Immune discovery 'may treat all cancer' - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51182451 <comment><USER2> Original article - [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41590-019-0578-8](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41590-019-0578-8)

Very interesting finding indeed, these T cells seem to (not fully confirmed) target cells with abnormal mrtabolism, which is one of the hallmarks of cancer in general (most cancers at least).

This solves one of the biggest problems with immunotherapy, which is that if a cancer is not different from regular tissue in any fundamental way that the immune system cannot recognize, then it can't fight it. This is why melanoma is the poster child of immunotherapies (skin cells get mutated a ton due to UV so skin cancer has a lot of mutations to differentiate it by). If this cell stands further scrutiny, it could potentially be a very general therapy option indeed.

Potential caveat is that cancers typically find a way to generate resistance, and markers of abnormal metabolism (at least as detected by this MR1 receptor) night be easy to suppress, in which case this might just become one in a line of multiple treatments. That might still be good enough though.

<comment><USER3> > cancers typically find a way to generate resistance

Resistance is a neat thing.

I remember (and I'm sure someone will reply with a link to it, since I can't find it) reading a story about a fellow with a very seriously antibiotic resistant bacteria infecting his chest. It resisted everything they had. Researchers found a phage that would attack that specific bacteria- but alas, the bacteria became resistant to the phage as well!

Fortunately, the bacteria had limited dimensions in which to change. The changes needed to become resistant to the phage made it no longer resistant to at least one of the antibiotics. It could not have its cake and eat it to. With both attacks against the bacteria ongoing, it was defeated.

What I'm implying with all this is that yes, the cancer may become resistant to this therapy in question but in doing so it may be forced to become less dangerous, or less resistant to other forms of attack. It does not change merely from "not resistant" to "resistant" but from "form A, which is not resistant" to "form B, which is resistant", and "form B" may have a lot of other consequences.

<comment><USER4> It's my understanding that cancer stems from malfunctioning of our own cell processes, rather than from something that is viral/bacterial.

For that reason it seems wrong to think about cancer as "developing" resistances - I don't believe that cancer is something that evolves/mutates.

<comment><USER4> Turns out I'm wrong! Cancer does undergo natir selection and develops resistance:

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatic_evolution_in_cancer#...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatic_evolution_in_cancer#Natural_selection_in_cancer)

<comment><USER5> and they can be viral in nature, see oncogenic viruses e.g. HPV (cervical cancer)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I thought we learned our lesson about "paradigm-changing" scientific results released to the media simultaneous with initial publication a while back. The paper was published today, and only available behind a pay wall. Yes, this is exciting, but what they appear to have is a better way of tagging cancer cells so the immune system will attack them. This is one round of rodent studies in immunosuppressed mice, for which the abstract only claims "enhanced survival". There is no reflection or information from anyone who isn't actively on the team. This is a press release before a funding cycle, not science. "May treat all cancers?" Please.

<comment><USER7> This.

How many times in the last 10 years have we gone bananas on HN for an immunotherapy wonder drug just to find it's another casualty of the current unable-to-reproduce crisis in current science?

Remember when CD47 monoclonal antibodies from the Stanford trials were going to save millions of lives? What a time to be not yet dead that was.

The poster above is correct. Wanting this to be something wonderful doesn't make it so, and anyone familiar with the subject matter knows this deserves skepticism. This is getting upvoted because it sounds good, not because there's solid evidence it has legs.

I'd love for this to become a high efficacy treatment for millions of people, but we've had the same thing play out _so many times_ now that it's impossible to be excited.

This is what usually happens:

They'll try it in the lab, and it'll kill cancer.

They'll inject it in mice, and it'll kill cancer.

They'll try it on people, and it'll reduce the size of their tumors for six- to-eight weeks before they start growing again.

I'll remember to check back in a year to to see if this is even still a thing.

* temporarily

<comment><USER8> Reducing the size of a tumor for six to eight weeks (especially via a new method) could actually be an important result. Many cancer drugs only result in temporary remission when used in isolation, before the cancer out-evolves the drug and comes back. However, using multiple drugs simultaneously (combination chemotherapy) and using the drugs after surgery to kill remnant cells can have a far larger impact. Many of the drugs that can now 'cure' certain cancers in combination only provide brief remission by themselves. (Disclaimer: my only knowledge of this comes from the book The Emperor of All Maladies)

<comment><USER7> Fair point with regards to combined therapies.

The Emperor of All Maladies is one of my favourite non-fiction books. As long as you can get through the human experimentation. That's hard going (and horrifying).

<comment><USER9> Kindle edition appears to be £1.49 on Amazon.co.uk [https://www.amazon.co.uk/Emperor-All-Maladies-Siddhartha- Muk...](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Emperor-All-Maladies-Siddhartha-Mukherjee- ebook/dp/B004MPR80E/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Some more details at [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2020/01/20/immune- cell-k...](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2020/01/20/immune-cell-kills- cancers-discovered-accident-british-scientists/)

> The team says human trials on terminally ill patients could begin as early > as November if the new treatment passes further laboratory safety testing.

<comment><USER11> This is what I like to hear! People die daily from cancer, treatments like this with promise should be an option even if it's a long shot, the people are about to die anyway, it can only do good, for them or for science.

<comment><USER12> I definitely agree making it available is a good thing.

However, I'd take exception to 'it can only do good'. I've had a loved one opt for experimental treatment that was ineffective, and made the last months of his life more painful and separated from his family (treatment was in another city). I'm not saying we would choose differently if we were faced with it again, but in some respects I wonder if it was more a service to our peace of mind at having done all we could than it was for his comfort or happiness.

<comment><USER13> Mind here that it can also be for the _patient 's_ peace of mind. My grandfather was faced with a similar dilemna, terminally ill from pancreatic cancer, with a long-shot to try to cure it. The doctors were wonderfully frank about the potential for failure and "time lost"; even still, he opted to go down fighting. Alas, his liver wasn't strong enough to sustain the treatment, and it just ended up killing him faster.

He was a spiritual man and didn't seem regret the decision, but his family had a harder time with it. They were arguing for something closer to hospice, and wanted to take him traveling to enjoy the last months of his life in relative peace. In the end, that didn't get to happen.

There will always be a twinge of regret, I think. One can always look back and ask, "what if we had done it this way?" But it was the way he wanted to go, and I think the knowledge that he had tried everything that he could helped him to find peace.

<comment><USER14> I'm glad that your grandfather was happy with his decision. But from a policy perspective, there's a question to be asked about whether it makes sense to spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars on treatments that likely kill people faster. Even if that is what those people want, their needs have to be balanced with others who need the scarce resources that are allocated to the health system.

(On the other hand if this was an experiment and it just didn't go his way, that's another story. We need brave people to accept these experimental treatments sometimes to find whether they work.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'm happy for all the progress being made with cancer. I wish we would also make progress on diseases that attack the nervous system for which we seemed to have made next to none. Alzheimer's, ALS, MS, Parkinson's, Hunnington's Disease, Kennedy Disease, Muscular Dystrophy, small fiber neuropathy, even benign issues such as essential tremors have no cure, and some of these are painful death sentences.

We seem to know so little about how our bodies work. There are no bio markers for some of these or early detection and little idea what are the causes or the important details of what's happening as the disease progresses.

<comment><USER16> As a matter of public health, we should really be focusing the vast majority of our efforts on cancer and cardiovascular disease. Odds are that most people will end up dying of one or the other.

<comment><USER17> Mental health [1] should be on that list. The amount of suffering as well as economic losses from mental health issues are overwhelming.

[1] Ideally we should work towards broader / more fundamental goals such as "well-being" and "meaning", but that is even more difficult.

<comment><USER18> Psychology research is certainly important, but not in the same way as cancer research.

For mental health, what's primarily needed is more access to therapy.

<comment><USER19> We need better, safer, anti-psychotic medication.

We need better, more effective, treatment for entrenched eating disorder.

We need better treatments for treatment-resistant depression or anxiety disorders.

<comment><USER20> This.

Currently most mental health medicine is like throwing darts in the dark. We clearly don't actually understand why some medications work for some people but not others. If you go through the medicine path then I can only wish you the best of luck - finding the right medicine is life changing but it's a long arduous struggle to find it currently.

Not to mention the side effects...

<comment><USER21> > We clearly don't actually understand why some medications work for some > people but not others.

