This will crash your browser. - <AUTHOR> http://jsfiddle.net/n3Wa3/embedded/result/ <comment><USER2> Yep. Back in 2008 or thereabouts, I threw together [http://crashmybrowser.com/](http://crashmybrowser.com/) (note that this page will not immediately crash your browser, it's very polite about asking first). I only spent a short amount of time on it and haven't touched it since, but at a quick check, it looks like at least a couple of the tests are still effective.

The site has a note, under "why", along the lines of resource limitations and process separation for tabs being a good idea. 5 years later, it still is.

On the plus side, all of the browsers have changed their UI a lot during those 5 years.

edit: looks like Chrome (or Chromium) has aged more gracefully than Firefox. It handles everything on the page with a minimum amount of fuss. Good. :-)

<comment><AUTHOR> nice!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> You really want to post a link that locks up people's browsers? I can think of a dozen ways to do this, but why would I inconvenience people just to show off a trivial self-evident fact?

And "crash" is an exaggeration. The browser is prevented from functioning until it figures out that its processing power is being absorbed in something pointless, for example by badly written JavaScript:

        function loop_forever() {
          while(true) {
          }
        }

A modern browser assigns a thread to each process and monitors each thread, so it can act to stop unresponsive threads. That's what happens in this case. It's not a "crash", unless bringing a car to a safe stop at a red light counts as a crash.

<comment><USER4> After freezing for a few seconds it really crashed my Firefox, showing the crash reporting UI and everything. In chrome, the tab crashes too, but not the whole browser.

For those interested, the responsible code is located here:

dontclick://fiddle.jshell.net/n3Wa3/show/light/

And here is the code:

        <script>
        function Hackology()
        {
            var buffer = '\x42';
            for (i =0;i<666;i++)
            {
                buffer+=buffer+'\x42';
                document.write('<html><marquee><h1>'+buffer+buffer);
            }
        }
        </script>

<comment><USER5> Doesn't look very advanced. Maybe I'm missing something.

<comment><USER3> Anyone who posts a link with the tag, "this will crash your browser" clearly isn't aiming very high, certainly not at "advanced".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > This will crash your browser.

No. Waited about five minutes. No crash.

<comment><USER5> Should be: This will crash your browser if you enable javascript.

Opera did crash though.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I posted this because this code crashed IE, Chrome on Win7 and it also crashed on my iPod, Android and WinPhone8 devices.

<comment><USER3> But any bit of trivial JavaScript code can crash a certain class of browser (the class without independent threads) -- it doesn't require even a small bit of cleverness.

It's just not newsworthy, and it's a public nuisance to post such examples -- I mean a working example, as opposed to an inert code listing.

<comment><AUTHOR> I am sorry, but I found the code behind it interesting so posted it. I put it on jsfiddle! If you were smart enough, you could have accessed the html behind the page easily.

like this: view- source:[http://fiddle.jshell.net/n3Wa3/show/light/](http://fiddle.jshell.net/n3Wa3/show/light/)

OR

[http://jsfiddle.net/zalun/n3Wa3/embedded/html/](http://jsfiddle.net/zalun/n3Wa3/embedded/html/)

My point being, browsers should be able to recover from such code. What if some site's ad code has this in it. It shouldn't be able to crash my entire browser.

<comment><USER3> >> it's a public nuisance to post such examples -- I mean a working example, as opposed to an inert code listing.

> I am sorry, but I found the code behind it interesting so posted it.

You should have posted a listing, not a working copy. That would have been the civilized, non-destructive thing to do.

> If you were smart enough, you could have accessed the html behind the page > easily.

I did. But if you were smart enough, you would have done that and avoided performing an unscheduled test of the less technically skilled visitors' browsers ability to handle broken code.

> My point being, browsers should be able to recover from such code.

Why not set your car on fire? A modern car should be able to tolerate the flames, right? Where's your sense of adventure?

You just aren't thinking. This is a public forum visited by people representing all levels of skill.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> IE10 in Windows 8 did not crash and recovered. All other tabs where a-okay.

</comment><comment><USER8> can't tell because JS is only enabled on whitelisted sites here ;)

</comment><comment><USER9> No, it does not.

Chrome for Win32 here.

</comment><comment><USER10> lynx survives

<comment><USER3> Indeed it does -- it tries to run the JavaScript, decides it's crap, and handily recovers. Good old Lynx.</comment></comment>


Video showing huge security breach in iOS permissions nobody sees - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/vitovalov/status/931954979153367040 <comment><USER2> There is no security breach here. In iOS 11, the standard photo picker runs in a separate process. When the user picks a photo, one-time access to that single photo is give. To the app. Since the user is picking the photo, and can just cancel, no separate permission is needed.

[https://stackoverflow.com/q/46404628/77567](https://stackoverflow.com/q/46404628/77567)

<comment><USER3> Ironically the last 'huge breach' was that there is not enough granularity, you could only share everything or nothing. Here you can share one item explicitly and it's a huge breach again.</comment></comment>


The Last Days of the Blue-Blood Harvest - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/05/blood-in-the-water/559229/?single_page=true <comment><USER2> it's not the point of the article, but i find it fascinating that this industry has managed to figure out how to capture >400k wild animals per year and return ~90% of them alive to the ocean after harvesting their blood with a giant needle.

there must be an interesting story here about how they figured out that they needed to do this with a sustainable take rate (unlike most commercial fishing industries).

<comment><USER3> commercial fishing industries have a vested interest in achieving the maximum sustainable yield.

furthermore, legislation like quota systems are generally supported because it gives companies a golden ticket to harvest while denying newcomers from entering the space.

<comment><USER2> yet in practice overfishing occurs in species after species; individual interests do not always align with the macro interests.

that's why i think there's an interesting story lurking here. there were probably a small number of technocratic players involved (maybe even one) who were able to specify how the chain should work.

<comment><USER4> Monitoring and enforcement have been tough (infeasible). I've been away from conservation for a while now, but I'd hope it's gotten better with satelites, drones.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Horseshoe crabs are rather extraordinary creatures. They're essentially unchanged for 450 million years, and look like it:

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

The roe is edible too, but has to be prepared very carefully as it can contain the same poison (tetratodoxin) as blowfish/fugu:

[https://praneesthaikitchen.com/2013/01/28/horseshoe-crab- egg...](https://praneesthaikitchen.com/2013/01/28/horseshoe-crab-egg-salad- recipe/)

</comment><comment><USER6> "Horseshoe-crab blood is exquisitely sensitive to toxins from bacteria. It is used to test for contamination during the manufacture of anything that might go inside the human body"

This seems like an impossibly random discovery. Did scientists test the blood of various animals until they finally found an optimum with horseshoe crabs ?

<comment><USER7> Please read the article entirely before rushing to comment...

 _"Bang, a pathologist, was interested in the creature's primitive immune system. He settled on a protocol of injecting bacteria from seawater directly into horseshoe crabs, which cause their blood to clump into "stringy masses."

Bang suspected this clotting had a purpose. It immobilized the bacteria, sealing off the rest of the horseshoe crab's body from an invading pathogen. Intriguingly, their blood turned to gel even if he boiled the bacteria injection for five or 10 minutes first. This should have killed the bacteria and sterilized the injected solution. Bang realized the blood was sensitive not just to live bacteria but to bacterial toxins that persist even after sterilization."_

<comment><USER8> Or you can just post your comment without reading the long article and some gloomy scold will do the hard work for you :)

This reminds me of how the best way to get the correct answer to a question on a technical forum isn't to ask, but to post the wrong answer. Someone will be along shortly to correct you.

[https://xkcd.com/386/](https://xkcd.com/386/)

<comment><USER9> For this, I prefer The Codeless Code and The Purple Beggar [http://thecodelesscode.com/case/170](http://thecodelesscode.com/case/170)

<comment><USER8> _"My walk once took me past a beggar whose sign read, You do not DARE throw coins at ME! His body was purple with bruises but his bowl was always full."_

Perfect.

I could have sworn that this principle was an internet adage like Godwin's law or Poe's law, but I couldn't find one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Was expecting an article about the French Revolution. Disappoint.

<comment><USER11> No crowdshare guillotine apps yet, but I hear Khosla Ventures and KPCB want to invest to materialize this category.</comment></comment>


$2B lawsuit claims Apple Watch idea was stolen - <AUTHOR> https://www.cultofmac.com/423187/2-billion-lawsuit-claims-apple-watch-idea-was-stolen/ <comment><AUTHOR> Given she lives in Detroit and her house is worth <$40k USD, I'd say this is a desperate lawsuit of someome whom had an "idea" but failed to execute, but still thinks they deserve money for doing nothing.

[https://www.trulia.com/p/mi/detroit/15745-winthrop-st- detroi...](https://www.trulia.com/p/mi/detroit/15745-winthrop-st-detroit- mi-48227--2050800411)</comment>


Tesla Asks Investors For Another $40 Million To Start Its Engines. - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/12/21/tesla-asks-investors-for-another-40-million-to-start-its-engines/ <comment><USER2> "But nobody ever said trying to make an electric car would be easy. Sometimes ambitious startups need a billionaire with conviction to see them through the rough spots."

