A Sprawl of Ghost Homes in Aging Tokyo Suburbs - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/24/world/a-sprawl-of-abandoned-homes-in-tokyo-suburbs.html?_r=0

<comment><USER2> Duplicate of [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10107632](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10107632)

</comment><comment><USER3> Japanese houses and buildings were typically built with 25 to 30 year useful lives. It should come as little surprise that once unoccupied the structures, unmaintained, begin to deteriorate rapidly --and just as well.

Life is impermanent, so should buildings.

What they should institute, barring the messiness of property rights, etc. Is, given japan's family registries, etc. is identify owners figure out if they'll fix it, if not, demolish. Instead of spending billions concretizing the coasts and building roads to nowhere use those resources to cull crumbling buildings.

The one about the neighbor keeping up the property next door is very stereotypical --wish more of the world were that way. Yes, it's to no effect other than sensibilities, but without them there is no society.

<comment><USER4> > Life is impermanent, so should buildings.

That seems to be some very silly reasoning. Should we build our roads and bridges to be impermanent, because life is? I'm not arguing with your first sentence, about it not being surprising that unmaintained structures tend to deteriorate.

<comment><USER5> _That seems to be some very silly reasoning._

It's not so silly when your culture is situated right on the Pacific "Ring of Fire" as is the case for Japan. In times past, you wanted to make your houses light, so that if there is an earthquake, less stuff falls on you and your family.

Imagine what it would be like if the entire culture was constantly metaphorically whispering to you from the moment of your birth about the temporary nature of life? Sorry, but while you can tell yourself you're doing it, you can't actually do it -- your imagination isn't that good! (Otherwise, there would be far fewer systemic social problems.)

In Japan, there is no distinction between high and low art. (This is absolutely related to the rest of this comment!)

<comment><USER4> > Imagine what it would be like if the entire culture was constantly > metaphorically whispering to you from the moment of your birth about the > temporary nature of life?

Are you implying that people think the world ends when they die? If I'm going to do useful work, why not do useful work that will help out people even after I'm dead? Right now I'm living in a building that was built in the 1880s. I'm happy that they built it to last.

<comment><USER5> _Are you implying that people think the world ends when they die?_

Non-sequitur!

<comment><USER4> Then what were you trying to say? How or why have the Japanese built temples, shrines, and castles that that have lasted thousands of years if they are constantly told how transient life is?

<comment><USER5> There's different messages for the common folk and the ruling elites.

<comment><USER4> It sounds like you're just making up facts to fit your theory.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> How about a program where foreign artists and craftsmen are allowed to sped a summer (or a quarter) in a suburban Japanese house in exchange for fixing it up?

Perhaps airfares could be subsidized or discounted through government or corporate programs?

Or, how about something akin to AirBNB for municipalities around the world to offer quarterly or half-year leases in exchange for maintenance and light renovation?

<comment><USER6> Aren't the homes likely to be even less attractive to foreigners [normally eligible for Japanese visas] than to the Japanese people that have abandoned them?

<comment><USER5> _Aren 't the homes likely to be even less attractive to foreigners_

Hence the proposal to market them to non-mainstream foreigners, like artists looking for inexpensive retreats.</comment></comment></comment>


The man who sold the world on credit cards - <AUTHOR> http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Saving-Money/2017/0215/Meet-the-man-who-sold-the-world-on-credit-cards <comment><USER2> Especially in some european countries like Germany, where CCs are not very popular and can't be used in a lot of places, it's easy to think that they are ultimately bad because people get this false feeling of thinking they can afford things they actually can't or shouldn't. And for the individual that is probably true.

On the other hand, the economics effects of credit cards, or credit/loans in general can't be understated. Some industries and therefor technological advances like cars or housing for example, would never be where they are without credits/loans.

In the same way i think that a lof of things like computers, tvs, holidays would never get bought without the existence of credit cards. And in the end all of that feeds the gigantic banking industry and can also be seen as the base of everything thats wrong with our financial system, as shown in the 2009 crash.

<comment><USER3> Does someone have a list of countries where _credit cards_ (as opposed to debit cards) are actually popular (apart from the US?) I'm in the Netherlands, and I only use mine for international online payments, and I have it with me as a backup (but seldom use it) while travelling abroad. And even then, it's automatically paid off in full every month, so the credit function isn't really doing much. For the rest I use cash, or have a debit card from my bank, which is accepted in most European countries. As for acceptance, hotels and restaurants, and tourist-oriented shops generally accept it, but otherwise almost no-one. (Edit: added emphasis on credit cards as opposed to debit cards.)

<comment><USER4> Norway here, it's super popular. The only place in my entire life that I was not using a credit card regularly at was the local flea market, but last time I went there they even had one of those portable credit card things. Otherwise, I use it to pay for food, taxi, bars, just everything.

Even if I need to send some money to a friend to pay for my share of the pizza, we use an app that lets us send money between credit cards.

I haven't carried coins on me for more than a year. I do have one backup bill hidden away in my wallet just in case things go sour.

<comment><USER5> That's the thing, debit cards are so common in Scandinavia so many people call them "credit cards" ("kreditkort") even though they're really not.

<comment><USER6> Likely because most of them come with the option of making payments via either the VISA or Mastercard network if the national system is not an option (traveling, some bars and restaurants, online purchases).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> There is also an interesting 99% invisible episode about this: [http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/the-fresno- drop/](http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/the-fresno-drop/)

<comment><USER8> For anyone who hasn't listened to this episode, I highly recommend it. Incredibly informative about the history and nature of credit cards, and how they've evolved over time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I've see a lot of comments about credit cards and people mentioning stuff like it's better to use a debit card and to "pay the balance off in full each month", but you are absolutely incorrect. Now it is true, obviously, that you should pay the balance off in full every month, not doing so is how the credit card companies make money, but using your credit card is nearly universally better Jan debit for two reasons:

1\. At least in the US, you receive cash back for using a credit card. As an example, many cards offer 1-2% straight up cash back. Even if you used it in the most inefficient manner, such as just getting the cash back instead of discounted airfare or something, that's a lifetime of saving 1-2% on all your purchases. That's huge.

2\. Protection. It's simple. If I use a card and get scammed (mostly happening in Europe I might add), then if I used a debit card it is my money that has been stolen and now I have to get it back. If I use the credit card? It's the banks money.

Now I know obviously that there are people who don't pay their bills, lose their job, or whatever and that's how the companies make money, and maybe if we all used cash things would be cheaper or something, but unless there is a serious movement in that direction you should always use a credit card, even the most basic one you can.

I'll also mention that this doesn't cover the plethora of various benefits that you can use for different cards: automatic extension of warranties on purchases made with credit cards, automatic rental car insurance, etc....

<comment><USER10> The "cash back" is getting pulled right out of merchants' wallets. If you're patronizing small local businesses, then using such cards is not very neighborly.

<comment><USER9> Pretty sure that Visa et all. charges a fee regardless of debit/credit cards. There is a difference in the amount charged, perhaps. If a business wants to give me a discount for using cash that might make me consider doing so. Supporting small business, which is something I try to do, is still business. Keep that in mind.

<comment><USER11> There is no perhaps about it: Every card out there that gives a decent amount of cash back has a very large interchange fee. The very best ones are easily a percent and a half more than the cheapest ones. Now, the small business might not be paying the fees in such a way that paying with a different credit card costs a different amount of money, but then that just means their payment processor is averaging fees out, and different averages would make the processor charge more overall. Still, using a credit card with foot benefits to you means higher prices in the long run.

This doesn't really happen in the EU due to a relative recent ruling standardizing fees, but that's also what makes America's super cards not be issued by their banks.

Credit cards, and payments in general, might seem really easy to model on the outside, but the whole space is a gigantic rabbit hole. That is why companies that abstract much of it away are valuable for even large merchants.

<comment><USER9> Hmm. So I don't disagree with your premise but details like "America's super cards are not issued by their banks" is incorrect. Cards like the Chase Sapphire Reserve exist

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Seems that there's a lot of confusion between credit cards and debit cards and usage in Europe and US.

In some countries (including the US), a credit card is a card that you pay at the end of the month. You have a statement and you have to pay for that statement. If you so choose you can pay less and pay at least the "minimum payment", in that case you pay interest rate on the remaining money.

There are debit cards, with debit cards the amount is directly debited from your account as you use it.

Then in a lot of European countries, we have cards that we call credit cards which are actually deferred debit cards. The money you've spent is debited from your account on a fixed date at the end of the month. You have a credit line in that until it's debited at the end of the month, you're effectively borrowing money but since it debits your account, you're expected to pay it in full.

Often this is associated with overdraft facilities on the bank account which means that at the end of the month, if the money to pay the credit card bill is not your account, the account will be overdrawn and you will pay interest (which are similar to the interest rates for credit cards in the US, around 18%)...

So, the European system with deferred debit cards is different but in practice has a bit of the same issues with overpaying and high interest rates. It's just that the credit line is tied to the bank account and not the credit card.

<comment><USER13> > in a lot of European countries, we have cards that we call credit cards > which are actually deferred debit cards. The money you've spent is debited > from your account on a fixed date at the end of the month

Interesting, I'm in the UK and have never heard of this kind of card.

<comment><USER14> I am in the Netherlands and this is exactly how all of my credit cards work. I have never seen a credit card that does not work this way.

<comment><USER3> For both credit cards issued by ING you can choose to pay only partly at the end of the month, and have revolving credit. Most people don't choose this though, as far as I know. I didn't check the other banks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I am a bit surprised at the amount of credit (pun unintended) given here to Simmons, completely ignoring the contributions of Dee Hock[0] who started the BankAmeriCard[1] revolving credit system that later became Visa.

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

[1] [http://about.bankofamerica.com/en-us/our-story/birth-of- mode...](http://about.bankofamerica.com/en-us/our-story/birth-of-modern- credit-card.html)

</comment><comment><USER16> I recall my mother making a purchase over $50 (fancy dress clothing) and the store had to call in for approval.