There are plenty of psychoactive drugs where we have no understanding of why they work _at all_. Lithium is one of the oldest, most successful, and best known medications for bipolar disorder, major depression, and schizophrenia, and we have _no idea_ which of the many effects it has on the body actually contribute to stabilizing mood.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> this describes a t cell receptor that recognized and killed cells from several cancers while sparing healthy cells

theoretically this could may made into a therapy by taking t cells from patients, modifying their DNA to express this receptor, and then readministering the modified t cells to patients

there are two FDA approved drugs that use this basic approach. however, this only works currently in "liquid tumors", not "solid tumors" like breast cancer, lung cancer, prostate, etc

This article gives a nice, simple explanation as to why solid tumors are more difficult (scroll down to the chart): [https://www.the- scientist.com/features/the-next-frontier-of-...](https://www.the- scientist.com/features/the-next-frontier-of-car-t-cell-therapy--solid- tumors-65612)

if this works, then the first challenge listed in the chart would be mitigated. however the challenges of a suppressive tumor environment and sufficient delivery to tumor cells is still a major unsolved challenge

<comment><USER23> One more good article: [https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/07/22/the- promise-an...](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/07/22/the-promise-and- price-of-cellular-therapies)

and:

[https://www.novartis.com/news/media-library/car-t-cell- thera...](https://www.novartis.com/news/media-library/car-t-cell-therapy- infographic)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> The title says _may_ , but it's a very optimistic title anyway. From the article:

> _However, the research has been tested only in animals and on cells in the > laboratory, and more safety checks would be needed before human trials could > start._

> _Lucia Mori and Gennaro De Libero, from University of Basel in Switzerland, > said the research had "great potential" but was at too early a stage to say > it would work in all cancers._

<comment><USER25> The abstract closes:

> These findings offer opportunities for HLA-independent, pan-cancer, pan- > population immunotherapies.

So it hasn't come (to the journalists) from nowhere.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> A vlogger I follow on Youtube (Mark Carriker) was diagnosed just over a year ago. He's recorded everything. From first diagnosis, surgery, radiation, chemo, immunotherapy, trial drugs and now Hospice. It's heart breaking to see someone go through this. Hopefully, a cure will be found soon.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ5Sk7x7VwY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ5Sk7x7VwY)

</comment><comment><USER27> This sounds very promising and also sounds like this case just a couple of days ago where a young boy was removed of cancer cells. I'm not sure if it's the same kind of treatment.

[https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/oscar- saxelby...](https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/oscar-saxelby-lee- cancer-leukaemia-experimental-treatment-12269276)

</comment><comment><USER28> One key quote:

> "At the moment, this is very basic research and not close to actual > medicines for patients."

<comment><USER29> At the same time, this could make chemo and radiation therapies obsolete long term.

Leaches and amputations without anesthetic were once "state of the art", and it feels like that's where we're currently at with cancer therapies. CRISPR is knocking on the door of amazing potential.

<comment><USER30> I'm wondering if there's a "Can I use"-kind of summary for proposed cancer treatments available somewhere; presenting the various methods attempted, which kind they target, do they work in vitro, in animal models, are they currently in clinical trial, effectiveness results, link to papers, etc.

<comment><USER31> Can we just get an npm package already?

<comment><USER32> Ugh... have you stopped following the Javascript ecosystem for the last three hours? We use YARN or NPX now. /s

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> > The findings, published in Nature Immunology, have not been tested in > patients, but the researchers say they have "enormous potential".

then later:

> However, the research has been tested only in animals and on cells in the > laboratory, and more safety checks would be needed before human trials could > start.

The abstract for the original article notes:

> ... An MR1-restricted T cell clone mediated in vivo regression of leukemia > and conferred enhanced survival of NSG mice. TCR transfer to T cells of > patients enabled killing of autologous and nonautologous melanoma. ...

[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41590-019-0578-8](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41590-019-0578-8)

What does that second sentence mean?

<comment><USER34> Also: TCR == T cell receptor

Here are some the descriptions of the related methods currently researched:

[https://www.cancerresearch.org/immunotherapy/treatment- types...](https://www.cancerresearch.org/immunotherapy/treatment- types/adoptive-cell-therapy#tcr)

</comment></comment><comment> alan-crowe Perhaps this discovery could end up going the other way, with those newly discovered T-cells being the culprit in auto-immune diseases. Boosting their action would be too dangerous to use as treatment for cancer, but knowing that they are there may lead to new treatments for auto-immune diseases.

And where does this fit into transplant rejection? Perhaps MR-1 differs enough between people to cause problems. This reads like the early days of a discovery that could lead anywhere.

<comment><USER35> As someone with Crohn's and who knows people with all sorts of similar (maybe?) autoimmune diseases, any nugget of hope for something besides immunosuppressant treatment (meaning our bodies are always welcoming of other infections/sickness) is welcome.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Anyone know how we HN readers can help this effort?

Is there some open source scientific community/repository like GitHub? (Where people can pull down the latest data and ideas, and add to them, then push our changes back to the main scientists.)

<comment><USER37> > Where people can pull down the latest data and ideas, and add to them, then > push our changes back to the main scientists.

A repository of ideas from non-experts will probably slow down things rather than help them. I'm not dismissing the idea outright; perhaps there's a way structured inputs from patients and caregivers can be helpful (again with some review mechanism so that real researchers don't have to wade through irrelevant data.)

<comment><USER36> Thanks for the feedback. So maybe the main scientists would host the repository, with their ideas and data. Then we could review and perhaps add to the main scientist's ideas, or find problems with the data. Or add more data with our own experiments. In other words, a collaborative approach. Maybe the main scientists could limit contributions to people who met a certain threshold of earlier verified contributions. Or let other people corroborate and verify before the main scientists even saw the layperson's contributions. Just an idea, open to improvements!

<comment><USER38> How do you feel about opening up your company's git repositories to non- experts? I think an adequate example of the difference in expertise between an average software developer and a _cancer researcher_ means we should probably open up your git repos to a 9 year old.

Most of the people in this thread have about as much reason to "share ideas" with cancer researchers as a 9 year old has to share ideas about your line-of- business form-over-data web application.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> It's not quite a 'one size fits all' if you have to take cells and genetically modify them for every patient. Sounds like it would be very expensive. Amazing nevertheless if it really works.

<comment><USER40> There's a similar treatment already, CAR-T. The "one size fits all" aspect here is that this receptor mechanism may possibly work with many common solid tumor types (*in mice), whereas CAR-T's efficacy is limited with solid tumors, but can be dramatic with leukemias and lymphomas. There's a related therapy for prostate cancer, Provenge ([https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sipuleucel-T](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sipuleucel-T)), but it's merely a life-extending treatment and not the cure that CAR-T can be.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Couldn't one develop BiTEs (Bi-specific T-cell engagers) for this receptor? That would be cheaper and off the shelf for every patient.

</comment><comment><USER42> My girlfriend (who is in medical school) actually brought this up to me when I was talking to her about how it seemed that not only the rate of R&D was increasing, but the time to market was also falling dramatically. It's cool to see these kinds of developments being utilized so much faster

</comment><comment><USER43> _The upgraded cells would be grown in vast quantities in the laboratory and then put back into the patient._

What I would like to see is a world in which doctors and researchers ask "Why isn't your body already making enough of these and what can we do to help it crank them out in sufficient quantities?"

<comment><USER44> My understanding is that cancer kills you late enough in your life to has little impact on your ability to reproduce, and thus fitness in the evolutionary sense.

[https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health- professional/cancer-...](https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health- professional/cancer-statistics/mortality/age#heading-Zero)

These are deaths / 100'000 people. It's a bit difficult to judge precisely in that resolution, but death by cancer is <1%/year before the age of 40. That was roughly the life expectancy (assuming you made it past childhood, big if), for humans during most of their evolution.

So the likely answer is that it never mattered to our body (or survival) to combat cancer effectively.

<comment><USER45> > death by cancer is <1%/year before the age of 40. That was roughly the life > expectancy (assuming you made it past childhood, big if), for humans during > most of their evolution.

My understanding is that Paleolithic peoples generally had a life expectancy of about 50-60, assuming that you survived childhood. The development of Neolithic probably lowered life expectancy somewhat (since, basically, people eating an agricultural diet are essentially chronically malnourished until sometime in the Early Modern).

Nowhere have I seen any indication that the life expectancy of humans, at any point in time, was as low as 40.

