Crazy things happening in SF because of its out-of-control housing prices - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/why-people-are-leaving-san-francisco-2018-3 <comment><USER2> It bothers me that so few people mention the role of Proposition 13 and low property taxes for housing in all this. Proposition 13 makes it so that property taxes are fixed when you buy the house and only ever increase with inflation, whereas most other places make property tax rates proportional to the current market value of the home based on things like recent sale prices of other nearby homes. For example, in Toronto property taxes are set based on the assessed value of the property relative to the city average, and rates are set based on the municipal government's budget and expenses.[1]

As a result, it's costly for local municipal and county governments to zone for residential areas, because of the need for schools, parks, libraries, and other public services needed. If property taxes don't balance out those needs, then zoning for commercial buildings instead ends up being far more attractive to local governments. The results: more office buildings, more jobs, but insufficient housing to support them.

Increasing property taxes is tricky because of the risk of further displacing long-term residents, or older residents, who have owned their homes for a long time. But in my view the impacts of property taxes on cost of living and the housing crisis are undeniable, and it's unusual to me that so few people ever even _mention_ it in these discussions.

[1]: [https://torontoist.com/2014/01/everything-you-ever-wanted- to...](https://torontoist.com/2014/01/everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know- about-property-taxes/)

<comment><USER3> The problem with Proposition 13 is that it also applies to _commercial_ real estate.

A personal residence can only be about 30 years out of date in terms of assessment. And, when the owner dies, that assessment corrects.

Commercial real estate will get buried behind layers and layers of sublease agreements in order to avoid triggering a reassessment. At one place I worked, we had to find the actual original building owner because someone drove a car through a support beam and the rework was going to cause everything to come up to code. We _moved out_ because nobody could actually get through all the layers of subleases (11 layers when I last checked) and guarantee a completion date.

The solution is to remove the Proposition 13 protections from commercial real estate. Good luck. Every company with real estate on the books in California is going to fight you tooth and nail.

<comment><USER4> But companies don't vote.

If the people wanting that very change simply organized the requisite petition drive, I'm guessing it would pass easily. That's how Prop 13 was installed in the first place -- the Jarvis-Gann initiative amendment. Same with the California Lottery and legalized marijuana (I think the latter was just statute law, which has a lower number of required signatures.)

<comment><USER5> It requires a 2/3 majority to change it. Good luck.

<comment><USER4> No. An Initiative Constitutional Amendment requires only a simple majority of 50%+1 of votes for passage.

For example, Prop 13 itself passed with "only" 62.6%.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Ugh I'm tired of these articles that declare SF / SV are over. This is my last rant...hopefully!

They take a small group of people that actually are moving and blow it up into a trend. It's been going on for years.

Yes home prices are insane. No salary doesn't make up for it. Yes your house will be smooshed in between others unless you got a lot of money. Yes you could get 2x the house for 1/2 the price anywhere else.

But it ignores two huge factors keeping people here. One the network density for tech. There are more jobs and support here than other places. More investment dollars create more startups which hopefully have more exits which attracts more investment dollars. It's a virtuous cycle.

Two is the lifestyle. Yes there's a liberal bent but it's traditionally been one of the most open minded places in the country. There are few other places you can experience so much of life's variety within a 3 hr drive.

And the whole remote working thing sounds logical but I see few companies actually widely adopting it. A lot of people prefer to connect in person, even though there is no rational reason why anymore.

<comment><USER7> > been one of the most open minded places in the country

Not at all. I've lived in several states and I think you're conflating the "liberalness" with open mindedness. If anything, the Bay Area is one of the most closed-minded places in the country. There's absolutely no room for conservative ideas

<comment><USER8> I'd question that, with a caveat: if you want to _live your life_ by conservative principles, nobody's going to care in the Bay Area. If you want _other people to live their lives_ by your conservative principles, that's when people start to get pissed at you.

I know plenty of Christians in the Bay Area - my wife grew up in a conservative, evangelical household (and her parents are still very devout), so basically everyone she hung out with up through college runs in those circles. We don't personally drink or smoke out, though we have no problem with people who do. I have friends that go shooting regularly. I've been to a gun range with them, and enjoyed myself. My politics run mostly moderate libertarian - I'm for lower taxes and smaller government, but also believe that government has a role in righting externalities and ensuring a level playing field for everyone.

I've never met anyone in the Bay who has a problem with how I live my life - but then, I don't believe that other people need to live their lives the way I live mine.

<comment><USER9> Peter Thiel or the Oculus guy might disagree, but you might not hear them over the thousands of people demanding they be fired/divested from/run out of town.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The regulations that prevent new building are the work of incumbent residents -- people who have been here for many decades, support the arts and fly under the radar when it comes to assigning responsibility for this situation.

</comment><comment><USER11> I don't live in SF. I visited a few times and it's not my cup of tea. I prefer LA and plan to stay here forever.

LA is expensive as well, but there are places that you can rent on the cheap, or at least a reasonable amount of money, and be safe. If this wasn't the case, LA as a city would break down. We need music, artists, actors, people pouring coffee, and serving tables to keep this city alive. We need a poor person living in the same building as an executive. On top of that, we need places where poor people can afford to eat, so there is a McDonalds anywhere you go.

I bring up McD's because I was "over-fooded" in SF and went on a desperate search for something trashy to eat, almost to no avail.

I'm just wondering how SF is able to sustain itself and how it plans to sustain itself in the future if they push all the poor people to such a distance that they can't even take the BART or bus to work anymore.

The other difference is that LA is very much a gig economy. There are a LOT of people out here that either don't have a job and live just fine, or they have a day job and do random gigs during their off-hours. As someone once told me, you don't sleep in LA, you just rest. Others have pointed out that this is a work area, and so on. But even so, there are so many different industries down here that you can, with time, talent, and luck, have sustainable life and your own place, well outside tech, movies, music, art, and so on.

My impression is that the bay area is an area with a few viable ways to make a living. Is it just that the lower class has to live in the dangerous areas of Oakland (and elsewhere) to just have a roof over their head?

<comment><USER12> > My impression is that the bay area is an area with a few viable ways to make > a living, and is it just that the lower class has to live in the dangerous > areas of Oakland (and elsewhere) to just have a roof over their head?

There is no shortage of fast food workers, waiters, retail workers, coffee shop workers, handymen, etc. It's expensive to live in the Bay Area, but clearly those people are able to make a living or they wouldn't be around anymore.

And they don't all commute from far away. I know plenty of people working those jobs who live in the Bay Area near their places of work.

<comment><USER13> There's a lot of inertia to people and their geography. The absolute loss of non-tech activity may be small for now, but ask anyone who hires people outside our industry where the think their organization will be in 10 years.

A colleague once remarked, "It's the second derivative of the thing that'll get you."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> There are a lot of causes for this. But one of the easiest to fix: VCs don't like getting on planes.

I've lived here since Bubble 1.0, but I still keep in touch with people in the midwest. There are plenty of startup-oriented people there, but in their view to get real investment, they have to move to SF.

It'd be great to see more companies starting and growing in places where housing and office spaced is reasonably priced. The Internet has made location much less important for so many things; we should make that true for startups as well.

<comment><USER15> To be fair to them, flying does cause a lot of time waste and hassles.

The curious thing is that expansion to places within reasonable driving distance like East Bay has been slow as well. Is the cost saving from East Bay locations not large enough or is it some other factors?

<comment><USER13> The BART-connected East Bay is only a little cheaper, and many SF and SV employees already live there. (On my last team, _everyone_ commuted at least an hour on BART).

Sacramento is almost a normal American city in terms of real estate prices. It would be pretty reasonable to live and work there, and take the train to SF for investor meetings.

<comment><USER15> In that case, moving the office to East Bay would save everyone about 2 hours each work day? Seems like an amazing benefit for everyone involved—-less commuting time & stress, better productivity, greater employee satisfaction. Why haven't more companies move there? Really curious.

<comment><USER13> When you're in SF, people can also commute from the Peninsula. Also there is probably more office space in walking distance of a single Market St. BART stop than the entire East Bay network put together.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> "WeWork, a startup that rents out shared workspaces, branched into co-living in 2016. Their "dorms for grown-ups" are intended for people moving to a city and looking for fast friends.The company, which has a $20 billion valuation, has two locations: one in New York and one in Crystal City, Virginia, outside DC. The average apartment is just 450 square feet."

How does a company running glorified dormitories have a $20 billion valuation with only two locations?

<comment><USER17> You misread it. WeWork is a huge, international network of co-working office spaces that also happens to be experimenting with two co-living locations.

See [https://www.wework.com/locations](https://www.wework.com/locations)

<comment><USER18> Still incredibly overvalued -- they're just sublessors. They don't own their real estate.

<comment><USER19> Could be but they're middlemen providing a valuable service. It's a one-stop shop for a work environment. The landlord benefits because they have a regular income stream & don't need to worry about tenants coming & going. Customers get to adjust their needs on a month-to-month basis for a smaller up-front cost than they could get leasing themselves & can dynamically adjust if they grow. Similarly, they don't need to worry about setting up internet service & any of the other things WeWork offers. Additionally you can cheaply temporarily rent space if you have travel needs. That's the value-add. Now how successful they will be I don't know but I fail to see why real estate ownership matters here.

<comment><USER20> Personally I think WeWork is pretty exposed to any kind of economic downturn as most of their customers are burning cheap VC money. If half those companies were serious about getting profitable they'd go somewhere else with half the amenities at a quarter of the price.