When did magnetic stripes and swiping become mainstream?

How about calling cards. I believe I sat across from the man who "invented " the calling card as we knew it.

</comment><comment><USER17> The method I spend money (offline) is in this order:

1 - Apple Pay (if available)

2 - Debit Card

3 - Credit Card

And cash for small amount if it makes tipping easier, or they don't take anything else. I only use Credit Cards for car hire, where it seems to be obligatory. Online I always use debit card.

<comment><USER18> Why debit over credit? My understanding has always been that credit offers a higher degree of fraud protection, plus better rewards and no interest if you have the discipline to not carry a balance.

<comment><USER19> My understanding is in the US you can actually make money/rewards if you use a credit card and make sure to pay it off monthly. That's not the case in many countries.

How do credit cars offer better degrees of fraud protections?

<comment><USER20> in the us debit cards take the money out of your account while credit cards must be paid - dispute or fradludlent transactions don't wipe your savings out, they can stay on and a balance until you clear the situation up with the card company if you use credit

<comment><USER19> Interesting. My technique for debit cars is not to keep it attached to accounts with a lot of money. I transfer the money with internet banking, then use the debit card immediately - on an as needed basis. It's certainly not attached to my entire savings at any given point in my wallet.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


First Commercial Moon Delivery Assignments to Advance Artemis - m-watson https://www.nasa.gov/feature/first-commercial-moon-delivery-assignments-to-advance-artemis <comment> m-watson There is a good Tech Crunch overview of the payloads [0]

[0] [https://techcrunch.com/2020/01/23/nasa-reveals-the- payloads-...](https://techcrunch.com/2020/01/23/nasa-reveals-the-payloads-for- the-first-commercial-moon-cargo-deliveries/)</comment>


The homeless man who became a multi-millionaire investor - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/business-38144980 <comment><USER2> Homeless, but already with a job in finance/trading. Not quite what people think of as homeless. Still a good story, but a bit forced.</comment>


The Hunt for the Invisible Axion - <AUTHOR> http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/astrophysics/the-hunt-for-the-invisible-axion <comment><USER2> I'm here ..

oh, axIon...</comment>


Generate portable interactive documents - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/thenatefisher/hldr

<comment><USER2> Unfortunately, this post's title doesn't really convey it's usefulness, but this is really cool!</comment>


Facebook Can't Be Fixed, It Needs to Be Broken Up - <AUTHOR> https://www.thedailybeast.com/facebook-cant-be-fixed-it-needs-to-be-broken-up <comment><USER2> Broken up into what exactly? If you don't like Facebook don't use it. How about the Senate and the internet outrage machine spend time on companies like Equifax instead, who (1) we literally cannot opt out of, (2) have private data that we didn't choose to share with them, and (3) have broken actual laws but haven't received as much as a slap on the wrist for it.

<comment><USER3> Firstly, it is not possible to opt out of facebook. [1] And they do indeed collect private data that we didn't choose to share (shadow accounts, third party website trackers, etc).

Facebook have broken "actual laws". There are so many cases were facebook have broken the law. [2] [3]

Also, please read up on Fallacy of relative privation ("not as bad as").

[1] [https://boingboing.net/2017/11/08/involuntary- profiling.html](https://boingboing.net/2017/11/08/involuntary-profiling.html)

[2] [https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/feb/12/facebook-...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/feb/12/facebook- personal-data-privacy-settings-ruled-illegal-german-court)

[3] [https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/19/facebooks-tracking-of- non-...](https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/19/facebooks-tracking-of-non-users- ruled-illegal-again/)

<comment><USER4> Regarding [1], it _is_ possible to opt out of facebook: don't visit websites with Facebook like/share buttons. (This website, for example). When you access a website with facebook tracking installed, you are consenting to being tracked.

<comment><USER5> I did not consent to being tracked by facebook.

Yet websites try again and again to load the facebook like button.

As per GDPR, which is in effect but not enforced until May, tracking me without _explicitly and clearly asking me if that is okay_ is not allowed and anything else, like withdrawing service until I agree to be tracked, does not construct consent.

When I visit a new website I do not know if they have facebook like buttons. I have to load the page to check that and without a script or ad blocker I will also load the like button and facebook will track that.

At which point in that process did I consent to any and all scripts on that webpage leeching of my personal data?

<comment><USER6> > Yet websites try again and again to load the facebook like button.

Take that up with the websites, not Facebook.

Vast numbers of websites use Google Web Fonts which enables Google to track users. I didn't opt in to that so I just block it.

<comment><USER5> Yes but technically less inclined users won't block and don't consent to it either.

Visiting a website is not consent for tracking.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is basically the worst possible course of action. Facebook is neither a utility nor monopoly. Facebook will be irrelevant in a generation or less. Even if Facebook manages to leverage the network effect of its alternative subsidiaries, there will always be the treadmill of evolving trends, and there's not such thing as one true mode of electronic social interaction.

<comment><USER8> > Facebook will be irrelevant in a generation or less.

A lot of harm can be done in one generation. Don't you think the history shows us that?

<comment><USER9> What history teaches us is that past generations have been ruined by serious things, like war, political upheaval, disease, and economic collapse, not by a frivolity in their social lives like FB.

Modern marketing has ensured that everyone in the US born after the'80s has grown up in an environment of marketing saturation, but modern marketing/propaganda was invented in the early 20th century. (Thanks, Edward Bernays) It changed our lives and the way we think, from Fascist propaganda to Coldwar rhetoric, and to the belief that orange juice is a breakfast drink and the engagement ring is a thing.

FB is one of thousands of powerful entities continuing the tradition, but of course, data mining has reached obscene levels, but FB is only one of many players.

<comment><USER10> While they're only one of many players, they are a big player, and from experience it's mostly boomers that use Facebook. They have a lot of power, but I do not think they should be broken up. Things have been allowed to be this way, and I doubt they will change for the better.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I don't see how breaking up Facebook changes the fact that companies are financially incentivized to track and sell as much information on their customers as possible. Whether a monopoly or a collection of small companies, people follow incentives.

<comment><USER12> That and one can't help notice the irony that on all these articles they're still trying to load the Facebook trackers in addition to the others (not to beat a dead horse).

<comment><USER13> > That and one can't help notice the irony that on all these articles they're > still trying to load the Facebook trackers in addition to the others

There's no irony here, just the fact that the author doesn't manage or control the website team that put the trackers there.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> There is a very simple alternative to Facebook: don't use Facebook. That's the competition. There is nothing quite the same but there are lots of other things to do online.

<comment><USER15> There is a strong draw for many of us. It's the only reasonable way I have to see pictures and updates from my family that's pretty far flung across the world. Convincing all my kids, grandkids, siblings, cousins, in laws, nieces, nephews, etc to move away from FB isn't really practical. I do use FB mostly read only, but there isn't really a way for me to leave.

<comment><USER4> > but there isn't really a way for me to leave.

You speak as if you have no agency in the situation. But, you _do_ have agency. Using, or not using, facebook is 100%, entirely your _choice_. There was a happy (happier?) world before 2005, where families shared photos and stayed in touch, without Mark Zuckerberg.

<comment><USER15> Yes, I have the agency to lose touch with people I care about, because it's not practical for me to convince them all to use a different medium. It is the FB moat. It's real.

<comment><USER16> So people who don't use facebook aren't in touch with people they care about? There is no moat, only an FB blindfold. It's just a product. If it's not serving you well, drop it. Better ones will arrive faster than we blink.

<comment><USER15> That's just so black and white. I could muster an effort and get some of what I get from FB via other angles, sure. And yes, there are some relatives that aren't on FB, but for me, that's the exception, not the rule.

But it is just so naive to assume I wouldn't miss out on notable pictures and news of people I love by opting out. Facebook does have some value. We're not just purely idiots. We get the trade-off. Hard opting out would have real downsides for me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> That's the least rational thing I've ever seen. Look at what happened to Bell. Forced corporate breakups are the _dumbest_ thing possible.

<comment><USER18> What would be a better way to deal with monopolies?

Surely the breakup of Bell is better than if they were allowed to continue as a monopoly right?

<comment><USER17> Not at all, actually! Ever heard of Verizon, AT&T, and Centurylink? All of them came from the Bell breakup. Bell used to do things that were _cool as fuck_ ; post-breakup, prices rose for everyone, and innovation stopped really happening.

Monopolies aren't inherently bad - especially not ones like Bell, where they're beneficial to everyone.

<comment><USER15> >post-breakup, prices rose for everyone

Any citations for this? The rise of MCI cut my phone bills by more than half in the 80's. Bell was killing us with 3 figure/month residential phone bills. And, I pay 10x less now per month in non inflation adjusted dollars than I did in 1986.

Out of state calls back then were commonly double digit cents per minute. Now they are typically 1 cent per minute or even less.

<comment><USER19> It was actually an issue after the breakup because the successor companies started making much more money as a group than they did when they were together.

They did all sorts of creative accounting to make it look like the breakup was a big success that led to lower profits, when in reality cutting bloated bureaucracy and the R&D budget led to really bumper profits.

<comment><USER15> Hmm. Maybe more overall minutes/calls due to the lower cost? I know for sure my phone bills got cut in half when I switched to MCI. I didn't call or talk more often, just paid less.

Maybe others paid more than before, but enjoyed the additional minutes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Back in the 90s people thought Microsoft was too dominant, could not be fixed, and needed to be broken up. It turns out they were wrong, because competition from companies and technologies nobody saw coming knocked Microsoft off its pedestal.

Few would have predicted the dominance of Facebook back in 2004. And few will predict the next big thing that will break Facebook's dominance.

All this talk about the government breaking up Facebook is likely just as short-sighted as the talk about the government breaking up Microsoft in the 90s.

<comment><USER2> I really don't understand the line of thinking that starts with "Facebook is broken" and immediately goes to "Congress should fix it".

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Let's break up Google too while we are at it. They exert far too much influence via Google search and YouTube and Android.

