The Reality of Missing Out - <AUTHOR> https://stratechery.com/2016/the-reality-of-missing-out/ <comment><USER2> > _" Digital advertising is becoming a rather simple proposition: Facebook, > Google, or don't bother."_

This is true only for the worst marketers. Due to the law of shitty returns, the ROI of any given advertising channel declines over time as it gets saturated with more and more marketing competition. This both drives up prices for the marketer and desensitizes users to ads.

Nobody gets the returns on facebook ad campaigns that were possible in 2010 or the returns on adsense campaigns that were possilbe in 2005. Today, if you want that kind of reach for your money, you're advertising on Pinterest, Vine or even Plenty of Fish.

If all you use is Facebook and Google, you'll be bidding against a lot of others like you.

<comment><USER3> And, it ignores the variety in the goals of marketers, and the audiences they are trying to reach.

For example, on Twitter you can target ads to public conversations among influencers. You cannot do that on Facebook; there are no public conversations among influencers on Facebook. Influencers use Facebook the same way you and I do: to stalk people and avoid their parents.

Or consider the quickly growing content marketing options, like branded content (the Buzzfeed and Vice model), buying native content slots on sites, and content "recommendation" systems like Outbrain and Taboola--which are way cheaper than Google or Facebook.

Want to reach teenagers? They don't use Google and Facebook. You better be on Snapchat and Instagram (and, actually, Twitter). Etc.

<comment><USER4> Twitter's an interesting case. My very controversial view is that Twitter will never achieve profitability (of the level that justifies their market cap). Like Facebook, Twitter is in a two-sided market. Unlike Facebook, it's unclear what the other side of that market is, or how it could be sufficiently monetised:

           User         -->  Facebook <-- Advertiser
        (Stalking)      -->  (Profit) <-- (Eyeballs)
       (Socialising)    -->  (Profit) <-- (Targeting)

           User         -->  Twitter  <--    ?
      (Free expression) --> (Profit?) <--    ?
      (Public broadcast)--> (Profit?) <--    ?

There are probably a bunch of other market participants on the right side (e.g. developers) for both companies. But I think these are the primary profit engines (and main benefits listed under the participants). Here's the interesting part. Let's assume the right side participant for Twitter is also 'advertisers'. In both cases, advertising creates a 'negative cross-side network effect': it subtracts from the user's benefit. But Facebook has a number of advantages over Twitter:

\- Because of the structured data they hold, it's far easier for them to target advertising at finely grained demographics. This is beneficial because it reduces or eliminates the 'user value subtraction' from advertising, and increases the value of placing an ad for advertisers (so Facebook can charge more for it). _Twitter have far less scope to do this, as they can only make general inferences about their user based on sentiment and relationship- network analysis. Also, because the data is public, advertisers can analyse and target (via company /brand accounts) for free._

\- Facebook enjoy increasing returns to scale. On the user side, if more people use facebook there are more people to stalk or socialise with. On the advertiser side, more users means more eyeballs, more targeting data and more advertising niches. _For Twitter, users gain far less from increased scale (as user-base size is not related to 'free expression', and only weakly related to 'public broadcasting', given non-twitter users can read twitter walls). Even worse, because Twitter data is public, they can't charge advertisers for the (less structured) data they generate._

\- Although an ill-defined concept, Facebook has increasing returns to scope. That is, as they acquire new types of data on their users, they can offer even better targeting and find more granular marketing niches. For example: imagine if Facebook acquired LinkedIn. It's fairly easy for them to link Facebook and LinkedIn users, as most use their real names on both. So now, in addition to knowing someone is a single 28 year old white guy who enjoys scotch, they now also know he earns a high income. This means that where they used to target him with generic scotch ads, they can now target _high-end and expensive_ scotch ads at him. _Twitter 's users, on the other hand, mostly interact behind unlinkable pseudonyms._

As heretical as these sound, I think there are only three ways for Twitter to generate significant profits (and they all carry significant drawbacks):

\- start charging for API calls above some threshold (i.e. charge for market research)

\- start charging commercial entities based on number of followers (or volume of tweets)

\- use adsense (better user data linkability)

tl;dr - Twitter creates significant value. But it's difficult for them to capture at least some of that value as profit (unlike Facebook).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm new this this, so help me out.

If this is true (particularly the reference to advertising=1.27% of GDP) then an expectation of future revenue of all FaceGoog-advertising will be in the range of 1.27% x (GDP of US) x 50% of advertising market. This works out to 115 Billion per year. Google+FB's market combined current revenue is $93 Billion.

Is that reasonable? If so, isn't FB's market cap a little silly?

<comment><USER6> Their valuation isn't based on monetizing the US market, but the entire world.

<comment><USER5> Ok, so that's a x4.2 difference. Of course, globally they face some stiffer competition.

<comment><USER7> A couple thoughts:

1 - Market cap is (theoretically) the Net Present Value (NPV) of future cash flows. You have to be careful about comparing this NPV (discounting forever) with a 1 year slice. When interest rates are low, the future cash flows have a lot of value.

2 - Facebook's value is likely based on other things too. Advertising is just 1 way to monetize their users. Imagine hijacking all of voice communications as an example.

<comment><USER5> Thanks, that is helpful additional info.

So to summarize, the market value of facebook assumes 1) It becomes co- dominant web-advertiser with google in the US

AND

2) It finds another way to make some money (either by other advertising markets OR other products/features that people pay for).

<comment><USER8> Which is pretty plausible, right? (Becoming co-dominant with google).

The other thing to consider is the competitive/strategic landscape. It's not so much that the market 'assumes' that Facebook will invent new ways of making money, but rather that regardless of who figures it out, facebook is so incredibly well positioned at the moment (ubiquitous social network) as to give it a large competitive advantage, and let it eat other companies' lunch.

The market has examples of other similarly well-positioned companies, like Microsoft in the early 90s, to draw on.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> From a business perspective this makes a lot of sense. I have said time and time again that Facebook has absolutely deserved it's valuation (when a lot of others disagreed), and have made similar comments in regards to Snapchat. In short I'm a fan. That said, is a world in which all ad revenue is basically being filtered through 4 or 5 companies necessarily a good thing? There have been a few studies that have shown that millennials, and whatever there calling the generation after them are already largely immune to Ads. So isn't there likely a point in time as these generations become increasingly larger percentages of overall population when Ad Revenue starts to fall. If the people you want buying things in 15 years don't pay attention to ads what happens to the industry?

And in the meantime if it's Facebook, Google, Verizon, Snapchat or nothing, what happens to all the other apps and webpages currently only surviving on meager Ad Revenue if advertisers abandon them wholesale? Can something like Reddit even exist when it makes very little money on it's own and can't subsidize with Ad revenue?

<comment><USER10> Something from your first paragraph answers the question in your second paragraph!

Yes, all advertising will be filtered through Google, Facebook and someone like a Verizon (or whichever Telco can weaponize its data best, currently looking like Verizon).

What that means is that sites like Reddit can still make ad revenue, but only by filtering it through one of those players. That could mean using Google's ad server tech, or integration with Facebook's audience network, or whatever Verizon comes up with.

But yes, most digital ad revenue currently flows through those few players and that will only accelerate.

The true future of Reddit and other publications is as marketing vehicles to sell stuff directly to their readers/audience. Ads are basically just a stopgap along the way to content-driven commerce.

<comment><USER9> But doesn't that just seem unsustainable and like a recipe for disaster? In the example you mention Reddit the company is basically tieing it's entire existence to Google's adtech. If google suddenly decides it wants to come out with a competitor and shuts down Reddit's access to the adnetwork, the games over for them as a company. They have no ability to build 1-1 relationships with advertisers because they aren't one of the big players?

This also seems like something ripe for abuse. You use Google's AdNetwork because it's the only way to access revenue for advertisements. But google can keep upping the cost of it and companies are left with no choice but to pay it or fold up shop.

Maybe this is a good thing and companies shouldn't be relying on ad revenue. This is basically what I tell everyone who comes to me with a startup, mobile app idea. But at the same time, there are companies that provide real value that don't have a lot of other good avenues for revenue.

<comment><USER10> It's not quite that extreme. Google needs publishers so they won't try to squeeze out "reddit" in this example. It's more that they or Facebook or whoever will charge a tax on every impression our hypothetical publisher sellers, reducing their take home revenue slowly over time as the fees add up and increase.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I wonder how a future dominated by Facebook/Google advertisements will affect the multitude of adtech startups. They all aim to solve problems that the two giants air aiming to accomplish by gaining control of the whole funnel. Combined with the rise of adblockers, will there be enough money left?

<comment><USER10> AdTech companies are completely fucked. Just totally and utterly fucked. Google and Facebook are kicking their asses left and right.

Google "worked with" 3rd parties for the better part of a decade while they improved on their products, but now they are working to muscle them out by taking their best products and blocking them to adtech companies. They took youtube inventory out of their Ad exchange last year. It cost them nothing to do so but crippled a handful of video ad companies and exposed them as powerless.

Criteo has long been held up as an example of a company that managed to forge its own way, but eventually they've started running out of gas too. Their stock price has been tanking since last summer. It's not surprising either. Criteo's bread and butter are dynamic ads, which show specific products to retail shoppers. Well Facebook rolled out its own version of that and it's pretty tremendous. Criteo has to resell that product or lose relevance to its customers but now its just a reseller instead of providing the ad serving and inventory for its customers. This destroys its value proposition majorly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I've heard the line that, for most startups, advertising is where business models go to die.

<comment><USER13> I saw a great presentation once that put a slide up with several well-known companies - Google, Facebook, Yahoo, etc. The presenter asked what business they're all in. The answer is advertising. Then he put up a slide with over 200 companies. What business are they all in? Advertising.

Then he pointed out that advertising is only 2% of the GDP, and internet ads aren't even a majority of that.