<comment><USER44> I'm not by any means an expert, but the very first Google hit (wikipedia as usual) gives:

> Based on Neolithic and Bronze Age data, the total life expectancy at 15 > would not exceed 34 years.

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

Which in turn cites this article: [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ajpa.1330300...](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ajpa.1330300314)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> I wonder if this could have anti-aging uses to identify and remove cells dealing with metabolic dysregulation.

<comment><USER47> One anti-aging speedup would be that long term safety of HGH therapy would be much less important if cancer would be easy to cure.

Peter Thiel started HGH therapy in 2014 because ,,cancer would be cured in 10 years anyways''.

It seems to me like his prediction is coming true (maybe we'll need 5 extra years though).

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> Why does more testing need to take place? I would be willing to bet the majority of people currently dying of cancer within the next month or so would have zero problems testing it for them. So much bureaucracy. People need help now.

<comment><USER49> Like most new cancer therapies, this will surely get "expedited" status from the US FDA, which will enable as fast a development as imaginable, like FIM (first in man) within the year. If it delivers on its promise, it will receive initial approval for those with advanced metastases of the initially targeted forms of cancer within a year after that.

A major question is the cost of the therapy. If it equals CAR-T, which it closely resembles, it will NOT see rapid adoption until the price per treatment falls below CAR-T's current bill of $500,000 US.

<comment><USER50> Beating 500k/patient seems like an approachable target. When my mom had lung cancer, when it recurred it came so fast there was never any time to think about speculative treatments. Of course you'd pay anything to save your loved one.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> What is the theory here with MR1? They say it's a metabolic indicator, but it's a MHC. Looks to be involved with B3/NAD. Does a cancer cell just run out of NAD so MR1 doesn't get presented?

<comment><USER51> Side note: I've been self-experimenting with high doses of niacinamide, and experiencing some weird side effects, possibly immune-related, like angular chelitis. Probably unrelated.

<comment><USER52> Please tell us more.

High dose of NMN are supposed to be helping develop some cancers.

angular chelitis is totally new to me. Are you on retinoids by any chance?

<comment><USER51> I took a lot of cod liver oil once it started, maybe a little bit before too, so I suppose it could be that. I did a lot of research into what would increase NAD levels, and it's all pretty inconclusive, so I figured niacinamide was as good as any other B3 in the pathway. I later found that it chelates with some minerals, so I may be giving myself a deficiency.

<comment><USER52> Yes a deficiency is far more likely than an autoimmune disorder

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Neil Peart, David Bowie, Gordon Downie. I'll know we've made significant advances if a celebrity can use his/her status to get cured.

<comment><USER40> How's a former President?

[https://abcnews.go.com/Health/remarkable-cancer-treatment- he...](https://abcnews.go.com/Health/remarkable-cancer-treatment-helped-jimmy- carter-combat-brain/story?id=37467459)

(Although there's no indication his status led to his cure, of course. With immunotherapy, the requisite status seems to be "can become patient of a decent clinic," not "former leader of the free world" and/or legendary rock god.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> So who has the mutation in their T cells already?

</comment><comment><USER55> If I need this right now no matter the outcome, what do I need to do?

</comment><comment><USER56> Did they find a cure for Dunning-Kruger syndrome yet?

</comment><comment><USER57> Er, wasn't that the plot of I Am Legend, "... three years later ..."</comment>


Tell HN: Zirtual just announced it is ceasing all operations - <AUTHOR>

Just received this email:
Dear Zirtual Clients,
It is with an incredibly heavy heart that I have to send this message. As of today, August 10th 2015, Zirtual is pausing all operations.
Due to a combination of market circumstances and financial constraints we must re-organize our current structure if we are to successfully serve you in the future.
I realize this news comes incredibly fast and I am truly sorry for the Z-shaped hole this will leave in your lives and business.
We know that many of you care deeply about your Zirtual Assistants. If you would like to connect with your assistant independently, please reach out to: firstname.lastname@example.com.
Thank you from the very bottom of my heart for the support you've shown Zirtual and my deepest apologies for the speed and inconvenience of this announcement. We will communicate further updates as soon as we have them.
Best,
Maren, Erik, Collin + the Zirtual Team
Maren Kate Donovan <comment><USER2> This can't be real!

She was just on 'This Week in Startups' (TWIST) and Jason was drooling at Zirtual's $11m run rate after only couple of years. (Jason Calacanis is an investor)

Was she lying throughout the interview? Is Silicon Valley built on engineered/bought hype and no real substance?

source: [https://youtu.be/Tq_dMxsWe48](https://youtu.be/Tq_dMxsWe48)

<comment><USER3> This is expected in markets like the one we're in today. Too much money is chasing too few opportunities. Angel investors are everywhere, and party rounds of a dozen-plus investors are common. In many early-stage financings, particularly the party rounds, a lack of reasonable due diligence is the rule, not the exception.

This creates an environment in which you have a good number of ambitious people becoming founders and raising capital even though they don't have the experience or ability to run a real business.

Markets like the one we're in can be frustrating because there's so much chaff you have to filter through, but that doesn't mean the _entire_ market is based on engineered hype.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> See also the earlier discussion here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10033517](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10033517)

</comment><comment><USER5> I was going to sign up this week! What strange timing :(

</comment><comment><USER6> Bit pricy I guess compared to offshore?</comment>


Internships at any time of your life - <AUTHOR> http://sharpshoot.blogspot.com/2007/12/internships-at-anytime-of-your-life.html

<comment><USER2> It seems like most internships are not so much a "free trial" for the internee, but an extended, interactive interview and test of skills, personality, and attitude. They exist so that firms don't get stuck with inept workers.

There are also significant costs associated with interns (e.g. training, relocation) which are depreciated if the intern gets hired. Having an intern program like he describes would definitely see an increase in those costs, which makes it a disincentive for firms to have such a program.

That said, I'd love to have the opportunity to intern anywhere at any stage in my life.

<comment><USER3> I thought internships are just cheap labor for the companies. At least in Europe some people do nothing but internships for years, because companies won't hire anybody for real.

<comment><USER4> Yeah, at the last place I worked in Italy, my boss brought in a guy who was nice, and a hard worker, but not paid a dime. Stupid boss didn't even buy him lunch on his last day (I did out of a sense of decency). Eventually he hired him on as a 'temporary worker', which is how small firms in Italy get around the rigid labor laws.

Basically, it's just another example of how the rigid labor laws take from some and give to others.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The idea of companies getting free labor isn't neccessarily true, at least not for more meaningful jobs where the lead in time from hiring to productivity is longer (hence the desire for low turnover).

However, I believe what this article is suggesting that if the system were to change so internships as "free trial[s]" were the norm companies would likely have better hires in the long term.

Since markets with more liquidity adjust more rapidly, allowing people to move around more and allowing companies to better hire for culture fit (which may be hard to determine in a series of interviews) would ultimately result in a happier (and more efficient) labor market. Interesting idea.

</comment><comment><USER6> This article focuses on the receptor side (company employing for a trial) and glosses over the donor side (organisation that loses/offers the person for trial). Universities aren't affected by students taking internships over summer breaks, and are hardly affected by students inserting internships during semesters. However candidates at later stages of life are likely to either have an employer (who is likely to incur disruption and have little incentive for allowing extended leave), or be unemployed (which makes them less attractive for receptors).

<comment><AUTHOR> Your response assumes that the system operates alongside the current employment system. If every company operated that way, sure there would be disruption - but if you imagine a fluid system, no one would be disruting their 'current' position because every break can be made cleanly. Think out the box about what you've said as opposed to with the lense of how the current system works.

Also if you consider the long term evolutionary impact: as people have the flexibility to try out companies a) candidates will be more experienced as they will have received training from different companies b) candidates will know exactly what roles suit them c) companies will only be populated with people who want to be there hence leading to greater productivity.

Overhall the current system. As myyoung8 said - how many people want this but can't have it. This is the sign of a broken system.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> <http://vocationvacations.com/>

<comment><USER8> Thanks, I was desperatly trying to remmember that name! Heres an article about them: [http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/apr2006/sb20060...](http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/apr2006/sb20060412_289938.htm?campaign_id=bier_sma)</comment></comment>


China's national firewall hijacks JavaScript to DDoS GitHub - <AUTHOR> http://slashdot.org/submission/4299157/chinas-national-firewall-hijacks-javascript-to-ddos-github

<comment><USER2> Baidu's javascript cdn is being Hack by national firewall, inject these js script. If other webseit include some javascript library from Baidu's javascript CDN will auto run js script that will DDOS attack Github. The Attack js script is here:

[https://gist.github.com/zhufenggood/7bb040b1effb71d14bcc](https://gist.github.com/zhufenggood/7bb040b1effb71d14bcc)

Here is deobfuscate version using [http://jsbeautifier.org/](http://jsbeautifier.org/)

[https://gist.github.com/zhufenggood/6a38c2a2b2185977b3cb](https://gist.github.com/zhufenggood/6a38c2a2b2185977b3cb)

Github notice that, it replace that DDOS http request respond with a alert("WARNING: malicious javascript detected on this domain").