<comment><USER22> I agree. The momentum seems to be focused on Facebook mainly because they played it _too_ fast and loose for too long. But many of the issues that apply to Facebook apply to Google as well, but it just hasn't provided as much reason for this level of scrutiny.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> My only problem with Facebook is that it was allowed to purchase Whatsapp and Instagram it's future competitors. I was glad Snapchat did not sell to Facebook. Personally I only use WhatsApp of these 4 as it is something I can't do without for work.

</comment><comment><USER24> A good first step would be to force Facebook to let users easily take out their data in machine-readable form, including their social graph, posts and media.

<comment><USER25> They have done that voluntarily for years. It's under your settings. One thing they don't currently allow is a complete and utter, real, deletion of your profile and all of its assets. You can delete your account, but it's more or less just held in a suspended state.

<comment><USER13> > A good first step would be to force Facebook to let users easily take out > their data in machine-readable form, including their social graph, posts and > media.

> They have done that voluntarily for years. It's under your settings.

Only kinda sorta. I exported my data and the photos were clearly lower-res versions from the ones that are currently live on my profile. Also I doubt the export contains _all_ the data they have linked to you, as I bet they have far more from their tracking, analytics, and shadow profiles that they won't export.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Nobody mentioned the FTC yet, but haven't they failed in a big way regarding Facebook? They allowed them to buy Whatsapp, Instagram, tbh. There is no competition because Facebook buys them before they get dangerous.

</comment><comment><USER27> Facebook is already dying. Why even bother?

<comment><USER28> Dying by which metric exactly? The billions in USD profit or the billions of monthly active users?

<comment><USER29> but newspapers say it is dying , so it must be dying. And that's just a taste of what 'objective' news means.

<comment><USER27> Yes, it's because newspapers are telling me it's dying. Right. Newspapers. I don't know if you mean newspapers in a literal sense, but if you do, well, nobody except my parents reads those anymore. ;)

Profit and number of users are not good metrics for the future of a platform. Facebook the company probably isn't going to die, but Facebook the platform can and will inevitably become a ghost town in short order, just as all its predecessors.

Remember, Facebook is a parent company to other revenue sources. The company will continue to survive. Then again, the same can technically be said of Myspace.

Facebook's user growth in North America is in decline.

[https://techcrunch- com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/techcrunch.com...](https://techcrunch- com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/techcrunch.com/2018/01/31/facebook-time-spent/amp/)

Being someone who works for a media company, we've already seen a significant drop in Facebook followers since the Cambridge Analytica fiasco.

No, I don't think Facebook the social media platform has a bright future. The fact that Gen Z isn't using Facebook is a sign that Facebook has entered the initial stages of apoptosis.

[https://amp-businessinsider-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/amp.b...](https://amp- businessinsider-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/amp.businessinsider.com/generation- z-facebook-2018-1)

I can't say I blame Gen Z. Why would any young person want to use Facebook at this point when it's highly censored and your mom and grandma are peering at every post you make or like?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> they should have never been allowed to buy Whatsapp and Instagram in the first place.

<comment><USER9> Um, neither WhatsApp nor Instagram were competitors to Facebook. Both of the acquired companies simply did something that Facebook tried to do, but very successfully.

The government can only prevent acquisitions and mergers, when such would greatly harm the consumer by giving a company too much control of a vital market, like health insurance or phone service. Moreover, it didn't stop banks from consolidating 30 separate entities into 5 between 1990 and 2005 or so.

<comment><USER31> How would you describe competitors if it's not someone who tries to do same thing?

On top of that, there was very move of youngsters to WhatsApp and Instagram as their social media of choice. Instead of lame old man's Facebook. That's very clear competition for new users.</comment></comment></comment>


I'm not a VC but.... - Ye-Ha

Full disclosure:  We applied but didnt get selected.
Nonetheless, I have had a start-up (failure) before.  And I know a bunch of really smart people and VC's. ;-)
If you want to practice on us or if you are coming in from out of town and need a place to stay (I have a killer house), contact me on Twitter.  @BHeard.
If I get an overwhelming response, preference will be given to start-ups who's products are synergistic with ours. <comment><AUTHOR> This is really generous of you, Ye-Ha. Thanks for the offer. We live in NYC and don't currently intend to come out (we got bounced also), but if we do come I'll contact you.

</comment><comment> Ye-Ha I should have said that this was for YC applicants. Sorry.</comment>


Show HN: Bloo.tk - I'm feeling lucky in a URL - <AUTHOR> http://bloo.tk

<comment><USER2> As a keyboard guy, if I can't hit enter and have it do it's thing (it looks like a form) I'd be hard pressed to use it.

<comment><AUTHOR> See my other comment. But yes, I'll add the ability to click Go with enter.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> The front-page here is just to explain what it is. Use-case:you are sharing a url that you know will be the first search result for a simple word, so you just share <http://bloo.tk/simple+word>

</comment><comment><USER3> I've been using [http://www.google.com/search?q=%s&btnI=Im+Feeling+Lucky](http://www.google.com/search?q=%s&btnI=Im+Feeling+Lucky) as a search engine in chrome.

</comment><comment><USER4> Neat app. Any chance you might open source this?

</comment><comment><USER5> Site doesn't respond on my end.

<comment><AUTHOR> You might be hitting enter instead of clicking go. The form isn't actually a form and I'm using JS to trigger the redirect on clicking the link, so the default enter behavior isn't active.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I don't really understand it.</comment>


Show HN: Libcox – A C Library for Cross-Platform System Calls - <AUTHOR> http://libcox.net <comment><USER2> Aside from being C and "lightweight" I wonder when you'd want to pick this instead of POCO or ACE...

<comment><USER3> Not sure if climbing this high on HN on a U.S. holiday indicates a real need or clever marketing for this new project, but congratulations to them for getting the word out.

Thanks also to you for sharing a couple well-established alternatives.

<comment> geoff-codes A few more (particularly nspr and apr): [http://www.shlomifish.org/open- source/portability-libs/](http://www.shlomifish.org/open-source/portability- libs/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Thought it was either written by Russ Cox or it had something to do with Roosters. But seriously, it's more of a personal problem if someone can't make the minute mental leap to discriminate between cox and cocks-the name is perfectly fine and doesn't need to be changed.

</comment><comment><USER5> Why use command processing (e.g. `libcox_exec(pHandle,&pResult,"uname",-1)`) rather than plain function (could be `libcox_uname(pHandle, &pResult)` for instance) ?

<comment><AUTHOR> no need to release a new version by a adding a new public API function each time a command is added. You would simply create a new foreign command in your application, register it via libcox_register_command()[1] without modifying the library core.

[1]: [http://libcox.net/c_api/libcox_register_command.html](http://libcox.net/c_api/libcox_register_command.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6>
        rc = libcox_exec_fmt(pHandle,&pResult,"ls '%s'",zDir); /*Don't forget the single quotes around 'zDir' */

This is either insecure, or so different from a shell as to make it not worth using shell syntax.

I really like the concept though. Took me to figure out what the concept is because "system calls" doesn't mean "shell commands" to me, but having figured that out, operating on shell commands has a lot of things going for it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi, this is due to the fact that zDir may contain spaces especially under windows which confuse the command processor to interpret it as multiple arguments and not a single one as with single or double quotes ([http://libcox.net/arch.html](http://libcox.net/arch.html))

<comment><USER6> What happens if zDir contains single quotes?

<comment><USER7> You need to escape them, like in every other instance where strings may contain control characters.

That'd be my guess, at least, but, i guess, single quotes aren't valid characters for zDir.

<comment><USER6> So what are the quote parsing rules for libcox, and given an arbitrary string, how do I correctly escape them?

(In the absence of this, and certainly in the absence of official docs/examples that do the right thing, that's a security vulnerability waiting to happen.)

<comment><AUTHOR> String escaping follows the same rules of C/C++ or you could use the str_escape command to do job for you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I don't know how they managed to do it, but on the mobile version of the site, none of the useful links are actually links...

</comment><comment><USER9> Very cool project! But I agree with the comments about the name is unfortunate</comment>


Beginners Guide to Sending Email for Web Designers and Developers - <AUTHOR> http://www.leemunroe.com/sending-email-designers-developers/

<comment><AUTHOR> Brain dump of notes and lessons learned for those that have little experience working with email.</comment>


Bill Gross – Banking/finance "permanently damaged" [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://image.exct.net/lib/ff021270746501/m/8/32803+-+TL-Bill+Gross+Investment+Outlook_March+2016_exp+03.30.17.pdf <comment><USER2> Yes, we have a capital glut and no place to put it that will earn a reasonable return.

What's the limiting factor on investment? It's not capital; there's a glut of that. It's not land; outside a few big cities, there's plenty of space. It's not labor; there's no labor shortage. It's not management; there are lots of unemployed managers with good track records. It's not manufacturing capacity; there's plenty of idle capacity and more could easily be built if needed.

It's demand. We're out of demand. US workers are spent out and can't buy more. This stalls out the whole economy.

This is a new thing, historically. For most of history, the problem was making enough stuff. That's now a solved problem. In the developed world, just about anything you can consume can be delivered to your door within hours or days.

Market-based capitalism treats labor as a cost, not an output. (The measured output is return on investment.) As technology progresses, more work previously done by humans is done by machines. This reduces the relative value of labor.

But buying power comes from labor. As the buying value of labor declines (in the US, it peaked in 1973), the whole economy winds down.

We have no clue how to handle this.

An unanswered question: is there another stable point in this system? If wages were forced up above their economic value, by legislation, minimum wages, or unions, would overall economic output increase or decrease?

<comment><USER3> We do know how to increase aggregate demand. The formula:

      D = C + I + G + NE

      D = Demand
      C = Consumer spending on private goods and services
      I = Business investment in capital goods
      G = Government expenditures on public goods & services
      NE = Net exports (Exports - Imports)

Right now there is a huge economic opportunity to increase G due to historically low interest rates (cheap to raise debt) and stagnant wages (cheap labor). The economics are clear, but the way forward through fiscal policy roadblocks is not.