Elon Musk's SpaceX hasn't had a successful flight yet (two failed attempts last time I checked) and now Tesla needs more money. I disagree with anyone who says that he won't win, I wholeheartedly believe he will.

Now there is a man who is still an entrepreneur with courage in his convictions.</comment>


Privacy and due process by default. New federal political party platform - <AUTHOR> https://theprivacyparty.org/ <comment><USER2> Good luck to them. Breaking the two party false dichotomy is an uphill battle.</comment>


Analog Input Technologies for Keyboards - <AUTHOR> https://blog.wooting.nl/analog-input-technologies-for-keyboards/ <comment><AUTHOR> What applications besides games use these? Has anyone used them for user interface studies?</comment>


Show HN: Gopass – A simple UI for password-store - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/cortex/gopass <comment><USER2> Password managers ftw! What is the state of go gui development? It's a nice language that I only know the basics of, but it seems lacking in gui/desktop areas...</comment>


Apple at 40: The forgotten founder who gave it all away - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35940300 <comment><USER2> More info about him here:

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


The End of Identity Liberalism - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/opinion/sunday/the-end-of-identity-liberalism.html <comment><USER2> I honestly believe Obama largely steered clear of identity politics, which is why he won the Presidency twice.

He came onto the national scene in the 2004 Democratic National Convention with a lyrical speech about all of the things shared by both people in the "Blue States" and the "Red States".

"The pundits, the pundits like to slice and dice our country into red states and blue States: red states for Republicans, blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the red states."

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/articles/A19751-2004Jul...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/articles/A19751-2004Jul27.html)

And I honestly believe Obama's "A More Perfect Union" speech will go down as one of the best and most important speeches in American history, for describing the frustrations of both whites and minorities when it comes to discussing race in America.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_More_Perfect_Union_(speech)#...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_More_Perfect_Union_\(speech\)#Speech)

I have also recently noticed Obama and some of his surrogates getting in not- so-subtle digs at Clinton in recent days.

"I won Iowa not because the demographics dictated that I would win in Iowa. It was because I spent 87 days going to every small town and fair and fish fry and VFW hall."

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/barack-obama- democrats-l...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/barack-obama-democrats- loss_us_582a23eae4b0c4b63b0e041b)

Heard similar comments from former denizens of the Obama White House in the Keepin' it 1600 podcast.

[https://soundcloud.com/keepinit1600](https://soundcloud.com/keepinit1600)

So maybe even Team Obama is frustrated at Clinton's "identity politics" over reach.

<comment><USER3> I can imagine Team Obama is very very upset at how Clinton lost. I can also remember the 2008 primaries, and how Team Obama seemed to be, in many ways, the opposite of Team Clinton.

</comment></comment><comment><USER2> Also, the AltRight is explicitly about adopting identity politics for the white majority.

"I care about us more. That's all I'm saying. But I respect identitarians of other races. And I actually can see eye to eye with them in a way that your average conservative can't."

[http://www.npr.org/2016/11/17/502476139/were-not-going- away-...](http://www.npr.org/2016/11/17/502476139/were-not-going-away-alt- right-leader-on-voice-in-trump-administration)

And of course, many are arguing Trump's campaign was an appeal to white identity, although I realize a lot of Trump voters take issue with that characterization.

<comment><USER4> I know a number of people who proudly adopt the label, none of whom had even heard of Richard Spencer before NPR and the like started talking him up. I haven't been able to find anyone who even _knows_ anyone who thinks it's accurate to call Richard Spencer the, or even _a_ , leader of the alt-right.

If anyone can fairly be said to stand in that role, it'd be Milo Yiannopoulos, so I suppose it's not entirely unreasonable that someone at NPR confused his picture for that of Spencer and stuck it on the linked transcript. On the other hand, it's not reasonable to call Yiannopoulos a white supremacist, either, so overall I'm not sure what to make of the piece, except to say that I'd think twice about taking it at face value. There is a great deal of nuance here which NPR has no reason to represent fairly, and every reason not to.

<comment><USER5> I agree it is not reasonable to say Milo is a white supremacist, in fact they seem to hate him. This says something, I think, about how the term alt right is used.

While white supremacists coined the term, they clearly don't own it anymore. Whomever Milo is the leader of, they don't overlap well with white supremacists. alt-right.

<comment><USER4> They hate him, all right. He's half Jewish. That's enough.

 _Did_ white supremacists coin the term, though? I haven't been able to substantiate that, either.

<comment><USER5> I definitely shouldn't have said 'coined', since coining usually refers to the first time that the term is used in a particular way. I have no idea if white nationalists coined the term.

I meant to say: 'brought the term to a level of prevalence such that their definition for the word is the most common usage', but even with that watered- down concept of "coining", I don't even know for certain that this is correct - that it was white nationalists who first did this.

<comment><USER6> Spencer is not a white supremacist (he says) but a white nationalist. He was the one who coined the term alt-right.

I'm positive Milo is a patriotic Yiannopoulos Supremacist.

I don't think either of the two would be eligible to join Aryan Brotherhood or any group of genuine article white supremacists.

I think the distinction between 'nationalist' and 'supremacist' should be sharply defined. Mixing the terms is like using socialism and communism interchangeably.

I myself am NRX but not any kind of nationalist because I believe that model for determining an in-group is too hit and miss. Don't forget that nation state nationalism is mostly a 20th century phenomenon. Note the paradox of nationalists working together across borders, classical nationalism is going meta.

<comment><USER4> > I'm positive Milo is a patriotic Yiannopoulos Supremacist.

Oh, to be sure! All gay men are narcissistic to some degree, and Milo I think more than most. He uses the trait, though, rather than letting it use him, and he's been doing God's work since before it was cool.

> Note the paradox of nationalists working together across borders, classical > nationalism is going meta.

Is that so paradoxical? History is replete with examples of nations allying for mutual benefit without dilution of anyone's sovereignty.

As far as in-group determination goes, I'm not sure I see why it can't be made to work on roughly the lines of the classical American model - that is, a privilege earned in exchange for bringing specific and substantial value. A lot of countries do this even today, usually under the rubric of some kind of points system. Such schemes have been slandered in the US under the name of "immigration quotas", but, again, this has occurred as a matter of political expediency - one cannot, after all, import captive voters by the million in the presence of such a system. It worked for us for many years - those of my ancestors who weren't transportees earned their citizenship that way. It works for many countries today. It could very easily be made to work for us again.

> I think the distinction between 'nationalist' and 'supremacist' should be > sharply defined.

It _is_ sharply defined. But in a political environment where nuance is anathema, no one pays the distinction much heed. Progressives equate the concepts for reasons of political utility, and their narrative has such hegemonic power that even rejecting this bogus prior for what it is takes some effort of reason and will. To try to convince anyone else on the matter is much harder still. (And ethnic nationalism, or supremacism, or whatever you want to call it, complicates the issue still further by being for the most part a lot of damnfoolishness. What matters is culture, not race. Regarding the latter as metonymous of the former indicates a failure to have fully thought the matter through.)

Well. Their narrative _had_ such hegemonic power, anyway. That's taken quite a blow in the last couple of weeks, and whatever else comes of a Trump presidency, that by itself strikes me as worthwhile. It won't be easy, I think, for anyone to unring that bell. My immediate concern is that we start working to reduce the breaches their quest for power has driven into our polity, rather than crowbarring them still wider. Notwithstanding Schumeresque tantrums about Toronto, we all still have to live with one another. That progressives have so forgotten this is all the more reason for us to bear it firmly in mind. Let us comport ourselves so as to earn the favorable judgment of history, and the rest will attend to itself. Let us do otherwise, and a generation from now our kids will be fighting the same damn war in the same damn trenches.

<comment><USER7> > Oh, to be sure! All gay men are narcissistic to some degree, and Milo I > think more than most.

That's quite a bold statement. Can you elaborate more on this or provide some evidence (honest question, I'm not trying to get into an argument)?

<comment><USER4> > That's quite a bold statement.

Oh, I don't think so.

I don't have any n=20 psych undergrad studies to cite on the subject, but I do have a reasonable degree of firsthand experience with gay men, in bed and out, and it's that experience which gives me to espouse the conclusion you quoted. That conclusion is also not unique to me, or for that matter even original; the man from whom I first heard it, quite a few years ago now, is not only himself gay and much more widely experienced than I am, he's also a great deal more intelligent and insightful, possessing a widely accomplished intellect and the postnominal letters to prove it. He and I have disagreed, whether seriously or for fun, on almost everything - but nothing I've seen gives me reason to doubt this claim in particular.

I get the impression that "narcissistic" in this usage might be read as some kind of denigration, as though I'm alleging that all gay men have a personality disorder. This is not the case. If anything, I think it's just that the focus of our sexual interest, specifically on people who much more closely resemble us than is true for straight men, tends to intensify what I might describe as the narcissistic aspect of male sexuality in general - and, again, the word "narcissistic" doesn't imply a disorder. You don't need to fall in love with your reflection to find worthwhile looking in a mirror every now and again.

