back two tires hit the road outside of the dealership, the car is > instantly worth 20% less.

No longer the case. After cash for clunkers, the used market is much more expensive than it used to be. If you're looking at reliable brands like Toyota/Honda a two-three year old (ex-lease?) model isn't even 20% off, and that has 15-20K miles on it.

There's a reason why so many people are buying new, the used market is strange/irrational for some brands. And new vehicle incentives/lower APR loans/safety features etc make it a hard call.

People should go check out a no-negotiation dealership (e.g. Carmax). You'll be surprised at current used prices compared to new.

<comment><USER5> Your information is out of date. Cash for clunkers was a while ago.

I work in the used car industry and across the board (on average) used cars depreciate at about 1.5% to 2% per month! Some are slightly better and some are worse, but the vast majority depreciate in that range.

<comment><USER4> > Your information is out of date.

I am shopping for cars right now, I'm talking about my current experience with the cost of recently used vehicles (specifically Toyota, Honda, and other reliable brands).

> I work in the used car industry and across the board (on average) used cars > depreciate at about 1.5% to 2% per month!

Where can I buy these two year old vehicles that are 48% off? Or a three year old vehicle for 72% off? I'm seriously asking, link me to a 2017 Toyota Highlander Limited for $22K or a 2016 Limited for only $11K...

Locally a 2017 Toyota Highlander Limited is $32K with __65K miles on it __. Or $36K with under 20K miles, that 's a two year old likely ex-lease vehicle that has a 15% discount, but a higher APR, worse features, higher maintenance costs, diminished warranty, and a lower resale value.

The current used market is highly irrational right now. Your imagined used market where cars are 48% off after only two years sounds fantastic, but that isn't the reality on the ground.

<comment><USER5> > Where can I buy these two year old vehicles that are 48% off? Or a three > year old vehicle for 72% off? I'm seriously asking, link me to a 2017 Toyota > Highlander Limited for $22K or a 2016 Limited for only $11K...

You misunderstand what 2% depreciation means per month.

2 years at 2% would be: 1 - (0.98^24) ends up at 38.4% off, not your 48%.

3 years at 2% would be: 1 - (0.98^36) == 51.6%, not your 72%.

The reason obviously being that 2% off monthly means that the 12th month's 2% is a lower dollar amount that the first month's 2%. This is also intuitively true since a vehicle depreciates more steeply at the beginning and less over time in total dollar terms.

Also I said 1.5 to 2%. At the 1.5% end of the range, a vehicle at 3 years is: 1 - (0.985^36) == 41.9%.

<comment><USER4> > 2 years at 2% would be: 1 - (0.98^24) ends up at 38.4% off, not your 48%.

> 3 years at 2% would be: 1 - (0.98^36) == 51.6%, not your 72%.

Can you link me to a 2017 Toyota Highlander Limited for $26K or a 2016 Limited for $21K? Because I cannot find either one.

New figures, old figures, it still doesn't remotely match reality. Used vehicles don't exist at the price points you claim they exist at.

Even at 65K miles, we're talking over $31K. You're off by a huge margin.

You said:

> Your information is out of date.

Pretty sure you have that backwards. If you look at the used market it isn't remotely like what you've claimed twice now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > I've been saying it for a while, Tesla's pricing structure makes them look > like amateurs.

Nice little passive aggressive completely unargumented quip here...

As a consumer and a free (but fair) market proponent, I _want_ "amateur" pricing structures.

I don't have a lot of experience buying cars, but I recently needed some FX conversions. Compare TransferWise and OFX.

TransferWise offers transparent pricing, they do the conversion at mid market rate and add a bit of fees on top (the bigger the transaction, the lower fees are in percentage terms).

OFX advertises "no fees" but they offer wider bid/ask spread than the market does, meaning that they _do_ charge fees, but they're hidden in the price you're being offered. In addition, they're happy to improve the price if you call them out on this!

TransferWise are amateurs telling me "we offer a service". OFX are "professionals" who are communicating "we're trying to exploit amateurs with an opaque pricing structure that tries to disguise how much our customers are overpaying".

I know which one I'll be using!

Edit: a simple way to see how much you're actually paying, is to try a two-way transfer - e.g. first ask the service to give you the price for 1000 GB (say 1,160.29 EUR), then transfer that amount back to GBP (I get 992.78 GBP). Assuming symmetry, the fee for a one-way transfer then is (1000 - 992.78)/2=3.61 GBP or 0.361%.

</comment><comment> cbm-vic-20 It must suck when your status symbol is now obtainable by the peasantry.

<comment><USER7> Did you read the article or are you going by the headline? They are upset because some of these buyers got their vehicles days before the price cut.

<comment><USER8> So what? You buy something if you feel it's worth the price. They bought it for the price, regardless what the price is after.

<comment><USER9> >> Did you read the article or are you going by the headline? They are upset because some of these buyers got their vehicles days before the price cut.

> So what? You buy something if you feel it's worth the price. They bought it > for the price, regardless what the price is after.