The point was to consider enterprise and medtech for startups instead, places where real businesses will pay real money for your products, rather than going out to find a million eyeballs and trying to sell them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I would bet that the dominant form of advertising of the 21st century hasn't been invented yet.

First off - take a look at the historical technologies he calls out in the post. Radio and TV didn't even exist yet at the height of the Gilded Age. The dominant media was newspapers (Pulitzer & Hearst, etc.), which ran a scaled up, largely self-service, mass-media form of the advertising which worked in the 19th century. Much like how Google/YouTube/Doubleclick, Facebook, and Craigslist run scaled up, personalized, carefully tracked forms of the advertising that worked in the 20th century.

The concept of "brand advertising" at all didn't exist until the early 20th century. Why? Because "brands" as a concept were enabled by the technologies of mass production, mass consumption, and mass media. Before it becomes economical to spend millions of dollars building awareness, need to have an audience of millions of people with the disposable income to buy your product, and you need the capacity to make & distribute millions of them. The capacity to build them became available in the 1870s, the capacity to distribute them in the 1890s and 1900s - but the audience of millions of people who could afford them didn't happen until living wages started to become a thing in 1914, and it took a generation to spread throughout the population.

I'll predict that the 21st century will see a trend to toward smaller firms, hyper-personalization, local manufacturing, and custom services over products, much as described in The Refragmentation [1]. The technologies of cheap solar energy, 3D printing, the Internet, self-driving transportation, and pervasive computing (beyond mobile - the wearable market will dwarf mobile to the same extent that mobile dwarfs PCs) will make it much more economical to build small production runs tailored tightly to individual preferences than mass- market consumer goods. The forms of advertising used to make people aware of these goods will shift as well, creating a new category on top of "brand" that is to brand advertising as brand is to coupons, but who knows what that ultimate form will be? If you can figure it out, it's probably a trillion- dollar market.

I think that Etsy, Kickstarter, Yelp, LinkedIn, AirBnB, etc. are all harbingers of the type of company that will dominate the 21st century, but they're struggling now because they're early. People haven't yet let go of the old ways of thinking of social & economic organization, so they evaluate 21st- century business models in terms of 20th-century industries. Yelp and LinkedIn in particular are in trouble, because their customers are all embedded in old- economy value chains (local businesses, employment), and so they're in this weird position where their own business model assumes a networked, hyper- personalized world but their customers will disappear if that world comes to pass. It'll be interesting to see whether these first-generation marketplaces can hold on and prosper in a few decades, or whether they'll go under and be replaced by companies that build on their ideas but with new value chains. Historically, most of the first-movers in the industrial revolution died out, and the household names of the 20th century were large conglomerates formed by their carcasses.

[1] [http://www.paulgraham.com/re.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/re.html)

<comment><USER13> I have such high hopes for pervasive solar power to drive new markets. Fossil fuels are an increasingly ugly hole - they're becoming increasingly expensive and destructive to extract, and resource wars over energy extraction sites and transportation routes will become more and more violent and contentious.

Cheap clean power plus 3D printing allows for unique new markets to happen.

<comment><USER14> I think we will see widespread migration of people, driven by cheap solar energy, global warming, water shortages, self-driving transportation, 3D-printing, fast mass transit like the Hyperloop, and hopefully holographic- videoconference based telecommuting.

When you no longer need to live close to work and you no longer need to be in a major population center to get a wide variety of consumer goods delivered to you, there's little reason to live in _either_ cities or suburbs. People are free to form autonomous communities connected to the global economy by the Internet, and will likely do so in areas least impacted by global warming and water shortages.

<comment><USER15> A comment combining solar energy, global warming, self-driving cars, 3-D printers, the Hyperloop, and telecommuting? That's it, we have reached peak HN for today. Thanks for playing guys.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Twitter is valuable in non-economic terms. Maybe it isn't a viable business. Then we'll build something else to chat on. Maybe it'll be hard to get Kanye and Bernie and everyone to all use the same thing. Too bad. Maybe the diversity will be interesting. I don't really enjoy Twitter that much lately. It got too big. The features made to appeal to the mainstream just make the core users feel unwelcome. I'll gladly use a more elitist Twitter. From my perspective there was a boom like 5 years ago when people really got to know each other on there; it was a kind of intimate setting, and kind of non- mainstream. Now it's just bleh. People are on there out of inertia. Or because they want to get famous.

</comment><comment><USER17> We're seeing the same consolidation that happens with any new industry.

There used to be a hundreds of automobile manufacturers, eventually that shrunk to the Big Three in the US.

</comment><comment><USER18> So how will that affect the smaller sites (content , etc)? or they have already adapted to most such effects and there will be no change ?</comment>


Minicart.js - Portable PayPal Shopping Cart - <AUTHOR> http://minicartjs.com/ <comment><USER2> Really similar to [http://simplecartjs.com/](http://simplecartjs.com/)

<comment><USER3> I think you meant [http://simplecartjs.org/](http://simplecartjs.org/)

<comment><USER4> Awkward. The demo on the front page didn't work at all. Tried all three: Fx 30.0, Safari 7.0.4, Chrome 35

<comment><USER5> Same here, weird.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Sounds great</comment>


Basic methods of audio steganography and spectrograms - <AUTHOR> https://solusipse.net/blog/post/basic-methods-of-audio-steganography-spectrograms/ <comment><USER2> Also see PhonoPaper:

[http://warmplace.ru/soft/phonopaper/](http://warmplace.ru/soft/phonopaper/)

<comment><AUTHOR> That's nice, I also thought about mechanism like this. For example, let's store images representing some binary data in audio files. We would need much redundant data for recovery then. Most of popular audio codes were created for storing music or voice, it would be hard to store binary data within them. I need to do some tests. Thanks.

<comment><USER2> You might be interested in Optar:

[http://ronja.twibright.com/optar/](http://ronja.twibright.com/optar/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Can he hide the song in the image before hiding the image in the song ? #Yc

meta humor aside, wonderful article

<comment><AUTHOR> Haha. Thank you!</comment></comment>


Why is 2/1 == 1.0 in Python3? - <AUTHOR> I was astonished by this result: Python 3.8.5 (default, Aug  2 2020, 15:09:07)
[GCC 10.2.0] on linux Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information. >>> 2/1 2.0<p>Why is that? <comment><USER2> Are you sure about the "1.0" in the title? The descriptive text you wrote says you got "2.0".

1.0 would surprise me, 2.0 is because, as others said, "/" was changed to do 'normal' division, with "//" a new operator for integer division (flooring the result)

</comment><comment><USER3> Documented behavior: [https://docs.python.org/3.3/reference/expressions.html#binar...](https://docs.python.org/3.3/reference/expressions.html#binary- arithmetic-operations)

Dates to PEP 238 from 2001: [https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0238/](https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0238/)

</comment><comment><USER4> On my MacBook Pro, using python 3.8.5 I get

        >>> 2/1
        2.0

<comment><USER5> Also (since Python 2.2):

      >>> 2//1
      2</comment></comment>


Ask YC: Want to work for a startup that figured out how to win the lottery? - <AUTHOR>

Are you looking for a fun job? A really, really fun job? The type of job where you sometimes think "I can't believe I'm getting paid for this?"
Well I've got one, and maybe you could get one too. I work for SeeMeWin Inc. and it is currently my job to recruit some more programmers for our team.
Imagine this could be your job. You come to our casual office in a great location in Cambridge(Kendall Square to be exact), and write cool web apps in PHP, Python or Rails that do things with databases and statistics. You help get our current product line off the ground and you can suggest new features/products which we can build. You get to work with a great team of hackers, marketers, and business folks. You get to work at a young company that will be written about in most news outlets. You'll be able to tell all your friends "I helped start that company", because we are definitely still in startup mode and you would still be eligible for the title of co-founder.
What is SeeMeWin? SeeMeWin is one of the most original startups to debut in a long time. We started by creating a live streaming show(think Justin.tv) where we planned to scratch lottery tickets 24/7 until we won a million dollars live. We were in a few papers like the Boston Herald & Cambridge Chronicle and were on NBC and WAAF as well. We scratched tens of thousands worth of tickets and made some decent ad revenue. But something cool happened when we were doing this. We found some really neat statistics. Perhaps we found out how to win the lottery at a profit. Perhaps we already won the lottery. Who knows? Anyway, regardless of our original plan of creating a TV show to occupy us until our real jobs/school started, we decided to turn SeeMeWin into a real company. Now we are SeeMeWin Inc. and have some angel cash.
That's a brief overview of the company. To learn a bit more about what we're up to, check out SeeMeWin.TV or SimScratch.com, or email me email@example.com.
Position: Developer. Full or part time. Students welcome to apply.
Requirements: Solid web app development experience(PHP/Python/Rails/MySQL/Linux/CSS/HTML/Javascript). Looking for a fun job. Live close to Cambridge or the T(telecommuting might be ok, MIGHT).
Compensation: You'll be compensated with stock options, a salary(if you are available full time) and very cool perks. If you need a place to stay, we've got that covered too.
If interested, email email@example.com.
Please don't repost elsewhere, but feel free to forward to friends who might be interested. This isn't a job we're posting on the web, but we're big fans of HackerNews & YC so thought we'd share it here.
Fun fact: In 2006, Massachusetts residents spent $3.2 Billion on scratch tickets! <comment><USER2> Doesn't this belong in the jobs section?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes but that's only for YC funded companies. I know a lot of people have requested the ability for non YC companies to post jobs there too. I think that would be a great feature, but it's up to PG I guess.</comment></comment>


Tesla Execs Claim Service Problems are Over as Owner Frustration Boils Over - <AUTHOR> https://www.thedrive.com/tech/29162/tesla-execs-claim-service-problems-are-over-as-owner-frustration-boils-over <comment><USER2> It's interesting to watch Silicon Valley startup scaling techniques be applied to a 15 year old car company. "Let the fires burn": [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-best-entrepreneurs-let- fi...](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-best-entrepreneurs-let-fires-burn- reid-hoffman/)</comment>


Would Obama Veto SOPA? Extremely Doubtful - <AUTHOR> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111226/23082117192/would-obama-veto-sopa-extremely-doubtful.shtml?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter <comment><USER2> _Throughout his administration, the President has left almost all intellectual property issues up to Vice President Joe Biden_

Classic. Leave IP issues to the plagiarist.