<comment><USER7> Thanks for the answer. FWIW I appreciate your contributions and even though we probably disagree on many things, I really like the way you're going about things in here.

<comment><USER4> You are most welcome, and thank you very much for your kind words!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> rm_-rf_slash To paraphrase a commenter on the Times, identities aren't a problem, liberalism isn't a problem, but combined they can mutate into a regressive form of political correctness, where the inability to move on from or ignore the identity politics (on either side!) grinds any form of debate or disagreement to a halt.

Kinda like when that college professor (I forget the name) published a paper a while back showing a link between absent parents and stunted upward mobility for their children. He was swiftly accused of racism because there were significantly more absent parents in black families than white, even though the paper said little about the disparity itself.

Decades later, deindustrialization and opiate addictions are causing the same harm to white families and their children, just as predicted. But because of the accusations of racism, the warning went largely unheeded.

<comment><USER8> I'm just curious, how would you expect the warning to have been "heeded"? I think the problems surrounding single parents are pretty well accepted, but it is just difficult to find morally acceptable solutions for.

<comment><USER7> If it's more generally accepted that single-parenthood can cause problems for children, that general knowledge in itself might make couples more cautious about having children, or be more wary of separating if things don't work out.

Emphasis on _might_! I'm not saying there's an easy solution; I'm not even 100% sure that I agree with the assumptions.

What I do feel is that it's not a good idea to avoid discussing things because they're uncomfortable. At least not as much as we often seem to be doing. To some extent we have to be able to discuss sensitive things if we want to evolve/develop/progress as humanity.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Why is this flagged? Is a well reasoned discussion of the entire future direction of American politics -- where Silicon Valley is -- somehow less relevant to the tech industry than "The Troubled Friendship of Leo Tolstoy and Maxim Gorky" or "Volkswagen plans 30k job cuts worldwide," both on the front page right now?

I suggest that there is a systemic bias on Hacker News: any article about identity politics that is less than unabashedly laudatory on the theme is almost immediately flagged -- though they often receive numerous upvotes and generate substantial and rational discussion.

<comment><USER4> The user base of Hacker News is strongly informed by, and representative of, a very specific political strain, so it's not terribly surprising to see an article like this, which questions the foundation and value of one of that strain's core tenets, get flagged to oblivion by users.

I don't think it would be reasonable to assume the mods behave in a similar fashion. Were that the case, I can't imagine I, for example, would still be able to post here at all, let alone to do so and be seen by people who don't have showdead turned on in their profiles - I spent all yesterday arguing against gay marriage! I've run into ideologically driven suppression of discourse enough places on the Internet to recognize its absence when I see it.

Instead, I see a genuine commitment on the part of the moderation team to free and reasoned discussion, even when it tends in directions which I can't help but imagine make them uncomfortable. That's something which, especially in times like these, can't be too highly regarded, and it is in large part why I continue to consider participation on Hacker News a worthwhile use of my time.

<comment><USER9> It would be great if the mod team expressed such a commitment by manually reviewing flagged articles to remove the flag and prevent any further flagging in cases such as this, where it seems that the article was flagged for no other reason than that many HN readers disagree with its content and wish to suppress the diffusion thereof.

Disagreeing is fine, but then write a thoughtful reply rather than just hit "flag." "Flag" is supposed to be for spam and grossly off-topic articles, not for articles where you happen to dislike the author's conclusion.

<comment><USER4> The moderators do sometimes unflag articles to foster discussion of controversial political topics, and they did so at least once in the immediate wake of the election. I don't think they have to do so every time, and in general, the quality of discourse here is sufficiently high that it's hard to make a strong case against the way they do their work.

I agree that this article might have been worth letting spend longer on the front page. But seeing it forced off so quickly is informative in its own right, however disappointing. When progressives feel themselves open to genuine dialogue, we'll be here. In the meantime, they may render themselves as irrelevant as they please.

<comment><USER10> I agree with everything you say here, and you're well-spoken and civil, someone I would be happy to engage with. Right up until your last two sentences. Why are those necessary? What do you they add to your message? How welcome would you feel if you read something like this?

 _When conservatives feel themselves open to genuine dialogue, we 'll be here. In the meantime, they may render themselves as irrelevant as they please._

I know there are some people out there that would say it wouldn't bother them. But is it really polite? Don't get me wrong. I see similar tone all around, and then see people act surprised when tensions rise and discourse suffers.

I _want_ to have discussions with people who have a different perspective. HN has a lot of thoughtful people. And that includes you. I want to hear from you how you think about things, rather than hear it second or third hand. But I hate being subjected to dismissive statements like this. I suspect I'm not the only one.

I think this is a primary reason a lot of these types of posts get flagged by users. Not because the topic is uninteresting to a lot of people. It's because in their experience, the discussion that results is empirically not worth it.

Here's hoping for open, civil, constructive discussion.

<comment><USER4> This is an entirely reasonable and meritorious criticism. I appreciate it.

Having been on the receiving end of that kind of contempt for rather a long time, it is sometimes difficult to resist the temptation to give vent to the resulting resentment, especially at a time when those from whom such contempt has so often come are already reeling from a generally similar sort of backlash. One feels a certain urge to get one's own back while the getting is good.

But temptation is sent to be overcome, and there is no excuse for actually indulging in such unworthy behavior. I'm sorry for having done so. I'll try to do better next time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Brooks also has a related take on this [0]. Above all I would say that identity politics on all sides puts the vital practice of pluralism in grave danger. If we reject pluralism we are lost.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/opinion/the-danger-of-a- do...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/opinion/the-danger-of-a-dominant- identity.html?rref=opinion)

</comment><comment><USER12> This is the ending of neoliberalism, with its focus on identity politics while staying cozy with business, and the re-dawning of the FDR liberalism.

<comment><USER13> I certainly fucking hope so. Your optimism is encouraging at least.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> The failure is the liberals overexerting the intersectionality into that those of "FORCED intersectionality".

America and the people are always about "UNFORCED intersectionality".

Yet, the Democrats will continue their 9-year slide at representation until they get this.

<comment><USER15> What do you mean by forced intersectionality and unforced intersectionality? Can you expand on this?

<comment><USER16> I'll take a stab at it.

One of America's many excellent traits is that it is a huge melting pot of diverse cultures and races, that all get along and individually work toward achieving the American Dream. This is the driving force that brings us as Americans together, a strong work ethic and a belief that everyone has the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. However, forced intersectionality is when policies force businesses and the government to diversify their workforce, and unforced is referring to this diversification happening naturally, without the intervention of regulations and explicit calls for diversification.

<comment><USER14> Wow... best kept secret. Thank you, benbenolson.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The intent of "identity liberalism" (an awful neologism: I'd prefer "identity emphatic") is to try to end otherization of out-groups. But Lilla's point is right on. The result is often divisive rather than inclusive.

My white uncle is famous for saying "You should never discriminate against people because they're different. But why do _those people_ keep coming over here?" o_0

<comment><USER18> I'm not sure why you chose to mock your unvle after your first paragraph. Am I missing your /s tag or are you missing the irony

.. of calling your uncle your _white_ uncle. why is that so important to have it his main attribute?

.. of emphasizing _those people_ \- was that really his emphasis or is it rather you who turns around his words into something he didn't say?

.. of not trying to understand his point, rather to immediately accuse him of bigotry. I read it as a dissatisfaction with economical migration when already many domestic people (who have basically a lot of sunken cost in this society) are left behind. I read his first sentance as an assurance that he doesn't care about race or ethnicity, rather, it's natural in-group vs. out-group thinking. If anyone who does that is a bigot, then boy, everyone is a bigot sometime - and the distinction is meaningless.

So if you weren't sarcastic I suggest rereading the article.

<comment><USER19> > If anyone who does that is a bigot, then boy, everyone is a bigot sometime - > and the distinction is meaningless.

Nah. Different races are different, sure. In-group and out-group. But there's also a power element that you're not considering. Black vs white is in-group and out-group, but one of those groups is disenfranchised. That's where the racism comes in. It is anything but meaningless.

<comment><USER18> I truly think that if this thinking prevails, then liberalism in the US is doomed.

Sorry to become preaching here, but for the love of science, stop caring about race, gender snd ethnicity so much, instead care about _class_. There are at least as many white folks with no means to get ahead than black folks - and we haven't yet considered the other major ethnic groups. What you should care about is the 'glass ceiling' installed for a whole class of people who cannot offer their sons and daughters the chance to move up anymore. Liberals need to get back to tackling issues, not identities, that make the American nation such a divided one. And the obvious one to me is education. Forget about affirmative action, make high quality education accessible for _any_ capable resident. Having less in-group vs. out-group thinking will follow automatically when people start thinking that everyone gets a fair chance again.

<comment><USER17> I'm all for doing whatever works. But white people aren't getting arrested for being white. They aren't getting redlined for bad loans. They aren't having their schools having resources getting directed away from them because the student body us predominantly white. It doesn't just cleave along lines for some. It cleaves along matrices.