Read for more details: [https://sites.google.com/site/kocherlakota009/home/policy/th...](https://sites.google.com/site/kocherlakota009/home/policy/thoughts- on-policy/2-19-16)

<comment><USER4> Only if G isn't already overspent. In the US and several counties G is well over budget and has been for a long time. This combined with large liabilities coming down the pipeline and G should not be something we look to solve the issue.

<comment><USER5> Infrastructure spending in the US is backlogged for decades. Hard to argue we're overspending on that when we see a major bridge collapse disaster every 5 years.

Bring that schedule forward through issuing more debt at record-low interest rates, and bang, you've solved several problems at once. People have jobs, they spend money, that helps the economy, and we get the infrastructure out of it as well.

You'll even get some of that inflation that's been missing during the QE period, while all the fed economists looked at their macro textbooks in utter confusion.

<comment><USER6> That is just a misallocation of funds, not a lack of budget. I think the federal government can find a way to fix bridges with a 4 Trillion dollar budget.

<comment><USER5> So where would you reallocate from?

Calling it '4 trillion' is technically correct but I find that taking out the passthru social programs (SS, medicare, medicaid) leaves you with the real number of what's available to allocate differently. Hard to say that we could pay for something out of SS benefits while still collecting FICA tax, and if you want to eliminate the program entirely that's a different discussion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> So if you don't know who Bill Gross is:

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

He's been called the bond king and his old firm PIMCO was at one point the biggest bond trading firm in the world. Over the past 5 years PIMCO's sold volatility to the rest of hte world.

He was booted out of PIMCO a couple of years ago and he's had a really tough time getting his new fund at Janus going.

As you'll see from the PDF, he's a very eloquent writer and is always on TV as a markets expert.

Just keep in mind when reading that everyone who runs a fund is always talking their own book when they talk in public. He might be right with his pessimism but keep in mind that before he released this he has almost certainly put on a position that will be benefited by people reading his work and believing him.

<comment><USER8> _Just keep in mind when reading that everyone who runs a fund is always talking their own book when they talk in public. He might be right with his pessimism but keep in mind that before he released this he has almost certainly put on a position that will be benefited by people reading his work and believing him._

Yes - he has two goals... The more people who pile in to his investments, the better the returns look. (Until everyone piles out at the same time) Also, he gets paid on Assets Under Management, so these documents are marketing to get more money to invest.

<comment><USER9> >The more people who pile in to his investments, the better the returns look

That's not how it works.

<comment><USER10> If you have a fund investing in foo, and you attract enough investors that demand for foo increases the price by 10%, your fund posts a 10% return.

Of course, if all your investors tried to realise those gains by selling their investments, the price of foo would drop again.

<comment><USER9> Are you arguing that investors will sidestep Bill and invest directly in the bonds? If that was the case, I don't know how PIMCO manages trillions.

The reality is that he wants to attract investors to his fund. Obviously, accounting doesn't include that in his returns.

<comment><USER8> It's both. He wants people to invest in Janus, and he wants other large money managers to copy his idea with a slight lag. (Drive up the price of his positions after he's in, and leave slightly after he gets out)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> _The secret in a negative interest rate world that poses extraordinary duration risk for AAA sovereign bonds is to (1) keep bond maturities short and (2) borrow at those attractive yields in a mildly levered form that provides a yield (and expected return) of 5-6%. Janus unconstrained portfolios attempt to do that and are inching to the head of its asset universe day by day. No guarantees. The advice about borrowing at low yields above obviously has to be matched with investments that are less volatile and least affected by the evolving changes of our monetary system. But it can be done. Closed end funds at deep discounts, highly certain acquisition arbitrage stocks, as well as volatility sales at tails are general examples._

Gross spends 5 pages exposing the flaws of the current financial/economic investing climate, then does a 180 and says the model is fine, and that Janus has some vague advantage in reliably finding a) discounts b) arbitrage and c) tail-end volatility - short term profit centers that all banks are searching frantically for right now.

Seems like a rather strange and disconcerting investment outlook, with Gross ultimately resigning to do his best within a broken system. Does not bode well as an outlook for actual reformation of the system or a call to action in this direction.

<comment><USER8> It's called "Talking your book". :-)

The idea of borrowing cheap in one place and investing for higher yield isn't new. Banks and investors borrowed German bonds to invest in Greek bonds, and investors borrowed in Japan to invest in Iceland. It works for a while until it doesn't. When you're levered the end goes from bad to worse, and usually has cyclical implications. (Forced sales to make margin calls depresses the stocks even more as people rush the exits)

<comment><USER11> "Talking your book" == putting money where your mouth is. Bill Gross, especially when he was at PIMCO running the world's largest bond fund, had to invest in what he believed in. They couldn't market themselves out of a losing position.

<comment><USER8> I respectfully think you have it backwards. Generally financiers put their mouth where their money is, not the other way around. (They talk up where they are investing, not choosing to back their ideas up with investments) They're in the investment business, not the talking business. This isn't a comment on their ethics, just their incentives. Talking their book helps them in winning positions too - it can provide greater liquidity.

If it was positive NPV for them to keep quiet, every investor would.

<comment><USER12> Maybe if you're Bill Gross this is true, but the vast majority of fund managers never get on TV to talk their book in the first place. Just like (good) VCs have an investment thesis, most fund managers do too.

<comment><USER8> Going public can be a risky strategy. You only want to do it when you benefit from the exposure. You do it after you're already in the position and won't want to get more. (For instance, "I am long High Yield credit") If you're still accumulating something harder to access ("I'm buying Inverse Mortgages") then you don't want to be public. You also hold yourself up to be second- guessed. It's a tradeoff.

CNBC and Bloomberg TV are full of talking heads all day long, though they only scratch the surface on potential fund managers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> _The recent collapse in worldwide bank stock prices can be explained not so much by potential defaults in the energy /commodity complex, as by investor recognition that banks are now not only being more tightly regulated, but that future ROE's will be much akin to a utility stock. Observe the collapse in bank stock prices ... Banking/finance seems to be either a screaming sector ready to be bought or a permanently damaged victim of write-offs, tighter regulation and significantly lower future margins. I'll vote for the latter._

I don't want to make one paragraph representative of an industry, but it matches some other things I've read: He's omitting the massive fraud and incomptence by that sector - on an historic scale - which caused the largest economic calamity in several generations, the Great Recession of 2008 (and they and we were saved from a much worse calamity by central bankers and tax- payers). Yet he seems to forget that minor detail and calls the financial sector a "victim" and blames the regulation that will prevent another catastrophe!

It's as if the first catastrophe never happened. Perhaps that psychology, as much as anything, explains the financial sector's problems. You also see it when people in that industry complain about being 'demonized', as if they totally deny the reality for which they are criticized (and for which they've gotten off easy: bailed out by the taxpayers ad government, nobody in jail, few went out of business, and since then have returned to record profits while much of the economy stagnates).

</comment><comment><USER14> In my first job in finance, I worked for a professor who was developing what at the time became the first model to accurately price bond options. As we visited potential clients, one of the common complaints from their quants was that the model allowed for the possibility of negative interest rates. Alas, that was back in the days of 10+% rates in the US so I guess negative rates seemed like a pretty remote chance.

<comment><USER7> My email is in my user details. I'd love to hear about the models you helped develop.

I wasn't in the industry in the 80's due to being way too young, but I've gone through the early work that was done in the early 80's on bond option pricing and some of the newer papers that have come out in the mid 2000's.

Would love it if you could point me to the research you worked on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> A few commenters are noting that Gross is just talking his book with this pessimistic outlook.

To be fair, he's had a consistently pessimistic long view over the years.

2010:

Several months ago I rhetorically asked whether it was possible to get out of debt crisis by increasing debt. Yes – was the answer, but it was a qualified yes. Given that initial conditions were favorable – relative low debt as a % of GDP, with the ability to produce low/negative short-term policy rates and constructively direct fiscal deficit spending towards growth positive investments – a country could escape a debt deflation by creating more debt. But those countries are few – the U.S. among perhaps a handful that have that privilege, and investors, including PIMCO, have strong doubts about U.S. fiscal deficits leading to strong future growth rates.

[https://www.pimco.com/insights/economic-and-market- commentar...](https://www.pimco.com/insights/economic-and-market- commentary/investment-outlook/three-will-get-you-two-or-two-will-get-you- three)

2011:

Bond yields and stock prices are resting on an artificial foundation of QE II credit that may or may not lead to a successful private market handoff and stability in currency and financial markets. 15% gratuities may lie ahead, but more than likely there is a negative two-bit or even eight-bit tip lying on the investment table. Like I did 45 years ago, PIMCO's not sticking around to see the waitress's reaction.

[https://www.pimco.com/insights/economic-and-market- commentar...](https://www.pimco.com/insights/economic-and-market- commentary/investment-outlook/two-bits-four-bits-six-bits-a-dollar)

2012:

We are in a "New Normal" world where the negative effects of private sector deleveraging are only being weakly addressed by monetary and fiscal authorities. If so, then Treasury yields should stay low and my money market fund should continue to read ".01%." The "cult" of equity – or better yet the cult of "total return" – for both bonds and stocks – is over, if that definition presumes a resumption of historical patterns anywhere close to double digits. The era of financial repression continues.

[https://www.pimco.com/insights/economic-and-market- commentar...](https://www.pimco.com/insights/economic-and-market- commentary/investment-outlook/three-will-get-you-two-or-two-will-get-you- three)

2013:

What if zero-bound interest rates define the end of a total return epoch that began in the 1970s, accelerated in 1981 and has come to a mathematical dead- end for bonds in 2012/2013 and commonsensically for other conjoined asset classes as well? What if a future epoch favors lower than index carry or continual bouts of 2008 Lehmanesque volatility, or encompasses a period of global geopolitical confrontation with a quest for scarce and scarcer resources such as oil, water, or simply food as suggested by Jeremy Grantham? What if the effects of global "climate change or perhaps aging demographics," substantially alter the rather fertile petri dish of capitalistic expansion and endorsement? What if quantitative easing policies eventually collapse instead of elevate asset prices? What if there is a future that demands that an investor – a seemingly great investor – change course, or at least learn new tricks? Ah, now, that would be a test of greatness: the ability to adapt to a new epoch.