<comment><USER3> Plagarist?

<comment><USER4> Biden was knocked out of contention for the Democratic Nomination in 1988 because he copied a speech delivered by British Politician a year earlier (and even went so far as to fudge his own familly history a bit to make the copied lines work)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden_presidential_campaign...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden_presidential_campaign,_1988#Kinnock_controversy)

<comment><USER5> That hardly seems like plagiarism, more paraphrasing and even then it isn't like he took the entire speech - just a basic idea and two sentences (which he apparently cited everywhere except once).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> _leading into what may be a difficult election year, and dependent on money from Hollywood and unions (the big Democratic funders), this is an easy call._

There is no way that Obama hasn't taken the temperature on SOPA by now. Obama's most vocal liberal base will transform into an internet hate machine to rival the likes of the tea party if SOPA is signed. There is also the Ron Paul crew capturing more and more Democratic voters by the day, a signature on SOPA would be an incredible windfall for them in terms of people who would refuse to vote for Obama out of pure anger.

I don't underestimate the influence of these interests in Washington, but SOPA is really unpopular right now and getting more so by the day.

<comment><USER7> > I don't underestimate the influence of these interests in Washington, but > SOPA is really unpopular right now and getting more so by the day.

I think it's really unpopular on HN and on websites with "tech" in the name, but is the general electorate even aware of the issue? I don't see much about SOPA in the MSM (admittedly the last several months have had a lot of news- worthy events).

<comment><USER6> _but is the general electorate even aware of the issue?_

I would argue that the tech media is pretty hip these days and not as far removed from the general electorate as you might think, but only time will tell.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Give him a "Freedom Of Speech Defender" award. I'm sure it will be as effective as the premature peace prize.

I still believe wholeheartedly that he is a good man, with good intentions. But he lacked the conviction and courage to be a "leader". Instead he focused on reelections from the start. You're the president of the United stated of America ffs! You can get away with a lot more than you think, look at your predecessors.

</comment><comment><USER9> There are some interesting points here, but the article misses one very, very important constituency (from the President's point of view, at least): the intelligence community. If the law remains as is and outlaws Tor, Obama will have the head of every intelligence agency in his office telling him to veto the bill or put the nation at risk.

If the law is amended to allow Tor (as was attempted) and then passes, then how long before Tor becomes a household name?

<comment><USER10> Is Tor really that important?

<comment><USER9> The project was originally started by the Office of Naval Research. Really, it's the perfect vehicle for electronic espionage: hide your tracks as an intelligence agent on an anonymity network primarily occupied by ordinary citizens.

More details here: <https://www.torproject.org/about/torusers.html.en#military>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'll never forget what John Carpenter taught me in They Live. "The golden rule: He who has the gold makes the rules."

<comment><USER12> The frustrating part is that the internet and tech companies opposed to SOPA have _plenty of gold_. They're just not using it.

<comment><USER13> I agree. They are frustratingly quiet. Any ideas why?

<comment><USER14> Increased regulatory compliance costs plays to the advantage of existing big players. The government won't _really_ let Google or Facebook be destroyed. DuckDuckGo or Diaspora? No tears shed. Losing some profit today to know that you just raised the bar of entry for your industry impossibly high for everybody else? A hard offer to resist.

<comment><USER15> What? Google is one of the few companies that's actually come out swinging against SOPA. I would wager they've done more to defeat it than any other company or individual with a presence on HN.

<comment><USER14> And I count that to their credit, as I do for the other companies who have fought this. I count it to their credit because it is no credit to resist a temptation not offered to you; my opposition to SOPA is easy, because I do not stand to gain from it. They are actually resisting something. But the answer to the question asked is, even if it appears to harm certain other companies, it's still to their benefit if it harms others even more, and that's why we're not hearing from them very much.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> What a lot of people don't seem to realize is that the issues that are so very important to them are probably just not that important to the president (if he even knows about them at all.) He has a whole world full of things to worry about and only 365 days a year. When something so important to you such as SOPA arrives on his desk, he probably is forced to paint with very broad strokes. Should I be strong on IP, weak on IP? Does my party support it? The specific long term effects that so many of us fear probably don't even cross his mind.

</comment><comment><USER17> As I've said before, just look at what Joe Biden's been up to.

This post is on the mark. "The Internet's" problem is that it doesn't have anything to hold over Obama's head. Yet.

</comment><comment><USER18> Basis for an effective counterargument: A gut feeling tells me that if somebody did an analysis of Obama's last campaign then they would find that he would have violated the current form of SOPA multiple times. A potential new argument against SOPA would be that it limits the campaigning power of political candidates, especially those running for higher offices.

Not a particularly strong argument, but I don't think a strong case will win this fight. Many different people from many walks of life need to be angry about SOPA before Obama could walk away from the bill easily with "The people don't want this." Nerds on the internet probably won't convince him alone.

<comment><USER17> Obama's not running his last campaign. That's done and over with. It's as simple as that.

<comment><USER18> Who will vote for him then? I am honestly curious. My impression was that young voters (users of the internet) were the key to Obama's success last time. Are the other republican candidates so weak that Obama can just scoop up a bunch of their voters?

<comment><USER17> Start asking around, and find out how many people (outside your circle of informed technical friends) even know that SOPA/PIPA are happening (just their existence/names, not to mention what they are about). (Hint: Not many, in my experience.)

<comment><USER19> It's just like privacy related issues. People seem to be totally apathetic about it.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Councilmember Grosso re-introduces legislation to decriminalize sex work in DC - <AUTHOR> http://www.davidgrosso.org/grosso-analysis/2019/6/3/councilmember-david-grosso-re-introduces-legislation-to-decriminalize-sex-work-in-dc <comment><AUTHOR> A DC council hearing about this bill is occurring today: [https://twitter.com/hashtag/decrimnowdc?f=tweets&vertical=de...](https://twitter.com/hashtag/decrimnowdc?f=tweets&vertical=default&src=hash)</comment>


Google Drive Explorer - <AUTHOR> https://gdexplorer.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> A simple explorer for Google Drive which will list all of your files and shows how much quota they was used. With it identifying files which took up most of your storage is a matter of minute.</comment>


The world's first open source restaurant - <AUTHOR> http://instructablesrestaurant.com/

<comment><USER2> Make has been covering it for a while now

[http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2009/12/an_open_source_rest...](http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2009/12/an_open_source_restaurant.html)

and posted a followup a few days ago [http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2010/02/the_open_source_res...](http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2010/02/the_open_source_restaurant_- _the_in.html)</comment>


Robinhood Is Making Millions Selling Out Customers to High-Frequency Traders - <AUTHOR> https://seekingalpha.com/article/4205379-robinhood-making-milliohttps://seekingalpha.com/article/4205379-robinhood-making-millions-selling-millennial-customers-high-frequency-traders <comment><USER2> I'm lost. So what? Everybody sells order flow. That's what an internalizer does. Robinhood takes retail stock-picking trade orders and executes them for free. _For free._ Schwab charges like $5 a trade. Where's the customer downside?

Also: "Vanguard steadfastly refuses to sell customer order flow"? Why would they? They're barely a brokerage at all.

Matt Levine on Citadel's internalizer business and its SEC drama:

[https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-01-17/fast- trad...](https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-01-17/fast-trader- pulled-a-fast-one-on-some-customers)

<comment><USER3> I'm also stuck at the "so what", but for different reasons. What is order flow? I'm guessing that the statement "companies pay for your trades" means they're selling a list of what you trade on and for how much, but what does that mean and what risks does that expose for me? What benefits do the buyers get from knowing my trading history?

I feel like the article was written for people who already understand the ins and outs of trading, which I'm going to guess Robinhood users don't. Is there an ELI5 of why I should be concerned?

I don't use Robinhood, but I still got nearly nothing from this article other than the author says he's not a conspiracy theorist, which tends to mean they're actually pushing a conspiracy theory.

<comment><USER4> What _tptacek_ says is pretty much the gist of things.

The issue for some is that because their order(s) are not reaching an actual exchange, the fill (price @ which the trade(s)) is/are executed may not be the best, and that meaningful price discovery is hampered.

Both may be correct, however, and I'm loath to say this, the average person lacks the capacity to really compete for the best fill price on a given trade. This is due to asymmetries (speed, data, etc.,). And so, generally, they are as _tptacek_ says, "dumb money," who at best catch and ride a wave.

Anyway, you may want to take a look at the following TD Ameritrade sites on fills[1] and order execution[2]. They aren't deep dives, just a flavor...

[1] [https://tickertape.tdameritrade.com/trading/stock-market- int...](https://tickertape.tdameritrade.com/trading/stock-market- introduction-16061)

[2] [https://www.tdameritrade.com/trade/orderexecution/inc_faq.ht...](https://www.tdameritrade.com/trade/orderexecution/inc_faq.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17956740](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17956740)

Dupe

<comment><USER6> Warning for those clicking through to that thread. There are many many comments about front running that are 100% wrong.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> At [https://investor.vanguard.com/investing/online- trading/order...](https://investor.vanguard.com/investing/online- trading/orders), if you follow the "View the quarterly reports" link, it shows that Vanguard routes orders to these companies: Citadel Securities, VIRTU Americas LLC, G1 Execution Services, UBS Securities LLC, Susquehanna Capital Group, Citigroup Global Markets.