That is why some Chinese guy gets a weird pop-up with English text when visiting Chinese websites

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Some Chinese guy gets a weird pop-up with English text when visiting Chinese websites. A deeper investigation reveals that China's national firewall (GFW) is hijacking some popular JavaScripts to DDoS GitHub.</comment>


How to F*k with your friend using WordPress, Facebook ads, and $36.52 - <AUTHOR> http://www.plushrepublic.com/whats-trending/fk-friend-using-wordpress-facebook-ads-36-52/ <comment><USER2> A harmless example of technology with potentially devastating potential, that it's hard to imagine is not being used to such ends as we speak.

<comment><AUTHOR> Agreed, this was done in good spirit, but can easily be taken advantage of. I guess that's the nature of the internet.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Read The Count of Monte Cristo and others in installments in your email - <AUTHOR> https://www.serialliterature.com/ <comment><USER2> Congratulations, both for the idea and for the literature you chose the Count of Montecristo and Great Expectations, for different reasons are among my preferred books.

The Journal des Debats is available online.

The Conte of Montecristo was published according to Wikipedia:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Count_of_Monte_Cristo#Publ...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Count_of_Monte_Cristo#Publication)

> from 28 August 1844 to 15 January 1846

The original (book) has 117 Chapters: [http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/toc/ecip0720/2007023856.html](http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/toc/ecip0720/2007023856.html)

As a matter of fact the first date there is chapter 1:

[https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k446668c.item](https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k446668c.item)

And on the last date ther is chapter 117:

[https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k447166b/](https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k447166b/)

And an indication that it is the fourth "part" and the dates where the previous "sub-parts" were published.

They are not sequential (i.e. every day), and they have long gaps, so, without checking the exact dates, it seems plausible that it was actually pubished in 117 times.

</comment><comment><USER3> I love this idea, though I don't think it's necessary to only pick books that were released through serial publication. What's useful about this project to me is that, well, reading is already hard with so many distractions, but having bite-sized episodes through email might help people make progress without the overhead of sitting down with a book and feeling guilty when they can't make progress.

Another idea is to graduate the project into a more cohesive system: one of the emails you could periodically send is the first N pages of a random, untitled book.

Subject: "[Mystery Book] A story about redemption, a wrongfully imprisoned man." —just a byline summary like that.

And at the end of the email, you provide a link they can click that will subscribe to the rest of that book.

<comment><USER4> On the other hand, I love the clarity behind this system being for things released by serial publication.

Like the idea that if you read the book, you aren't actually reading it as intended.

<comment><USER5> Exactly, its like binge watching a television show instead of piecemeal. You don't have the cliffhangers since you don't have to wait a week or a year to find out what happens next. A key tool to build suspense is rendered useless.

On the other hand, splitting a book that wasn't meant to be serial can make certain sections feel meaningless - they aren't meant to be taken separately. A perfect example is the movie adaptation of the Hobbit: you had two movies that felt unresolved and one movie that just dropped you in right before the climax of the book.

<comment><USER3> That's a good point. Though this service admits that it doesn't know the actual episode boundaries used in the original publications, so it's just chunking the books into chapters which might not necessarily fall on cliffhanger boundaries.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I have a vague notion that there was something along these lines in the '00s. I think I even tried reading a book with it, maybe _Call of the Wild_. I imagine it works great for some folks, but I didn't find it an improvement over my existing reading practices in the least and didn't continue with it.

<comment><USER7> I bet it was [https://www.dailylit.com](https://www.dailylit.com)

<comment><USER6> It was. For some reason, searching call of the wild in my gmail archive didn't turn up the emails, but dailylit found it and it was, in fact _Call of the Wild_ (yay spectacular memory for useless details). Dailylit does have a click here to get the next installment immediately feature and I read the 37 installments over three days (it's a short book).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It's a great idea, just one suggestion: would it be possible to choose the language of the novels we decide to read? For example, I am French, so I would rather read _The Count of Monte Christo_, _Twenty Thousand Leagues under the Seas_ or _Madame Bovary_ in their original versions.

<comment><USER9> I recently binged public domain audiobooks while woodworking and came close to chop, cut or crush myself on Jules Verne's not so romantic views on women, Africans, employees, etc. Capitaine Nemo is different, just beware "5 semaines en ballon".

Monte Cristo is a good summer read. The 3 musketeers and the follow ups are also great.

I get these audiobooks from librivox and litteratureaudio.com. Fantastic work is done there.

<comment><USER8> Thanks! I generally prefer books over audiobooks, but I may listen to an audiobook for a change. I read plenty of books by Alexandre Dumas in the past, and a few by Jules Verne.

I wasn't aware of Verne's views, but I would guess they were pretty common during his time, so I would abstain to pass a judgement on him and focus on his pioneering work on scifi.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The Count of Monte Cristo is also featured on today's Google Doodle. Does anyone know why? It is not Alexandre Dumas' birthday. Coincidentally, I am in the middle of this novel. It is pretty long :-)

<comment><AUTHOR> Today is the anniversary of the publication of the first installment of "The Count of Monte Cristo" in the newspaper "Journal des Débats"(in 1884).

I had the site ready for launch today and already including "The Count of Monte Cristo", but I pushed the book to be the first one on the list and mention it in the title precisely because of the Google Doodle.

<comment><USER11> You've quoted google's write up, but surely they made a mistake - the year should be "1844", no?

[https://www.google.com/doodles/celebrating-alexandre- dumas](https://www.google.com/doodles/celebrating-alexandre-dumas)

<comment><AUTHOR> You are right! I did a better research while creating the site, so it is correct there. To answer this question I just went to check Google's explanation and copied their mistake.

Yes, 1844 is the correct year.

(I can't edit my reply above anymore)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I like this idea but I think I would want a link in each e-mail to mark that I had read the current installment. That way, I wouldn't have them building up in my inbox if I didn't get to them. I suppose that's a bit more overhead for the developer and kind of goes against the creator's and original author's intent. I really do like this though. I signed up for the Count of Monte Cristo.

<comment><USER13> I want to mention that I had the exact same thought. A feature to essentially say, "I have finished this section, please send me the next one."

<comment><USER14> You've spent 2 years with such a great username but only shared your thoughts just now?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'll go against the grain of all the people saying "why didn't I think of this, it's brilliant" and say: I'm not sure this is such a good idea.

Like: where's the place where All The Things are clamouring for your attention more than anything else? Yup, your email inbox.

Where's the place you unsubscribe from as much as you possibly can to keep it clean?

Where's the place there are even automated "unsub" tools and "zero" is considered the Holy Grail?

Where's the place you're likely to give up your literature reading when yet another urgent email from your boss pops into view?

I'm just not convinced that long form reading in your inbox is what people want, or if it'll stick.

I guess I also just think: buy the book. Buy the book, in paper form, turn off your phone and actually _live_ the story rather than trying to turn it into some serialised, EASY snackable form. Sometimes words and books are hard, but that's often the point. Be immersed in it, lost in it, consumed by it.

I'm ready to be proved wrong so will sign up and see, but these are my initial thoughts.

<comment><USER16> I agree on all but the last point. Having to wait for a week to get another chapter after each of Monte Cristo cliffhangers would be more intensive experience than binging on the book.

It's partly delayed gratification, but it's also having something in your week schedule to look forward to. I experienced similar thing with Planetarium ([https://www.beholder.uk/planetarium/](https://www.beholder.uk/planetarium/)) and I'd recommend it to anyone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Something similar [https://notimeforbooks.com](https://notimeforbooks.com)

<comment><USER18> That's my baby!

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> This is one of those ideas where I immediately go "Why didn't anyone think of this before?"

In periods of high-stress I can barely bring myself to pick up a book, but Im sure I'd read that email first thing in the morning. Very well done!

