When Art, Apple and the Secret Service Collide: 'People Staring at Computers' - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/07/people-staring-at-computers/all/ <comment><USER3> I never really understood why Kyle was so confused about the negative reactions. For someone who tried to be so in tune with people's feelings, he seemed to be missing something incredibly obvious: violation of expectation.

Yes, when you're in public you have no _legal_ expectation of privacy. However, when you're using a computer at an Apple store, you're also not expecting that the webcam is snapping photos of you that will be posted online.

What he misses entirely is that what constitutes "legal" is not entirely congruent with social norms. Especially as it relates to what will happen to us in public. Legality defines the hard boundaries of our social expectations. We normally set those boundaries at a point where someone is "harmed". The broad social contract is that we won't trample all over each other, physically or emotionally, so we establish laws at the boundaries. Cross the boundary and you face punishment.

For example, it's not illegal to take photos of people on the street, yet US society has a love-hate relationship with the paparazzi. They're not breaking the law, but there are plenty of people who... uh... _strongly dislike_ them. Kyle crossed over in to the same territory. Not illegal, but definitely hanging out on the fringes of socially acceptably behavior.

<comment><USER4> Yeah, Kyle seems to be missing some sort of social intelligence that most people possess -- or maybe career incentives make him choose to ignore or rationalize away what his social intelligence is telling him about how people are going to react.

EDIT: removed sentence that probably overstepped HN norms around meanness.

<comment><USER5> [edit: retracted as per parent request]

<comment><USER4> You're right. Offending sentence deleted from grandparent.

Although I understand that you are under no social or ethical obligation to do so, I would appreciate your deleting your quote of the sentence.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> All the new traffic lights in our area have webcams pointed directly into the windshield of drivers stopped for the light. To what end, I don't know. But drivers on their way to the Apple store don't seem to mind their pictures being taken.

It seems Kyle's mistake was in publishing the results of surveillance. We don't care if we are watched, because we don't have to form a belief in the reality of the images stored. We do care if we see ourselves published, because that makes the reality of being watched undeniable.

Consider for comparison the TSA body scanner images being seen to be seen by agents at the scanner, versus not seen being seen by agents in a room. Passengers were not ok with the first, but ok with the second.

These examples offer a roadmap to a happily ignored surveillance society.

<comment><USER7> _"All the new traffic lights in our area have webcams pointed directly into the windshield of drivers stopped for the light. To what end, I don't know"_

They could be webcams but the more common explanation is that they are visual sensors to detect cars in the turning lane, replacing the old wire loops in the pavement:

<http://www.plan-bravo.com/lefty.html>

<comment><USER8> They are not just to detect cars in the turning lanes but to detect whether cars are waiting for the light, and how long the queue is. This (supposedly) helps optimize traffic flow. I have my doubts as to whether it works any better than fixed timers. The claim that they are cheaper and easier to maintain than in-ground wire loops does seem believable.

<comment><USER9> It works better during off hours when there is little traffic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> What was he expecting? Surely he must have realized that Apple would be upset that he secretly installed software on their computers to spy on their employees and customers. Surely he must have understood that many of his subjects would be weird-ed out as well. I don't understand what he thought would happen. He doesn't seem to have any empathy at all. Hopefully this encounter has woken him up a little.

</comment><comment><USER11> It's pretty clear why Kyle hasn't anticipated this kind of reaction to his project. After exposing his whole life online during his previous projects, he obviously lost kind of sensitivity most people have about their own privacy. He studied some laws and rules and decided it's OK, but it would be better if he asked some of his non privacy-stunt-artist friends what do they think about his idea. His story nicely shows how our ideas of ethics are influenced by our own personality and behavior, not just out environment.

</comment><comment><USER12> Good read. My biggest question is why didn't the artist just ask the apple store if it would be ok to install an app that took photos instead of asking if it would be ok to take photos? My guess is he knew they would say no, but I could be wrong. There is two sides to every story, but Apple doesn't come out smelling very good here.