When I was a kid, my parents bought a TV at Best Buy. That model went on sale the next week, so my parents went back to the store that weekend and were refunded the difference.

Obviously there are some limits to policies like that, but IMHO, they're the right way to treat your customers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> What? They didn't believe Musk's claims about price reductions when they bought them? I mean it's been a long time coming but he built a space program for heaven's sake.

</comment><comment><USER11> I can empathize with the anger over a price reduction when you just bought a product. I bought a truck and a month later, the dealership had an additional 5k in rebates. Same happens when you buy an expensive tv, and a couple months later, the price drops by 1-2k. Technology products are constantly becoming cheaper through innovation and to satisfy supply/demand economics.. why is a tesla any different?

If you bought a tesla for resale value, you are doing it wrong. Buying a tesla helps the environment, furthers innovation, and provides a status symbol.

<comment><USER12> Why?

It isn't as if the $35k model 3 is a surprise.

If you're willing to wait, tech things tend to get cheaper over time, should I be annoyed that had I waited instead of getting a 486 with 8mb ram, I could have got something orders of magnitude faster, for an order of magnitude less?

These people for what ever reason didn't want to wait, they paid more, in return they got some extra months/years of use of a more exclusive machine.

That's the early adopter deal.

Plus as you say, if you bought a tesla for resale value, you are doing it wrong.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> > One of those markets is Taiwan, where the price of a Model S P100D was cut > almost in half by Tesla's latest price changes – resulting in about $100,000 > in savings.

When people complain about $100 drop in price on a iPhone or whatever I don't have any sympathy, but 50% on a ~$200,000 car is... significant.

<comment><USER14> > _50% on a ~$200,000 car is... significant_

It's a luxury car.

It's not an investment. It's not a necessity. The money that was "lost" was already spent on hedonistic value. (In any case, Teslas can be returned within a number of days of purchase. The individual who bought five days before the price drop is almost certainly within that window.)

<comment><USER15> If they bought it 5 days before the announcement, there is nothing to return. They just have to cancel their order.

Then re-order.

Then wait an extra month to take delivery.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Thread on r/teslamotors about this: [https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/awvsz7/kelviny...](https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/awvsz7/kelvinyang7_the_price_drop_has_been_dramatic/)

Two good comments there: 1) "huh... i guess outrage over a price drop falls under the category of "there's no such thing as bad press"" 2) "The news accounts on weibo posted the news in a negative tone. But the comments are mainly against who demand refund over price drop. So I would say it's now viral without much backlash"

</comment><comment><USER17> Considering how drastic the changes were overseas and built in demand Tesla not only garnered poor public response they gave up a lot of free money.

hindsight is 20/20, they should have walked it down to the lowest price points over the course of the year while broadcasting the fact that they expect to cut prices continuously.

This ain't to excuse some US customers but I am afraid far too many people here are merely looking for an excuse to be a victim so that they in turn feel important. Reddit is all over the place with pro and con comments. The sense of entitlement. that some people have is astounding.

ps: if you want to see entitlement approach ridiculous levels just check out the crying in the apple sub that 5gb free cloud is pathetic, shameful, and outrageous.

</comment><comment><USER18> Sucks, but cry me a river. I'm more upset we've been tax subsidizing luxury car purchases by $7.5k for years. That should have only existed for the bottom economy models, not status symbols for the wealthy.

</comment><comment><USER19> The issue is not of value depreciation; anyone willing to drop a few thousand on a new car understands it. New buyers are pissed because they lost the opportunity cost game. They wanted their new toy NOW, and are crying because they're out thousands of dollars because they couldn't wait.

<comment><USER15> Seems more like they wanted their new toy in 52 weeks, and now they have to requeue for 53-57 weeks or forego the price drop.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Many owners are not upset because they understand that with any tech product, prices drop over time. I would venture to say most owners, but over time the clue level will be diluted so it's hard to say.

</comment><comment><USER21> If the car was worth $200k to you when you bought it, great. If it was not, why did you buy it?

</comment><comment><USER22> Do people sell insurance against "buyers remorse"?

<comment><USER23> Many companies do, it's called a price match guarantee. If this causes enough bad press I wouldn't be shocked if Tesla does it.

<comment><USER22> I've seen "price match" from the actual seller, but not third parties?

Eg "find it elsewhere cheaper ...", or "if we put it on sale within 6 weeks we'll refund the difference"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> They bet on Tesla being the Apple of the road and bet wrong by the sounds of it.

</comment><comment><USER25> This isn't Tesla's fault. It's the owners' fault. When you purchase a Tesla you are making an extremely risky decision to purchase a vehicle coming from a brand new car company. The vehicle lifetime, maintenance, price, and service quality is all an experiment right now.

Call me boring but I'll be sticking with my Toyota for a bit longer.

<comment><USER26> Can you explain what you mean about it being "extremely risky?" What's the worst that could happen, and how likely is that, even?

<comment><USER23> It could turn out to be very unreliable and Tesla could go bankrupt well before the warranty expires.</comment></comment></comment>