Now please, add Atlas Shrugged to the list, its due a re-read :)

</comment><comment><USER20> Nice job !! I finished the count of Monte Cristo a few years ago, and I must admit I fell in love, I cannot wait to read it again. Side note, I'd love Tarantino to make his version of it, either as a movie or even better, as a show ! Maybe even in today's time kinda like Sherlock did !!

<comment><USER21> It's not Tarantino, but occasional friendly reminder that Gankutsuou exists and is pretty dang good, occasional glimpses of awkward early-2000s CG aside. Jouji Nakata as the Count is easily one of his most memorable performances.

<comment><USER22> Thank you for letting me know this exists! This sounds really entertaining.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Love this! Count of Monte Cristo is my favorite work of fiction — read it at least 4 times now. I saw it differently as a kid, teenager, and adult. If you read it a while ago I highly suggest a re-read

</comment><comment><USER24> I'm sold. Amazing idea.

I wish I could decide how large each instalment was.

Edit: the most bizarre thing. I'm trying to scroll and the ink is smudging everywhere and I can't read things.

<comment><AUTHOR> Ok, sorry, definitely not the experiment I planned with the ink drop effect. What's your browser/device? It should be just a drop on click/touch that disappears with further clicks or scroll.

The custom size for each installment is interesting, but tricky to do right. I'll think about it.

<comment><USER25> I too see this. I am using Google Chrome browser in IPhone SE 2020.

Love your idea.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I have used [https://www.dailylit.com/](https://www.dailylit.com/) on and off for years

Why is this service better?

</comment><comment><USER27> Count of Monte Cristo is my favorite novel and I highly recommend it but it's north of 1000 pages...that's a lot of email installments.

<comment><USER22> It's one of my favourites too but it's a very quick way to find out who's the fastest reader of your friends when you recommend it to people :D

It's pretty epic in many ways, and for me it's the ultimate revenge story.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Does this use your browser's timezone or do I need to convert into another timezone when entering the time I'd like the email chapter?

<comment><AUTHOR> It uses your browser timezone

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Not entirely off topic, but I recently attempted sharing my life story with people via daily written installments: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUC2aFkBHiw&8d3=7f5h](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUC2aFkBHiw&8d3=7f5h)

The video basically introduces me and what I'm doing.

</comment><comment><USER30> Love this idea. I was a fan of this novel a long time ago. I really want a bite-size reading newsletter style like this.

What I think is you should have an index of similar novels too. You can put a list of recommended novels in the newsletter email, or sent a follow up email after finishing the whole seris of 117 chapters of Monte Cristo.

</comment><comment><USER31> Great idea! Just subscribed to get some Dumas in my mailbox.

A preview would be nice. Something to get a feel of how long a chapter might be. Also time is a fickle thing. Your 3pm might differ from mine. You might want to include the timezone somewhere. Finally: What's up with the blots that appear onclick in the upper quarter of the page?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! I get the timezone from your browser, so it should work as expected for you (if not, it's a bug, please let me know by replying the email). But enough people asked me about the timezone that it is worth adding it explicitly in the UI.

The ink drops are just a quirky effect that I found cool to add. Hopefully it didn't disrupt your experience (it works better on desktop btw).

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> There's also a new app called Serial Box ([https://www.serialbox.com/](https://www.serialbox.com/)) that has a combination of new works of literature designed for the serial format, as well as some old classics.

</comment><comment><USER33> If you like this sort of thing then you may also like Samuel Pepys' diaries read in "real time" on twitter. [https://twitter.com/samuelpepys](https://twitter.com/samuelpepys)

</comment><comment><USER34> Signed up!

I always kind of hoped Cell phone novels [0] in English would come, but I've never seen any.

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

</comment><comment><USER35> I think it would be great to read these works as they were intended to be read, and it's awesome you're leveraging public domain literature to do this. Not sure which I'll start with yet, but I'll be sure to sign up!

</comment><comment><USER36> Great idea! You should specify a time zone in your selections, or identify which one you use, since the internet is available in a few different places these days.

<comment><AUTHOR> I do it in the background. The hour you select will be the hour you receive your email in your timezone (if everything goes right at least lol). But maybe I should make the timezone explicit in the UI (maybe even editable).

<comment><USER37> I'd be in favor of this. I'm currently not in my home timezone, so would want to be able to change that. Good work though, super cool project!

<comment><USER37> Nevermind, just reread your comment and see what you mean now. But yes, at least making it explicit should clear up the confusion! :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> This is great. Thanks for sharing!

Does anyone know of new works being written and released in installments this way? Through newspapers, magazines, blogs, etc?

<comment><USER39> This is still quite popular in science fiction and fantasy literature. There are several periodical magazines like Asimov's Science Fiction which still regularly publish new people (regular as in 6 issues a year, but you could subscribe to multiple mags).

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> There were a couple similar services already I think in a similar vein, like DailyLit and DripRead..

But nice implementation, nonetheless...

</comment><comment><USER41> Love the idea! Finally a way to force myself to start reading some books on the list, as I keep a zero inbox policy.

</comment><comment><USER42> The Count of Monte Cristo is worth doing the audiobook for. Absolute masterpiece. "Rebecca" is another one.

</comment><comment><USER43> This is pretty brilliant. Kudos!

</comment><comment><USER44> I've seen this exact idea before. Did you look to see if it existed first?

<comment><USER45> Why does that matter?

<comment><USER46> Because if you lifted the idea from somewhere else you should disclose that fact, otherwise it comes off a little disingenuous especially in a show HN where many readers might assume that you came up with this independently.

<comment><USER45> I suppose that's true if you care whether someone came up with something independently. I dont, at all. Nothing is created in a void and my experienxe is that even the most original or clever idea, large or small, has plenty of other instances in existence.

<comment><USER46> That's not always the case. And obviously only the developer of this knows the truth, so it's really up to ones moral compass, but there is a difference between being inspired by a product to make something new versus literally copying someone else's work with zero impactful changes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Interesting idea! Can I request for more sci-fi titles like The Foundation?

</comment><comment><USER48> This is very fun!

An example at the top would be perfect, Of what the email would look like.

</comment><comment><USER49> I think this is great, thanks for making it.</comment>


Blind teacher loses job after rinsing his mouth with Listerine - <AUTHOR> http://nypost.com/2015/11/15/blind-teacher-loses-job-after-rinsing-his-mouth-with-listerine/ <comment><USER2> Honestly the whole thing smells like a hit job. It is one thing for the parent to supposedly "smell alcohol" but then they went all private detective and started rooting through the man's trash (and supposedly found something with unidentified brown liquid, soda? alcohol? coffee?).

Then this:

> The city Department of Education charged Sloan with drinking on the job and > sexual harassment because he had asked a group of moms that day, "Anybody > want to go on a blind date?" Sloan said he used the joke to put people at > ease about his disability. But in August, Sloan settled with the DOE by > agreeing to retire.

Clearly someone wanted him out (e.g. group of parents, admin at the school) and used these things as pretext to accomplish that. Too bad. Happens a lot if you follow the news around teachers in union areas getting dismissed (e.g. "teacher of the year dismissed for [minor infraction]").

I suspect a group of parents took issue with him and his style of teaching, and had enough clout (and made enough petty complaints) to have him removed.

<comment><USER3> > "Anybody want to go on a blind date?"

How can this be even remotely considered sexual harassment? I'm not sure if this is a US thing, but it's not the first time something this absurd gets to me ears. Some weeks ago I read an article about a woman in the US who accused a co-worker of sexual harassment stating that he said he would like to go out with her after work.

Maybe in the world I live things are different, but since when is finding someone attractive and asking out considered sexual harassment?

I just don't get it. How do people in the US even get remotely close to each other, find a significant other, etc? Aren't people afraid to even suggest a date?

<comment><USER4> I also always wonder, on many American tv shows you hear people talk about "no dating colleagues" rules and such. Why not? Whatever anyone does in private is private. If an ex-couple has arguments on the work floor, now that is a whole other issue. But one can expect people to behave professionally, can't one? It would insult me greatly if my boss would say I couldn't date co-workers. In fact, many of my colleagues have relationship starting on the job. It may happen when you spend >8hr a day with someone.

<comment><USER5> Its a rule-observed-in-the-breach. As you mention, how else can you meet anyone? When there are rules against it folks conspire to keep it secret; yet everyone knows anyway.