<comment><USER18> Tbh. it's hard for me to imagine how the government can fail so hard as to have racist resource allocation for education. How hard can it be? You have state level funds for public schools right? Divide by nunber of pupils, have some budget controlling, done. How can resources even be redirected, if not for everyone in the state? Who's deciding this? Are they relying on sponsorship? If that's the case then get rid of that and raise taxes and public funds accordingly. I firmly believe that schools need to be egalitarian, everyone deserves the same resources and care at the start of his/her life, with the only exception being special care students.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I think more simply, if you think "black" vs "white" is the axis that matters in American politics you'd better be "white", simply because there are more whites and they are going to win when it comes to a vote.

I think of the Jewish people who went down the South to support the civil rights movement, who were people who generalized their own experience of oppression to have emphathy and solidary for somebody else's experience of oppression.

</comment><comment><USER21> Was identity politics a concrete thing or a construction? It seems HRC bet her entire campaign on that and it backfired spectacularly. Were they hoping that it would catch on? Based on what evidence?

<comment><USER2> Probably just hoping the Obama coalition would just automatically flow over to her, with no specific outreach on her part.

Most of them did (the biggest share of popular votes) just not quite enough to win the Electoral College.

<comment><USER3> Clinton was down over 5M votes compared to even Obama in 2012.

Either the voting machines were hacked, or she did an abysmal job in outreach... her hiring of David Brock (of Correct the Record) to essentially character-assassinate Sanders supporters might have had something to do with her loss - she won the battle then lost the war.

<comment><USER22> Decades of scandals and corruption might have had something to do with it, too. The Democrat nomination process was rigged from the beginning which was necessary for Clinton to win given her high negatives and the fact that there was a candidate who was largely scandal-free that had generated a huge groundswell of support (Sanders). I personally think Sanders is an idiot, but I respect that he is a principled person in a way few other politicians on any side are.

Then there's Clinton's penchant for insulting large sections of the country every time she opens her mouth (much like Obama). On top of that, the naked prostitution of much of the mainstream media for her campaign. The media has long stopped pretending to be impartial, but this time around they didn't pretend to be anything other than in the tank for Clinton.

Then there's the fact that Clinton simply isn't a likable person. She's old, ill, has a shrill voice and tons of baggage with substantially more coming out every week during the final months of the campaign season with Wikileaks.

These are all things that Obama lacked in 2008 and 2012. There are a lot of lessons for Democrats to learn from this election, but I'm not sure they will learn them. (Ditto the Republicans for that matter.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I wish their were a labor wing of the Democratic party.

The sooner we lose the identity bullshit the better. Of equal rights need to be championed, but so do classic thing like safety, consumer protections, public education, minimum wage etc.

Oh wait, Bernie won my primary...

<comment><USER22> There is a labor wing of the Democrat party: the unions. The problem is that this time around a lot of the people they represent voted for Trump.

The identity nonsense is a major problem, including the fact that by claiming anyone who disagrees with them is a racist, or that the only reason people didn't vote for Clinton is that they are sexist, but I don't see that going away. The sad thing is that it does the most harm to the idea that there is still is racism in this country. The problem isn't anywhere nearly as bad as it's blown up to be, but by constantly crying wolf, they are taking away any meaning from the charge.

When the only thing you complain about is racism, people start tuning it out. Worse, when people are dealing with the drumbeat of constantly being accused of racism, especially when the majority of them are not, they are bound to not take the accusers or the problem seriously.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Obligatory PG reference: "Keep Your Identity Small" [http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html)

</comment><comment><USER25> I'll believe it when I see it

<comment><USER26> That's the thought I had as well. Aside from SJW outrage and grievance mongering I really don't know what liberals offer any longer, and I see no evidence they care to reconsider.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Let's not start the funeral quite yet. It can also be argued that this year was a probabilistic outlier: Archie Bunker Conservatism played their last lottery ticket and improbably won. A last dying gasp before the country's measurable, inevitable demographic changes continue on their way towards obsoleting its political views.

<comment><USER28> Not sure if you read it, but the article argues against this exact point. The longer a demographic is a part of the American political process, the more politically diverse (and less predictable) they become. The article gives the remarkably high percentage of latinos who voted for Trump.

<comment><USER27> I read it but I disagree. Identity is not just wrapped up in race--age matters too. History has shown that political change comes with generational change-- one funeral as a time. "Latinos" may become more diverse and less predictable year after year, but people (and their political views) don't tend to come back from the dead.

<comment><USER29> Yes, age matters. People of all races get older and vote with more experience.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN Google and MS employees: Have any of you resigned on principle? - <AUTHOR>

Given the deeply troubling revelations that have been in the news recently, it's become all but undeniable that Google and Microsoft are spying on their users.
So, I'm curious to know whether any Google or Microsoft employees have resigned on principle?
There are lots of Google and MS employees on HN, so it would be interesting to know if there are any among you who consider what your companies (and perhaps you directly) are doing to be objectionable enough to resign.
If you stay, is it because you see nothing wrong with what what your company does?  Do you consider spying on your users to be ok?  Or do you think it wrong but consider your paycheck or the technical challenges, toys, perks, and prestige that these companies to be more important than your ethics?
Or maybe you think it has nothing to do with you?  Or that you have no choice and you're just following orders?
Such an attitude would be curious, because it's not like there's any shortage of demand for people who've worked for companies as prestigious as Google or MS.  You could probably have virtually any job at any company you like.  Yet some (many?  most? all?) of you choose to stay employed with these spy firms.  Why?
Do you know of a single person who's resigned from Google or MS (or any other company involved in spying on its users) who's resigned on principle? <comment><USER2> What makes you think other, smaller companies aren't also subject to the laws of the US? If they aren't cooperating, then their hosting companies or datacenters or upstream bandwidth providers are.

Google and Microsoft are following laws that were created by Congress with the support of the American people. Our anger is not appropriately directed at PRISM or any of its participants, but at Congress and the American people's apathy.

<comment><USER3> Exactly this. If the companies gets a court order to turn over data, they don't have much choice. And smaller companies probably have even less choice as they cannot afford expensive lawyers to appeal.

That said, the companies maybe doesn't do enough to resist but they surely do more than most smaller companies could. The laws needs to be changed to stop this. As a side note, I am not an American so I expect NSA to grab at my data, it is their job after all - to gather foreign intelligence.

I use several American services (Gmail, dropbox, facebook, etc.) but doing that is a calculated risk. Entrusting your data to a third party is always a calculated risk and I chose to take that risk. PRISM revelations has not especially surprised me as I already assumed that the US would/could spy on me since I am a foreigner.

<comment><USER4> Sure, but it would be nice if those companies (especially the ones who play off morality as their tagline) did everything just under what's illegal to inform the public of what's happening.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think almost every company making money spies on their users or sells their information. It's getting harder to avoid this reality while continuing to have a well-paying brand name job.</comment>


Who's Afraid of Cameras in the Courtroom - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703964104575334831068223478.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion

<comment><USER2> Anyone who thinks this is a good idea will be quickly cured by watching 5 minutes of _Entertainment Tonight_...or indeed, most local news broadcasts.

I'm very much against censorship and think the 1st Amendment is one of the cornerstones of American life, but in a few matters I am unable to shake off my European upbringing. One is Court TV shows like Judge Judy where they re- enact small claims hearings for entertainment purposes. Another is mugshots and 'perp walks' released to or conducted for the media when someone is arrested. While the suspect very often turns out to be the right person, I'm just horrified by the fact that someone can be identified and displayed publicly as a prisoner before they've even been arraigned and entered a plea. It creates a presumption of guilt among the general public and (IMHO) is a direct cause of lawyers following up by holding press conferences and making statements designed to sway 'the court of public opinion'.

Public opinion occasionally yields treasures like the Declaration of Independence, but is equally enthusiastic about everything from riots to the idea of buying a pet rock. Excuse my cynicsm...this topic brings out my grumpy elitist like few others!

<comment><USER3> * Article I Section 1.

All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. *

Regardless of our respective opinions on the matter, I don't see an [honest] interpretation of the above which gives the court (a) legislative power to (b) abridge the freedom of the press [within it's on courtrooms].

<comment><USER2> That argument depends on showing how photo/videography of courtroom proceedings would provide substantially more information to the public than textual or graphical reportage does now. Is the public going to be any better off by having access to recording of a judge's furrowed brow or the steely glint in a prosecutor's eye? Because past experience has shown that such trivialities are the sort of material that gets replayed over and over on TV.

More seriously, consider the fact that people's attractiveness varies considerably, and a large part of our media is built upon selecting for visual attraction. What effect do you think that televised trials will have for plaintiffs, defendants, or witnesses who are ugly, or have a speech impediment, or whose attorney would come last in a beauty contest? It's a well-known fact that simply being taller correlates strongly with victory in presidential elections. Televised coverage of an emotive case mandates developing a 'charismatic strategy', and selecting for counsel and testimony based on their favorable visual impact - after all, this is the essential function of the casting process in narrative filmmaking (where I work). Once you go down this road you might as well go all the way: 'Your honor, I move for an extreme close-up of the witness, emphasizing his shifty gaze!' 'Objection! A cutaway to the defendant's cringing posture is clearly in order!'