It also says "Vanguard Brokerage does not receive compensation for directing order flow in equity securities".

But the SeekingAlpha article criticizes Robinhood for routing to Citadel, calling it a "market makers that also have high frequency trading arms". So Vanguard routes to similar companies, but doesn't receive compensation? That doesn't really seem better for the customer to me. What am I missing?

</comment><comment><USER8> Full article: [https://outline.com/xN5HTG](https://outline.com/xN5HTG)

</comment><comment><USER9> Good find. Thanks for posting this. Just closed my account with Robin Hood. Hadn't used it for awhile but this puts the cherry on top. I always felt that when investing with Robin Hood the fill price was terrible. This confirms why.

<comment><USER10> The last few paragraphs contain the "so what?" Even so, it doesn't really explain. It just says that HFTs exploit their retail customers. Does anyone know how?

Your comment implies maybe the benefit can be found in unfair bid ask prices. Are they doing something like: 1\. Buy their own shares of xyz. 2\. Execute your buy order. Which drives up the price per share fractionally. 3\. Sell their shares of xyz.

This is total speculation. I have no expertise in this area.

<comment><USER9> Yes very similar. By knowing the orders Robin Hood sells to the HFT firms prior to execution they are better able to exploit the market bid and ask sizes and orders and Robin Hood customers could end up with worse fill prices

<comment><USER2> And that's different from all the other retail brokerages, which charge trading fees _and_ route their orders to Citadel like everyone else does, how?

Also, what kind of trading are you _doing_ with Robinhood where you're sensitive to the theoretical 1-2 cents this supposed Citadel trade is taking out of your hide? Would you be happier if Robinhood just charged a 2 cent trading fee?</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Big Picture: Large Hadron Collider nearly ready - <AUTHOR> http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2008/08/the_large_hadron_collider.html

<comment><USER2> Did you notice the first picture of the LHC on that page looks just like the Reality Bomb apeture from the recent Doctor Who episode? <http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Reality_bomb>

</comment><comment><USER3> Must read: <http://bit.ly/3moa6V>

They're processing 10 Petabytes per second.

</comment><comment><USER4> Everytime I see pics of the LHC it always has me in awe - simply stunning.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> This thing makes the "complex" parts of the software I write seem trivial.

</comment><comment><USER5> The photos in this article are simply stunning.</comment>


Ask HN: What's the average salary for a Web Python Developer in California? - <AUTHOR>

I know it's a question that doesn't have an exact answer. But you will help me if you give an average range. I am being interviewed now for a software company located in California and I want to be more informed about this aspect. Thanks! <comment><USER2> Check out <http://www.glassdoor.com>. They have anonymous salaries from current and former employees, along with actual interview questions and reviews. Look up the company name there and see what it says. For example, I looked up DreamWorks in Los Angeles, and there are 10 salaries listed for software engineer, with a range from $74k-$98k. There are 3 salaries listed for senior software engineer with a range from $98k-113k. That is valuable info when negotiating salary, and you get an idea of advancement potential

<comment><USER3> I had a negotiation completely implode using glassdoor and payscale along with "insider" info on salaries at a company.

But I had naively given a complete salary history when asked early in the process. Since I was currently working for less than I had earned in years (academic/research job), it turned out that their expectation was that I would leave for 3% to 5% over my current base.

They were pretty perplexed when I refused to consider anything less than my previous industry base (which was below an offer I had in hand from other sources and slightly below market rates in my area).

<comment><USER4> I had the same problem. I work for a public university and gave out my salary in an after-interview meeting with a company's HR rep. She said my asking salary was obviously too high based on my current salary. They wouldn't offer me more than +5% because otherwise that would just be an unreasonable jump in pay. She felt so sure her logic would convince me it was a reasonable offer. I shrugged her off and said I wouldn't take the job.

I ended up getting offered 33% above my current, but turned the job down as I felt that HR conversation was a one of many symptoms of a dysfunctional company. (Print media trying to convert to web based income, but already abusing their Dev team as if they were a cost sink before the digital products even launched).

<comment><USER5> Just curious, why would you tell them your current salary? In salary negotiations, wouldn't that give the employer a substantial advantage in bargaining?

I've been asked this before in post-interview negotiation, so evidently this is somewhat common practice. I always respond with, "I'll tell you that if you give me a salary breakdown of your engineering positions by experience level." They always back off at that point.

<comment><USER4> My salary is public information and easily discoverable. I'd rather be the source of the information than let a nosy HR rep base an offer on my current salary on the sly. It's not information I can keep secret.

I know what salary I want, so it's not like it matters anyway. Plus their low- ball offer gave me an insight into how they value their development team. If they didn't think I was worth what I was asking, fine, don't hire me. But if they're just looking for budget coders I'm happy to stay where I am. They already had two outsourced coders. The idea of joining their staff knowing they undervalue talent and are willing to hire from the 3rd world to replace me was not tempting.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I've just finished interviews at several Web companies in California, specifically San Francisco, so I have a good feel for what people are offering. I can confidently tell you that the going rate is between $80,000 and $100,000 for software engineers who can demonstrate that they will be valuable to the company, regardless of concrete years of experience.

<comment><USER7> That sounds about right.

I will make a small suggestion to the OP: if you think the interview went well, try to shoot for something at the higher end or slightly above.

Even if you don't get it, you'll probably still get a good counter-offer, and if you come from an area with a lower cost of living, you may not realize how much you might end up needing that extra $20k a year.

<comment><USER8> There was an excellent discussion on this same salary negotiation tactic in a recent episode of "Build and Analyze":

<http://5by5.tv/buildanalyze/19>

(Salary discussion was at some point after discussing VC but before Android market share.)

<comment><USER9> 36:30

but it's worth listening to the entire thing, very interesting stuff

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> $100,000

Please do not listen to anyone who even mentions that the average salary is below $80,000, which is completely uninformed and basically an insult to the profession.

<comment><USER11> Citation needed.

I think maybe you're basing your statement on a healthy dose of sampling bias.

<comment><USER12> Since they stated they're not listening to people who say it's under $100K, then obviously their sample set was skewed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I recently went through a similar process of needing to guess what the range was for a position. However a much more important question to ask is "What do you honestly think you're worth?" I believe you'll get that amount.

If you ask for a lot more than you personally think you're worth during negotiations people will probably read your lack of confidence. If however you ask for more than the employer originally wanted to pay, but express that amount in a confident way then you're much more likely to get it. A good company (ie one you want to work for) isn't going to offer you the job unless they really think you're the one they want, and they wouldn't lose that for a few K, unless they feel like you're full of it.

Most importantly though YOU don't want to work for less than you honestly think you're worth. I once took a small pay cut when I really thought I was worth much more, the job was interesting but I knew there was a timer on how long I'd be there. Be honest with yourself and ask for what you need to feel comfortable with the position.

<comment><USER14> "What you're worth" is _totally_ dependent on the skills you bring with the needs the company has. Even in something as specialized as web development, there's huge room for variances.

Couple of points...

Soft skills - can I comfortably discuss a range of topics and ideas with people at all levels of an org, including their clients? What is it worth for you as an employer to know you can bring someone in to a meeting who is, not just presentable, but groks what's going on, says the right things, picks up what they need to know, and can act on it?

Domain knowledge - even outside of your core org's focus - can be invaluable when trying to come up with solutions to some problems. If the knowledge is there with the right problems, there's value created. If not, no value.

A friend works at a company which had some security problems based on some poor decisions that were made in the web services APIs. Someone with practical experience - like me - wouldn't have made those decisions. What 'value' do you place on the tens of thousands of dollars in man hours, customer relations issues and lost opportunity cost would you put on bringing someone like me in vs someone else with less experience?

So... "what do you think you're worth?" is _very_ hard to calculate before the fact, because you usually don't have much insight in to the inner working and problems. After you're hired, you can generally expect to be on the COL-raises and mild bonuses - usually computed based on the dept or team's collective efforts. If you can get some form of profit-sharing negotiated, you may be better off, but even that is still subject to the company's overall financial health, and you normally have little positive control over that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'll hazard an estimate for Silicon Valley: $60,000 + $3000 per year of experience +/- 20% if you rule/suck. I'd make the same estimate for people in most technical fields. I think it's hard to get more precise than that.

<comment><USER16> This is a very low estimate for Silicon Valley.

<comment><USER15> What's a better estimate, or how much do you think I'm off by? Why so?

<comment><USER16> $80-120k based on the salary of numerous people I know and work with here. Why? High cost of living, competition and market demand I suppose.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> It's worth keeping in mind that California is a big place. The difference between the Bay Area and LA/San Diego isn't completely insignificant when it comes to hiring practices and salaries. In my experience, years of experience has more of a bearing on your employment and compensation in the south than it does in the bay where companies are looking for talented people of just about any background, and if anything youth can be something of an advantage when looking for work.

<comment><USER18> I've done recent contract work in both SV and LA. I would say SV/SF pays 10-15% higher. In addition the work in SV is much more interesting to me and probably other HN types than the work in LA. Within the Bay Area the arc from Berkeley, SF, Palo Alto, San Jose was more interesting than the East Bay/Contra Costa.

I used CraigsList so there may be a SV vs LA bias in the listings.

<comment><USER19> My experience working in both LA and SV backs up the price differential you raised. I've worked on some really interesting projects in LA though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I think you need to take into consideration the type of industry that the company is going to take you in. A lot (actually most) of the companies would low-ball their prospective employees, as it looks good in their bottom line that they are getting these developers for less paltry sums.

If the company hiring you is already an established firm with a good history in terms of professional's salary, then I would expect that you could go for a range of 100K - 150K. For startups, it could go as less as 50K and for medium sized companies, it should be fair to consider an offer from 60K to 90K.