[https://www.pimco.com/insights/economic-and-market- commentar...](https://www.pimco.com/insights/economic-and-market- commentary/investment-outlook/a-man-in-the-mirror)

2015:

This is all ending. The successful portfolio manager for the next 35 years will be one that refocuses on the possibility of periodic negative annual returns and miniscule Sharpe ratios and who employs defensive choices that can be mildly levered to exceed cash returns, if only by 300 to 400 basis points....

I wish to still be active in say 2020 to see how this ends. As it is, in 2015, I merely have a sense of an ending, a secular bull market ending with a whimper, not a bang. But if so, like death, only the timing is in doubt. Because of this sense, however, I have unrest, increasingly a great unrest.

[https://www.janus.com/bill-gross-investment- outlook/may](https://www.janus.com/bill-gross-investment-outlook/may)

</comment><comment><USER16> Translation: tough shit, younger folks. Old folks get the wealth and the land, we get debt repayments and unemployment.

</comment><comment><USER17> Bill Gross has lost the plot.

</comment><comment><USER18> So now that the basic "obvious" assumption that interes rates are nonnegative (an assumption of every financial model until 3 years ago) has been proved wrong, we all cry "foul".

Just another finance "axiom" going burst because human beings are complicating things... Like in physics... oh, wait! It took 150 years to improve Newton (not precisely debunk him).</comment>


Ask HN: How do I pick a logo? /$500 99designs contest with  70 entries/ - <AUTHOR>

I kicked of a $500 99designs contest for my logo on Friday and received over 70 submissions already. I eliminated the most obvious suspects and asked friends and family for help.
The contest doesn't end until Friday and I wonder if there's an algorithm of sorts I can use to tackle existing designs and the ones that will, undoubtedly, be coming.
I understand that combinations of deep red and black don't make for a good web site built around the logo. I also find myself partial to the sci-fi 3D orbs -and- the flat shape designs like #55 or #11.
http://wagerlabs.com/logo-contest-for-algokit
Other bits of interest... This is for a web-based compiler (source-to-source translator) between various trading languages. The aim is to enable users to migrate between platforms at a push of a button, without having to manually rewrite their strategies. The plan is to charge $400-600 per translation.
Translator is written in OCaml, the backend is OCaml with Ocsigen, uses Amazon SimpleDB and S3 and Plimus for payment processing. <comment><USER2> My algorithm would say:

\- reject generic shapes and cliches seen ad nauseum in 99d contests: Astralify, black21, #64, KamNy

\- promote designs that attempt to communicate transformation: #73, wenk, #31, #28, #25, #15

\- promote designs that will print well on a budget (intricate designs and colours/gradients can print well, if you'll pay the premium for good print services): #11, #32, #66

Yes, some of these considerations will clash unfortunately, but it might help eliminate/promote from your shortlist.

I also asked friends/family for opinions with the logo for my to-be-announced project, and it really helped to uncover interpretations and connotations I'd not considered alone.

Good luck, and please let us know which you choose as your winner.

</comment><comment><USER3> Hum... Using AK, why not suggest some of your designers try to use a PRISM /\ with light coming out of it to make the K. Since your software converts one type of code into others.</comment>


Show HN: Open sourcing a data flow engine for Clojure/Script - <AUTHOR> https://domino-clj.github.io/ <comment><USER2> This could be cool, I was sad when nothing came of the old dataflow project in Clojure contrib. Readers might also be interested in:

[https://github.com/sixthnormal/clj-3df](https://github.com/sixthnormal/clj-3df)

Which offers Datalog queries that deliver you fast, minimal diffs of data upon updates from external sources (e.g. Kafka). Build on differential dataflow, which is very cool.

</comment><comment><USER3> Very neat. Looks like something similar to a lightweight Onyx. Can it handle async event handlers in this version?

<comment><AUTHOR> The event handlers are expected to be synchronous at the moment to ensure that they are executed in their desired order. The event execution is also handled transactionally so each run through the engine will block until it's complete.

The goal for the library is primarily to provide a way to organized the business logic. One example use would be hooking it up to re-frame. Re-frame events can feed inputs into Domino, and it will run through the event graph and produce a new state for the re-frame db.

Another use case is to use Domino as a state machine on a server. You can hook up HTTP endpoints as inputs, run through the events to decide what actions need to be performed, and then dispatch effects to handle HTTP responses, and so on.

<comment><AUTHOR> added an example using Domino with re-frame [https://github.com/domino- clj/examples/blob/master/domino-re...](https://github.com/domino- clj/examples/blob/master/domino-re-frame- example/src/domino_re_frame_example/core.cljs)</comment></comment></comment>


Hardbin: secure encrypted pastebin - <AUTHOR> https://hardbin.com <comment><USER2> Hi all, I made this.

The reason it is described as "the world's most secure" is because both the code and the data are served from IPFS. IPFS is a content-addressable storage system, so as long as you access it over an IPFS gateway you trust (running one locally is the best way), you know the code and data haven't been meddled with.

It degrades to the same security model as ordinary encrypted pastebins when accessed over a gateway you don't trust (e.g. the hardbin.com public gateway).

This article (was on HN a couple of weeks ago) gives a good overview of IPFS: [https://ipfs.io/blog/24-uncensorable- wikipedia/](https://ipfs.io/blog/24-uncensorable-wikipedia/)

And you can learn how to set up a local IPFS node here (it's super duper easy - copy binary into /usr/local/bin, ???, profit): [https://ipfs.io/docs/getting-started/](https://ipfs.io/docs/getting-started/)

So, please, don't knock it before you understand it :)

EDIT: Although I did try to explain it thoroughly in the About section, I do take responsibility for not making it easy enough to understand.

IPFS is pretty new technology, and presents a very different set of assumptions compared to traditional web apps.

If you didn't understand it at first but you do understand it now, please let me know what the key piece of information was that made it "click" so that I can put more emphasis on that next time.

<comment><USER3> A quick look at the source code shows the generate_key() function [0] to be insecure. It generates 32 random bytes (good, that's what you need for an AES-256 key), but then it uses those random bytes to sample from a distribution which only has 62 characters. This significantly reduces the security of the key, from 256 bits of entropy to ~190 bits (log2(62^32)). And that would be in the best case, if it were sampling uniformly from the distribution - it is not.

I recommend reading Section 9.7 of Cryptography Engineering [1] to understand why choosing random elements from a set is harder than it seems. A good example of a similar bug is the nasty bug in Cryptocat's PRNG from 2013 [2].

I assume this step was done so the AES key could be included in the URL fragment, since a set of random bytes may not be url safe. I recommend feeding the random bytes of the key directly into the underlying cryptographic functions, and using a urlsafe encoding at a higher level when necessary.

Also, it appears you are using AES [3], a block cipher, but I cannot figure out what block cipher _mode_ you are using. I'll have to dig into the CryptoJS code a little more to see what it defaults to, but I have a sinking feeling that it's ECB, which is completely insecure. Dan Boneh's Crypto I course on Coursera is a good way to learn the basics of block cipher modes.

[0]: [https://github.com/jes/hardbin/blob/c77c2d7eb93586e0e009ea4b...](https://github.com/jes/hardbin/blob/c77c2d7eb93586e0e009ea4b390b75fa3d7c750f/js/hardbin.js#L13-L25) [1]: [https://www.amazon.com/Cryptography-Engineering- Principles-P...](https://www.amazon.com/Cryptography-Engineering-Principles- Practical-Applications/dp/0470474246) [2]: [https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2013/07/09/anatomy-of-a- pse...](https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2013/07/09/anatomy-of-a-pseudorandom- number-generator-visualising-cryptocats-buggy-prng/) [3]: [https://github.com/jes/hardbin/blob/c77c2d7eb93586e0e009ea4b...](https://github.com/jes/hardbin/blob/c77c2d7eb93586e0e009ea4b390b75fa3d7c750f/js/hardbin.js#L5-L7)

<comment><USER2> I'm aware it's only 190 bits of keyspace. I mentioned this in my blog post[0], and would in fact be more likely to decrease it than increase it, in order to make the URLs shorter. I don't think it's a problem, but am interested in being proven wrong.

It's using CBC mode.

[0] [http://incoherency.co.uk/blog/stories/hardbin.html](http://incoherency.co.uk/blog/stories/hardbin.html)

EDIT:

> And that would be in the best case, if it were sampling uniformly from the > distribution - it is not.

Can you please point out how it's not? It's intended to sample uniformly. It would be non-uniform if it were "randombytes[i] % alphabet.length".

EDIT2:

I see now how it's non-uniform. 256 values in randombytes doesn't map 1:1 onto 62 values in alphabet. I will fix this tonight, thanks for pointing it out.

<comment><USER3> > I'm aware it's only 190 bits of keyspace. I mentioned this in my blog > post[0], and would in fact be more likely to decrease it than increase it, > in order to make the URLs shorter. I don't think it's a problem, but am > interested in being proven wrong.

I understand that you're trying to balance the tradeoff between security and usability here, which is tricky. If quantum computers are part of your threat model, remember that Grover's algorithm provides a quadratic speedup for brute-forcing a symmetric key, so 2^190 would become 2^95 against a quantum adversary. Personally I prefer the margin of safety provided by using a full- strength 256-bit key :)

> It's using CBC mode.

Phew! That would've been truly catastrophic.

<comment><USER4> CBC mode isn't exactly a saving grace here, since it's unauthenticated.