On a more general note, your literalist reading of the 1st Amendment would grant the press the right to do anything at all - burst into your home while you're on the toilet, raid your bank account, murder people on live TV, and start shooting wars in the name of public curiosity about the potential outcome. By this logic, anyone who declares themselves to be a publisher and has an inkjet printer or a blog is exempt from any constraints as long as they provide regular updates on their field of interest. Strict construction that leads to absurdities is no better than implicit assumptions about the judicial branch's freedom to establish standards for its own operation.

<comment><USER3> Heh. You say "literalist reading" is if that's a bad thing! Surely you jest. In my opinion it's the only way to read that document, and on this point we obviously disagree.

I will be more clear. In my opinion, freedom of the press is intended to perpetuate the ability of private citizens to monitor _actions of government_. Freedom of speech protects the right to publish those _facts_ discovered by the press. You may twist that to include intrusion on private parties, or a slippery slope where lawlessness and slander rule, but that is not what I am saying.

The foundation of my argument is that proceedings of any court are official actions of government, and therefore information that shall be in the public domain. If you want, you could add the word _eventually_ to the end of that sentence, I don't really care. I'm not talking about beauty contests or "courts of public opinion", I'm only talking about accountability of government. In that context, if the press deems themselves, or their viewers the private citizens, best served by documenting the actions of government with the most sophisticated technologies available, where is the power of the judiciary explicitly enumerated to deny it?

<comment><USER2> I can't help observing that you go from saying a literalist reading "[is] the only way to read that document" to inferring the purpose and scope of the 1st Amendment in the very next paragraph.

Now, it happens that I agree its primary purpose is to guarantee citizens' right to oversee and criticize governors - and like you, I infer that from its context. That can include the overall thrust of the document, its historical context (eg the oft-quoted _Federalist Papers_ ), and to some extent the interpretations of it since that time by various parties at the Supreme Court; your choices of context may vary, but we both seem to agree that some purpose was intended for this amendment to exist, and that both purpose and intent are discoverable.

I'll move on to your substantive argument in a moment, but you can't champion a literal reading or interpretation of the words as written, while simultaneously applying three separate constraints to 'freedom of the press'. You limited to freedom of _publication_ rather than discovery (and obviated your own argument about the press's right to use the technology of choice in courtrooms); you limited it to _factual_ matters (which would instantly put fictional, speculative, and political opinion outside the scope of the 1st amendment); and you limited to reports on _government_ (so coverage of anything not funded by the taxpayer isn't protected either). Maybe that would actually be a good standard, and balance the need for an informed electorate with individuals' valuable privacy. But your stated opinion about the purpose or meaning of a free press is _not_ found in the constitution. Beyond construing 'the press' as a means of and proxy for 'publishing', courts have interpreted the 1st amendment as its actually written to mean almost anything, short of a direct danger to public safety...a far broader freedom that your own definition would confer.

Apart from my natural pedantry :-) I mention all this because I've noticed that when complaints about the scope of judicial power come up, they are often coupled with tendentious comments on the correct manner of interpreting and administering the law. I think this 'strict construction' meme needs to die: the law is not specified as tightly as a programming language and judges are not dispassionate compilers. As you have demonstrated above, even the simplest syllogisms are predicated on implicit assumptions. Instead of a fallacious appeal to authority (strict construction of vague axioms, to say nothing of linguistic ambiguity), we would do better to accept the limitations of formalism and resort to tools like Bayesian inference or economic analysis when they can help us decide between conflicting imperatives.

As you say elsewhere, the court doesn't have _legislative_ power to abridge the freedom of the press, since courts aren't legislatures. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume your meaning was that since no legislation exists banning cameras from courts, and congress can't pass any for constitutional reasons, judges should not abrogate to themselves such decisions as if they were legislators. Fair enough - but a constitutional constraint on legislative power does not bar the exercise of executive or judicial power - subject to oversight, impeachment or constitutional amendment by Congress. Thus it is within the president's power to classify information, conduct certain activities in secret, and even to prevent publication under some circumstances. Where the scope of that power is in dispute, the question is generally justiciable, and judges in turn frequently issue injunctions which limit the power of the press to publish certain information - sometimes on grounds of security, sometimes to facilitate a fair trial.

As to your closing question: Article III of the constitution establishes the judiciary, and section 2 of that article extends the judicial Power 'to all cases, in law or equity, arising under this constitution, the laws of the the United states, and Treaties made under their authority" [and going on to describe the boundaries thereof]. This has been understood for a long time to mean the Judicial Branch is competent to supervise its own operations, and not least because the constitution places so few constraints on the membership or operations of the judicial branch, in contrast to the executive and legislative ones.

Thus, the question is left to the judiciary itself. The press may assert that its interests or those of the public (which the press, to its great credit, has always found to be identical) are best served by the addition of cameras or by conducting continuous MRI/PET scans of the parties' brainwaves during proceedings; but the decision of that claim is made on the bench. If the press has any argument for why video delivers greater accountability than the almost-instant availability of transcripts and opinions that exists currently, I look forward to hearing it.

Now the issue in Grellas' original article (though only implicitly stated) is an ongoing argument about putting cameras in the Supreme Court. This is a good question to ask, because you can already listen to audio recordings of all proceedings (which are most instructive) and since arguments in the supreme court almost never involve defendants or witnesses, but only attorneys presenting _short_ arguments about legal technicalities, justice would probably not be harmed by letting the public see the proceedings. Indeed, since looking at the court requires going to DC and standing in line to get a gallery ticket, most people never get the opportunity to see the Supremes at work - you have a far better chance of seeing the President in person than a Supreme Court justice. Thus, it's argued, TV would make the operation of the judicial branch much more accessible to ordinary Americans.

I think they object for 3 reasons. One is a sentimental fondness for judicial mystique among some justices. This is a poor reason, but I'm sentimental enough to admit that and yet share it myself. Two is a more serious worry that every Supreme Court hearing and subsequent delivery of an opinion would be subjected to the 'true crime!!!' video editing treatment. This would arguably undermine the dignity of the judicial process in general, but in particular where highly emotive or grave cases were before the court - can you imagine someone's death penalty appeal being reported with crash zooms and freeze frame closeups of a justice every time one asks a question? Equally, it could be used to mislead: popular stereotypes about the court, both left and right, have little to do with reality. I would hate to see footage of proceedings recycled in support of 'Impeach Justice ____' campaigns on YouTube or the TV.

The third reason is the most important. Whereas regular video of Supreme Court proceedings might result in mockery or misuse, the most likely casualty would be bruised egos rather than justice itself. but if they were the norm in the Supreme Court, it would be very difficult to argue that they should be excluded from proceedings in appellate, district, specialty or the various state courts. And that _would_ be bad for the reasons I stated above: basically, civil and criminal proceedings would become the stuff of reality shows (TV producers would love it, since they would have an endless supply of free public domain footage). One might object that this hasn't really happened in congress of state legislatures: my answer is that it actually has to an extent, and that in the meantime the mechanism of representative government acts as a filter for what gets to the floor of the legislature. In court proceedings parties are often there involuntarily, whether at the behest of prosecutors or to answer civil suits. Treating their due process as the raw material of tabloid entertainment would make a wreck of the legal system in short order, to the great detriment of the public.

So much as I'd like to be able to watch the Supremes at work rather than just listen to or read transcripts of them, I'm not willing to pay the likely price for my curiosity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> _It can't be fear of pre-trial publicity: Major trials are front-page news, with or without a video feed, and the days of the blissfully ignorant jury pool are long gone._

It can still be fear of exacerbating an existing problem. That said, would this be mitigated by only allowing release of the footage after everything is over?

<comment><USER5> > That said, would this be mitigated by only allowing release of the footage > after everything is over?

I'd recommend only releasing the footage if the person was found guilty.

<comment><USER2> ...and has exhausted all appeals, and...

I know I'm being grumpy about this, but I just don't see what public good will be served by such a move. I can't think of any clear benefit the televised coverage has brought to the legislative process, and extrapolating from existing coverage of the courts I suspect the vast majority of airtime would be spent on catering to the most prurient sort of public curiosity.

If one considers McLuhan's famous remark that 'the medium is the message,' it's hard to ignore the fact that the medium of television is awash in sensational trivia, relies heavily on emotional manipulation of the viewer to construct a compelling visual narrative, and frequently oversimplifies complex issues to the point of distorting the facts. Now this is no more the fault of broadcast technology or infrastructure any more than lies are the fault of the speaker's larynx or distant relatives; but the sad reality is that a great deal of television is the intellectual equivalent of a sewer, and whatever you drop into a sewer is going to end up getting dirty. It's a problem that law and the legal process are so obscure and inaccessible to the public - but not one that will be solved by turning courtrooms into studio sets.

<comment><USER5> Okay, let me clarify. I do not support releasing the footage. (I've argued both sides of this for an ethics class in college, I'm definitely against) I, for one, am definitely not sexy enough to be innocent on TV.