I'd say the rules are only there to invoke in case of a meltdown at the office. Gives the manager someone to blame/fire.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> "The city Department of Education charged Sloan with [...] sexual harassment because he had asked a group of moms that day, "Anybody want to go on a blind date?""

Holy fuck, has our society deteriorated so far that a sixty year old can't make fun of his own disability anymore without getting charged with sexual harassment?

<comment><USER7> "Deteriorated" relative to what? How do you think people would have reacted to that comment _from a black man_ towards a bunch of moms back in whatever pre- social deterioration "good old days" you're talking about?

<comment><USER8> So, if he were white his comment would not have been out of order?

Makes lots of sense to me. They cannot get at the black man for being black, so they all pretend to be idiots who cannot tell the difference between having a poor sense of humor and being a pervert.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> What kind of disgusting person thought it was alright to go this far? To destroy what was clearly someone's life work because she didn't like his joke, or some random thing he said? If they really feel he was in the wrong, push for censure or a penalty of some kind; this is far out of proportion.

<comment><USER10> That parent, whoever it was, had better hope their identity doesn't get out; they'll be named and shamed in viral social media and possibly have their lives ruined. It's happened before. I'm not condoning it; just saying.

<comment><USER11> I wouldn't count on it. Knowing how this stuff works they'll probably spin it into an outrage blog and then a book deal.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Can we get a more reliable source than the NYPost? The NYPost sensationalizes and mischaracterizes stories.

</comment><comment><USER13> There's another eerily similar story of a substitute teacher who's lectern computer was infected with spyware that caused it to display pornographic images...

[http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/news/computersecurity/20...](http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/news/computersecurity/2007-02-14-teacher- porn_x.htm)

These people are easy pickings because they've done nothing wrong and naively trust the system to work out for the best in the end.

I don't know how the prosecution in cases like these can live with themselves. We're already short of good teachers, and there's absolutely no shortage of real criminals to chase down.</comment>


Ask HN: Are there new hardware startups working on new CPUs or GPUs? - <AUTHOR>

Are there hardware startup companies that designs a new CPU/GPU that interrupts the status-quo. (3GHz in 2004, 3.8GHz in 2006, ~4GHz in 2014)
We had some in the 1990s like 3dfx (GPU) and Cyrix (CPU):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3dfx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrix
We had a discussion about it (as off-topic discussion) today: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7658275 <comment><USER2> There's the Mill CPU people, and I personally worked briefly with a small CPU startup, and there are startup-ish IP core companies out there .. but it's an _extremely_ hard market to enter.

Simply ramping up the clock speed is not going to happen much; the problem of waiting for your data to traverse the huge distance from the socketed DRAM all the way over to the processor is already severe.

<comment><USER3> There's several factors making it hard to enter the CPU market besides technical challenges. One is that there's so many offerings already, covering various niches (embedded, DSP, desktop, mobile, server, GPUs), all with existing toolchains. Another is that accessing a fabrication plant is extremely expensive/difficult/lengthy. Then there's all the IP and lawyer issues. And finally, I'd say that CPUs are mostly a "solved problem". Can we make better CPUs? Sure. But can you get enough millions invested to develop a whole new family of CPUs and hope to compete with what's out there? That's going to be very very hard.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Not a general purpose CPU/GPU, but related: [http://www.nervanasys.com/](http://www.nervanasys.com/)

Founded by experts in machine learning, neuroscience, processor architecture, and chip design, Nervana Systems is bringing unprecedented scale and simplicity to the application of brain-inspired algorithms. Deep learning has emerged as the leading strategy for making sense of a wide variety of data but is very computationally intensive. We are developing a scalable hardware solution to solve these types of problems. By making unsupervised learning dramatically faster and more scalable, customers at all levels can derive meaningful insights from their data, an ability previously available only to an elite few companies.

</comment><comment><USER5> In semi-stealth mode, but currently working on a new floating point focused architecture that is rethinking a lot of concepts in order to focus on energy efficiency in the high performance computing space. The biggest problem historically has been software development related, as even if you have a kickass new architecture, if you can't write software for it, it is worthless. Thankfully we think we have a pretty good solution to this.</comment>


The real connection speeds for Internet users across the world (charts) - <AUTHOR> http://royal.pingdom.com/2010/11/12/real-connection-speeds-for-internet-users-across-the-world/

<comment><USER11> This isn't actually "speed" though, is it? It's bandwidth. Google's Mike Belshe released data this year showing that network latency rather than bandwidth had a greater affect on the speed of browsing. I'd be very interested to see how each country lines up in terms of network latency, both in country (to popular sites) but also to the rest of the world.

<comment><USER12>
        network latency rather than bandwidth had a greater affect on the speed of browsing

This has been well-known for a while. I present to you the TCP throughput equation:

<http://www.apps.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3448.html#sec-3.1>

The fundamental reason for this result is that the rate that TCP's congestion control algorithm increases the congestion window is tied to round trip time. Congestion window determines how many packets can be "in the air" at any given time, and starts from 1-3 packets in modern OS's.

Moreover, packet loss dramatically reduces TCP performance, and this can happen whenever traffic traverses a congested router along its path: once the router queue is full, packets get dropped, and your congestion window is cut in half and grows slowly afterwards. It might be surprising to some, but the effect of queueing delays can often dominate the effects of propagation delays due to the physical distance that a packet has to traverse.

I know this type of measurement study has been done numerous times; I'm blanking on more recent ones but I know for instance the Rocketfuel project [1] from 2002 did perform large-scale Internet measurements that included link latencies from various vantage points on the network.

[1] <http://www.cs.washington.edu/research/networking/rocketfuel/>

<comment><USER11> John Rauser did an awesome session on Slow Start at Velocity this year.

Steve did an awesome write up ([http://www.stevesouders.com/blog/2010/07/13/velocity-tcp- and...](http://www.stevesouders.com/blog/2010/07/13/velocity-tcp-and-the- lower-bound-of-web-performance/))

Google have a really good (in my opinion) initiative to aggressively open up the initial window. Their suggestion is to move from from 4 initial packets to 10.

Really though I think there needs to be some process to assess the right size of the "magic numbers" in TCP periodically without having to redraft/rewrite whole RFCs.

<comment><USER12> I mean, in reality TCP congestion control just isn't designed for today's Internet. We live in a world of huge bandwidth-delay products and short connections, the opposite of what was the case when Van Jacobsen proposed it almost 30 years ago (to be fair, it's pretty damn impressive that his basic idea has prevented congestion collapse from recurring despite decades' worth of network evolution). Google's position on window size definitely makes sense in that regard but the very existence of "magic numbers" would suggest that there's room for some fundamental improvement. I think there are some really great ideas in the RCP project [1], which basically uses some information provided by routers to allow all flows to achieve their maximum steady-state fair-share allocation within one RTT. Even if it doesn't see the light of day on the broader Internet, I think it has excellent potential for datacenter networks.

That's article you linked is a really great summary of this issue; thanks for sharing that with me.

[1] <http://yuba.stanford.edu/rcp/>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Comparing real population with internet population of the top 10 from that list --

      Country   : Population Rank - Internet Population Rank
      China     : 1 - <USER2>
      India     : 2 - <USER3>
      USA       : 3 - <USER4>
      Indonesia : 4 - <USER5>
      Brazil    : 5 - <USER6>
      Pakistan  : 6 - <USER7>
      Bangladesh: 7 - (not on list)
      Nigeria   : 8 - <USER8>
      Russia    : 9 - <USER9>
      Japan     : 10 - <USER10>

Japan is the biggest list jumper, Pakistan and area are poorly connected, and surprisingly, Nigeria is connected almost in proportion to its population.

</comment><comment><USER14> But what are the download caps? For example a mere 2GB/month download cap here in the UK starts at £10 (~16USD), and you won't get unlimited downloads without having an LLU connection which most of the population does not have access to, so basing a broadband league table on speed tells only part of the story.</comment>


Working Remotely from Home, Telepresence and Video Conferencing - <AUTHOR> http://www.hanselman.com/blog/WorkingRemotelyFromHomeTelepresenceAndVideoConferencingOneYearLater.aspx

<comment><USER2> Excerpt:

 _Future: Putting Feet on my Web Cam - Telepresence Robots?

Chris Sells (who also works remotely) and I have been brainstorming and prototyping ideas for smarter telepresence. Chris really wants a high-res camera with an optical zoom so he can see whiteboards.