<comment><USER13> I once walked into a semi-fast food restaurant and kindly asked if I could take a photo of their menu board. The employee said 'no' with no additional explanation given. Ever since then, I've taken similar photos -without asking- and no one has ever questioned me. It seems like the phrase, _it's better to ask for forgiveness_ , applies to the situation.

I feel that when you ask an employee for permission, they automatically assume that you are up to something negative. They are usually not in a position of authority to grant you access to anything anyway. Now that you asked for their permission, they feel like they are personally responsible for whatever you do with the photos. The easiest way for them to CYA is for them to say "no."

<comment><USER14> I agree that is it usually the path of least resistance but "Ask for forgiveness" is much harder when you are having to ask forgiveness from high priced corporate legal rottweilers and the secret service who want to nail you to a wall.

For things like restaurant menu boards I wouldn't be worried. Installing apps on computers I do not own (and owned by a very large corporation) without explicit permission? Not so much

<comment><USER15> But what constitutes installing an app? If I sit there at a python prompt, is that "Installing an app"? If I write some applescript there and then, is that "Installing an app"? If I grab something for free from the Mac App store, is that "Installing an app"? Every one of those is a just and reasonable thing to do.

I'd even say the most clear definition, Downloading an app from an external website and executing it, is pretty clearly in the allowed list - <USER2> machines exist to demonstrate Apple computers, and _Installing an app_ is a not entirely unheard of action after purchasing. There's a reasonable expectation that Apple could prevent it if they wanted, and that the 'harm' done to them is virtually zero - They re-image their machines all the time. So where is the boundary?

Obviously, in this case, it's where people started feeling creeped out by it... but this was by no means a secret service investigation. This was a high-school level prank, and it saddens me that we live in a world where people would take enough offense - where people are so mistrustful of one another - where people are so litigious, that federal law enforcement is called in after such.

<comment><USER14> You are correct, defining it in a manner acceptable to legal types would be very very hard.

However the fact that he felt he needed to hide what he was doing by using tumblr etc makes me feel that he knew there was a line (however blurry it might be) and that he was crossing it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> My biggest surprise is that nobody at the Apple store noticed that the camera lights were on for all (most?) of the computers in the store... wouldn't that be kind of obvious?

<comment><USER17> Is it possible to have the built in camera record without having the green recording indicator lid up? With or without modifying the device driver for the camera?

<comment><USER18> I believe that it depends on the model, but after some of the early trojans figured out how to do this years ago, the light is now hardware-wired in some webcams.

[http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/6758/can- webcams...](http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/6758/can-webcams-be- turned-on-without-the-indicator-light)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Somebody's a total jackass (and obviously hasn't watched the Don't Talk To The Police video).

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc>

</comment><comment><USER20> Interested in another of Kyle's wacky projects (mentioned in the article)? Check out the year of his life where he logged ever single keystroke on his computer to Twitter. Yep...all of it.

<http://twitter.com/keytweeter>

<comment><USER21> almost all. big difference. but yea, great project.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Some of the things Kyle said and quoted seem relevant to an earlier HN discussion [1] titled I don't "get" art

"""

The Book of Tea[2]... requires a mutual understanding between the artist and the spectator:

> The sympathetic communion of minds necessary for art appreciation must be > based on mutual concession. The spectator must cultivate the proper attitude > for receiving the message, as the artist must know how to impart it.

And the success of "People Staring at Computers" is based on condemnation rather than mutual concession. In a way, inviting condemnation can be the most effective way of imparting a message.

I think Duchamp understood the possibilities of condemnation as an alternative to mutual concession. He addresses this in his short essay, "The Creative Act" [3]. He says once an artist gives their work to the spectator, it's up to the spectator to make a decision about that work.

"""

Had this article come out at the same time, I think that discussion would have gone better.