<comment><USER2> The code and data are shipped together out of IPFS. If you don't trust the data, you don't trust the code anyway, so it makes no difference whether the data is authenticated.

<comment><USER4> First, read this: [https://tonyarcieri.com/all-the-crypto-code-youve-ever- writt...](https://tonyarcieri.com/all-the-crypto-code-youve-ever-written-is- probably-broken)

Second, what is the threat model where you trust IPFS but still need to encrypt client-side? Unauthenticated CBC mode totally defeats the point of encryption, but encryption totally defeats the point of trusting IPFS.

Why not just-- crazy idea!-- use authenticated encryption even if you trust IPFS?

<comment><USER2> I don't think you understand IPFS.

If you trust your IPFS node, you know that you're retrieving the correct content. You still don't want others to be able to read it.

EDIT: (Since HN won't let me reply to you): There is no mode of operation in which it's safe to use Hardbin without trusting the messages you're receiving, authenticated encryption or not.

Since the code and the data are both served out of IPFS at the same time, checking the message integrity is pointless. If somebody controlled the IPFS node you're using and wanted to do something malicious, they could more easily just add some code to ship the decryption key off to a remote server than perform an attack on the unauthenticated encryption.

<comment><USER4> A lot of crypto engineering problems go out the window if you just trust the messages you're receiving. That doesn't mean it's okay to use unauthenticated encryption in 2017.

> EDIT: (Since HN won't let me reply to you): There is no mode of operation in > which it's safe to use Hardbin without trusting the messages you're > receiving, authenticated encryption or not.

> Since the code and the data are both served out of IPFS at the same time, > checking the message integrity is pointless. If somebody controlled the IPFS > node you're using and wanted to do something malicious, they could more > easily just add some code to ship the decryption key off to a remote server > than perform an attack on the unauthenticated encryption.

[http://www.cryptofails.com/post/121201011592/reasoning-by- le...](http://www.cryptofails.com/post/121201011592/reasoning-by-lego-the- wrong-way-to-think-about)

<comment><USER2> Your HN profile describes you as a Cryptography Engineer, and I'm sure that's true.

You're just not presenting a convincing argument for why it's OK to trust the code but not the data when they're both served out of the same place. Do you understand that they're both served from the same place? If somebody can modify the data, they can just as easily modify the code and make it do whatever they want. Do you understand that?

You're just linking me to things other people have written instead of presenting a persuasive argument. So I'm not going to bother doing what you say. Sorry.

<comment><USER4> If you call your project "the most secure X" and you're doing something related to X in a very sub-optimal way (i.e. not using AEAD modes), what happens if someone uses your code as a reference point for writing their own crypto for a protocol that doesn't use IPFS? What if, instead of a specific instance of copying code out of context, people _learn bad habits from your code_ and then defend their choices until they're blue in the face because they copied it off of "the most secure" reference implementation?

A lot of problems, many unforeseeable, are easily prevented by using authenticated encryption.

> You're just not presenting a convincing argument for why it's OK to trust > the code but not the data when they're both served out of the same place. Do > you understand that they're both served from the same place? If somebody can > modify the data, they can just as easily modify the code and make it do > whatever they want. Do you understand that?

Yes, and this has been covered to death to the point that I'm sick of hearing it: [https://www.nccgroup.trust/us/about-us/newsroom-and- events/b...](https://www.nccgroup.trust/us/about-us/newsroom-and- events/blog/2011/august/javascript-cryptography-considered-harmful/)

One could easily build a Chrome extension that still uses your IPFS gateway for shipping ciphertext. Now you've got the code at rest (so transport-layer integrity doesn't undermine the code being executed), but the data is still reliant on IPFS.

Let's do a thought experiment.

First, move your code to a Chrome extension (which makes the code immutable), then give the attacker an enormous amount of power. For a moment, assume that an attacker can totally defeat IPFS. It doesn't matter _how_ they do it. Is your _application-layer cryptography_ protocol still secure?

<comment><USER2> > First, [completely change your application and its core security > assumptions]. Is your application-layer cryptography protocol still secure?

No.

<comment><USER4> If your application-layer cryptography protocol is not secure in isolation, what argument do you have against making it secure in isolation?

<comment><USER2> I have none. I'd merge a sensible pull request.

But characterising it as a huge security flaw is disingenuous. It's neither here nor there.

<comment><USER4> I'm characterizing it as a protocol/design flaw in something that bills itself as _the most secure X_ , sure, but I haven't done anything to describe it as "huge".

Are you being needlessly defensive?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> _The world 's most secure encrypted pastebin, guaranteed_

What could possibly go right?

<comment><USER6> finally, i can combine the security of the browser with the convenience of seeding torrents!

<comment><USER7> Great phrasing lol...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It's very interesting but the title seems a little hyperbolic as there are numerous caveats (from the "About" section):

\- "Note that the security benefits of hardbin only apply when accessing it over a local (or otherwise trusted) gateway. If you access it over a gateway that you do not control, then the security model degrades to be equivalent to that of traditional encrypted pastebins."

\- "The content will need to be pinned to make sure it stays around for long term (the same as any content stored in IPFS)." (though this doesn't impact the merits of its encryption)

\- "You need to make very sure to use a known-good version of the code when creating pastes, as it would be trivial to create a malicious version that looks identical. The best thing to do is write down the hash the first time you use it, and always use the same hash. If you want to upgrade to a new version of the software, you'll need to update your hash."

\- "I don't recommend using hardbin for highly critical stuff as the code has not been thoroughly audited by anyone but me."

The last is perhaps the most worrying thing.

<comment><USER9> These are all standard security concerns. Anyone who brings you something similar and does not have a long list like this is in marketing or sales.

<comment><USER10> If these are all standard security concerns, doesn't that make this a standard security pastebin?

I think the point is that it's an extraordinary claim with unextraordinary evidence.

<comment><USER11> Does anyone remember when the phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" was used regards to truly extraordinary claims? Like room-temperature superconductors. Or cold fusion. Or that aliens were responsible for the birth of human civilization?

This is not an extra-ordinary claim. This is the claim of "I made secure software, and I reckon it's pretty good" wrapped up in the extremely ordinary common English-language hyperbole of calling something 'the best' when there is no way to know if it is, or prove it one way or the other.

<comment><USER12> However, the use of hyperbole transforms the claim into an extraordinary one.

That is, unless you consider hyperbole to now be standard, in which case we have to likewise transform the original material being quoted.

Otherwise we're comparing apples to super duper hyper bestest-ever oranges.

<comment><USER11> Yep, I consider the use of hyperbole to be a standard colloquialism in this case, not a claim that they did an in-depth experimental study of pastebins and have compiled a report for peer review.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Why not just gpg-encrypt and ascii-armor your text for the recipient(s), and put it in an ordinary pastebin?

<comment><USER7> Exactly. Some kind of proven cryptosystem implemented with great UI on untrusted, online storage. Options to do it over various transports with HTTPS a default that most users can tolerate. This one does all this fancy stuff which has so much complexity in its trusted computing base (TCB) that it's likely to get smashed somehow. That's assuming the protocols and interfaces are correct which is often not true.

Plus, the "world's most secure" would probably use HSM's at some point with real ones at server and smartcards w/ open standards at user side. I know a guy working to commercialize stuff like that. Stuff running on a vanilla stack w/ unvetted code and non-tamper-resistant hardware isn't most secure anything.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Why not just use Tahoe-LAFS? Then you don't have to trust the server to get the security guarantee!

<comment><USER15> If you access hardbin through your own, local, IPFS gateway, then you don't have to trust a third-party server.

I assume if you used a third-party Tahoe-LAFS gateway instead of running your own, you would have the same security risks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I was always a fan of paste.ee, but totally welcome more encrypted paste web sites.

</comment><comment><USER17> For a simpler secure pastebin, try [https://sptpb.pw](https://sptpb.pw).

<comment><USER18> Also another alternative.

[https://privatebin.info](https://privatebin.info)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Pastebins tend to get caught up fast in very dodgy/shady/even illegal content.. just a heads up

<comment><USER20> But he is not hosting anything. It's a self-hosted peer-to-peer pastebin storage system

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Time to add IFPS to 0bin.net then ?</comment>


Jdbc url validation result - <AUTHOR> http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=jdbc%3Asomejdbcvendor%3Aother+data+needed+by+some+jdbc+vendor&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0 <comment><USER2> I don't understand why this is interesting or significant. I see this error saying the document's URI scheme is unsupported by the tool: [http://imgur.com/2eoP1ph](http://imgur.com/2eoP1ph)</comment>


Linux kernel exceeds 15 million lines of code - <AUTHOR> http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Linux-kernel-exceeds-15-million-lines-of-code-1409952.html <comment><USER2> Can someone explain how such a HUGE codebase is maintained and new people get acquainted with it? I understand the distributed nature of development, but still, this seems like LOTS of code especially for someone new and who wants to get started in terms of contributing.

<comment><USER3> Seven easy steps to get acquainted with the Linux kernel:

Step 1: Build gnu binutils, gcc and gdb from source for the correct target architecture

Step 2: Setup qemu, some kind of virtualization or get a gadget that can run linux so that you can run and debug the kernel without repeated rebooting. (in the early days, Linus actually used to reboot to test the kernel, booting from floppy disks. I wouldn't have the patience)

Step 3: Configure and build the linux kernel from git master branch

Step 4: Make an initrd root filesystem, e.g. uClibC + busybox.

Step 5: If applicable, install a bootloader. Boot to your new kernel.

Step 6: Hack with the source and/or compile time or runtime kernel configuration

Step 7: Start over from the beginning but do something differently.

Steps 1-5 takes about one saturday afternoon. The faster your CPU, the less there will be waiting.

You have to start somewhere, so pick an area of interest and work your way around from there. Don't start in the beginning of the boot code, that's arcane magic that's not very useful for learning.

There are several books written about the Linux kernel, so you might want to pick one of those. Of course, printed material about the kernel gets old fast but the basic foundations have been pretty solid.