<comment><USER16> That would make startups drastically uncompetitive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Wow, I am extremely surprised at the low salaries you guys are speaking of. Is it because of the python language that it is so low? As a java developer at a so-so company in dallas 6 figures is the starting point for someone with 5+ years of experience.

I honestly don't know how someone could make it in an the Bay Area on 100k which is really disappointing because I have been wanting to move there and also have been wanting to make the switch to full time python development.

</comment><comment><USER22> Are you an average Python developer?

<comment><AUTHOR> I am asking about the average range to get a general picture of the market there in the USA. Having that info I will be able to estimate my level according to the market. Now I see that it's quite a low salary if it's about $80'000/year. If I work 8/12 hours per day for that money, then I get about only $30-$40 per hour. Am I right? Thanks.

<comment><USER23> IMO you should keep salary/hourly comparisons separate. When you're talking about how much _per hour_ , it's typically a freelance/contract rate. But that is going to be much different than what you would make _per hour_ on salary.

For example a freelancer might charge $100-150 per hour. That's like $200-300k per year on salary (at that rate). But a freelancer at that rate doesn't actually make that amount, because you have to factor in downtime (they don't always have work, and they often have to spend time finding work) and they don't have benefits, etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Depends on what you'll be doing.

If you're automating a money making process that is scalable, the sky's the limit.

If you're developing from scratch or greatly enhancing a core product, then... A lot.

If you're doing reporting or back-office cost center type of coding, then whatever the market values your skills as a commodity.

</comment><comment><USER25> The market for Python developers is incredibly tight right now.

If you are talented you should be able to get $90-100k+.

We are hiring Python developers at Catch.com, feel free to shoot me an email ( firstname.lastname@example.com ).

Here is our PyCon MongoDB talk: [https://catch.com/blog/2011/03/pycon-2011-mongodb-pylons- at-...](https://catch.com/blog/2011/03/pycon-2011-mongodb-pylons-at-catch-com- scalable-web-apps-with-python-and-nosql/)

</comment><comment><USER26> i feel like there should be some way to calculate this by looking at regional cost of living and factoring in scarcity of the profession along with some normalized salary range for the job title, because as mentioned, salary diffs b/w sf, sd and la are likely to be significant.

</comment><comment><USER27> I suggest you use a site like bestplaces.net and compare what your current salary buys where you currently live to how much you would need just to stay even if you moved to where you are job hunting. If you can't get at _at least_ that much, it's a pay cut. (Cali tends to be pretty pricey compared to most places in the US, so odds are good the cost of living is higher, not lower, than where you currently live.) Then tack on a pay raise and compare to what some folks here have said and blah blah blah. I am acquainted (via internet) with someone who turned down a job in Cali because it would have been a de facto pay cut for him in spite of the juicy-sounding number they named.

Best of luck.

</comment><comment><USER28> 42</comment>


The defiance of an 'untouchable' New York subway worker - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-40702242 <comment><USER2> These sort of class distinctions are much less pronounced in America, which is why so many oppressed or impoverished people from elsewhere yearn to travel here and make a new life. It's nice to hear about someone who was able to realize the American Dream and escape the class prejudice of their home country.

<comment><USER3> When societies/individuals achieve high status and realize self-worth, they usually develop a generous and liberal disposition (not a bad thing). Unfortunately, when the position is threatened, they may go back to the survival mode and become intolerant.

<comment><USER2> That is very true. Also when societies/individuals don't have a long history they haven't had a chance to accumulate modes of thinking from the past that are no longer deemed appropriate but are difficult to shake off once acquired.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> A better way to allegorize the Indian caste system would be the racism in USA. No one in urban centers or in the new generations is racist against black people. Go to the folks from the older generations and in the hinterlands and you will find that racism still exists somewhat.

A similar trend is present in India. The new kids in urban centers don't care about caste. The old people in the villages and hinterlands? They do somewhat.

And then you always have the politicians on every side of the spectrum who artificially inflate caste and race issues for their own gains.

<comment><USER5> > No one in urban centers or in the new generations is racist against black > people.

I'm sorry but this is just wrong, and you can prove it to yourself by reading the news any day.

<comment><USER4> Well it looks like mistyped that. I meant the majority of the people. You always have some people with other views.

<comment><USER6> Racism is not a binary thing. There are always low levels of racism, and they exist in urban centers most certainly in large numbers. I would say the vast majority of people are racist to some degree, in that they hold inescapable prejudice inside. It's in our society and almost impossible to have it not at least subtlety enter ones consciousness.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The child of "college teachers" and a former "researcher in applied physics" at IIT is now a train conductor with the New York subway?

This is a good thing?

<comment><USER8> Financially it's smarter than being a post-doc or untenured lecturer.

<comment><USER9> Any data to back that up? Really curious.

<comment><USER10> Conductors average $62k/year: [https://bizfluent.com/info-12099370-salary-new- york-city-tra...](https://bizfluent.com/info-12099370-salary-new-york-city- train-conductor.html)

It's a decent middle class job.

<comment><USER11> An physics postdoc should pull in 40-60k (mean 49k) without an NYC CoL so I'm not sure subway conductor is better. Adjunct salaries can be disgustingly low but that's mostly in the humanities AFAIK.

<comment><USER12> What is CoL?

<comment><USER13> Cost of Living, I imagine.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> My parents visited India a few years ago, they faced that issue when their guide refused to enter a coffee shop, when he explained that it was because he was not allowed to enter because of his caste, they turned back (disgusted)...

<comment><USER15> One of the main benefits in India of increasing urbanization is the accompanying anonymity. I would assume this incident didn't occur in a big city. Did it?

<comment><USER16> According to the author of the book being discussed, the caste system is very much alive in cities [1]. From what she said, it seems like people can tell your caste by asking a few simple questions or observing your body language. The caste system persists even among Indians in America.

[1] [https://medium.com/conversations-with-tyler/sujatha-gidla- an...](https://medium.com/conversations-with-tyler/sujatha-gidla-ants-among- elephants-tyler-cowen-bd11b423ba91)

<comment><USER15> Discrimination when it comes to housing (just as in matrimony) is still rampant in India: religion, gender, marriage status, and certainly caste are all reasons people are regularly denied access to rental properties. I suppose my point was more about ephemeral commercial activity, like entering a coffee shop, which was the example that was given in the grandparent comment.

Edit: Fascinating interview, by the way. Thanks for posting it! Loved this part:

>GIDLA: I will say this: Everybody is dying to know whether I got into university because of reservations. My answer to them is, "Go ahead and die."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Tyler Cowen interviews Sujatha Gidla on his podcast, Conversations with Tyler [0]. Not having heard of her, and not having any exposure to caste societies, I was struck by the sharpness of her insight and the strength of her conviction. I highly recommend listening.

[0] - [https://medium.com/conversations-with-tyler/sujatha-gidla- an...](https://medium.com/conversations-with-tyler/sujatha-gidla-ants-among- elephants-tyler-cowen-bd11b423ba91)

<comment><USER18> > not having any exposure to caste societies...

Never heard of America?

<comment><USER17> The term "caste" is not used to refer to social stratification. It is more specific [0].

America has its own ethnic-based social stratification issues, but I think that opponents of caste systems would say that comparing modern day America, with its issues, to the entrenched caste system in India is a comparison that greatly waters-down the oppressiveness of caste and minimizes the challenges facing its reform.

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

<comment><USER18> It's different in that in places like India you have significantly more layers and a lot more history. Also a lot more bullshit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> _Unlike most of her lot, her family was "middle class", thanks to the help of Canadian missionaries in her region who aided in education and offered them religion. Her family was thus Christian and benefited with education. Her parents held jobs as college teachers.

Gidla says that proselytization didn't help her lot. "Christians, untouchables - it came to the same thing. All Christians in India were untouchable. I knew no Christian who did not turn servile in the presence of a Hindu."_

Proselytization did help her a lot: it was the reason the christians were there in the first place.

<comment><USER7> And affirmative action.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I must admit that simply from the headline I assumed that this was about a person who should have been fired multiple times for gross incompetence but the city could not due to some grievance process gone wrong.

<comment><USER21> RIGHT?

And upon reading it, what a delightful surprise instead!

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> To everyone whose response to this is "Oh yeah, that's just like racism and slavery in America." Please consider the following:

Both racism and casteism have similar results. That is, subjugation of certain peoples, violations of human rights, the preservation of the oppressing class, death--a whole host of evils.

 _However_ , they have different sources, are codified differently, entrenched in different cultures, and therefore should be addressed and combated differently.

Sujatha did not write a book to make people understand that American slavery (and its continuing echo) is bad. Furthermore, purely trying to understand Sujatha's story through the lens of American slavery is essentially hand- waving away the points she is trying to make.</comment>


Introducing Bad Code Offsets - <AUTHOR> http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Introducing-Bad-Code-Offsets.aspx <comment><USER2> _The dollars you spend purchasing Bad Code Offsets are donated to various worthy Open Source initiatives that are carrying the fight against bad code on a daily basis. These organizations currently include jQuery, PostgreSQL, and The Apache Software Foundation._

Very clever! In my grand naivete I assumed that my $.50 would go toward actually cleaning up bad code, but instead, it decreases the _relative_ impact of my bad code by producing more bad code, which will help distract from mine.

<comment><USER3> Clever indeed. Does that mean I can offset my carbon emissions by buying some shares in a coal power station?

<comment><USER2> Sure, you can buy shares in various worthy clean coal stations, which, of course, are carrying the fight against global warming on a daily basis.

<comment><USER4> Clean coal is still pretty dirty.