Chris would be happy "without feet." He would like a computer/device/system that someone could pick up and take to a meeting - basically his disembodied virtual head - so he could participate in meetings.

I'd really like be able to "walk" into someone's office. Just pop in to see if they are there. I want to get involved in hallway conversations.

Chris and I had the opportunity to remotely drive/beta-test a Telepresence robot from RoboDynamics. They've built their software on .NET 3.0 and the robot runs XP.

It was pretty sweet. They've got a 26x Optical Zoom and pan/tilt/zoom on the camera. There's a screen for your "head" so that folks can recognize you as you wander around. I was able to walk all over their office._

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

<http://robodynamics.com></comment>


How Plutocrats Cripple the IRS: You pay more because elites pay less - <AUTHOR> http://prospect.org/article/how-plutocrats-cripple-irs <comment><USER2> I find it surprising that so many HN users on this thread are rushing to the comments to make the point that the rich do, in fact, pay more than "the rest of us."

Did you not hear about the Panama papers? It should be quite evident that if you are wealthy enough, you can use creative loopholes to pay very little tax. It's also very well known that many big corporations use offshore accounts to pay little/no taxes.

No, I'm not going to cite sources. If you are so living under a rock that you don't know this is a real problem, a source isn't going to help you -- you're just going to start arguing about sources instead of the real, actual issue that should be fucking obvious.

<comment><USER3> Exactly. Percentage tax rates don't mean squat when you're hiding all your income.

<comment><USER4> Percentages also don't mean much when you split "rich" vs "middle-class" based on some arbitrary top x% of income. The real difference in the US is between the landed gentry (people who live off their investments) and people who are paid for their labor. That is where many people (like Warren Buffet) see a fundamental unfairness, especially in cases where people who are paid for their labor manage to get it taxed at investment income levels (e.g. carried interest).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> You don't pay more. There is an important fact that rarely gets mentioned in the taxation debate (by either side): the U.S. tax system is much more progressive than in similar developed countries: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/04/05/ameri...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/04/05/americas- taxes-are-the-most-progressive-in-the-world-its-government-is-among-the- least). The top 10% in the U.S. carry much more of the tax burden relative to their share of the income (33.5% of income, but 45% of taxes). In Germany, for example, the top 10% earn 29% of income and pay 31% of taxes.

Middle class people in the United States pay _very low_ taxes. I met a young woman from Germany, who has a typical entry-level desk job at a logistics company. Her tax bill was about 40%, which is level only high-income people here in the U.S. would pay. A typical middle class family eligible for the various deductions pays about 25% in state and federal taxes.

My two cents: A welfare state requires buy in from the population. You can't have a successful one just taxing the rich heavily to pay for middle class benefits like college and expensive old-age care. You need to flatten the tax curve and raise taxes on everyone to pay for services you expect everyone to use. People need to feel like they are getting something from the system, not just being forced to fund it.

<comment><USER6> I don't agree with you on two accounts:

1\. What Germany does is completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not the US middle class is paying more because US plutocrats are cleverly shielding some of their gains from taxation.

2\. If you want welfare state acceptance by all remove means testing and have it available to all. That's how it's done in Europe. Often times the public service is superior to anything the private sector can offer so even the rich support it.

<comment><USER7> > US plutocrats are cleverly shielding some of their gains from taxation

But even _after_ that, they still end up paying a greater proportion of taxes collected than in other countries. That is rayiner's point.

<comment><USER8> Which only goes to show that the rich in America are far richer than their counterparts in other well-developed countries. In terms of inequality, American ratios are closer to those found in straight-up kleptocracies. When people talk about the bananafication of the republic, this is what they mean.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Relevant:

"Chutzpah, according to the traditional definition, is when you murder your mother and father, then plead for mercy from the court on the grounds that you're an orphan.Something like that is now happening in the tax debate."

[http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/07/federal-tax- chut...](http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/07/federal-tax-chutzpah/)

Since 1962, and especially since 1982, the USA tax system has relentlessly reduced the taxes that the rich have to pay. The point is, if you change the tax system, so that all the money goes to the rich, then even with the lower taxes, the rich will end up paying a lot of what taxes are collected, because they have all the money. And that is basically what is happened. But now the rich like to claim "Hey, we are paying 70% of all the taxes!" But of course, their share of all wealth has expanded dramatically, so even with lower taxes, they still end up paying quite a bit.

But of course, all of these taxes are voluntary. They could voluntarily give up their wealth, and donate all of it to charity, and then they would be poor, and they would not have to pay taxes. That they choose not to do this suggests that they mind the taxes less than they would mind being poor.

<comment><USER10> In reality, the US rich pay a higher proportion of taxes _relative to income earned_ than any other OECD country.

[http://taxfoundation.org/blog/no-country-leans-upper- income-...](http://taxfoundation.org/blog/no-country-leans-upper-income- households-much-us)

It's true that poorer folks in the US are unproductive and contribute very little to society via market mechanisms (most don't even work). They are in fact a net drain after accounting for taxes and transfers.

I fail to see how the rich continuing to be productive and paying far more than their fair share is "chutzpah".

<comment><USER11> I'm not the most well versed but it doesn't look like that says anything about "income" that is derived from capital gains. For instance Warren Buffet has remarked that his effective tax rate is actually around 17.4%.

<comment><USER10> Capital gains is personal income. So yes, it almost certainly does.

Additionally, that figure (much like Warren Buffer) understates what the rich pay - first the corporation they own pays taxes, then they pay taxes again when the profit is distributed to shareholders.

It's a misrepresentation equivalent to claiming that middle class folks don't pay the employer portion of payroll taxes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> "You pay more taxes because somebody else pays less" is fundamentally misleading. If the government had to balance its income and expenses, then yes, one person paying less taxes would imply somebody else had to pay more taxes.

But that is not how it works. Not for a government that can borrow at practically zero cost.

The reality is that when somebody else doesn't pay their taxes, it has no bearing on how much you pay. It just causes the treasury to issue incrementally more bonds.

This may seem like a minor point, but it's important in understanding what taxes are really for in a country that issues its own reserve currency: they support the value of the currency by ensuring everybody needs to use it to pay their taxes.

<comment><USER13> > But that is not how it works. Not for a government that can borrow at > practically zero cost.

"practically" zero cost is far different from "zero cost". If someone pays less taxes and the government has to issue bonds someone has to buy the bonds, so the government can get money. And who buys the bonds? Those people who have money. Who are those people? Probably those who didn't pay much tax, so they still have much money. And no one buys bonds if he doesn't get something out of it. Even low interests ("practically" zero) are far more than no interest.

<comment><USER14> Unless the interest on the bonds is lower than inflation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> "Plutocrats, the richest 0.1 percent of Americans, get the most benefit from a weakened IRS. Because they have the money, the lawyers, the lobbyists, the accountants, and the secret campaign funds, they are able to ensure that the IRS won't have the resources to effectively collect the money they owe to it. "

Since when is generalizing an entire group acceptable?

Also,

How do you explain this?

[http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/12/news/economy/rich- taxes/](http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/12/news/economy/rich-taxes/)

In 2013:

top 10% paid over 70% of total federal taxes 47% of all Americans pretty much paid nothing in terms of federal taxes

This also doesn't include the multitude of other taxes the rich pay (property taxes, use taxes, gas tax) and the fact that they employ many people that also pay taxes into the system (indirectly paying more into the system).

There are definitely some people using off-shore accounts, but it's not nearly as bleak as this article would like us to believe.

The US also has one of the highest corporate tax rate in the world.

If people are taking the risk and leaving the country with their money, we may need to take a look at our existing tax laws and figure out why they are taking the risk.

<comment><USER16> >> How do you explain this?

How do I explain the top 10% paying over 70% of total federal taxes?

I would wager a guess it has something to do with them having about 70% of the total wealth of the country.

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

<comment><USER17> You're assuming a large overlap between top 10% income and top 10% wealth. I'm not able to find great data on this, with most sources just focusing on one or the other. It seems to me though that many of the wealthiest individuals, including those drawing down retirement savings, probably have low W2 income.

<comment><USER18> This discrepancy, and people's unwillingness to intellectually engage with it, is what allows the extremely wealthy to be just fine with society demonizing high income people. Once you have stored wealth, you don't care any more because there is no wealth tax (other than property tax and inflation). Taxing high income people into oblivion is what allows the very rich to keep their club small.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Here's a counterpoint: How I get harassed by the IRS because Americans hate rich people.