<comment><USER21> There aren't places like this with short term leases. You either get expensive month-to-month (or slightly cheaper year to year) or you get a cheap 5-10 year lease.

If you are not established enough to take a 5 year lease, then wework (and their competitors, of which there are many) make a lot of financial sense, especially for the flexibility — e.g. if you downsize, rent goes down accordingly in 1 month. No "cheap" lease has this feature.

Also, WeWork is cheap compared to prices Regus used to charge 5 years ago; I would assume Regus did respond to the price pressure, but I haven't checked.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> "-because of it's out of control housing regulation" _

<comment><USER23> Arguably SF doesnt have stricter regulation than any other big city (save for seismic) - but the demand far exceeds the units the type of regulation the city has, will allow to be built.

<comment><USER24> The zoning definitely is more restrictive than other major cities.

And it's even worse in the Silicon Valley towns - Palo Alto, Mountain View, etc. The zoning restrictions there are absolutely bananas.

<comment><USER4> How, specifically, is zoning different in Mountain View from elsewhere in the Bay Area?

<comment><USER25> It's not but it's true that there are some restrictions in many cities on building higher than 1-story or 2-story houses.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Laws of use and laws of possession always seem to come down to enabling benefit for current holders over future holders.

Thing is, changing this is like changing the gravitational constant. It's baked into the DNA of property rights, leases and taxes.

sanFran is maybe on an extreme here for the USA but it's not necessarily worse than say Tokyo, or the eggegious failure of leasehold in London, or a number of worldwide housing issues

</comment><comment><USER27> What is the average 1BR apartment going for now in SF? (I'm not sure that Craiglist or quoted outliers are entirely representative, and am interested in the experiences of people more familiar with the market.)

> This is how people outside the area imagine living in San Francisco.

She doesn't seem to think much of her readers.

> San Francisco's chief housing inspector deemed living in boxes illegal.

<comment><USER25> Around $3000/month for a 1-bedroom.

<comment><USER28> So someone making 100k spends half their disposable income for a 1-bedroom?

<comment><USER29> Pretty sure we started the intern we hired at 120k base salary plus like 20k in stock a year. So you know, don't accept an offer that only pays $100k.

But more seriously, my $3k apt is fairly high end. I toured a number of apartments in the $2k range, which is still kind of absurd, but then again McDonalds is offering like $17/hr an hour as a starting wage and still struggles to hire. At 2000 hours a year, that's a $34k annual wage, and you'd still probably need a 2nd job to make ends meet. Or get paid under the table and save yourself a good 5 thousand bucks on income / payroll taxes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> > The median-priced home in San Francisco sells for $1.5 million, according to > Paragon. It's not uncommon for buyers to bid hundreds of thousands above > asking and pay in all cash.

Who are these people? There are a lot of homes there, so there must be a whole lot of buyers with $1M in cash. There are enough of them that they even try to outbid each other by slapping an extra $100k no top of asking price.

<comment><USER8> There actually aren't a whole lot of homes _on the market_ (much of the city's housing stock is either rental properties or is owned by longtime residents who ain't moving anytime soon), but to answer your question: anyone who's been at Google, Apple, or Facebook since 2009, got stock options, and held them. Google stock has appreciated 7x since then, Apple 10x, FB a whopping 35x. $100K in stock options is actually a pretty small options package over 4 years, but if you got that much in FB stock when the whole company was worth $15B, that's now worth $3.5M.

<comment><USER30> Thanks, I think that explains it. I guess with enough tech companies and enough exits happening they'd be good amount of these people to skew the market.

<comment><USER31> And the market in SF and other Bay Area cities is _really small_. I recently read that Cupertino has only a dozen houses on the market total, and SF may have as many as hundreds or even a couple thousand (in a city with a population over 800,000). Actually, I just looked at Zillow and there are 17 properties on the market in Cupertino, which had about 20,000 households as of 2010.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> > San Francisco's median two-bedroom rent of $3,040

Is it? It's hearsay, of course, but I was told it's closer to $4K.

<comment><USER33> Not sure where that stat comes from but I suspect that median value would include rent controlled apartments. My 1908 era 6 unit apartment building on the edge of the mission is about $3900 for a 2 bedroom place which is 3 empty rooms, a bathroom and a kitchen. I do like the location but I can hear the upstairs neighbors drop a fork and it wobbles whenever a bart train goes underneath.

<comment><USER32> I see, that makes sense now - thank you.

It's mind-boggling for me that a hundred-plus year old house costs that much, frankly.

<comment><USER33> It's also 1 block from one of the famous under-freeway homeless encampments.

One more anecdote, since part of this discussion is about rent control and how it affects peoples choices living in the area. I currently pay ~ $2150 because I've lived there for 8 years. That's why I'm also holding on to the place even though I currently work in San Jose (a 1 hour drive each way). I'd pay even more than I currently do for a place down there, but probably less than a new tenant moving in here (SJ is merely the 3rd most expensive area in the US). The commute sucks, but I prefer to hang out in SF on the weekends.

So yeah, maybe the landlord is missing on a bit of opportunity cost because I live there, but as soon as I move out, it would go to market rate. They could make an extra $20k/year if I moved out but I think generally having a stable tenant in the long run is a benefit, and they've certainly profited far more than that from owning the property. Tenant turnover is pretty high, from what I've seen most people only live here for a year or two.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Is there any part of this site where some suggestions could be made to moderators/admins? Like restriction of sharing links to sites which you can't see if adblock is enabled?

<comment><USER35> Seconded. I'm not even using adblock, and this broken site insists I switch it off.

<comment><USER9> I am using adblock (ublock origin), and the site works fine.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Eventually only a specific people who can afford would stay and who can't would move. Other cities would definitely get established which is a good thing. Remote working is not my cup of tea. I live in New York city and I love living and working here.</comment>


7 Security Measures to Protect Your Servers - <AUTHOR> https://www.digitalocean.com/community/tutorials/7-security-measures-to-protect-your-servers <comment><AUTHOR> I don't really use DO that much, but I think that this post is very informative. I would like to know if security measures like those are everywhere or some devs ignore them.</comment>


The lean startup is not for creating radically new products and markets - <AUTHOR> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0024630119301505#bib11 <comment><USER2> This essay points out valid weaknesses in the lean startup approach, but really loses it's edge when it suggests that "social proofs" \- such as the ability to hire highly paid talent and/or acquire funding - are better, higher priority signals of validation. Yes, customer interviews too early on a "guess" that is barely thought through is not an efficient use of resources. But trying to hire and raise is a worse alternatives.

<comment><AUTHOR> what would be better validation signals?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> The Lean Startup was never written to help startups, it was written to bolster Eric Ries's enterprise consulting.

</comment><comment><USER4> VC is a terrible model to fund basic research. "The science might work, and then we might be able to make it into something useful, and then we might be able to get paid for that value": most companies that try this spend all their time on A and then if they get super-lucky they get acquired instead of dying.

VC isn't the solution to America's short-sighted refusal to invest in science and academia.

</comment><comment><USER5> Interesting but reality isn't that deliberate, reasoned, or scientific....

<comment><AUTHOR> Can you be more specific? I'm trying to better understand this approach.</comment></comment>


Tesla Autopilot 2.0: next gen Autopilot powered by more radar, new triple camera - <AUTHOR> https://electrek.co/2016/08/11/tesla-autopilot-2-0-next-gen-radar-triple-camera-production/ <comment><USER2> Any improvements in digital security, too? The more we give the car control, the more important that becomes, especially with Tesla's remote updates.

</comment><comment><USER3> I wonder how they'll deal with the upgrade the autopilot atm is a paid software upgrade/unlock will they recall existing cars for an upgrade? is it even possible? How would Tesla owners and the public react if they do not offer an upgrade or it will be very cost prohibitive (even considering that Tesla owners can usually afford it if they are driving 100K $ cars)?

<comment><USER4> Tesla owners should be OK with any of these: Tesla already offers more free/cheap enough upgrades to cars than any of their competitors.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Love the vision behind Tesla, but man does this 'autopilot' thing strike me as overconfident.

Why not call it Cruise Control 2.0?</comment>


AdBlock Plus will soon allow "non-intrusive" ads by default - <AUTHOR> https://adblockplus.org/development-builds/allowing-acceptable-ads-in-adblock-plus <comment><USER8> It is unfortunate that many people commenting here didn't bother to RTFA. In particular, from the FAQ:

 _Are you stupid? Nobody wants this!_

 _The results of our user survey say something different. Only 25% of the Adblock Plus users seem to be strictly against any advertising. They will disable this feature and that's fine. The other users replied that they would accept some kinds of advertising to help websites. Some users are even asking for a way to enable Adblock Plus on some websites only._

<https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads>

That page is the real article, linked from the first paragraph of the submitted article, which is more like a changelog.

Please also note that Wladimir has been talking about this for _years_ and didn't suddenly get this into his head. From a 2009 post:

 _As I stated many times before, my goal with Adblock Plus isn't to destroy the advertising industry. ... So the idea is to give control back to the users by allowing them to block annoying ads. Since the non-intrusive ads would be blocked less often it would encourage webmasters to use such ads, balance restored._

<http://adblockplus.org/blog/an-approach-to-fair-ad-blocking>

<comment><USER9> I've "read the fucking article", and my take-away is that Wladmir is, in effect, selling ads.