<comment><USER2> Yes, that was exactly the point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Reminds me of this: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence#Abuses>

</comment><comment><USER6> <http://codeoffsets.com/>

Also, I think that the idea is not that stupid. Bad code have many (business also) consequences and I can imagine a savvy company that punishes teams for poorly written code with similar mechanism.

For instance, let's say that team has $100k bonus budget for a year. Every poorly written SLOC means $1, or $10, less in a budget because the company has to spend this money on QA or customer service.

Of course, what's really complicated is how to measure poorly written code (cyclomatic complexity, length of methods etc. basic metrics?), and how to adjust it to the deadlines.

</comment><comment><USER7> This reminds me of <http://www.cheatneutral.com/>

I'd say both of these parodies show why carbon offsetting doesn't really work.

\---

When you cheat on your partner you add to the heartbreak, pain and jealousy in the atmosphere.

Cheatneutral offsets your cheating by funding someone else to be faithful and NOT cheat. This neutralises the pain and unhappy emotion and leaves you with a clear conscience.

Can I offset all my cheating? Well, first you should look at ways of reducing your cheating. Once you've done this you can use Cheatneutral to offset the remaining, unavoidable cheating.

</comment><comment><USER8> Is this some kind of joke? Or they are for real? Funding floss by paying for not feeling guilty writing bad code? Strange idea...

<comment><USER9> It's social commentary of Carbon Offsets.

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

<comment><USER10> Pretty much! :-)

Also, I can confirm that the whole thing is indeed completely legit. The Open Source projects listed really are benefited from the proceeds and in return you get bad code offset cards in the mail.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Exporter – Export notes from OS X's Notes.app as markdown files - <AUTHOR> https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/exporter/id1099120373?ls=1&mt=12 <comment><USER2> Curious if it is difficult to develop applications on top of notes.

<comment><AUTHOR> It was easier to develop, but hard to pass reviews. It started the review process on April 2 & ended it on April 18 after submitting 2 more builds to comply with Apple's terms & conditions.</comment></comment>


Netflix throttling itself isn't a net neutrality problem, FCC chair says - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/business/2016/04/netflix-throttling-itself-isnt-a-net-neutrality-problem-fcc-chair-says/ <comment><USER2> "Netflix critics acknowledge that the FCC's net neutrality or "Open Internet" rules apply only to Internet service providers and not content providers like Netflix. "

What's to stop companies like Netflix from making deals with service providers to essentially get around Net Neutrality? There isn't any real way to stop this, because it is their content and should have full control over the streaming of it.

As a side note, Net Neutrality supports really don't seem to understand the laws they worked so hard to get passed.</comment>


Book on Third-Party JavaScript from engineers at Disqus (YC 07) - <AUTHOR> http://thirdpartyjs.com

<comment><USER3> Great topic for a book, just ordered it. To support embeddable menus for Real Time Farms we went with:

\- a script include that is very lightweight and only

\- document.writes an iframe and

\- asynchronously loads a helper script to deal with cross domain communication so that the frame can change height when the menu tabs change

See it in action here <http://www.northernspyfoodco.com/menus/dinner>

it eventually loads the iframe with this content:

[http://www.realtimefarms.com/restaurant/northern-spy-food- co...](http://www.realtimefarms.com/restaurant/northern-spy-food-co/iframe)

The benefit of using an iframe so far has been much easier reuse of code for the widget content. However, we've had a few folks request to use their own stylesheet which can't be supported (instead we offer a configuration of the embed snippet to style a few things like menu width, fonts family and colors).

In any case, if we learn even a single helpful trick about embedding rich content from this book, it will have been money well spent!

<comment><AUTHOR> Very cool widget. Integrates really well with the page - if you hadn't told me, I'd have no idea it was being served externally.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Bought the book immediately, as what we do for a living is third-party JavaScript (search engine for e-commerce, offered as a service).

But I'm surprised to find that there is no mention of Ajax Crawling and SEO (see <http://code.google.com/web/ajaxcrawling/>), which is a crucial issue, a deal-breaker for many customers. I realize this is a MEAP book, but even the Table of Contents does not hint that search engine indexing will be treated in any way.

<comment><AUTHOR> You make a good point. It isn't addressed in the book as-is, but I'll make sure it is in a future revision.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Bought the book immediately - I don't think I've ever bought something so quickly!

This is a book whose value is very clear - if you're working in the field of embeddable widgets (as I am), you know how "hack-ish" and tricky a field it is. The Disqus people have managed to make a great product despite this - <USER2> tricks I can learn from them that will make my life easier will be worth tons.

I agree with jwr - SEO is a big topic which I know nothing about, except feeling vaguely uneasy since I know we're losing a lot of SEO opportunities with our widget. Definitely a topic that should be covered in the book.

This might be a niche topic, but how about talking about advertising inside widgets in the book? Advertising is a method that many widgets use to monetize, but I'm unclear how well the standard Google adwords, etc. solutions work with embeddable widgets.

</comment><comment><USER6> funny 'cause now the first thing I see is - hey, they used the 'twitter bootstrap' look on this page

</comment><comment><USER7> Congrats again guys! I've already picked up a bunch of tricks from the first few chapters that are available, so it's immediately paid for itself in my mind.

</comment><comment> hendrik-xdest Thank you, financial disasters of the past. For the Europeans: If you order the printed book with the 50% off voucher with the cheaper postage fee, you still won't pay much more than 25 Euros. Oh, and thank you for making that book. That's a title that was definitely missing from my bookshelf (yeah, we still have those in Europe ;)).

</comment><comment><USER8> This is interesting. When I worked at a high traffic news site, we had what seemed like an unending stream of low-level crises related to 3rd party scripts of various sorts and it always blew me away, not being someone who focused on the front end, that there wasn't a more formalized methodology for dealing with them.

<comment><USER9> Nope it's just hacks. The script tag with JSONP and nested iframes is pretty much all we've got.

<comment><AUTHOR> I might be biased, but I disagree that it's "just hacks". Certainly hacks are involved, but there are a number of best practices and methodologies involved in proper third-party scripting. Which are covered in the book.

<comment><USER10> I recently had the pleasure of hearing on of your Engineers, Ben Vinegar, speak at a Tech Talk in Toronto. My impression from the talk was that the hacks were perhaps the more interesting subject. I hope you haven't cut them all out of your book.

<comment><AUTHOR> That content is still in there. I just don't want people to think of this book as a one-trick pony :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Just impulsively bought it. I am creating web widget in my Last project and curious how it be done in the 'standard' way.

</comment><comment><USER12> fwiw, chrome 15.x has some issues with the voucher input box. Problem doesn't occur with Firefox.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the tip. I'll pass this on to the folks at Manning.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Great timing! Starting a widget project soon, will this be on O'Reilly's Safari?

<comment><AUTHOR> The book is being published by Manning, so probably not :(

<comment><AUTHOR> Okay, I was completely unaware, but Manning books do appear on Safari, and so will this one once it's 100% finished.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Definitely checking this out, something I definitely want to read more into.</comment>


Bull Rush Software Development Manifesto - <AUTHOR> http://bullrushmanifesto.tumblr.com/

<comment><USER2> I would say good code dictates good process. No need to put extra layers of political abstraction on top of something that works. Of course, if you have C players on your team they will use extra process as their crutch... then it's bye bye "brogramming".

</comment><comment><USER3> This makes a ton of sense. We embody this type of brute force "brogramming". Almost gang like efficiency. It's the only way to get things done amidst the red tape normalcy...</comment>


Chris Pirillo likes Tonido. - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E072dWriCBw&feature=channel_page

<comment><USER2> Many entrepreneurs get stumped on how to make money writing open source software. After a first look at Tonido's site, I kept wondering, "But how will they make money?"... And then I found the link to the Tonido Plug, and thought "Ah... That's awesome!" It's a cool business model, and if it works for them, I'll be very jealous!

<comment><USER3> It's not clear that they're making money on the plug, since it sells for $99 with no software and "less than $100" with Tonido installed.

<comment><USER2> Well, with or without software on the plug, it's still $99 in revenue that can fund software development, right?

<comment><USER3> The plug is made by Marvell. If Tonido buys it for $99 from Marvell, puts their software on it, and then sells it to you for $99, they don't make money.

<comment><USER4> Perhaps Tonido gets the plugs for cheaper than 99 dollars. Sounds like Tonido has a deal with Marvell.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I have heard good things about Tonido from my friend (she is a geek). based on comments from Chris Pirillo, looks easy to install and use Tonido... anyone else has tried?

</comment><comment><USER6> He looks too excited about this.....

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I wonder why this post is not coming in 1st page</comment>


The 40% Rule: A Navy SEAL's Secret to Mental Toughness - <AUTHOR> http://thehustle.co/40-percent-rule-navy-seal-secret-mental-toughness <comment><USER2> These techniques are useful when you have a large pool of young extremely healthy men. Then when they blow out knees, shoulders, back, etc you can just select the ones who didn't break. Claiming that this is a useful and effective way to train is a terrible idea.

The only reason this kind of article is useful at all is that virtually everyone who trains a sport _fails to train hard enough_. In other words, after you remove all the fancy language and rah-rah spirit, you are left with "You should probably try harder". And that's probably good advice.

My two cents.

<comment><USER3> I regularly participate in events known as GORUCK Challenges. They're 12 hour+ endurance events led by current and former special forces operatives from all branches of the military.

Yes, there are plenty of young extremely healthy men at these events, but they're the minority. The majority of participants are over 30 years old, in good but not great or extreme condition, and tend to be 10-30% female.

These events are _hard_. Hours of PT, carrying of heavy objects for hours at a time, all while wearing a backpack that weighs at minimum 25#.

Success rate is about 94%. Yes, there is some principle of self-selection at work whereupon if you're dumb enough to sign up for such a thing you're predisposed to survival, but the biggest reason that participants finish is because _we are all capable of so much more than we think_.