If footage is ever to be released that guy had been damn well be guilty. (I'd disagree with releasing footage that involves a plea bargin)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Perhaps having live streams of trial courts might not be the right idea(1), but if we can't videotape trial courts, I definitely think appeals courts should have A/V access. In large part, appeals courts are where the law is "decided," versus the outcome of a case impacting, usually, a single person. The actions, decisions, and debate found in appellate courts (including the Supreme Court of the U.S., as well as the highest courts in a given state) should be widely available. The Supreme Court's practice of not immediately releasing audio recordings of certain high-profile cases, but selectively releasing them in others, is troubling to me.

1 - Editorial: I think that all courts should have live A/V feeds automatically available, except in cases involving a minor or a victim of a sexually-related crime.

</comment><comment><USER7> Are good artists prohibited from drawing in courtrooms? I'm not familiar with the rules, so I'm curious if a photo realistic artist could draw the scene.

<comment><USER2> Short deadlines and photorealism are not very compatible.

<comment><USER8> Maybe we should require all video be run through a cell-shader pass before it airs

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I don't get it, did a moron write this piece?

 _In 1965...[the Supreme] Court found that cameras had a prejudicial impact on pre-trial publicity, affected the truthfulness of witnesses, and generally impacted (negatively) a defendant's fair-trial rights._

2 paragraphs later, without even trying to tackle any of these 3 points:

 _Why, then, the ban?_

Um, read your own story man.</comment>


Triskweline: A new fixed-width font for programmers - <AUTHOR> http://www.netalive.org/tinkering/triskweline/

<comment><USER2> There are better alternatives out there. Inconsolata, Anonymous Pro, et cetera - take your pick. Nobody was staring at Courier before this font arrived. (Well, I wasn't.)

</comment><comment><USER3> Not very new if it was made in 2003.

The letterforms look nice, but the lack of slashed zeros and restriction to 10pts are a deal-breaker for me.

</comment><comment><USER4> I am almost perfectly happy with ProggySmall, works ok at 8pt, I get > 100 lines per page on my w x 1200 screen.

Why would I change?</comment>


Ask HN: What is the role of a modern business website? - <AUTHOR> I'm not talking about start-ups. Think your typical traditional SME, which is the core of the economy: cleaning service / beauty salon / accountant / dentist. Is social media presence now more important than actually having a website, or are these complementary? How should a business website be structured to properly reflect its modern role? What things no longer belong on a business website? What things have not traditionally been found on a website but should be? Any thoughts on the subject would be appreciated. <comment><USER2> Disclaimer: I'm not an expert, I just play one on the Internet :)

In my opinion, websites do not bring much to the table to that kind of SMEs, unless they offer some added value (online booking or something). They're just the modern equivalent of a Yellow Pages listing. A creative company probably can add a lot more value though, but I don't think a website drives business unless it becomes a part of a wider marketing strategy (my experience is not in the U.S., it might be a lot different there).

You're also mixing two very different kinds of services, professional services like accountants are VERY different from someting like a beauty salon or a cleaning service.

Social media in general and Facebook in particular, on the other hand, bring a lot of value to the second category of business owners (beauty salon, cleaning service), and make engagement with customers a lot easier.

I think Yelp or equivalent listings are also important for SMEs to monitor.

In spite of a lot of effort by several startups, there still isn't a great solution for "local" services.

</comment><comment><USER3> I would make sure there is good contact info: Name, address, phone number, email address, possibly a map. I would also include hours of operation.

I might treat it primarily as a kind of internet business card (at least at first, even if I had no idea what else to do with it), but if I had a small local brick and mortar business, I absolutely would have a website. The reason I would do this is because so few SMEs do this that it means when people are looking online for local small businesses that are not a franchise of a large chain, if you have a website of any kind, you will stand out from the crowd.

It is shocking to me how little info there can be online about locally owned businesses. I live without a car and have for several years. So I use the Internet a great deal to find information before I make the long walk to check things out in person. Thus, this is something I have a lot of familiarity with: There is a dearth of good info online about local businesses that I might be inclined to go to if I had any idea they were there and what they offered.</comment>


Ask HN: Datacenter server discovery - <AUTHOR> I am looking good solutions on how to discover new servers from different vendors that get racked in the datacenter for 1st time. The current process we use for dell servers is the following.
We have a discovery server in the datacenter that has multiple virtual interfaces to different management networks. One of them is on the same network as drac default ip.
We do an arp ping to discover all the macs of the different dracs and then connect to each of them and configure the servers to pxe boot. The servers boot a pxe image and record hw config of the server into a database.
This allows discovery of new servers and servers that have had their dracs reset to factory defaults when they get moved from one dc to  another.
This gets quite complicated over time having to manage all these different virtual interfaces in multiple datacenters. It requires a dedicated discover box that has a cable into the management network making it a single point of failure.
How do you discover new servers after they are racked that is efficient, reduced manual entry and allows you to track which rack they are in.
If you have an env that discovers servers purely through pxe boot without touching the management interface, how do you account for servers that fail to pxeboot or fails to load your discovery image or some other failure at scale. <comment><USER2> I have worked in many multi-vendor data centers (not Google scale, just bank, insurance co size). Admittedly my experience is multi-OS: HPUX, AIX, Solaris + some Linux.

Compared to the cost of equipment the cost of designing and documenting each rack, along with IP addresses, SAN and fibre-channel, top of rack switches, directors, etc, is only a small fraction. We used to bench build each and every server to design specs and only loaded it into the rack when it was verified to be correctly configured. Upon first power-up we would verify that the management consoles could correctly see the servers and all their configured interfaces, i.e. all NICs and FCAs.</comment>


Bill Gates is more admired than the Pope and the Dalai Lama - <AUTHOR> http://www.techflash.com/seattle/2010/12/bill-gates-more-admired-than-the-pope.html <comment><USER2> Bill Gates actually does things with his influence and his money. Versus spouting dogma for instance.</comment>


For many older Americans, the rat race is over, but inequality isn't - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/10/18/for-many-older-americans-the-rat-race-is-over-but-the-inequality-isnt/?utm_term=.c235d10a6f6c <comment><USER4> > "The big problem in the U.S. is that half of the working population in the > private sector has no retirement plan available at work — and people do not > save on their own," Munnell said.

I'd love to see an article about retirement savings actually go into why people don't save for retirement. It is almost always brushed aside as a one liner, blamed on inequality, bad luck, etc.

But there are real reasons, some reasonable, some less reasonable. Unexpected medical costs can bankrupt someone in days (this is why we believe everyone should have insurance). School and raising children is expensive.

On the other hand, Americans seem to be chasing the dreams of materialism in ways I don't think we realize. Ridiculously large houses, new cars (peak auto anyone?), eating out, and of course who can forget avocado toast. The American solution is to simply live outside your means hoping times will get better. Until you can't - then look for someone else to blame.

I wish we would have pieces that wouldn't just be a "look at how bad people have it" but actually have useful advice to avoid common financial pitfalls (buying too much house, too little insurance, not having a budget, not having an emergency fund). This article for example starts at the end "these retired people have no money and few prospects." What about their lives before this?

</comment><comment><USER5> There's one trait America could learn more of from many Asian cultures - <USER3> unconditional support and care for the seniors in the family.

Secondly - working can be a net benefit to one's health regardless of age. However, it should stem from choice, not need. I wish we cared more for the elderly

<comment><USER6> > There's one trait America could learn more of from many Asian cultures - <USER3> > unconditional support and care for the seniors in the family.

Can't say I agree that this is a good idea on the micro level (I have one asian parent and one non-asian parent, currently live in the USA, and do in fact financially support my parents), which is what I think you are advocating. I do agree on the macro level.

On the macro side: there needs to be a stronger belief in the interdependency on all ages on the others. E.g. older, and childless couples should be willing to pay school taxes (those kids will grow up and be your doctors, etc) and younger folks should be more understanding that they will need support wen they are older. There's more of a pervasive "I've got mine jack" mentality here which I think is socially corrosive, and of which the agism is simply an example. When your starting position is that a human's value comes from a _homo economicus_ metric, old people end up judged as parasites.

On the micro side, you can have bad parents, bad kids, childless couples, and manipulation, guilt, etc, so the system isn't reliable. Unconditionality is also known in the west, and abandoning it has been a boon: on the "western" side of my family, in my grandparent's generation, the youngest daughter was not allowed to marry as her duty was to look after her parents when they became old. I consider this inhumane.

<comment><USER7> I agree in general that generations should be more supportive of each other, because most of us will go through all stages anyway. But, as usual, the problem with redistribution of money is how to set it up to prevent perverse incentives. (And a higher-level problem is, even if you find the proper algorithm, how to make it politically acceptable.)

For example, I would like to support the smart and diligent kids that could be my doctors one day. However, the straightforward approach "tax adults, support schools, duh" also supports many things I disagree with. First, with more money flowing to schools, schools simply get more expensive, without necessarily increasing quality. Second, it makes no difference between useful education, e.g. the doctors, and useless education, such as... uhm, maybe it is better to avoid specific examples, but you probably can imagine a few.