In return for some sort of consideration and a pledge to only provide "acceptable" advertising, Wladmir will unblock your ads by default in _AdBlock_ Plus:

> _We have agreements with some websites and advertisers that only advertising > matching our criteria will be used, their ads will be unblocked then. We > hope to grow our list significantly over time._

Given that selling advertisements runs entirely contrary to the purpose of "Adblock", and that Wladimir's incentives are now inversely aligned with the user's incentives, I imagine we're going to see the same descent into increasingly obtrusive advertising that you almost _always_ see once an organization heads down this path.

<comment><USER10> Actually, Wladimir's incentives are now aligned precisely with mine - <USER6> provide a means for me to not have to see all the noisy, obtrusive crap but still support websites providing me with free content in general (note: this means whitelists are -not- sufficient for me, and blacklists would be overly irritating to maintain).

In fact, as a result of this article I've just installed AdBlock Plus for the first time since it now does, by default, exactly what I've always wanted in a blocking tool - and I appreciate as a feature the fact that it required exactly zero configuration to do so.

<comment><USER9> I think you misunderstand incentives. If Wladmir accepts money from advertisers, there's an innate incentive to accept more money from more advertisers, and to lower his standards for what makes an acceptable advertisement. He might _want_ to support non-obtrusive ads, but the major incentive (money) is entirely contrary to that goal and your own preferences.

That aside, I wish to address the "free content" dichotomy (either we accept ads, or we lose free content ).

First of all, the content is not free; there are both tangible and intangible costs to you; advertising is funded through higher prices on the products we buy, and there are the intangible costs to being inundated with ads.

Second, advertising is surely not the only viable model. If adblocking were to actually succeed in undermining the web advertising industry, it would also provide impetus for the development of low-resistance web payment mechanisms, similar to the app stores and in-app purchasing that have revolutionized content purchasing on mobile devices.

In other words: 100% blocking of advertisements would not lead to the loss of "free" (but not really free) content, it would merely lead to the establishment of a more direct and efficient mechanism for funding that content.

<comment><USER11> You argue in absolutes. That's - difficult.

First of all: You can opt out of that feature with minor hassle. I usually don't like opt-in by default features, but here he has a point, imo.

Now - if you opt out, where is your problem with the change? If he would break future versions of AdBlock to force ads on you, someone would step up and make sure that there's an AdBlockBlock plugin.

Are you, by chance, using applications on the mobile OS of your choice that displays ad to gain revenue?

<comment><USER9> I'm not actually sure if you intended to respond to my post, or another one in the thread. I've only addressed incentives involved, and the inexorable conclusion of misaligned incentives.

Whether that results in Adblock plus plus or not isn't something I tried to address, though the eventuality seems likely.

> _Are you, by chance, using applications on the mobile OS of your choice that > displays ad to gain revenue?_

No. Few apps of any quality push ads, as they're incredibly detrimental to the UX on such a small screen device.

<comment><USER11> Yes, I wanted to respond to your post and the subthread that you started with 'he is selling ads'. I think that gives your position away.

Now it's fine to be critical and to dislike that change, but I considered your 'he takes money (according to another subthread that's planned but not the case just yet) and that will lead to more and more ads being "okay"' too - simple.

Mobile apps w/ ads: Angry Birds on Android?

<comment><USER9> > _Yes, I wanted to respond to your post and the subthread that you started > with 'he is selling ads'. I think that gives your position away._

Well, the fact that he plans to financially benefit from displaying advertisements (or allowing them to be displayed) is key to understanding the alignment of his incentives: money for ads, insofar as his userbase will put up with it.

> _Mobile apps w/ ads: Angry Birds on Android?_

Haven't played it; I'd assumed it was a paid game. It's 99 cents on iOS. Unclear why it's free on Android.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Beginning of the end. It's nice that the developers are giving users a choice, even if it's opt-out not opt-in. But AdBlock Plus is a tool to remove ads- that's it. And they're extremely good at it. The moment they become politicized and try to be "a tool to support small websites" or whatever nonsense, marks the beginning of the end.

<comment><USER13> The problem is that AdBlock Plus is becoming popular.

Advertisers are noticing it too. And it will become a whac-a-mole game, in which advertisers will come up with creative ways to get around ADP or publishers will just block users with ADP enabled, or just setup a paywall.

We are indeed tired of intrusive advertising. But some websites are good citizens and shouldn't be punished for the mistakes of others. It wouldn't be in our long-term interest.

For example - Reddit is a good citizen. It only has an image in their right toolbar. Many times they just advertise for other reddits you might be interested in, which is also cool. I even clicked it a number of times.

So why punish websites like Reddit for the mistakes of others? We shouldn't. Reddit provides a valuable service too and the developers working on it need salaries too. And there are other websites like Reddit, also good citizens. It is in our interest to reward these websites - this way advertisers will start getting a clue.

<comment><USER14>
      * It's not becoming popular. It's about 1% of users.
      * It's trivial to get around. Other options would be for
        webmasters to give Adblocking users a watered down
        version or just serve them up crapply encoded
        videos/images etc
        If adblock ever became popular, webmasters would quickly
        work around it, and you'd have an arms race, with the
        webmasters winning.
      * Adblock probably blocks 50% of adverts. The other 50%
        people don't realize are adverts.

<comment><USER15> _It's not becoming popular. It's about 1% of users_

One percent of whose users? That fails to account for the audiences of specific websites. If it's 1% for all browser users, I bet you that tech related websites are seeing much, much larger percentages.

<comment><USER14> I don't think it's related to how 'techie' you are. It's more to do with culture.

Let's not pretend this is a "early adopter tech people know how to block ads, the masses will surely follow in time" thing. It's not.

You'd find similar massive disconnects if you asked who has a TV, who loves "Transformers" movies, and so on.

<comment><USER15> Frankly, I find that hard to believe. Tech people are much more likely to follow tech news and be informed of addons like ABP than the majority. If you look at the Firefox and Chrome adoption, for example, that certainly happened, so I don't see why would this be any different.

I'm not saying every tech people uses it, of course (I don't), but without data I think the existence of a strong correlation between the two is a fair assumption.

<comment><USER14> I just think anecdotally and based on content on here, that the majority are far removed from "mainstream". I'd expect people here to not hang out at the mall, watch american idol, eat at mcdonalds, own a TV, watch fox news, click on ads, and so on. The recent poll showed 65% or something to block ads which demonstrates what a niche/bubble HN is.

AdBlock filters and censors content. Personally, that's why I don't use it. I don't want to see a censored internet, I want to see it as it was intended to be seen. If that means I get pissed with a website doing intrusive advertising and never go back there, then that's a good thing, as it's good feedback for that website. There is more than enough choice on the internet which means I will go to websites that play nice.

Adblock usage has been around 1% for the last few years, so I don't see any sign it'll increase.

</rant>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> One of the "non-intrusive" ads on the whitelist are ads on sedo domain- squatter pages. That really says about all I need to know about how thoroughly he's vetted the "non-intrusiveness" of these ads.

<comment><USER17> And I think it is clear he made a deal with Google, with or without monetary compensation I do not know.

Please slap me with proof that I'm wrong, I so wish to be wrong.

<comment><USER18> Guilty unless proven innocent?

Google's text ads certainly aren't intrusive.

<comment><USER19> Depends on their content:

An ad for a local garage? Fine. But I would class "Mom discovers new TEETH WHITENING solution! Don't listen to your DENTIST! CLICK HERE TODAY!" to be pretty distracting and intrusive.

<comment><USER20> Those ads are usually not allowed on the networks they run on. They're often posed by affiliate's as the original companies have long since been blocked. Unfortunately finding the article on this is harder then finding a real teeth whitening product...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> One of the authors, Ares2, gave some details on how it works technically. [https://adblockplus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8872&#...](https://adblockplus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8872&sid=81eef5456f34c3c0e9364021924fe2e7#p52785)

There is a whitelist, mentioned in the FAQ, which lists a few companies which made it there: [https://easylist- downloads.adblockplus.org/exceptionrules.tx...](https://easylist- downloads.adblockplus.org/exceptionrules.txt)

Additionally (but the FAQ omits to mention it), a business partner of ABP can obtain a key - adding <html data- adblockkey="XXXXXKEYXXXXX_XXXXXSIGNATUREXXXXX"> to his page, which will whitelist the content.

The main author Wladimir Palant then replies to the transparency concerns raised on the thread about this solution:

"Adding each domain name to the list individually simply wouldn't have been possible. The implementation is pretty complicated to make sure that this feature doesn't get abused - only one company can use this filter (because they have the corresponding private key) and we have a contractual agreement with them concerning how they can use it."

"We hope that the demand will be high :)"

<comment><USER22> That is incredibly interesting. That essentially boils down to "make ads that don't piss off users, or be blocked".

I think this is a viable truce between people who hate ads and people who make ads. The only people who suffer from this on-going war to increase the snr of the Internet are website owners themselves.

<comment><USER23> I read that as "Make a contractual agreement with us or be blocked".

<comment><USER22> The contractual agreement is mainly "don't piss off users, and we WILL enforce this if you fail".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I asked the author to know if this would be a source of revenues for Adblock, and why they did make this a default choice rather than a yes/no question:

1) Does AdBlock developers get, directly or indirectly, any benefits from a third party because of this change? (Including, but not exclusively, money/donation/jobs/whatever by an entity supported by ads like Google, continued inclusion in the Chrome store, etc.)? Or any negative consequences if the change wasn't implemented?