That's the point of the article, IMO. Don't try harder, just don't fucking quit. Hell, try less if that's what it takes to not quit.

Edit: accidentally hit enter too soon. I wanted to say something about "not training hard enough" not being the issue with most athletes I see, rather they're training too hard with poorly designed programming.

<comment><USER2> I can do 6 chinups right now (I happen to have tested last night of all things). If I tried to do 100 chinups, I would certainly be scheduling a Physical Therapy session tomorrow to deal with the pain in my elbow. Unless I was having surgery for a tear in my shoulder.

There is lots to recommend "don't give up". But it also has to be tempered with "Stop if it hurts". You'll get fit/strong/endurancy-faster if you can keep training tomorrow than if you have to spend three weeks icing your wrists and gobbling down NSAIDs.

EDIT: Leaving this up for posterity because why not. After re-reading your comment, I'm not convinced that we disagree. It's just that the whole thing becomes extremely nuanced once you start talking about things like: "I'm stopping doing e.g. chinups today so that I can do more tomorrow. I'm not giving up on my goal, I'm just altering the timeframe". Here it's not clear how you should interpret the "Don't give up" mantra.

<comment><USER4> There is quite a difference between "this hurts because it is uncomfortable" and "this hurts because I am damaging my body." Most of the time you can tell the difference.

I've also heard it put this way: "If it hurts, it means you're doing it right. If you're in pain, stop."

<comment><USER5> People assume they can tell the difference but the kind of chronic inflammation you get from overuse can sneak up on you. I saw a story about a concert pianist many years ago who was having trouble with his wrists. At the time his doctor or maybe it was teacher treated it like a muscular problem and told him to keep training so his wrists would get stronger. Eventually he built up so much scar tissue on his tendons that he was no longer a concert pianist...forever. WRT the article, sure you can run a marathon every day of the week. Impressive. I'd fear what that guy would be like after 40 years

<comment><USER6> _> I'd fear what that guy would be like after 40 years_

Curious, what you imply by that. I have read about the skin (mostly the face) of runners not so great, because of exposure to so much weather. Did you imply something along these lines or something else?

<comment><USER5> joints tendons and so forth. Pounding your knees that much without sufficient recovery could be bad. Not for everyone mind you. I've read that old age involves much more pain for retired pro athletes, for example

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> "Who is this guy? I've never seen anything like it. And during the race, I kept an eye on him and around mile 70 — he weighed probably 260 pounds, which is quite large for an ultra runner — he had broken all the small bones in both of his feet and had kidney damage and he finished the race."

Running 100s at 260 pounds - and continuing through kidney damage and broken foot bones isn't tough - it's just stupid.

<comment> rm_-rf_slash It's also necessary in some circumstances. Kidney damage and broken foot bones probably won't kill you. Getting caught will.

<comment><USER8> Kidney damage will absolutely kill you if left untreated.

<comment><USER9> It can still kill you if treated, too. There's a reason you come from the factory with two of those - they're fragile.

<comment><USER10> Seems like all the more reason to avoid damaging them unnecessarily.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It's entirely too hard to ascertain whether doing 2.5x more of whatever it is you're doing right now is really going to get you where you want to go. Sometimes, probably most of the time, the goal is learning, you want to immerse yourself into the space of possibility and figure out what's important.

For a SEAL, someone regularly called on to do the impossible, the 40% rule makes perfect sense. For most of us, doing 100 pull ups instead of 40 is mostly missing the point. Spending 2 hours in the gym instead of 30 minutes for me is actually counter-productive. It's not how many pull ups you do on a given day, it's how many times in a given year you do pull ups.

<comment><USER12> > Spending 2 hours in the gym instead of 30 minutes for me is actually > counter-productive.

2 hours doing _what_ in the gym? The balance of activities is the critical part, IME.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Maybe not quite the same thing - but I do something similar. When I'm trying a new thing that requires physical endurance I set a pace in which I could "do the thing for many many hours" even though I know it's probably going to be much less than that.

For example - I recently went on a bike ride with friends where we climbed an unknown (to me) hill. I slowed down a bit to a pace I could maintain long term. I was one of the first to the top. :-)

<comment><USER14> When I have the heart-rate monitor with me, it's really easy to stick to that zone. I shoot for a target heart rate of about 150, and I can go a long time. Last time I tried it was 7 miles, and I stopped because I'd looped around and was close to home. I set it up with RunKeeper so that it gives me a heart-rate report every minute, and I just tweak my effort a little bit to keep in right around the target.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> What the fuck did I just read? This is (scientifically) proven because of a non sequitur about placebo effect?

I'd kind of like to have 2 minutes of my life refunded to me. And the pint of blood I just lost from stabbing myself in the eyeballs when I realized that some people actually take this spam-subscription bait seriously.

</comment><comment><USER16> I'm curious whether this would hold for creative, mentally taxing work like programming. I'd love to get 2.5x the coding time in, and I've found that I can often ignore my limits and keep coding long after my brain tells me that I'm exhausted...but then when I wake up in the morning, I find that I really should've stopped when I got tired, because it will take me 2.5x the time to unravel the mess I made the night before. Ignoring your brain doesn't work so well when you need your brain for what you're doing.

<comment><USER17> >>I'm curious whether this would hold for creative, mentally taxing work like programming.

It works when it should. As a teenager from a poor family in India, I would generally go on 5 hour sleep- My waking live was spent going to college, studying for long hours in the library and doing late night studies at home.

I used to sleep between 3 AM and 9 AM in the morning.

I didn't even like I was doing anything great at all. It felt more like 'opportunity'. Because frankly my other friends from a similar background where having it way worse, most had quit studies and were doing small time jobs to support their families.

I had these kind of episodes in my life quite a few times. Generally something good comes out of it. And it has always felt like 'opportunity'. Stressful, tiring, taxing and demanding of course, but I feel blessed to be even given the opportunity to undergo the struggle.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> recently i hired a barbell / weight coach to train me (he really pushes me hard, harder than i ever thought i was capable of going), i find that i usually start wanting to mentally 'give up' at around the halfway mark during a training session. 40-60%.

but since i'm generally healthy, the trick is to decide to go until i absolutely can not move anymore, whether it's 2 minutes or another hour. once you've made that decision in your head (your mental "escape route" having been established), the rest is easy. when you have a professional watching your form and supervising you, this is perfectly safe. if i can still move the weight, i keep going. if i can't move the weight, then it's a good time to stop.

for me personally, it's much harder to wake up 3x a week at 0530 and go to the gym than to finish a physical task when you feel like giving up. that's where the 40% rule doesn't really help me much. once i'm there it's not that hard to finish.

btw, for those of you thinking of hiring a trainer, don't just walk into a gym and ask for one on staff, find a reputable barbell coach in your area and work with them on a long term training plan that suits your budget and goals, then pay it all up front because otherwise you're not going to get your ass out of bed at 6am.

<comment><USER19> A technique I used was called "20-rep squats." It's been written about in a few places. Simply put, you choose a weight that you can do 20 squats with using good form. Next time you add weight to the bar and do 20 again, lather, rinse, repeat every week or whatever your interval is.

It works well for working out alone because the goal is simple: do 20 reps with more weight than last time, even if it's just 1 lb more. You simply don't allow yourself to stop before failure. It's "20 or die." It was the most productive form of weightlifting I've ever done in terms of increasing strength and body mass.

Make sure you have a good, stable squat rack :-)

<comment><USER4> 20-rep movements are great for hypertrophy/building size, but are not going to do nearly as much for strength and the 3-8 rep range.

And squatting once a week will do even less than that.

<comment><USER20> Many of the elite powerlifters of today squat, deadlift and bench multiple times a week, so we know that doing all multiple times in a week can be great training. But I think your conclusion is not warranted. A few decades ago, the elite powerlifters were squatting and deadlifting _once_ a week. And they were also crazy strong.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> In the early 2000's a short TV series followed a class of SEALs as they go through basic training. It's a pretty interesting documentary on how they manage to select only those who have the necessary skills for the job. The first episode can be found here [1], the other 5 are also all on Youtube.

[1] - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQFRePXMI9M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQFRePXMI9M)

</comment><comment><USER22> One reason Navy Seals need to be good at this is that they are swimming 50m underwater in one breath. When swimming while holding your breath, your brain is telling you, stop, you're low on air, indeed, you can ignore than and swim the rest.

<comment><USER23> The urge to breathe doesn't come because one is low on air, but due to CO2 buildup in the blood. Humans have no physiological detectors for blood oxygen levels, they can only detect CO2.

Normally CO2 buildup response is calibrated to be "early" in terms of oxygen, but the calibration can change (e.g. through hyperventilation) which can lead to blackouts and drowning since blood oxygen levels can drop below ones needed to keep brain "on" before CO2 buildup response even registers.

Ignoring the urge to breathe is definitely not a smart thing to do unsupervised unless one wants an early, watery grave.

Your response is misleading in that it implies "mental toughness" (utter bollocks) or a skill that some people have more than others. If Navy Seals (or anyone else) do this for real, you can bet your ass they do it under strict supervision, when training/competing (e.g. BUDS).

<comment><USER24> There have been Navy SEALS who have died because of this: [http://www.13newsnow.com/story/news/military/2015/04/24/inci...](http://www.13newsnow.com/story/news/military/2015/04/24/incident- involving-special-forces-unit-at-little-creek-fort-story/26322507/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Tucked in at the end of the article is this gem:

Before he founded Marquis Jets, the world's biggest private jet company, Itzler was known as Jesse Jaymes, a white rapper with the hit single "Shake it Like a White Girl."