Similarly, not all "old people" are the same. I'd rather support a former doctor than a former criminal, for example.

On the opposite side, the cultural norm of children supporting their parents also has its problems. Some people may be completely irresponsible, have dozen kids, abuse them, and then feel entitled to their support. Other people may contribute a lot to the society, but they happen to be infertile, or their kids happen to die in an accident.

<comment><USER6> > For example, I would like to support the smart and diligent kids that could > be my doctors one day...Second, it makes no difference between useful > education, e.g. the doctors, and useless education, such as...

> Similarly, not all "old people" are the same. I'd rather support a former > doctor than a former criminal, for example.

That's precisely the problem to be avoided by universal support. Some people want to make sure artists are supported, some people want to make sure doctors are, some people don't want their money "wasted" on scientists who don't believe in the {insert religious book here}, etc.

> And a higher-level problem is...how to make it politically acceptable.

The US social security system is a good example of this: it was made universal (not means tested) and mocked up to look like an insurance program with the explicit aim of making people believe that they "paid into an insurance system so are just getting their money out". Of course it's not really like an insurance scheme at all, no more and no less than using your current taxes to build a bridge that will be used for years.

It's quite interesting to read the contemporary (1930s) internal discussions to see how nakedly they propagandized the description of the system to make sure it wasn't later killed. It's a great system; shame they had to prey upon widespread economic ignorance to manage to put it into place.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Investments compound and retirees have had a lifetime to take advantage of that, if they chose to save. Not surprising to see that inequality widens as a result. I don't think it's necessarily a negative as long as basic needs are still taken care of.

I save aggressively and will certainly be on the high end of retirement incomes, but I've made the choice to forgo today for tomorrow.

<comment><USER9> > but I've made the choice to forgo today for tomorrow.

Problem is that choice is a luxury

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> You mean how successful we are earlier in life affects how much money we'll have later in life? This is an outrage. We shouldn't allow people to be rewarded for their success.

<comment><USER11> Unless you can point me to where the article suggest anything of the sort, I'm calling "straw man". Someone will be along shortly with the appropriate Wikipedia link.

<comment><USER12> It says it here: _Income inequality in the United States spills over from the job into the last decades of life_</comment></comment></comment>


StartUp podcast is looking for failing businesses - <AUTHOR> Hi. I'm a producer for the StartUp podcast and we're looking for a little help. Specifically, we're looking for a struggling startup that only has a few weeks to live before it dissolves. Our plan is to embed in this business and report on what it's like to be a founder and employee at a company experiencing failure.
We hope to discuss a side of startup culture that's rarely shared and help other entrepreneurs feel less isolated and more informed. We ask that subjects be willing to talk on tape about themselves and their thoughts, and to open their company to us so we can capture key moments from the last days. Since the episode will not air until later this year, the podcast will not affect the outcome of the business we follow.
If you work at a startup that seems like a good fit for the podcast or you know someone who would be open to sharing their story, please let us know by sending an email to firstname.lastname@example.com.
Thanks! (Luke) <comment><USER2> Wow, this is a kinda ballsy ask.

I see where Gimlet is going here and as a long listener of Startup I _want_ to support something like this. But it seems like you're making money on a horrifying part of someone's life. All of their hard work and possibly other people's is slipping away and you're going to report that to the world? It was one thing to listen to the episodes about TDR because they had already achieved something great (getting into YC) and if they failed then at least they took a shot - you had something to cheer for.

I'm just saying, it's one thing to get the story of someone who failed and what it took out of them. That could be uplifting and educational. But to be in an office where people are getting fired and dreams are being crushed? I'm not sure I'd listen to that.

If you were reporting on a startup and they "happened" to fall apart (kind of like the docu The Queen of Versailles) that would be something else entirely.

<comment><AUTHOR> First up let me say how much I loved The Queen of Versailles. Such an amazing doco.

I hear you, but it is definitely not about us capitalizing on the end of a business and we'd never force ourselves on anyone. We're looking at all different possibilities but don't want to underestimate the weight of being in the room with a company as it's ending versus just asking them after the fact. I agree it's a big ask, but speaking openly about this could be of value to others going through the same situation—as well as the founders and employees of the company itself.

But I genuinely appreciate the input. It helps to remind me to be even more mindful of what it is we're asking people to do.

Cheers, Luke

<comment><USER2> As I said I'm a huge fan of the Startup podcast (and actually all things Alex B). But if you're looking for new angles, why not find a bootstrapping startup.

I bootstrapped a startup and it's a whole different experience that what we heard in season 1 or 2. In both of those seasons, by the time that we "met" the startup they already had crazy awesome connections. When Alex starts pitching Aurelio(!) he starts by pitching Chris Sacca! That's barely representative of any "normal" person who starts a company.

And, we're first introduced to Dating Ring once they've _already_ gotten into YC. Most of the people on HN would kill just to have gotten to _that_ level.

It's a little like having a show about trying to get a great job. But, the person you've decided to follow is currently in Harvard. I'm not saying YC is all fun and games, but it's hardly representative of the experience of most startups.</comment></comment></comment>


The Lonely Runner problem - <AUTHOR> http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2012/01/28/the-lonely-runner-conjecture/

<comment><USER2> If the paces are linearly independent over the rational numbers (which is true for "almost all" n-tuples of real numbers), isn't this problem easy? In the theory of almost periodic functions, there's a theorem about the fact that you can treat periodic functions with linearly independent frequencies as statistically independent for the purposes of calculating long-time-average probabilities.

I must be missing something.

<comment><USER3> A similar theorem exists in probability theory, called the Lovasz local lemma.

I think the goal of rjpilton's analysis was to do things using elementary methods. That said, you might be able to use your approach for a quick and dirty approximation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I thought this was about an Iron Maiden song.</comment>


Ask YC: Automating jobs - <AUTHOR>

For work, I have to upload a report to the server everyday. I am wondering if there is a way to automate this. The only internet browser that we can use is IE6. Is there some kind of script that I can write to make my life easier?<p>Here is the procedure: 1. I go to a page in the intranet in IE. 2. I click on "Browse" and browse for a file to upload. The file is in this format: report_mmdd.xls. So, I choose a file for that particular day (mmdd). 3. I click "Send" <comment><USER2> The fact that you a) don't know how to do this, and b) don't have a choice over which browser to use leads me to conclude that a) your company has an IT department, and b) you're not in it. I suggest you get in touch with them, as although the task you wish is simple, they're not going to be happy being stuck supporting some code they didn't write, that one of their users "got off the internet somewhere."

</comment><comment><USER3> you're just posting a form to the server. You can pretend to be IE in code and send the same HTTP traffic that the browser would send (use fiddler to watch the traffic and mimic it).

<comment><USER4> curl (<http://curl.haxx.se/>) is a utility which you can script to post to web forms.

Just use the _\--user-agent_ option to pretend to be IE so the server accepts the request.</comment></comment>


What I would do if I was 18 now - <AUTHOR> https://levels.io/eighteen/ <comment><USER2> I like how some of the comments here completely ignore who Pieter Levels is. "Some blogger", LOL. I suggest you check out what he's created before simply poo-poing his advice.

Regarding said advice, here's my take; his post is about exactly what the title said - what HE would do if HE was 18 right now.

From my reading of him, he's an extremely independent, entrepreneurial-type who would not be interested in being employed by others(hence him suggesting you skip college). You need a fancy degree to get fancy corporate jobs, not to start lifestyle businesses.

Regarding learning how to code as soon as possible - I think that's good advice for most people who want to make things. Sure, you won't get that job at FB or Dropbox, but I have a feeling Pieter knows himself well enough to not even consider those as options.

Building an income. Yes, simply "producing" a business making $5K pm is, shall we say... optimistic. But it's still good advice for independent-minded people. It's a target to reach for. A prompt to at least attempt that goal. It's better advice than "get an unpaid intern position for a year."

Move and travel. That's easier for young people from rich countries, which, well, would apply to an 18 year old Pieter too. If I had been young and unattached with a currency advantage like that, yeah, I'd be out traveling too! Life experiences can teach you a lot about yourself.

Save and invest. Solid advice. You may disagree with his assumptions and math, but how many 18-year-olds even think of saving and investing money, never mind the amounts he suggests?

Follow your passions. Yeah, that's a bit pie-in-the-sky for me too, but to his credit, he does say that that would follow after you've accomplished his earlier advice(Build a business with a lot of income, ect.)

I enjoyed his post. And I suspect you'd enjoy it more too if you took the time to know more about the man who wrote it.

</comment><comment><USER3> People forget how much more free time and freedom there is at college. Yes, there are deadlines and schedules but you're given opportunities that the usual 40 hr/wk job won't afford. You could take student loans out to buy yourself dumb things, for sure, but you can also take student loans out for really good things, too. The rest of your life that won't so easily be the case. I would love to have the time flexibility I had at college now that I'm "in the industry".

<comment><USER4> School is a different kind of challenge from work. One provides clearly delineated tasks, coworkers and employers who are apt to help you complete said tasks in a timely manner, and pay for doing said work.