Wladimir Palant: I don't think that we get anything yet but we indeed hope to get some income this way to make the project sustainable. This doesn't mean that paying us is the requirement to be added to the exceptions list - <USER4> requirements a formulated here and they will probably become more precise as we gain experience (suggestions are welcome). As to Google: no, they have nothing to do with it. We didn't talk to Google, we didn't take money from them, there is no conspiracy here. We did look at Google Ads as a typical example (unblocking them is the most common request we get yet most people lack the knowledge for that) but they don't meet our requirements at the moment. Google's search ads are a different thing and they can meet our requirements depending on how the website configures them - and we did add an exception for them on one particular website.

2) If the goal is to allow people who would like to see ads to see them, why not have asked if people wanted to see them (ie, neutral "yes/no" question), rather than pushing a default setting which shows those "non intrusive" ads?

Wladimir Palant: We made some bad experience when asking people to make a decision, quite frequently people would ignore the question on the first-run page for one reason or another and then wonder why Adblock Plus "isn't working". In fact, that's the reason why the first-run page was reworked - rather than asking, we now subscribe people to a filter list automatically and allow them to revert the decision easily (simplifying Filter Preferences dialog was an important requirement for that). It's the same with "acceptable ads" - asking people to make a decision when it might be a wrong time, when they don't know what we are asking about (I tried to keep the explanation page short but it certainly isn't) etc. isn't going to work well. Instead we focused on making opt-out as simple as possible at any time.

[https://adblockplus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8872&#...</a>

<comment><USER24> > _We made some bad experience when asking people to make a decision, quite > frequently people would ignore the question on the first-run page for one > reason or another and then wonder why Adblock Plus "isn't working"_

...sooo, instead you default a feature that WILL make people go "it isn't working!!!", really?

I am sorry, this is way too much polit-speak and shows that they have just become too big, too popular. But this should change sooner or later now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I use AdBlock on Chrome (which is fine, coincidentally). When it's installed, you get one question: do you want Google's text-only ads. This is less broad than what AdBlock Plus is suggesting, but it's of similar intent.

It works. I have no complaints at all. If I ever want to block those ads, I can just check a checkbox.

If AdBlock Plus also offered a choice when installed (I don't know if it does now), it would not be an issue at all. If they instead hide the option away, a lot of nontechnical--and probably some technical--people will be confused about why the behavior changed.

I think that the ultimate quality of the change depends on exactly how they handle the UX behind.

As for the intent and general idea, I support it entirely. As others have said, I do not hate all ads, just annoying, distracting, loud, obnoxious and sometimes vulgar ads which some websites employ.

<comment><USER26> A footnote: AdBlock for Chrome is a completely different project created by Michael Gundlach (who also created AdBlock for Safari). I happen to know that he doesn't have any deal with advertisers; he just thinks that users should be able to allow non-annoying ads to be shown.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> From their FAQ on the subject:

 _> Starting with Adblock Plus 2.0 you can allow some of the advertising that is considered not annoying. By doing this you support websites that rely on advertising but choose to do it in a non-intrusive way. And you give these websites an advantage over their competition which encourages other websites to use non-intrusive advertising as well. In the long term the web will become a better place for everybody, not only Adblock Plus users. Without this feature we run the danger that increasing Adblock Plus usage will make small websites unsustainable._

Part of me is extremely disappointed ABP made this change, but part of me knows there's got to be some compromise between absolutely no ads and annoying, intrusive ads. Not every website can offer a pay service. I'm happy they're making this change with small website owners in mind, and I'm also happy they're allowing users to turn off all ads by going in to settings.

<comment><USER28> Why does there have to be a compromise? Please don't take this as some sort of flame bait. Instead it is a serious question about why some advertising must exist and be tolerated.

<comment><USER29> _Why does there have to be a compromise?_

Running a website costs money. Some people also want to make profit, but that's beside the point. Micropayment solutions at present are sadly lacking - especially for international audiences. Don't forget also that you and I are a technical audience; I know at first my mother thought that websites got a split of her ISP bill when she viewed their pages. So advertising bridges a lot of these gaps.

 _Instead it is a serious question about why some advertising must exist and be tolerated._

I don't believe anyone is saying that you _must_ tolerate advertising :-)

<comment><USER9> So ... why not integrate a micropayment solution _into_ the adblocker extensions. Bootstrapping problem solved!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> On one hand, I applaud this. Ads aren't evil, and rewarding ads that play nice would benefit everyone involved. And, it's just an option that can be disabled.

All that being said, I see this ending badly for ABP. It won't be long until someone creates a version that blocks all ads again by default.

<comment><USER31> "It won't be long until someone creates a version that blocks all ads again by default."

This version will still be able to block all ads. By does it matter if it's by default?

<comment><USER32> Because the vast majority of people never stray from defaults, and will think that it's just bad at doing it's job.

<comment><USER15> Does that really apply to most ABP users?

<comment><USER32> Yeah, I would assume so. Its name certainly implies that it's meant to block all ads. If something called AdBlock was letting through some % of ads, the Occam's razor explanation is that it's just buggy/imperfect, since it's actually a hard problem to get 100% coverage of anything.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> How are those 'non-intrusive ads' selected? Is there a global white list, which is maintained by the author?

Just recently I had this idea that there should be a independent organization or work group which maintains this kind of white list, and websites would gain a badge if their ads are non-intrusive and polite. There would also be an agreed standard which all ads should comply to gain the badge.

This way it would be easy to implement in ad blockers, and it would be clear to website visitors what kind of ads they would see. Being an independent organization, the motivation should be just to make web a better place, not to benefit a few specific companies.

<comment><USER34> From <https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads> :

* Static advertisements only (no animations, sounds or similar)

* Preferably text only, no attention-grabbing images

* At most one script that will delay page load (in particular, only a single DNS request)

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Rick Patnel, creator of AdBlock Plus died two years ago. I don't think he would have approved this new development.

Just saying.

<comment><USER36> According to wikipedia, Rick Petnel is the creator of EasyList and ABP was created by Michael McDonald.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adblock_Plus>

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> _"We have agreements with some websites and advertisers..."_

Uh huh..

<comment><USER38> Cannot upvote this enough. I think that's actually the whole point. ABP was always "impartial": all ads were blocked. Deciding which ads are blocked, and which ones aren't is already a subjective decision. _BUT_ , knowing that you can make _agreements_ with ABP folks to get your ads through is insane. Makes all other arguments moot.

<comment><USER39> I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt until the point where an actually intrusive ad (according to their criteria) gets the green light based on making a payment. Until then, it's just conjecture.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> As a publisher, I say bring it all on. The reducing effectiveness of display advertising online has forced publishers to find different, and more profitable, models. Some have gone the 'payola' route (tailoring content to advertisers' whims - whether discree or not), and others, like me, have started to produce products that can be directly promoted within our content.

Happily, these techniques are far more profitable, better tolerated by users, and not affected by ad blockers at all :-) So block ads all you like - <USER4> agile publishers will adjust and the ones relying on garish display ads will go under.. which means more opportunities for the agile ones.

<comment><USER41> The ads are distracting (period). That's why I use blockers or disable javascript, but the latter breaks many sites these days.

Some tech sites (/.) have ads that show attractive women with large breasts wearing tight t-shirts. The ad is printed on the t-shirt so I'm forced to stare at her boobs to read the ad. That's distracting to me. I can't focus when boobs are popping-up in ads.

So I want all ads disabled. Even pure words with no pictures can be distracting while glancing at a page if it has the right words in it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> I'm sort of torn on this.

On one hand I do want to support sites that I like and I know that for many this occurs through advertising.

On the other hand, I am honestly confused by what the web looks like with ads. Its been so long since the very first thing I did on any new computer, vm, or even non-technically inclined friend's machine wasn't to install ad block.

In many cases this wasn't really to not see the ads, but rather to make things appear where I'm used to seeing them. While I probably wouldn't find the "non- intrusive" ads themselves annoying. What I would find annoying is that the removal of the ads in many cases changes the layout of the page. All of a sudden what used to be the top right "module" maybe with recent posts or something is now the middle right module with an ad above it. Or even worse, some div that i'm used to seeing 'above the fold' now requires scrolling to see. All of a sudden my intuition and learned behavior for the interface has changed.

<comment><USER43> But your initial decision was to turn off ads, in opposition to your desire to support sites you like, which led to your current notion of where things should be on the page.

<comment><USER44> > But your initial decision was to turn off ads, in opposition to your desire > to support sites you like, which led to your current notion of where things > should be on the page.

Basic sanity determines where things should appear on the page. Ads, by definition, try to draw your attention from useful content. If they provided the content you wanted, we wouldn't call them ads.

<comment><USER45> Allow me to offer a different take on this. I spend a lot of time looking for companies who will fabricate printed circuit boards for my small business. So much time, in fact, that I often see ads for circuit board companies.

And these are actually welcome! I click through, check their prices, and sometimes in the course of doing so I find good deals on other related products (business cards, shipping materials, etc.) How else would I know where to find some of these things?

I'm not saying that all ads are good, but that I sometimes benefit from companies advertising to me for services which I am actively looking to purchase. Sometimes, when I don't hit an exact search query, ads are indeed content I want!

<comment><USER44> Only by chance, though, not by design. The ads you see don't represent the most relevant results; they represent the results provided by someone willing to pay for an ad. Given the choice, I'd prefer to see faster-loading pages and no extraneous paid listings rather than seeing a sea of ads in the hopes that one of them might prove relevant. And thanks to Adblock Plus, I have that choice.