<comment><USER26> I'm glad they put that in there, until I read that I figured he was your typical run of the mill billionaire instead of someone with actual originality and artistic talent.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Enough with the clickbait. I had to scan the article 3 times before finally finding what the 40% rule is. And when I did find it, it's just like, your opinion, man. Seriously, citation needed (and some Navy SEAL's deeply moving personal anectote is not a citation).

</comment><comment><USER28> This seems completely backwards to me. IMO, the way to go is focus on allowing yourself to do things, not forcing things through. Active willpower and use of "mental toughness" helps much less than you think it does. Trying as hard as you can at, say, riding a bike quickly isn't that much more effective, and burns up much more long-term resources.

Like, how I'd reframe the advice is to pull the "replace trying with awareness" trick from The Inner Game of Tennis. Take stock of what it feels like to do the "last" pull-up that you can, and then feel what it's like to do another afterwards.

</comment><comment><USER29> I'm reminded of this comic [http://i.imgur.com/PuUBaVU.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/PuUBaVU.jpg) There's a color version of it from "PVT Murphy's comics"

</comment><comment><USER30> A more down-to-earth and realistic approach might be "You are your own gym".

As for 40%, keep in mind different people are different: some people have been beaten into this since they were kids so when they say they are finished they are way past 40%</comment>


Academia vs. Industry: The Difference Is in the Punctuation Marks - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.harvardbusiness.org/maeda/2009/03/academia-vs-industry-the-diffe.html?cm_sp=most_read-_-APR_2009-_-academia-vs-industry-the-diffe

<comment><USER2> I draw a parallel of what John Maeda is saying of punctuation to that of research: basic versus applied.

Basic research is naturally exploratory, taking winding roads, many of which do not end at any _obvious_ fruitful conclusion. Academia (or independent wealth) is the most nurturing environment for basic research, but from what I've been reading and hearing over the years, that is changing as academia behaves more like business.

Applied research, on the other hand, is focused with deadlines and products in mind. It has the benefit of basic research to pool together concrete concepts and strategies for new technologies and products.

Some few companies can afford to do basic research, most can't or won't. That's why we need academia to do it. If they don't, who will?

<comment><USER3> A lot of companies team up with universities, and both contribute towards applied research.

I think this is ultimately the best approach, because if you just give academia a bunch of money they will waste it all publishing papers on string theory.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Punctuation marks....

Academia - $8.00 per hour...

Industry - $80.00 per hour...

Don't you just love college interns....

;)

</comment><comment><USER5> so i guess he's saying academics are a lot more annoying and a lot less productive??</comment>


Parents Revolt Over Fisher-Price Infant Seat With Face-Level iPad Mount  - <AUTHOR> http://www.digitaltrends.com/gadgets/parents-dislike-infant-seat-ipad-mount/ <comment><USER2> > _CCFC director Susan Linn said "Babies thrive when they are talked to, > played with and cuddled, not when they are alone with a screen."_

Let me guess. Two-parent household with enough money for regular day care, right?

I know a single mother who spends literally every single waking moment with her baby, not a moment to herself, and it's destroying her sanity. She _needs_ electronic baby distracters just to get enough downtime to remain fit to care for her child. Fuck these sanctimonious pricks who think poor people don't count.

<comment><USER3> As someone who really doesn't know, is it _actually_ necessary to have an adult watching a baby every moment of its existence?

<comment><USER4> Just because you are not watching them, doesn't mean that they have to be glued to a screen. They could be exploring their environment or other things that engages their motor skills and other senses.

I wonder how many commenters here have children? A screen with moving images and sounds is absolutely hypnotic to a small child, and they _will_ get stuck in front of it and sit staring for hours. When it is turned off, they will incessantly beg for it to be turned on, to the detriment of all other activities.

<comment><USER5> This. Given the choice of dealing with a world that is always shiny, bright, cheerful, smooth, clean, and instantly responsive and a world that is frustrating, demanding, ambiguous, unyielding etc an infant (and a helluva lot of adults) will remain transfixed by the screen to the detriment of their physical and mental development.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> _However, it's important to note that the seat can be used normally without an iPad._

I find it hard to believe any of the critics were concerned that it might not work without an ipad.

</comment><comment><USER7> [http://blogs.artinfo.com/lacmonfire/files/2013/05/clockwork_...](http://blogs.artinfo.com/lacmonfire/files/2013/05/clockwork_brainwash.jpg)

This is Kubrick.

</comment><comment><USER8> This linked product ([http://www.ctadigital.com/item.asp?item=3016](http://www.ctadigital.com/item.asp?item=3016)) is even better.

<comment><AUTHOR> \- Nice link. Thanks for it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I can't be the only one who thinks tablets have the potential to be an extremely positive early-stage developmental and educational aid? Of course, abandoning your child in front of an iPad for hours on end is not good parenting - no one is suggesting it is. Plonking your little one in front of a TV for hours is just as bad for the same reason.

There's no reason at all why focused play on a tablet now and again shouldn't take its place alongside books (those great ones with the thick chewable cardboard pages), dolls, chunky plastic diggers, balls and building blocks - and TV, now and again.

Getting in and playing with computers fairly early did me a world of good, and allowed me to much more effectively develop my interests. I still have an enduring love of dinosaurs thanks to an old DOS program called Burt's Dinosaurs. I played on games that taught me basic arithmetic. I learned how all manner of things worked. It was great! And in a world where technology itself is getting to be so central to everyday life, it is much better to learn how to be familiar and comfortable with it than to run away and pretend that we can insulate our children from it forever.

Tablets are interactive, media-rich, the children that play on them develop amazing coordination, and it's a format that can provide great material wrapped up in a way that makes learning fun for children.

I can only guess that so many are uncomfortable with the idea of this product because it suggests prolonged unsupervised play, rather than problems with tablets themselves?

<comment><USER10> What's most troubling is that it will most likely used for passive consumption, not unsupervised play.

My kid is quite sharp, but she couldn't use the computer mouse before 3 and touch screens before 2 years of age. Assuming that this is normal, what could children < 2 possibly do with it except passively consume?

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I have a feeling many of the peopel who are complaining will end up sitting their child in front of the TV in years to come. A product like this may be useful as a entertainment device for the child and can be combined with parental involement.

</comment><comment><USER12> As a parent, this is disgusting. I would like to hope that it fails because no one buys it, but sadly I do not think that will be the case.

<comment><USER13> Did you read this : [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6893190](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6893190)

And did it affect your opinion?

<comment><USER12> No. I have _two_ little ones at home (2yo and 6 weeks), and no steady employment. Of course I can't afford daycare. My wife and I have off-time measured in the minutes per 24-hour period. I seriously can't remember the last time I got a full nights sleep. But I am more resolved about this matter than before my wife and I had kids.

Being a parent is an awesome responsibility. You more than anyone or anything else shape who you kid becomes, and how they develop is determined by what you allow to be brought into their lives. The damage done by passive screentime, especially at such a young age is immense. _It alters the personality of your child._ It kills creativity and playful inventiveness. Which, by the way, are the core elements to success no matter what you doing in life. These parents are - little by little - doing life-long damage to the psyche of their children for the transitory and selfish reward of a few minutes downtime.

That is, as I said before, disgusting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Just don't buy it then?

<comment><USER15> Fundamentally yes, but it's worth commenting on, as we all have an interest in discouraging the next generation coming up wit developmental problems. More fundamentally, people have the right to protest.

If Amazon sold cigarettes specifically made for children, I wouldn't buy them and I would protest.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Literally, WALL-E.

</comment><comment><USER17> WTF to revolt about? You don't like it - don't buy it. Someone else wants it - let them have it, its not your "right" to force everyone to your opinion.

</comment><comment><USER18> Just when I was trying to move the iPad outside of the family! Now, my 19 months toddler only wants to watch all different Gangnam Style videos in YouTube.

</comment><comment><USER19> Maybe mom's using it to monitor her baby during a nap through FaceTime!

<comment><USER20> Pretty expensive way to go about it

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> If it was for a normal toilet and a laptop I would buy

</comment><comment><USER22> going to the x-mas list in 3... 2...</comment>


"This Email Will Self Destruct" - <AUTHOR> http://www.thisemailwillselfdestruct.com/

<comment><USER2> How? Will messages really disappear out of inboxes? Or is it just an embedded image that gets deleted from the server eventually?

<comment><USER3> Or an iframe, or javascript that retrieves data from a server. Fun idea, but more trouble than it's worth, given how mail clients could bork a complicated implementation.

<comment><USER4> The same technique might be useful for emails that change over time. Hmmm!</comment></comment></comment>


LaTeX 3 News July 2012: floating point calculations, regular expression support - <AUTHOR> http://latex-community.org/home/news/44-news-latex/453-latex3-news-8

<comment><USER2> It's great that they're continuing work on Latex, but actually, I think my biggest annoyance as a fairly casual user is that different third party (even those that come in texlive) packages don't play well together. I've always had problems trying to get multi-column text and figures to work as expected and it's invariably taken a lot of fiddling. I'm slowly starting to move towards markdown and other markups that output to Latex to avoid this...is anyone else doing this?

</comment><comment><USER3> What's the relationship of LuaTeX to LaTeX 3? I thought LuaTeX already does floats/regexps?</comment>


Please, review my project - AppRock.co, amazing product for Android developers - <AUTHOR>

We provide a simple way for increasing your Android App downloads - add local languages to your App, and ask local bloggers for reviwing. You can ask a 2500+ Android bloggers around the world. Check more here -  http://approck.co <comment><USER2> It's like Launchrock for apps :)

\- Your design doesn't look great. Should be easy enough to fix, buy a template. And get rid of that Drupal logo.

\- You're just selling a list, which seems dodgy. A better approach would be to keep your list, and create a system that gets reviews. You keep the value (the list) in house, and you can optimize with technology.

Good luck!

<comment><AUTHOR> Peter, good idea, thanks so much!</comment></comment>