School, comparatively is $2k to $6k a quarter (depending on which public univeristy you go to in Seattle), and while some classes have vague goals, most lump everything into a handful of tests or a two dozen page paper, with 80 % of your grade riding on that. Study groups at community colleges, 2nd tier universities (say UW's satellite campuses), and even at major colleges are few and far between, with many professors discouraging them from forming.

I've proactively contacted every professor prior to taking their course since I re-entered college, and while it has definitely helped me screen some truly awful professors, what my parents describe as their college experience is nothing like what I or my friends has gone through.

If I didn't need a damn receipt to get a decent job in Seattle, I wouldn't have gone back to school. Even with a half decent Github, it seems a CompSci degree is mandatory unless your okay with throwing $40k+ in potential yearly earnings out the window for the next decade.

<comment><USER5> As a student I've always put my projects before school | uni, because from what I've read and been told experience and the `soft skills` are more important than a degree.

And shouldn't the experience gathered from side projects, eg., documented (or simply hosted) on github account more than a degree?

<comment><USER4> Seems almost entirely to be a matter of networking and having a degree of some sort to get into decently high paying jobs here in Seattle. Otherwise you end up at a small or mid-sized company, significantly underpaid and wasting your days with their shenanigans.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Who are all these people who "didn't learn anything" from university? What were they spending their time doing? I learned a ton about a wide variety of fields from experts in those fields; it was extremely valuable. Did this guy just goof off the whole time?

<comment><USER7> Ya, and when they say they never ask candidates about their education... OK, so you've never needed to hire a statistician, or a mathematician, or a lawyer, or a materials scientist... There aren't a ton of people walking around who picked that stuff up on YouTube.

A lot of people pay programmers a lot of money to brute force problems someone with a masters degree could solve in a week, and give you a correct O(n) algorithm instead of the coder's buggy O(n^3) solution.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> > Happiness comes from intangibles, like experiences, relationships, > activities, not stuff.

Experiences don't make you happy. It's one of the mistakes millennials make. Vacations are exactly the same as buying shit - you're just buying more shit, except your buying a pre-packaged consumer-friendly vacation. Taking a vacation to south of France isn't going to make you happy. You'll be just as angsty there as you are in your current place - don't need the south of France or Machu Picchu to tell you your life is empty.

My advice: Create.

That's happiness right there.

If you want experiences that result in happiness, create some new experience. You know you're doing it right if you actually make the news - when someone ELSE gives a shit about your experience enough to report about it.

The actual process of creating something new is what makes you happy.

<comment><USER9> I don't think there's much mileage is blanket statements of what "makes people happy". I've traveled and thoroughly enjoyed it and it made me happy, and I know people who I think honestly derive happiness from staying with the latest fashions, etc. To each their own.

<comment><USER8> The article already makes a blanket assertion that happiness doesn't derive from stuff, which isn't true for a lot of people. Plenty of people derive their happiness from material things.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > If you save that $3k/m over 20 years and put it into Vanguard ETFs (at 7% > over 20 years), you'll be 38 and have $1.5 million in the bank! Save $6k/m, > and you'll have $3 million at 38. Yes, I said that correctly. Save $1k/m and > you'll have $500k by 38.

Simply, no. No. That's not how it work. You can't find index returning 7% avg on 20 year interval. Plus that gains are taxable in many contries, sometimes heavily.

<comment><USER11> A Roth IRA (a post-tax retirement account) in the United States will permit untaxed capital gains. The maximum yearly contribution is $18,000.

The S&P 500 returns 7% average on most 20-year intervals. [1]

1\. [https://dqydj.com/sp-500-return- calculator/](https://dqydj.com/sp-500-return-calculator/) ; I tried to find a 20-year interval less than 7%, I could only find a few terminating in the last ten years. They were above 6.5%.

(not that I find most of what is in this essay plausible; that one quoted excerpt is fine)

<comment><USER12> According to the IRS the maximim contribution to a Roth IRA is far less: $5,500.

[https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/plan-participant- employ...](https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/plan-participant- employee/retirement-topics-ira-contribution-limits)

<comment><USER13> Yep, though once you reach a certain age it goes up to $6,000/year.

The $18,000 number sounds familiar. I think that's the maximum annual contributon to a 401(k) but don't quote me on that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> It's easy everyone, just be successful.

</comment><comment><USER15> Don't waste your life on some shit. Learn! Learn! Learn! Develop skills! Learn programming! Work with smart people and learn from them! Measure your progress in KPI! Learn how to be useful for other people and solve their problems! Be persistent and not give up easy!

</comment><comment><USER16> > This will probably learn you more about objectification and empathy.

'probably *teach you'.

Actually the lesson from going to strip-clubs is don't be a chump. In most cases the one on the losing side of the transaction is the dude handing over cash in exchange for literally nothing. Like paying to watch somebody eat a burger.

> Age is a social construct.

Wut?

Agree with the learn to dance, write, code, love and socialize bit. Your 20's should be an exercise in sucking less each day. Shit, your whole life should be this.

</comment><comment><USER17> Demonstrates the easiest way to success. Just tell others how to be successful - live a crazy life that seems awesome and blog/write about it! Pretend you know something they don't so they stay hooked on your "personal brand". Voila!

<comment><USER9> I've always wanted to write a "how to get rich" book in which I simply describe how to write a "how to get rich" book. If done right it might actually work, and if it did you really couldn't argue with the method.

<comment><USER18> When I was looking to get rich quick back in the eighties, I saw several methods that focused on teaching you how to get rich quick by selling people information via classified ads. And, of course, you would find these products by reading the classified ads.

Not really any different than today's video courses on how to get rich by making instructional videos.

In both cases, for some people, it does indeed work :)

<comment><USER17> Did it work for you, is the question :p

<comment><USER18> Sadly, no. It's not that the ideas were invalid, I learned that I'm simply lazy and unmotivated.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> >create a business that makes 5k usd per month

Ok, cool. How many people who legitimately set out to do that, actually accomplish that?

>save 3k per month and invest it in ETFs, and you will have 1.5m by age 38

Ok, so if i'm making 5k USD per month, 1k goes to tax, and 1k as you say goes to living, now I'm just barely at 3k. 20 years ago, the market was at a relative nadir. Today it is at an apex, so you will need to time it correctly to achieve 7% yearly gains (!), of which 2% will be lost to inflation.

Given that 0.7% of the world are millionaires, and just 4-5% of the USA are millionaires, I have a sneaking suspicion that it is not so easy to just set up this business and invest everything for 20 years, willy nilly, hey ho presto I'm a millionaire.

Thesd numbers are further compounded by the fact that most money in this country is "old money", which means that those who are rich currently inherited their wealth rather than built a business that generated this wealth for them.

So forgive me if I am a bit skeptical, but I really don't like to see business advice overly simplified so that people will risk their time effort and money to succeed, when failure rates are actually extremely high.

Day trading has a 95% chance of failure. A business has 90%.

If you don't have a product, a team, a funding runway, and aloof competition... then you are going to lose all of your money as an 18 year old startup founder.

<comment><USER3> I didn't even make it that far. He lost me at telling people to skip college and go to a coding boot camp. You might know how to code, but someone with a degree will have a little more analytical breadth and depth from math, CS, and even writing/communication courses.

<comment><USER19> Yes, I do agree. Hiring is biased on aggregate towards people with CS degrees, or at least the ability to do coding puzzles.

Shipping + getting shit done surprisingly is not that well respected (on aggregate).

What's worse is that he's suggesting you bypass corporate employment all together and just YOLO start a startup.

It's like saying "to be rich, first, make sure you have 5,000 a month coming in. Then, here's how you spend it."

I am currently attempting to monetize one b2b site I have and one b2c. Both have flaws and the going is tough. I am giving it a good effort but I'm not getting the leads/traffic I need to scale revenue.

Even if I do succeed at making just 1k revenue per month, there's no guarantee it will continue to exist even just 5 years from now.

5k per month, with 3k invested into a stock market that averages 7% per year? That feels a bit pie in the sky to me.

But what do I know? I'm just some guy on the internet, not a SF-based millionaire cofounder or digital nomad ^.^

<comment><USER3> 5k/mo is pretty much rich from starting at 0. There's many ways to aggregate that to more money beyond that. It's like saying find a way to pay all of your bills and have 5k left over per month to be rich in the long run. Yeah, okay, but that's pretty much a tautology.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: VENMO API, Peer 2 peer payment system API - <AUTHOR> Can anyone recommend a peer 2 peer payment system that has a developers API? It seems that Venmo has shut down there API. <comment><USER2> yeah you and everyone else</comment>


Google Memegen - their internal meme generator exposed - <AUTHOR> http://searchengineland.com/search-lolz-internal-memes-from-googlers-leaked-and-some-are-rather-damming-134542

<comment><USER2> What's "damning" about them? That they show that Google engineers have a sense of humor and the freedom to express it?

<comment><USER3> It's damning if the natives are restless.

Would you rather have your employees be annoyed by bottled water, or be annoyed by "I hate what this company has become due to the products it's creating"?</comment></comment>