Regarding companies who can do small-run circuit board fabrication, I highly recommend Screaming Circuits: <http://www.screamingcircuits.com/> . They do both fabrication and assembly. Also check out Sunstone: <http://www.sunstone.com/>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> It should've been neither an opt-out nor an opt-in. Since it's a one-time notification, it should've explained the rationale behind this feature and asked for a decision. _That_ would mean treating users as intelligent adults. Pre-selecting a good-deed option for them is annoying and insulting. I know that I don't like a good Samaritan behavior stuffed down my throat, so I would've gone and disabled this feature just as a matter of principle (even though I agree it is reasonable).

<comment><USER47> > Since it's a one-time notification, it should've explained the rationale > behind this feature and asked for a decision. That would mean treating users > as intelligent adults.

I disagree. This is the cowardly and helpless solution to the problem: When in doubt, throw Yet Another Dialog or installation wizard page in the user's face.

Programs should _confidently_ do Something Sensible by default, and instead let the 25% who want something different be able to easily change it.

Less choices makes more happy: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paradox_of_Choice:_Why_More...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paradox_of_Choice:_Why_More_Is_Less)

<comment><USER46> Huh? _Cowardly_? Are you serious?

If I am installing Ad _Block_ , I quite naturally expect it - surprise! - <USER6> block things. It is double more so if I am already running the AdBlock and just going through an upgrade. So for all intents and purposes the Sensible Thing to do is to opt users out by default from this new feature. This however would provide zero traction to the feature as it needs an exposure. Now, do tell me how the hell one would let discerning users know and opt-in without throwing yet another dialog at them?

<comment><USER47> You are yelling angrily. Stop that. It is annoying.

> Huh? Cowardly? Are you serious?

Yes, if the developer _knows_ at least 75% of the user base needs and wants A, but still gives the choice between A and B, it is just because he is afraid of dealing with the noisy minority afterwards.

> If I am installing Ad Block, I quite naturally expect it - surprise! - <USER6> > block things.

And it does block things. Whether it blocks _all_ the things, blacklisted things, non-whitelisted things or whatever is another discussion.

> It is double more so if I am already running the AdBlock and just going > through an upgrade.

A completely valid concern. The behavior of an existing product should not change during an upgrade.

> So for all intents and purposes the Sensible Thing to do is to opt users out > by default from this new feature.

No, that would be an Insensible Thing, because 75% of users want _the other thing_.

> Now, do tell me how the hell one would let discerning users know and opt-in > without throwing yet another dialog at them?

There's nothing to opt-in to, because the partial block isn't a "feature". It's now the core functionality of AdBlock.

The Hell A) The Block Everything feature could be available in happy colors in the first page of the options.

The Hell B) The AdBlock plugin blurb could say "The entire purpose of AdBlock is to block the "bad" ads [feasability of deciding badness is another discussion]. If you want to block _all_ ads, consider installing NameOfTheAdBlockFork instead."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> I think this is great! I've got no problem with reasonable and discrete ads, particular if it helps support sites I use and like. I'd prefer not to have to run an ad blocker at all, but frankly I've been forced into by the number of obnoxious ads out there. My personal pet peeve are ads that play music, sound or video. Damn it, I don't need the tab I loaded in the background to suddenly start blaring some obnoxious ad pitch at me! :-(

</comment><comment><USER49> No reason for me to enable ads, as long as they have a huge impact on my privacy. I don't intend to send a list of every single site I view to Google.

Make a sane ad system, where ads are proxied through the same webserver as the remainder of the page, and I would have no problems with activating them.

<comment><USER50> If ads were proxies through he content site, the site would still send your ID to Google to personalize the ad, but you would be unable to block it.

<comment><USER51> If ads were proxied through the site, the site would have no way of giving Google the information that would allow them to tell you from Adam. The entire purpose of externally-served advertising is cross-site tracking and correlation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> I suspect most people who install adblock plus, aren't the kind of people who click on ads. So I suspect, even if (theoretically speaking) blocking ads was made impossible, the net impact would be much smaller than imagined.

This will just impact those people who had it installed for them, and who happen to update. I doubt that will be the saviour of many small sites - <USER7> adblock plus was killing them in the first place that is.

<comment><USER53> I know Google Adsense pays out a bit for "impressions", just displaying their ad on the page. I'm not sure how much revenue this really generates for very small sites though.

<comment> X-Istence Google Adsense doesn't pay at all for impressions ... at least I haven't ever received money from them just for impressions.

<comment><USER54> the standard adsense doesn't, but the publishing network does (with doubleclick)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> So what is a good alternative to AdBlockPlus ? (that blocks everything and doesn't play these "non intrusive ads" games EDIT:adding ' by default.' ).

EDIT 2:

I did read the article and I know it is an option but making viewing ads of any kind opt _in_ vs opt _out_ is (imho) dubious. When the user installs an extension called ad-BLOCK plus, explicitly to block adds, just block them by default dammit and let any users who want to, opt _out_ selectively.

I also don't want a situation where a user has to opt out with every upgrade and so on. Nutshell, I don't trust the devs anymore,who seem to be selling out the users.

I don't know much about ad networks or javascript so on _Hacker_ News I am asking for alternatives, from those who _are_ experts. Why the downvotes? wtf?

<comment><USER56> If AdBlock Plus goes evil, another option might be AdBlock (not sure what they block, but it is an alternative.)

And I think both extensions are open source so somebody could just fork it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> The problem I have with this is not the display of some ads; it is the tracking that advertising networks perform. I would love to support some smaller sites, but not at the expense of my privacy.

<comment><USER58> In that case, maybe ghostery.com is more suitable for you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> For all the people complaining: this will encourage websites to use less annoying ads.

</comment><comment><USER60> I cannot tell from the announcement whether ABP is now getting paid to allow some ads, but if it is, that looks like a textbook conflict of interest. Wikipedia has a list of ways to mitigate such conflicts: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest#Ways_to_mi...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest#Ways_to_mitigate_conflicts_of_interests) , maybe adopting some suggestions from there would help?

Also I'm a little confused by the talk of "making small websites unsustainable". Do ads really make small websites sustainable, or is the mention of "small websites" just an applause light?

<comment><USER61> It depends how you define "small".

My company runs a few content sites that are primarily monetised through advertising. They're not small as in "some guy updating them in his free time", but they're small as in a few paid members of the editorial team, a few million pages a month. For us, yes, advertising is the difference between us being a profitable company and us not being a company at all.

That said, a.) we are doing OK before this adblock change and b.) our adverts don't fit what are being defined as "acceptable" here. We do make sure we never get too obtrusive, we don't do automatic playing videos, we don't do roadblocks, we don't do anything with sound, we don't do anything that covers content or expands when you mouseover... but some of the banners we serve are flash with basic animations. We, and the majority of our users, are happy that this is a good way to advertise without letting it become an annoyance, but we wouldn't make it onto ABP's whitelist.

<comment><USER62> I don't run AdBlock Plus, but I do use FlashBlock, mainly to cut down on fan noise.

I also have a few entries in my /etc/hosts ...

        127.0.0.1	googleads.g.doubleclick.net
        127.0.0.1	ak.p.openx.net
        127.0.0.1	tags.expo9.exponential.com
        127.0.0.1	resources.infolinks.com
        127.0.0.1	resources.intextscript.com
        127.0.0.1	kona.kontera.com

Google ads was simply responding too slowly. Too many pages were not rendering correctly or at all, pending a response from them. That's probably the fault of web authors not embedding the Google ads correctly. But not to worry. Now I just see error IFrames.

As for the others, the damned double-underscore spam links were getting to be just too annoying while reading text — especially the ones that would react to mouseovers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> Personally, I've always used AdBlock not because I hated ads, but because I hated distracting ads. In fact, I remember when I first installed AdBlock being sad that text ads might get blocked as well. I especially want to support those website owners who wish to have ads but are respectful to their readers by not making them distracting ads.

Regardless of if money is changing hands as a result of any agreement, I think this is a great move that will be able to positively affect the web advertising landscape.

</comment><comment><USER64> Is there any risk of a bidding or lobbying war between advertising firms trying to coerce the list maintainers into marking their ads as "non- intrusive?"

</comment><comment><USER65> Sounds like a great idea. I'd love to allow ads like The Deck and Fusion ads, but my Ad Muncher (on Windows) practices a scorched earth policy where everything is hidden. If I had my own site, I would probably not even be able to see them.

This sounds perfect, and it's more in line with a cogent policy of rewarding good ads and punishing bad ones.

</comment><comment><USER66> All I can think is... whatever happened to the good 'ole days of top quality advertising? There was a time, I'll admit - before I was born, that the population was excited for the next Coca-Cola ad. It was artistic and unique. It was something to look forward to. What happened to those days, and how can we get them back?

<comment><USER67> In the age of the internet, you have to grab the viewer's attention in mere seconds. A lot of marketers don't know how to do that without being annoying.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Good work & excellent timing. I've been relying on Flashblock to disable the most intrusive ads, but Apple's success in killing off Flash has meant that non-Flash ads are getting more intrusive. I will be installing ASAP.

</comment><comment><USER68> The current non-intrusive ad list so far: [https://easylist- downloads.adblockplus.org/exceptionrules.tx...](https://easylist- downloads.adblockplus.org/exceptionrules.txt)

I wonder how to get on that list.

<comment><USER69> It looks like all German web sites, except for the last one.

! Text-based search ads on suche.netzwelt.de ! Static image ads on t3n.de ! Text ads with small static images on focus.de ! Text ads on Sedo parking domains

In other words, they're not whitelisting Google or any other major web sites, so the vast majority of people won't notice, even with the white list turned on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER70> Wow, lots of doom and gloom on here. As someone who doesn't use AdBlock Plus (not particularly to support websites, but that does factor in) I think this is move should be applauded. They continue to serve their customers with the same product they always have (an adblock list manager) and might be able to pull in some money from it as well.