<comment><USER4> > in the early days, Linus actually used to reboot to test the kernel, booting > from floppy disks. I wouldn't have the patience.

Still required all the time if you develop drivers for physical hardware.

Still required at some point if you develop other kernel mode components because you can get bugs reproducible only on physical hardware because of different timings, cache coherency bugs (rare, but more often than you think) or broken ACPI routing tables ( _Every_ motherboard in existence has a broken ACPI table and the kernel has to deal with it).

<comment><USER3> > Still required all the time if you develop drivers for physical hardware.

Thankfully, this is not quite true. Most Linux drivers are implemented as kernel modules, which can be loaded and unloaded at runtime. No rebooting necessary.

The guys who develop drivers for hardware that cannot be implemented as a kernel module (like some motherboard chipsets) probably have another machine for debugging or have some kind of dev boards to make their workflow more efficient.

<comment><USER4> Thanks for telling me how to do my job, I'm a kernel developer :-).

A bug in kernel code means you panic the machine, so you _have_ to do a reboot.

Whether you load the modules at runtime, on demand, or the driver is statically compiled into the kernel has _nothing_ to do with it. The decision of when to do linking does not influence development a bit.

Also, having multiple machines is _required_ , not optional, because you use the dev machine to connect with a kernel debugger through a serial/firewire link to the test machine.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Non-code lines shouldn't be included as they don't get compiled, otherwise you are just penalising for documentation

<comment><USER6> Sorry, but I absolutely, completely disagree.

Why? Documentation has to be maintained.

The LOC metric isn't about the cost to the computer to execute the code. What is IS about is the cost to the developers to create and maintain it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Would be interesting to see comparable numbers for other operating systems.

<comment><USER8> There are some numbers available on Wikipedia[0]. Comparing with Windows is especially difficult though, because there is no differentiation between the kernel and graphical systems or system tools.

[0] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_lines_of_code#Example>

<comment><USER4> I've worked on Windows. I never really did a thorough analysis, but I'd say kernel mode components total around 3MLOC (out of ~50MLOC total). Definitely smaller than Linux.

<comment><USER9> Presumably there aren't all that many device drivers in there though? I'd imagine that mostly lived off in a WHQL repo or something in a different department.

<comment><USER4> Drivers made by Microsoft are in the tree. WHQL'ed 3rd party drivers offered by Windows Update are somewhere else, but there's no source for those so it's hard to count lines of code.

On a typical computer more than half of the drivers loaded are made by Microsoft, you can check easily with sysinternals' autoruns.

<comment><USER10> And they are in the kernel? What are dozens of .sys files in drivers folder then?

<comment><USER11> There are at least three different definitions of "in the kernel":

\- code that compiles to the single executable file that runs the OS (this can be limited to a mechanism for booting the system, a thread scheduler, basic memory allocator, but this may also contain some device drivers, file systems, etc)

\- any code that compiles to anything that will run in kernel mode (many file systems and device drivers)

\- the code that someone (say the people distributing what they call "the Linux kernel") call the kernel.

This count is about the third. I do not think it contains a kitchen sink, but it is close :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> So freaking what?

EDIT

It's not a valid metric. 15 million can be a lot or a little. It's all relative. This is 15 million LoC of plain C code. This is code that includes thousands of device-specific routines, but even if it didn't, what are you comparing it to?

Let's say it is too long even compared to other C kernels w/ device drivers. What price are you putting on well-written code? Do you know how many of those lines are hints to the compiler? Those don't even get compiled.

</comment><comment><USER13> Pretty arbitrary benchmark. Reminds me of this.

<http://xkcd.com/1000/>

</comment><comment><USER14> Has anyone out there done refactoring experiments? Perhaps as an academic exercise? I don't know the kernel well enough to say for sure but I do recall a fair bit of duplicated code in e.g. the drivers. It would be interesting to see what could be done there.

</comment><comment><USER15> 15 MLOC?

That seems like allot , this must include allot of things that can optionally be compiled into the kernel?

Last time I browsed the kernel source tree it looked like a few 100KLOC to me.

</comment><comment><USER16> Like the article says, something like 75% of all of that is driver specific or related to filesystems. You can still compile a minute little kernel for embedding that will be a fraction of the size of the full kernel. And there's still quite a lot of old cruft in there that _could_ be left out.

Even so, if true, it does seem to be getting quite bloaty. Still, it has to cover a lot of ground nowadays in terms of hardware.

<comment><USER17> "75%...drivers...filesystems...it does seem to be getting quite bloaty"

Does the code that supports those drivers and filesystems slow the overall system down in any way? If not, how can you call it "bloat"? Bloat in this context generally means additional code that is out of proportion to its functionality while also using a disproportionate amount of memory and diskspace. There is legitimate bloat in the linux kernel but suggesting that that has anything to do with the variety of hardware support is to misunderstand the meaning of the word. Oh yeah, YMMV

<comment><USER16> Look ... 95% could be pure Assembler. OK?

No, its largely irrelevant nowadays. But there's a pile of cruft in there that could go ...

I'm not critiquing ANYTHING about the kernel. BUT. There IS a HUGE pile of crap _still in there_ and everyone knows it. Don't nitpick my innocent and uncritical comment and try to turn it into a major critique of the kernel. Its still WAAAAAAYYYYY superior to the shite that still exists in Windows (because it simply MUST).

NO. Of COURSE it doesn't slow down the Linux experience but it might one day become too large to be realistically distributed without a lot of trimming.

I've been a major user, developer and proponent of Linux for decades. I use nothing else in my day to day life. Don't dare to presume to pull me up because I dare to comment on a seriously discussed and current problem with the current kernel. NAMELY: IT'S BECOMING A FAT BITCH AND EVERYONE KNOWS IT.

It's still and always will be my OS of choice. Whether or not I knew how to exclude certain chunks of irrelevance from my build or not.</comment></comment></comment>


Dwolla Raises $16.5M from Andreessen Horowitz - <AUTHOR> http://blog.dwolla.com/coast-to-coast-with-andreessen-horowitz/ <comment><USER2> So I tried Dwolla last week to pay somebody back for some concert tickets and it was not a good experience. I, naively I suppose, thought that maybe Dwolla had come up with some clever new workflow for on-boarding people you wanted to send money to. Alas, I got a few angry texts from the person complaining about having had to input their social security and bank account numbers and, after feeling uncomfortable about having done that, not knowing how to cancel their account. The transaction did eventually go through after I convinced them to be patient, but it's not a rousing endorsement of the platform.

I echo some of the other concerns in this thread that there just may not be an easy way to transfer money to people given all the security concerns. I still far and away would prefer to have my bank send a physical check to somebody I owe money too because at least that doesn't require them divulge sensitive information to an entity they don't know.

<comment><USER3> Capital One 360, formerly ING Direct, has nailed this on the sending side. The sender needs to know the recipient's email addr and the last four of their bank acct # -- the recipient will receive an email which takes them to a page where they enter the full account # and, if those match, money transferred.

<comment><USER4> SSN to receive money from Dwolla!? Holy cow. Yes, I like the ING solution very much as well though for repeated (but not recurring) transfers, the need to re-enter the bank account number gets a bit cumbersome.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Hopefully they can use some of that money to safeguard my information since they refuse to delete it from off there servers. Or alternatively they could use that money to issue their federally mandated privacy statements that they refuse to do.

</comment><comment><USER6> As a developer, the biggest concern I have with Dwolla is the initial friction for new users, e.g. entering their bank account number. I would like to see the complete end user signup flow featured more prominently. I didn't see anything on the topic while signing up for a developer account.

Criticism aside, I'm definitely rooting for Dwolla. I don't think they need to match the comparative ease offered with credit card purchases, but they need to be in the same ball park.

<comment><USER7> I've considered using it to have clients pay me because the only other options are to give away 3% to CC processors, or wait a week+ for a check to come in the mail.

If there was a way for me to pass new client onto a single sign-up process (whether I built it via an API or whether it was on Dwolla's page and tracked via referrer), that would go a long way to convincing some of them to use it.

<comment><USER8> Just an FYI, if by clients you mean for consulting work, Freshbooks has an arrangement w/ Paypal (yeah, I know) where payments are a flat $.50 (yes, 50 _cents_ ) for all invoices up to $10,000. You will still have to put up with a wait to get that money in your bank account (3-4 business days if payment is immediate), but it can all be handled online. I've had all my payments over the past year go thru Freshbooks and the lifecycle of invoices/payments is tracked in their system.

<comment><USER9> Thank you for this contribution. My business uses Freshbooks, and I was unaware of this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Nicely done. I really love the mission, driving the payments market to be being brutally efficient. Some nasty brutes[1] on the other side of the fence but they can be contained.

[1] Various established payment processors who would have you believe that if you aren't related by marriage to the CEOs of the big banks on Wall Street you will be killed.

</comment><comment><USER11> How is Dwolla better than bitcoin? It seems like it has the same drawbacks of credit cards (chargebacks), without very much benefit.

Maybe I'm missing a killer feature, but Dwolla doesn't seem all that interesting, just another paypal competitor.

<comment><USER12> Dwolla better than Bitcoin? Way, way better marketed. Better UX.

Dwolla can improve its tech stack and have it be the UX layer on top of Bitcoin if it chooses. I guarantee you there are folks at Dwolla working on this. Dwolla = front end of payment protocol. Dwolla = bank?

Competing payment protocols = Bitcoin; Bank routing/Swift + Forex. There were efforts to abstract gold into a payment protocol in the 90s but they failed.

Bitcoin or one of its numerous derivatives (feathercoin, litecoin, terracoin, ppcoin, ixcoin, novacoin, namecoin, freicoin, "govcoin") will likley win as a payment protocol.

The bitcoin investors have zero incentive to spend the money marketing it and building a sexy interface on top of it. There is money in interface.