I'm earning a below-average Bay Area income, but as foreigner I have a bank account and an IRA abroad, so I get to file a 30-page paper return that costs > $1K to prepare, in which I pay taxes on foreign income I did not actually earn, and get audited every year. So remember that every $1 spent on the IRS also generates an $X amount in time and money wasted for taxpayers.

<comment><USER20> For me this is a major deterrent for considering to work in the US. What I hear about NSA surveillance does not bother me that much. What I hear about IRS makes me want to stay away.

<comment><USER21> I am a European citizen living in the Bay Area and although I like to whine about it, paying taxes is not a big deal.

It is also getting simpler as I now have almost only US assets. I used to have some stocks vested that was awarded when I worked for the same company in the UK. The tax authorities of the two countries decided to split my earnings leaving me with more or less nothing.

Another thing most people say is that US tax gives a lot less back even though we pay about the same as in Europe. This is true, but to some degree this is instead given to you by your employer (like health care).

<comment><USER20> Yes, but that getting simpler then means having to get rid of property, bank accounts etc outside of US. Things like the puny family estate which I hold dear - high emotional but little financial value, yet large bureaucracy burden.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> As first impressions go, the first sentence of OP is pretty bizarre; "For every dollar appropriated to the IRS the public collects more than $4 in taxes."

Missing a couple zeros there? The IRS annual budget is $11.2B and total federal revenue is about $7 trillion.... As far as meaningless stats go that's a factor of 625x, not 4x.

Talk about blowing any credibility from the start!

<comment><USER23> I think they missed the word extra after every.

<comment><USER22> Now that would be an interesting stat... So they collect $7 trillion a year, but to collect 1% more ($70B) we would have to pay them 1/4th of that, or $17.5B -- an additional 150% of their current budget.

Hardly seems worth it, aside from the satisfaction of holding all those tax cheats feet to the fire.

<comment><USER23> Well I guess it all comes down to how you feel about tax cheats.

Given the current state of US tax law it would be a far better to simplify the rules and thus making it easier for the IRS to do its job within its current budget. Everyone recognises this, but given the political constraints it appears to be impossible to do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> So, while I'm sure that the very wealthy ("plutocrats"? Really?) include some people who actively work to defraud the government, I don't think it's mostly that.

Here's the fact: If you have a net worth north of say $20 million, you're going to hire an accountant to do your taxes. Not, like, an H&R Block come down with a box of your documents accountant, a real accountant. That accountant's _job_ is to interact with an incredibly arcane tax code that includes a lot of special cases and exceptions, and come up with the lowest tax burden possible for you. Legally.

Even if you don't super care to shave another 5% off your taxes, your accountant will probably do it for you without your asking. How else would it work? Would an accountant say, "Come use me! I'll increase your tax burden!"? If at the end of the process you feel like giving away more of your wealth, then you can always choose to do that.

</comment><comment><USER25> I want to point out another angle to this issue.

The US tax system may be okayish but renting system is way too much flawed and is giving undue advantage to the dirty-rich few (read the top 0.1%). There should be some law (e.g. ceiling on land holding act) to restrict the ownership of real estate. Some low enough ceiling on land should be there so that no one be in a position to keep on gaining ever increasing rent revenue and thus keep on putting huge burden on the rest of the society. The tax laws should be accompanied by laws that put hard limits on ownership of real estate.

Else the dirty-rich will soon "own" this entire nation for all "practical" and "important" purposes.

<comment><USER26> Please present your data on rates of home ownership in the US compared to other industrialized nations. Also, what do you think should be done to encourage home ownership beyond the current scheme of making mortgage interest deductable for primary residences?

<comment><USER25> Why compare with other nations? Don't you think the USA should show some leadership here?

>>Also, what do you think should be done to encourage home ownership beyond the current scheme of making mortgage interest deductable for primary residences?

This is a good question. First and foremost, make houses affordable. For this to happen in any meaningful manner, the excess houses/spaces owned by people/companies should be freed from their clutches. Another point is the development across the nation must be more evenly distributed across the entire nation as the population grows, this will help lessen the burden on certain areas.

Also, home ownership rate in itself doesn't speak much, what is more significant is how large (i.e. how many tens, hundreds or even thousands of houses) living space is owned by how many individuals/companies and what is the rent-income of these people/companies?

This will show that the rent seeking is already rampant in USA. See this news "The affordable units will range for $950 to $1,492 (£615 to £966), and market-rate units will start at $2,000 (£1,294). Monadnock Development is backing the project." [1].

Why these people (like the Monadnock) should be allowed to own such excessive pieces of land, which they are not using for living themselves or not using for any manufacturing activity?

No one (individual or company) should be allowed to own multiple houses or even "too big" houses/spaces for living/renting.

The dirty-rich owning even the supposedly "public" space is also already happening. See the news about Vinod Khosla [2]. Or see this news about Mark Zukerberg [3].

I understand there are various issues here (e.g. cartels building hotels, in the name of hospitality industry, and using that space to achieve some sort of rent-seeking and/or seeking some sort of leverage through excessive land ownership). But these issues can be tackled through good legislation and enforcement, without harming the interests of the large populations.

[1] [http://www.dezeen.com/2015/10/21/narchitects-my-micro-ny- mod...](http://www.dezeen.com/2015/10/21/narchitects-my-micro-ny-modular- residential-tower-affordable-housing-new-york-usa-adapt-nyc/)

[2] [http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/23/vinod- khosla-...](http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/23/vinod-khosla- martins-beach-silicon-valley-billionaire-public-access-beach)

[3] [http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_24285169/mark- zuckerb...](http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_24285169/mark-zuckerberg- buys-four-houses-near-his-palo-alto-home)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Discussions like these, among many clearly intelligent people, can sometimes get lost in the weeds. What's missing is a basic contextual foundation, without which all the wonky details in world are nearly meaningless. Why discuss AMT, Germany, and tax loopholes without first agreeing on inequality.

Most would agree that in a capitalist system there MUST be some inequality to provide incentive; extreme inequality is unsustainable; an economy (and society) is at it's best when inequality is low; and progressive earnings taxation is in fact the only proven and viable solution to address extreme inequality.

I rarely see this foundation laid here or in "the media". We can bitch and moan about the 0.1%ers and the tax code they've written for us, and it's certainly entertaining. But let's try to agree generally on where we want to go before discussing how to get there and who's going to drive.

</comment><comment><USER28> In this article, I like that they talk about the plutocrats being the "0.1%" instead of the more common "1%".

The 1% is NOT plutocrats; they are lawyers, doctors, engineers, that pay high sums in taxes.

The 0.1%, instead, starts to become really "interesting". Glad that they used the right percentage amount.

</comment><comment><USER29> I was very disappointed to see no mention of the fact that the US is one of the only developed nations that taxes companies' offshore profits. The trillions in profits held offshore by American companies is an unintended consequence of an overly complex tax system.

<comment><USER30> The article does point out how easy is it is make profits appear as though they were earned offshore however.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Anyone else think we'll see "tax havens for the masses" become a thing in the next several years?</comment>


The SICP reading project - <AUTHOR> http://rickvandeloo.com/2014/07/02/why-I-am-starting-the-SICP-reading-project-this-summer/

<comment><USER2> Hey if you're looking for a community that will encourage you while working through SICP, drop by #symbolics on Freenode. A few of us are working through the book, including myself, and many have worked through most of it before.

Ping me @ DrDuck</comment>


Guilty Until Proven Innocent: the rise of campus kangaroo courts for sex crimes - <AUTHOR> http://reason.com/archives/2013/12/17/guilty-until-proven-innocent

<comment><USER2> What I find most fascinating with the evolution of the entire "gender war" social movement, is its complete denial of the scientific foundations of human sexuality. The study of sex is a massive field in evolution, and it is not a young science. Our understanding of sexual dimorphism, intersexual conflict, and behavioral patterns based upon divergent mating strategies is quite sound and cohesive.

The real question is, why do people take these "social scientists" seriously regarding subjects in which they have no expertise? Unfortunately, the answer becomes quite clear as soon as another question is asked:

Qui bono?

P.S. In my opinion, the female vote is now linked to supporting mainstream "Feminism", along with all of its radical and irrational sects. Incumbents will continue to say whatever is necessary to win these votes, even in the face of direct evidence that many of these assertions are baseless. This is the political reality of the USA at present. Facts are irrelevant, votes are supreme.</comment>