The obtrusiveness of the ads they let through will directly affect the number of users they have, so their interests are still aligned with their users. But they are simply more aligned with the 75% who don't blanket oppose all ads.

</comment><comment><USER22> Honestly, I'm not sure what the big deal is. Ads that do not distract from the content I would not mind being displayed.

Notice, however, "display" does not equate to "I'm actually looking at it, reading it, and then clicking on it", my mind's own ad blocker will happily ignore it.

I am not someone who believes in website ads as no one seems to have gotten rich advertising their product with website ads; I am not opposed to putting them on my own website, of course, advertisers are welcome to pay me, I just don't see the point in becoming one.

</comment><comment><USER46> The list of exception filters in question -

[https://easylist- downloads.adblockplus.org/exceptionrules.tx...](https://easylist- downloads.adblockplus.org/exceptionrules.txt)

</comment><comment><USER71> Someone got a call from Google :)

On a serious note, this is a great move. I will finally install the plugin because I do believe advertising, if done right, keeps the internet free (as in beer).

</comment><comment><USER72> Very good move, this way it is a deterrent for sites that use "bad" advertising, and not an economical problem for sites using ADs reasonably.

</comment><comment><USER73> I mostly block ads due to speed, usability, and privacy concerns, and if this results in advertisers delivering nicer ads that aren't privacy risks, then I am perfectly OK with that. I think a lot of people agree, and mostly block _all_ ads because it's not yet technically feasible to block only the worst. This should change that.

<comment><USER74> Also don't forget security concerns. Ads are a common attack vector when new exploits surface.

</comment></comment><comment><USER75> I'd also like to be able put any ad that doubles+ the load time of a page in a penalty box for a day.

<comment><USER76> if they're doing what they're saying they're doing (only one DNS request allowed) your concerns will be met by this product. most modern display ads use many, many more than that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER77> Unfortunately it's still not available on Chrome (at least the beta install for it didn't have it?).

I think this is a good step in the right direction though I'm not sure entirely if its a great idea to have the developers decide, maybe a wiki-style process?

</comment><comment><USER78> I already exempt some small sites that I want to support, mostly webcomics. Looking at their current list of exemptions, this change won't make me see any more ads than I already do. I have no real problem with it.

</comment><comment><USER79> All I can see is confusion about what is deemed "non-intrusive" and by whom.

</comment><comment><USER80> This is unfortunate. It is not the obtrusive ads I find most annoying, those I can filter out mentally with no difficulty. It is the non-obtrusive ads that masquerade as content that I dislike.

</comment><comment><USER81> This sounds like a good change to me.

As someone who never run Adblock for the past two years, I can't see how is this a big deal. IMHO, if what you want is a distraction-free reading, Readability/Reader is the answer. Maybe it's because the kind of sites I often visits, but situation on ads has improved a lot in the past few years.

I've clicked a lot of ads in the past year, some even led me to actually purchase something. Recent ones I can recalled from memory are Parallels Desktop $20 off deal (bought second license for my notebook), GraphicRiver's bundle pack (which led me to know the site and bought a ton more stuff from GR) and few books via Amazon affiliate links.

Apart from privacy concern, I can't see why someone always think ads are evil.

</comment><comment><USER82> anyone who is using AdBlock, will be changing that option right away...and since this is obviously a money grab, you can bet that option gets turned on every time they release a new update

<comment><USER26> "you can bet that option gets turned on every time they release a new update"

That's a rather unfair assumption.

<comment><USER82> All you have to do is look at Facebook and privacy settings.

And here there'll actually be extra revenue at stake, so there is more incentive

<comment><USER26> You're ascribing Facebook's tendencies to someone else. Why?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER83> I like this. I've been toying with the idea of turning it off so that my favorite websites can get a bit of revenue from it, but I like this option even better.

</comment><comment><USER84> Who decides which adverts are "considered not annoying" ?

</comment><comment><USER85> Just another data point that's quite happy with this. I only installed an ad blocker after years of happily accepting the advertising because a few sites I didn't want to stop using started running ads that were actively annoying and / or offensive. Most sites aren't a problem though and I'd happily enough see their ads, and a refinement to permit this more easily would be good for me.

</comment><comment><USER86> So much crying and boo-hooing over having to change a config setting? Can we imagine for a minute what the Internet would be like if _everyone_ used an ad- blocker?

<comment><USER87> It would be freaking awesome!?

First of all we don't have to imagine that scenario. Going back to the beginning of the internet there weren't really any ads to speak of. Secondly, using the Internet Wayback Machine we can actually see what that internet looked like back then. And because the Wayback Machine doesn't save most images, you can get an even better feel for what the internet would look like if everyone used an ad blocker.

<comment><USER86> So where would the websites whose business depends entirely on ads get their revenue from? It's not like companies are blindly going to pay them to host ads which they know no one is going to look at. Perhaps you would prefer to pay an Internet fee? Of course an Internet with no ads seems great, but it's not something that would be sustainable, at least not the Internet we know today.

There are some sites which I feel are worth paying for, and others (particularly news sites), that which I don't yet I'm still willing to wade through the non-obtrusive ads in exchange for keeping it free.

<comment><USER87> If you're asking me that question I have to say that for the most part I don't care about the ads one way or the other. In the second paragraph I pointed out that we don't have to imagine your scenario because there was a time with no ads in the past and we have a method to see that history.

 _Perhaps you would prefer to pay an Internet fee?_

I feel dumb for needing to point this out to you but...I already pay an internet fee. Everyone I know pays a fee to access the internet.

Maybe your Corporate Overlord Internet Dream can't be sustained without ads but I know my internet can. I connected for years to BBS's that were free and maintained by volunteers. To believe that the internet can't function without ads is shortsighted.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER88> Hah, looks like they got bribed by google to start running ads. Never mind that ABP breaks google's business model David and Goliath style. FF should add ABP or similar as default and destroy 20% of google's ad-revenue, that would be the day. (just in case you forgot the 2038 cookie thing & all of googles other privacy abuses.)

<comment><USER89> Why would FF do that? They get funded by Google.

<comment><USER90> To be fair, it would ruin the business model of Google's competition too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER91> Somewhere somebody is updating a product/marketing guide to add an example of how something can be mind-bogglingly counter-intuitively named. A poster boy for how to do it wrong.

</comment><comment><USER92> Where is AdBlockPlus2? The fork?

</comment><comment><USER93> While the title is as usual, crap and misleading: \- i think adblock makes the hard, but right decision \- ill switch it off

And finally, I do think ads are evil because done wrongly - spammed. (Even thus the decision is right, because I also accept that our society works like that and DNT needs to be respected.)

I do not recall ANY ads that brought true value on the Net to my purchasing needs.

They're bad.

Examplification: I browse review for the latest phone. It looks cool. If ads aren't blocked, I get hundred of "buy this phone here and there" "get cables for the phone" yada yada and some random totally unrelated ads.

I don't care for any of those. Why? Because If I wanna buy the phone, accessories, or related stuff I'm not just going to click on the first link and click buy. That's dumb.

I'm going to go to a price checker online, and decide which one has the best price/shipping/quality/rating/etc ratio!

So instead, if the ads would link me to that, and refer the review site if I do buy, I'd be much happier.

Of course I realize this cannot be because, the comparison site would be corrupted eventually, as we're talking big amount of moneys here.

My 2cts as usual. ;-)</comment>


Bill Gates v. Warren Buffett On Competing With Google: Charge The Moat - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/05/04/bill-gates-v-warren-buffett-on-competing-with-google-charge-the-moat/ <comment><USER2> _Buffett's love of Google, quoting him: "Their moat of competitiveness is so wide..."_

She was referring to a conversation with Buffett and Charlie - anyone got more info on that? I don't think Google has a wide moat. I must be wrong. I want to know why.

</comment><comment><USER3> Warren Buffett is a crazy old guy and incredibly intelligent. The lady just wanted them to fight and disagree but in the end they just used basic logic to kill the worries about taxes.

<comment><USER4> Wanna get these 2 to disagree? Put them on the same bridge team and have one of them open 2 no trump with 8 points.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> > Google needs competition in the search space, and only Microsoft can compete > on that scale.

Jeeze, Arrington is such an idiot. Google were nothing when they took their position as kings of search.</comment>


I Made a PHP Script to Backup Stack Overflow - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/drawnic/so_scrapper <comment><USER2> This looks cool. How much space will this take up, to backup the entire site?

<comment><AUTHOR> not much, I'm on 1.5M entries and that db is on 1101.0 MB</comment></comment>


Facebook 'Like' is Protected Speech, Appeals Court Says - <AUTHOR> http://about.bloomberglaw.com/legal-news/facebook-like-is-protected-speech-appeals-court-says/?utm_source=tw

<comment><USER2> Of course "likes" are protected! They're a form of voting and, in this case, expressing political opinions.

Speech about politics, science and the arts generally enjoys stronger protection under the First Amendment.

<comment><USER3> Clicking "like" on something in facebook is nothing like a form of voting. It is a form of subscription. It says you want to get updates about the thing you "liked." Maybe you hate the competitor, but you want to get notified if something newsworthy happens. So you "like" him. I'm not sure it falls under free speech, because you are really saying anything other than "I'm interested in knowing more about this subject"

<comment><USER4> Clicking "Like" on a Fluffy Bunnies fan page isn't merely a subscription. It also broadcasts to everyone "chrismcb liked Fluffy Bunnies". I'm guessing that most people consider the subscription nature of liking an item secondary to the statement of support of that item.