BTW, a paypal competitor IS interesting! It's a 10bn+ market. but dwolla could be the "bank". it could be the secured storage. ....

note: andreesen has also invested in ripple/opencoin. reminds me of their simultaneous bets on dalton cadwell (immeem)'s picplz, and instagram.

<comment><USER13> Andreessen Horowitz just put a lot of money into OpenCoin/Ripple, I guarantee you they are going to knit the two services together. Dwolla w/ happy PR buzz, back end provided by OpenCoin.

<comment><USER14> A lot of money? They only raised $1M - so how much could have they put in? Dwolla raised $16.5 with AH leading.... Probably a check of $10M or more...

<comment><USER13> I thought it was an "undisclosed" amount

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Didn't a few people voice their concerns with Dwolla recently on HN? Something about trouble with getting their money?

<comment><USER16> i think the general consensus there was that signing up for a service and immediately trying to transfer $40k was a bad idea.

<comment><USER17> That was part of it. The main takeaway for many is that Dwolla is super friendly until you actually need to get your money out of it. I tried to get my $18 out of it but they insist on giving them a scan of my drivers license, a requirement that they didn't have at the time I signed up.

<comment><USER18> When the entity is defined as a money transmitter, you need to abide by their legal requirements. One of those includes having photocopies of government issued id. They choose to lower the initial barrier to sign up at the expense of a bad one time user experience for getting the money out.

<comment><USER19> Dwolla does not call itself a money transmitter, and is not licensed as one. Many people feel they're wrong, but to every state that's inquired, they've argued that they're only acting as an agent for the recipient of money, and are not transmitting money themselves.

<comment><USER18> Wow, good point, faulty assumption on my part.

Here are some further details on their stance:

Dwolla does not receive, hold, or transmit User funds; Dwolla only maintains and manages information associated with User ownership of the funds; (3) Veridian is the entity that provides money transmission services upon instructions issued through the Dwolla software platform; and (4) Funds in the Veridian Holding Account are held in a pooled account.

Veridian, a major investor and bank processor manages the funds. In other words, all funds withdrawn from a user's bank to be put into their Dwolla Account is placed into the pooled Veridian Holding Account. This legal loophole allows Dwolla to operate outside the state of Iowa, since it is technically never a money transmitter, merely a service provider for a processor, and therefore not subject to the expensive registration and licensing process.

<http://sites.tufts.edu/costofcash/2013/03/27/dwolla/>

<comment><USER20> This is nonsense. Although I'm not a lawyer...

Dwolla is a money transmitter according to most (if not all) state statutes. Its relationship with Veridian does not satisfy any statutory requirement necessary for exemption. Veridian itself does not have a charter, and is not a credit union. In my personal opinion, Dwolla has been breaking laws since day one and continues to. Its investors are no different.

<comment><USER21> Veridian is indeed a Credit Union and a member of the NCUA.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> _Mission: Allow anyone [or anything] connected to the internet to move money quickly, safely & at the lowest cost possible._

Fantastic mission statement: clear, concise and it sounds almost impossible to do.

Although they didn't like my take on it when I was at a certain unmentionable payments company, it was my intuition several months ago that a price war is _inevitable_ in this space. Whatever company initiates it will be the one that gains enough momentum from the tail to scale efficiencies best. Namely: any and all efficiencies that are "left over" after price for fellow companies in the space to compete on (great support, a beautiful API, etc.) Dwolla's aggression here shows that they understand the future of money transfer.

<comment><USER23> _Fantastic mission statement: clear, concise and it sounds almost impossible to do._

It seems like people really get behind startups with the biggest, craziest visions....it almost serves as a built in rallying cry.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I wonder if A16Z used Dwolla to send Dwolla their many millions of dollars.

<comment><USER25> That would be cool

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Ending the 3% tax on transactions (which ends up being what, 5-10x on the year, due to multiple transactions with the same dollar?) would be a huge boost to the economy.

</comment><comment><USER27> Will Dwolla bring back support for bitcoin transactions?

<comment><AUTHOR> Dwolla never had native support for bitcoin transactions. We've always been used as a gateway between USD -> BTC by exchanges such as MtGox, BitInstant, etc.

This is still the case, and is still very much possible and active.

<comment><USER27> Sorry, I should've been more clear; I didn't intend to talk about native support. I was referring to the "gateway" service explicitly. The only reason I brought this up was because Dwolla was missing from BitInstant last week, but now Dwolla appears to have resurfaced back on BitInstant's form.

<comment><AUTHOR> Right... I've been working with the BitInstant guys to bring back Dwolla support, and make it better than before :)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Science of Why You Should Spend Your Money on Experiences, Not Things (2015) - <AUTHOR> http://www.fastcoexist.com/3043858/world-changing-ideas/the-science-of-why-you-should-spend-your-money-on-experiences-not-thing <comment><USER2> I recently upgraded from a 32" HD ready TV to a 50" 4k beast. Watching films is a completely different and far richer experience - like listening to music on a quality system you notice things that just weren't there before. I don't expect to get used to it because each new film I watch for example is a new experience. So buying things can lead to ongoing better experiences. Also, I disagree that it's harder to be envious of others experiences than their possessions. I'm sure we've all seen the studies that show that seeing other peoples seemingly brilliant lives on social media makes us less happy, and that includes experiences.

</comment><comment><USER3> This reminds me of a post on HN recently stating that the theory of adaptation of happiness is really just a myth. Fortunes and misfortunes do have long-term consequences, whether we like to it or not.

Of course, while living or consoling misfortunes, we must not think like this. But to disregard the amenities provided by a purchase of an object and advocate purchase of an experience sound ill-formed.

I love the fact that I have an iPhone, a computer, and my contacts. I wouldn't exchange my iPhone for a 2G phone; I feel I would feel more unhappy with the loss of productivity.

Memory of an experience may have a more permanent impact on your happiness than things. But choosing an experience should come after assessing how essential the things you are thinking about buying are. And every time you purchase something, you are really just making a bet.</comment>


Anandtech's iPhone 4 review - <AUTHOR> http://www.anandtech.com/show/3794/the-iphone-4-review

<comment><USER2> Interestingly, looks like the infamous antenna issue is now up to YOU: how important is that functionality to you?

Radio reception, like anything really, is a trade-off. The external antenna without a bumper case offers greater sensibility with good looks at the expense of the "cup" holding pattern.

Do you want absolute best signal? Don't hold it that way... :) Wanna hold it any way you like? Get a bumper case. Want the good looks while you have mostly good coverage? Keep the iPhone as it comes by default, hold careful if you tend to drop connections often.

The choice is really yours. Who said Apple doesn't give you choices... :)

<comment><USER3> I appreciated the clarification that signal strength (dB) and signal quality (SNR) are two different things -- that all the phones tested got lower signal when "tightly cupped", but with the iPhone 4 despite the lower dB, the new antenna design holds calls and gets higher speeds than other phones:

> _"I can honestly say that I've never held onto so many calls and data > simultaneously on 1 bar at -113 dB as I have with the iPhone 4 ... reception > is massively better on the iPhone 4 in actual use."_

And that there's another benefit to the new antenna design:

> _"WiFi signal has changed as well... though not how one would expect. > Holding the phone with no case actually improves WiFi signal strength by a > measurable 5 to 10 dB."_

<comment><USER4> "the new antenna design holds calls and gets higher speeds than other phones"

Other iPhones right? Is there indication that this is a comparison with other phones on ATT besides the iPhone?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> An extremely well written interview, the best yet. Apple's decision to remove the Field Test from i0S4, the introduction of the iPhone Bumper case, and the complete disregard to the numerous complaints so far has heightened my suspicions that they were well aware of the problems with the external antenna but assumed they could get away with it.

<comment><USER6> I think they assumed very correctly.

<http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2010/06/28iphone.html>.

What gets me the most of this situation is not the "lovely smartphone, terrible at making calls" dichotomy, because that's not really new to me... it's the response that Apple gave ("Steve Jobs" saying 'hold it differently or get a case') and the fact that so many people consider this both appropriate and in fact defensible as a paradigm / response.

<comment><USER7> Where did you get the "terrible at making calls" part from? BTW, is this piece by NOKIA considered inappropriate too: [http://funsizebytes.com/post/745721120/instructions-from- my-...](http://funsizebytes.com/post/745721120/instructions-from-my- nokia-2320-which-boil-down-to) ?

<comment><USER6> "terrible" is, fairly, an exaggeration. I just meant to emphasize that, in comparison with the great features it offers as a technology device, it has rarely been considered superlative for its voice telephony featureset in any particular regard - be it voice quality, signal strength, etc. Common problems in fact, are often reported on all those fronts by people I know with iPhones (and me when talking to them). Combine with AT&T woes, add hyperbole, and you have my assessment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> There's an equally in depth review of the Evo 4G that appears to have been written at the same time (shared photo and speed comparisions etc.):

[http://www.anandtech.com/show/3791/the-sprint-htc- evo-4g-rev...](http://www.anandtech.com/show/3791/the-sprint-htc- evo-4g-review/1)

</comment><comment><USER9> > The iPhone 4 is slightly heavier than the 3GS (4.8oz vs. 4.7oz). You feel > the added weight...

Also, he can definitely tell that the penis enlargement cream is working.

<comment><USER10> Have you used the iPhone 4? You definitely feel the extra weight, but not because it's heavier but because it's more dense. It's quite a bit thinner yet slightly heavier which gives the impression of it being noticeably heavier.

<comment><USER9> > You definitely feel the extra weight

This the same sloppy language I was poking fun of in the original article. I highly doubt that you can detect a ~2% difference in weight of 0.1oz. If the wording were "it's only 0.1oz heavier, but the increased density makes it seem heavier", I wouldn't have commented.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> What would happen if you shock an iPhone 4 with static electricity?

</comment><comment><USER12> Let me guess: it looks really nice and has a great screen?

<comment><USER13> You've obviously never read a review by Anand Shimpi.

<comment><USER12> Obviously I meant in summary - clearly he has made a lot more words than that.</comment></comment></comment>