Further to that, in Facebook you can click the down-arrow next to a post and select "Follow Post". This is the pure subscription act minus the protected speech.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Could anyone shed some light on the meaning of "protected speech?" There was some hubbub concerning people being targeted by law enforcement for statements made on Facebook and Google searches. Would an expansion of the definition of protected speech curb these sorts of police actions?

<comment><USER6> Protected speech is just speech that isn't not protected. That is to say, the default rule is that speech is protected, unless it falls into certain categories of exceptions.

I don't know of any credible story about people being prosecuted for Google searches. The prosecutions for Facebook comments tend to boil down to the police arguing that the comments are threats, which fall into one of the exceptions for unprotected speech.

<comment><USER7> In this case the test was "substantive speech". IANAL, but my layman's understanding is that in order for some action to be protected under free speech laws it has to intentionally communicating some coherent message.

So, for example, if I was kicked out of a restaurant for not wearing shoes I couldn't generally claim free speech protections for my lack of footwear. However if I did so as part of some theoretical organized protest involving shoes then I could, as in the second case my unshod state was clearly intended to convey some message.

<comment><USER8> Except you don't have free speech protections in restaurants; they're private establishments that are free to restrict speech as they see fit, provided they are not discriminating on the basis of your membership in a protected class.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> So ok, I think one interesting hypothetical would be that someone in your company publicly "likes" the Aryan Brotherhood Facebook page (though I doubt such thing exists and it would likely be some derivative). Could you sack your employee for being a total racist?

I guess it would technically boil down to what the actual impact on people at work would be. Do you have an employee who is an ethnic minority who feels threatened by this? Do they actively threaten them? It is complicated.

If we truly see ourselves as liberal and tolerant, how exactly should we react to someone who is openly part of an intolerant group who is offensive to our viewpoint? Do we draw a line somewhere?

Lots of questions, ethical and legal.

<comment><USER10> > Could you sack your employee for being a total racist?

If you're in any of the 49 at-will employment states, you can sack your employee because you flipped a coin and it landed the wrong way. Hypotheticals about firing people aren't ever really interesting in those states. It's not complicated, and it wouldn't "technically" boil down to anything.

<comment><USER11> At will employment doesn't nullify wrongful termination suits.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The opinion itself is here: [http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/121671.P.pdf](http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/121671.P.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER13> I would have linking to something online would be protected under free speech, too.</comment>


Ask HN: My co-founder and I want to split, what to do? - <AUTHOR> My co-founder and I (based in California) have been building a startup for the past year, which has been getting some healthy attention from investors. Since we do not get along, my co-founder wants to split the company and its assets between the both of us so that each person will continue building the concept as competitors. Since we each have 50 percent of the company, we are currently locked as I cannot see how this solution works. I've been told this would basically kill both of our startups and that only one person should continue.
What do you think the consequences of such a split will be? We are both keen on continuing the venture - although I am starting to believe I might be better off doing something else. I've suggested to give him equity but he refused. Right now there are a few options - simply leave with nothing / split the company as suggested / ask for equity myself.
Of course - investors will prefer seeing the first option, but im not sure I feel comfortable with that after a full year's work. What do you think? <comment><USER2> Investors prefer a team that can execute. Less so, half a team that didn't get along with its former co-half. After the split, attracting investment may become more difficult.

I suggest considering an nth option: split the baby.

Can your startup be split into two business lines? One that focuses on enterprise, one on consumer? Commit to noncompetition for say, 3 years. Everybody happy because they're apart.

Finally, an n+1'th option: seal up the business as an IP enterprise, licensing what you've already built to both founders' new ventures. Evenly split the licensing fees. Agree on a licensing structure open to both founders, where it only eats up about 10% of the expected margin, and realize that 5% is pretty much going right back to where it started. Throw on a shotgun clause.

The odds say at least one of your new ventures will fail- this will allow survival of the fittest from an otherwise nasty divorce.

</comment><comment><USER3> Harry Browne wrote about how to split up property during a divorce. [1] His idea can be applied in this case too:

One of you two decides what equity the one receives who leaves the company, after that the other one decides whether he wants to take the equity and leave or stay.

[1] [https://www.amazon.com/How-Found-Freedom-Unfree- World/dp/096...](https://www.amazon.com/How-Found-Freedom-Unfree- World/dp/0965603679/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1501756564&sr=8-1&keywords=How+I+Found+Freedom+in+an+Unfree+World)

<comment><USER4> pizza slicing protocol. a cuts, b chooses.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> If he has refused your offer of equity, then your real options are splitting the company or accepting an equity position yourself in exchange for leaving.

I would advice you hire a lawyer to negotiate on your behalf. His/her brief would be to aim for a 50/50 split of assets or 25% equity shareholding as compensation for leaving the company(although your initial ask would of course be higher). You could also ask for outright cash

(These numbers could be different if your founders agreements dictate something else or your contributions to building the company are unequal)

<comment><AUTHOR> Wouldn't 25% deter possible investors? I was thinking of asking for 10% and settling on 5% because I want the company to succeed.

<comment><USER6> In standard terms from what I understand is 4 year vesting so with 50% ownership that's 50% divided by 4 to get to one year of work....comes to 12.5%... put it forward as industry standard

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > I am starting to believe I might be better off doing something else.

If that would make your life better/happier -- it might be an area to seriously explore. What would 'something else' look like to you?

Relative to negotiating your split effectively -- Stuart Diamond offers brilliant advice > [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QtZ- vObJrk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QtZ-vObJrk)

</comment><comment><USER8> This is an example of the prisoner's dilemma (Game theory). The optimal strategy for both of you is to compromise on a solution. The best strategy for each individual is to tell the other person to quit. So if your partner is insisting on you quitting the he has the upper hand. Now maybe you explain the problem in terms of game theory to your partner.

</comment><comment><USER9> I ask as it hasn't been mentioned anywhere, but have you considered one of you buying the other out completely w/ cash?</comment>


Why are Oracle and DB2 still on top of TPC-C? A roadmap to end their dominance. - <AUTHOR> http://dbmsmusings.blogspot.com/2012/05/if-all-these-new-dbms-technologies-are.html

<comment><USER2> "How is technology designed decades ago still dominating TPC-C?" -- this assumption does not take into account that the engine underneath the technology interface design can change and evolve for new technologies to some extent.

Additionally, the reason these two are at the top of the heap is that Oracle and IBM both put a great deal of money not only into the software, but into designing and producing the machines that run these tests, the filesystems and operating systems, etc -- it is a total package with a driving focus related to database performance; these tests are run on multi-million dollar machines made by those companies.

Until you have a complete end-to-end ecosystem, with a focus on everything from the hardware, through the OS, all the way to the DB, you probably aren't going to beat them with any 'new' technology...

If a 'new technology' does beat out the traditional, I will expect the products that will be at the top of the performance curve, for the near future (10yrs) to also come from IBM and Oracle... Especially since Oracle has already release an ACID noSQL db engine that is also tightly wedded to their full ecosystem. (IBM may have as well, but I didn't notice if they did)

<comment><USER3> It is, surely, difficult to create a product that is better than Oracle/DB2 in every dimension. These systems have thousands of engineer-years of work baked into them.

On the other hand, it's pretty easy to beat these systems by specializing. Take some part of what they do and do it better. [Insert sports car / minivan / mack truck analogy here]

The interesting question is whether the pain of using the new system is less than the pain of using the old system. New system pain often comes from having fewer features or a less robust implementation. Legacy pain often comes from managing software that has to maintain compatibility with 20 year old apps and scaling workloads on software designed when 8mb of ram was a lot and clusters weren't practical.

I will also say from experience, if you take a copy of Oracle and the same hardware from the TPC-C leader board, you will have a hell of a time replicating their results. They use every trick in the book and spend huge sums of money tuning for these benchmarks (n.b. I don't fault them). In practice getting throughput close to what they claim on actual real-world apps is not realistic.

Now, you should take all benchmarks with a grain of salt (even mine). Ask a vendor how fast the system will run on a real workload that you understand with the configuration you plan to deploy with. If their number is attractive, build a POC and check for yourself.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Sounds like event sourcing [1] applied to databases.

The server-side transactions reminded me a lot of VoltDB [2], which also has server-side transactions and turns out was a previous system Abadi was involved in.

My naive impression is that VoltDB is more about being in-memory, single- threaded, and lock-free, where as this Calvin approach is more about deterministic ordering of events.

Sounds really cool, but there is a reason people don't like writing stored procedures. Besides (historically) meaning you're forced into a non-general programming language, it means you can't do anything else while executing the logic (call out to a 3rd party, read a file from somewhere else, etc.).

While SQL has its flaws, the semantics of writing your application logic freely over multiple queries ("make a query, do some work, make a query, do some work, ... commit!") and having the database just make that magically work for you is pretty darn nice and not something I'd easily give up.

Maybe a heavy dose of optimistic locking and a pleasant/mostly automated process of coding/integrating/deploying the stored procedures would make it possible to get all the performance benefits of their approach. It does sound pretty smart.

[1]: <http://martinfowler.com/eaaDev/EventSourcing.html>

[2]: <http://voltdb.com/>

<comment><USER5> It does say it supports ad-hoc Python blocks. I can see the potential for Python frameworks/ORMs being able to "export" a series of instructions over to such a system, or alternatively allow the object-relational/database abstraction layer to just run on the server side to start with. If you can produce a DBAPI-like API on the server, then ORMs like SQLAlchemy and maybe others should be fully usable within that environment. Client-server communication might use some kind of RPC-like system. Depending on how flexible the Python environment is, the client system could send over blocks of Python code on the fly which gets cached, making the system almost transparent.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Vendors rig these benchmarks to death. An ex-coworker of mine worked on a major proprietary SQL db. He told me that they spent 6 months with both software and hardware vendor engineers optimizing for the benchmark. They put TPC specific code in the query planner!

</comment><comment><USER7> This might useful for database as a service offerings. If that trend pick up the steam.

BTW, I think Oracle and DB2 are still on top of TPC-C is because you really don't need any faster database for OLTP than they are now. The maximum number of customers any online shop will not exceed 4 billion... The need for faster OLTP is just not there.

Warehousing and big data is a different beast... Oracle did not invest to make faster OLTP but faster OLAP...

<comment><USER3> If you count OLTP as "a system that places orders created by people", then you might be right.

As a VoltDB eng, we see lots of OLTP workloads that require much more throughput than legacy RDBMs can offer on a single system.

How many transactions do you think it requires to pick which ads to show you on a webpage?

How many updates to your Farmville-style game state are required per minute? How many concurrent users? What about MMOs?

Are financial exchange orders OLTP? If so, you have a six-figure TPS problem.

What about sensor data? Network packet monitoring? Call data record dashboards?

<comment><USER7> Yes there is a market but it is not very big. There is only one Zynga.

Also note that some of examples you mention are very well solved by streaming databases (Streambase) and event processing systems (which are sold as add-on to databases).

<comment><USER3> A big part of my job is talking to people who have scale pain with legacy systems. I don't know what percentage of the DB market this is, but it's nontrivial and growing fast.

Most of the markets I mentioned in the previous comment are nearly impossible to be successful in with a single node of legacy RDBMS sitting behind your app. Zynga is far from alone in social gaming scale pain.

Consider digital ad-tech. How many ads do you have to show before someone clicks on one? How many clicks do you need to earn $1? That can translate into: The cost of all those DB operations needs to cost way less than $1 or I'm hosed. Enter systems that can scale with less pain.

Streambase is a good example of a specialized system that can outperform legacy RDBMSs. Still, it's not like you can say, "All financial problems in scale pain can fix everything with Streambase." It's too specialized. What if you need 100gb of state? There are lots of problems in finance and some of them can be solved with Oracle/DB2 while others can't.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Two reasons:

1\. TPC-C is a vendor sponsored cock measuring competition that noone other than marketing people take seriously.

2\. Most people scale out rather than scale up so it's pretty much irrelevant as it considers monolithic computing only.

TPC-C is from the dark ages...

<comment><USER9> _that noone other than marketing people take seriously_

Plenty of people take it seriously. I take it seriously.

 _Most people scale out rather than scale up so it's pretty much irrelevant as it considers monolithic computing only._

Yet the top results are clusters.

You're 0 out of 2. Any more wisdom about TPC?

It's also worth considering audiences: If you're a web scale company holding recipes for millions of free accounts, you're a bit different from a hedge fund churning performance results for your investor results statements. Judging the latter from the perspective of the former is asinine.

<comment><USER3> People take TPC-C seriously because not much has come along that's more useful as a transactional benchmark. There are lots of transactional benchmarks, but they're often flawed in some annoying way and don't serve well as a baseline as TPC-C.

That said, TPC-C is horribly out-of-date. For example, you have to simulate human data entry time within transactions. How many systems have that problem today? It also only ever adds data, so if you run it fast enough, you have a petabyte problem, and most OLTP isn't a petabyte problem.

As for the second point, those clusters are clusters in name only. They use fancy and expensive interconnects and caches that effectively give them shared memory. Also, they won't tolerate failure of any individual component well. Finally, individual nodes still act as gatekeepers and transaction monitors. Most of the cluster is simply there to apply predicates on data coming off of disk really fast.

<comment><USER9> _For example, you have to simulate human data entry time within transactions. How many systems have that problem today?_

How many people have problems with _concurrency_? A shitload of people, that's who. This isn't a problem with no locking models because...no locking. It is when you care about consistency.

 _They use fancy and expensive interconnects and caches that effectively give them shared memory._

They often use high speed interconnects because the sort of customers who care about such build-outs would naturally use high speed interconnects. They are, however, clusters in every meaning of the word, regardless of no true scotsman fallacy's.

<comment><USER3> I'm very familiar with the TPC-C spec and the problem can't be brushed off with "concurrency!". There are multi-second waits in a large percentage of transactions. Nobody does this in any performant OLTP system today, but sure, concurrency! Except the benchmark limits how many of these transactions can be concurrently operating on a warehouse, one of its core models. So the only way to scale throughput is to add warehouses. You end up simulating a company with a million warehouses, each with a fairly small load. Furthermore, to run a million transactions a second, you'll need several million open transactions. That's why you see armies of client nodes in the spec of the systems on the leaderboards. The append-only data model is also difficult. If you removed waits and allowed old data to be pruned, the benchmark would be much more useful.

So yes, technically Oracle Exadata OLTP Clustering has multiple CPUs connected by an high speed interconnect. Cluster.

My dual socket commodity Dell server also has multiple CPUs connected by a high speed interconnect. Cluster?

My point was not to argue about a word, just that Exadata is not what some typically think of as a cluster in modern distributed systems. They've moved some smart filtering into a SAN and plugged that into RAC and shipped it all in a big hot tower-thingy. It's not bad in any way, it's just closer to SMP than other kinds of network-based parallelism.

<comment><USER9> _My dual socket commodity Dell server also has multiple CPUs connected by a high speed interconnect. Cluster?_

The top TPC-C cluster has 27 database servers, each with 4 processors and 512GB of RAM. Can your Dell server host 108 processors and 13.8TB of RAM?

The Sun cluster is exactly what most people think of as a "cluster" -- a scalable set of servers that vastly exceeds single server performance.

<comment><USER3> Yes, it's a cluster. I totally concede.

I just meant it's not the same kind of clustering as Hadoop/HBase, Vertica, VoltDB, Cassandra, Riak, Greenplum, Netezza, Teradata or even DB2-Cluster.

If clustering is a spectrum where Dynamo-style systems like Riak are on one side and my Dell SMP system is the other extreme, the Sun cluster is probably closer to the SMP system than to the Riak cluster.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Have you not just reinvented CICS?

<comment><USER11> If you mean <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CICS>, that does look similar. From a quick look at the Wikipedia page, it does not appear to be a very distributed system, though.

<comment><USER12> You can scale it pretty amazingly, though only on homogeneous IBM mainframes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I haven't read the full paper yet. But this sounds like a winner to me. It's actually not a database, but a transaction scheduling system sitting in front of the databases.

Hopefully these sort of ideas make it into Postgres for scalability.

</comment><comment><USER14> Looks very interesting.

The "limitations" are especially interesting:

"Calvin's primary limitation compared to other systems is that transactions must be executed entirely server-side. Calvin has to know in advance what code will be executed for a given transaction."

Also the author mentions in the comments that certain non-deterministic functions such as fetching random numbers of current date/time will not be allowed within the server-side transactions, the client will have to pass such values to the server.

</comment><comment><USER15> Could someone please explain the sentence at the bottom of page3 of the pdf? It reads:

"This decoupling makes it impossible to implement certain popular recovery and concurrency control techniques such as the physiological logging in ARIES and next-key locking to handle phantoms (i.e. using physical surrogates for logical properties in concurrency control)."

Also: the pre-fetch trick where the read request is sent to the storage layer pre-emptively with an artificial delay for all dependent operations is clever but could be derailed quite a bit when a drive re-calibrates. That can take a large multiple of the time a seek typically takes (which is the case you'd be optimizing for here).

</comment><comment><USER16> Can someone explain why the IBM machines on the list are running AIX operating system and Microsoft's COM+? I thought COM+ was Windows thing.

<comment><USER17> This answer on Stackoverflow explains it: <http://stackoverflow.com/a/401999/8954>

<comment><USER16> Sorry, no, it doesn't explain it at all! I already know COM+ is delivered on Windows 2000 and above. But the TPC benchmark table talks about AIX, which is a Unix, not Windows! Why do they say AIX, not Windows if they're running COM+?

<comment><USER17> "In fact, it's usually used as the TP monitor in TPC-C benchmark systems because it's more efficient than .Net or Java and much cheaper than Tuxedo or Encina (which reduces the $/TPM)."

<comment><USER16> So are they running Windows boxes but it's nowhere to be seen? Only AIX is mentioned.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Another potential bribery case, is buying your coach's house okay? - <AUTHOR> https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/04/04/bought-fencing-coach-house-then-his-son-got-into-harvard/EIWVMIxUFQ1XweY1xfB1GK/story.html#comments <comment><AUTHOR> Another potential bribe to get someone into a prestigious school. This one is interesting because the student seems well qualified and had a brother already at Harvard. The father bought his son's potential future fencing coach's house for about $350k over its estimated value, and then sold it a year later for a loss of around that much money.

I didn't go to a prestigious school; indeed they paid me to go there! (because I had a scholarship). This is years later, should these probably innocent kids lose their degree? Your life is ruined if that happens. I didn't get into Harvard but somehow I managed to work at the FANGs, lead teams, get advanced degrees etc.

<comment><USER2> Yeah. If he was buying anything it was favorable treatment from the coach, not admission.</comment></comment>