[1] <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4124275>

[2] <http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/tea.htm>

[3] [http://www.iaaa.nl/cursusAA&AI/duchamp.html](http://www.iaaa.nl/cursusAA&AI/duchamp.html)

</comment><comment><USER23> Reminds me of Walker Evans

[http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/artObjectDetails?artobj=...](http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/artObjectDetails?artobj=52629)

Evans organised _publication_ of the images in book form, which I suppose would render the publisher liable if any of the passengers wanted to seek any form of redress (they did not).

In this case, Apple was the unwitting publisher with no editorial involvement, hence the action seems reasonable.

</comment><comment><USER24> Great article. I never thought about how much time I spend expressionless in front of the computer before.

Maybe I'll add a mirror to my desk to make faces in throughout the day.

<comment><USER25> Why? There is no reason to make faces if nobody sees them. Unless you think your face muscles get weaker?

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> If Kyle is being honest in this article he is a sociopath, no question about it. He obviously has major problems understanding social norms.

</comment><comment><USER27> The melancholic nature of the article and the easy going attitude of the author really made the article different and original for me. I really liked reading and thinking about the points raised in it. But really, all it was, was revealing the one obvious aspect of human nature: how we react to objects. Here its a computer.

 _When someone had your password, it's not just that they could access any information, but that they could become you._

 _When people send you an email, there is an expectation of privacy._

 _But most of the emails were from reporters and journalists. I wrote a form response and started replying to everyone, letting them know the EFF had encouraged me not to talk about it. This was a really difficult moment. I felt like everything was arranged in a way to keep discussion limited, to keep people working against each other instead of working together._

 _Hundreds and hundreds of comments, on dozens of major blogs. I'm no stranger to publicity, but this was on a completely different scale. Everyone had an opinion and wanted to argue with each other. Yet I had to remain completely silent._

The above quotes when left to ponder are really profound. Pointing the easy to notice things are indeed the easy to ignore.

 _In the other comments, I started to notice a trend: people were trying to establish definitions. They were arguing about ethics and ontology (even though no one called it that). The project hit a nerve that made people uncomfortable enough that they had to share their opinions and argue their positions. If you're at school studying art, philosophy, or politics, this isn't a big deal. These discussions happen over lunch, or in the hallways. But this was happening on the internet._

Everything and anything happens on the internet, and if there is no identity attached to the actions, the truer they become of the person, than in real life where people are bound to act by social commonsense.

 _With "People Staring at Computers," I saw something new: a massive audience engaged in a collective decision-making about the culture they wanted to adopt, in realtime, via comment threads strewn across blog posts and news articles_

Its not new. It started right when internet started. If some other way to mass communicate was possible before, it would have started then as well.

</comment><comment><USER28> If he thought what he was doing was 'right' (and that it was unreasonable for apple to send the secret service after him) why did he buy a new laptop from apple? That part to me seems the most insane.

<comment><USER29> That's honestly something you will only understand after having used a macbook for some while. There's tons of stuff Apple does that annoy me, especially what comes out of their legal team. I always check out the new gear from other manufacturers. Nothing quite cuts it. Of course this is all subjective and depends on the characteristics about a laptop you value most. If it's pure performance or repairability they aren't right for you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> No offense, but this author is an idiot. He should've given them nothing, and said nothing, and requested a lawyer. He did exactly what the secret service wanted him to do: to feel intimidated, scared, and willing to talk, since he's innocent, right? That is precisely what they want you to do. Next time, say nothing and request a lawyer.

<comment><USER31> how would that have ended up better than the outcome described here?</comment></comment>


A Book to Teach Kids Programming with Python - <AUTHOR> http://www.boingboing.net/2010/06/10/cc-licensed-book-on.html

<comment><USER2> Another good book for teaching Python to young people is "Hello, World" by Warren Sande and his 10-year-old son, Carter:

[http://www.amazon.com/Hello-World-Computer-Programming- Begin...](http://www.amazon.com/Hello-World-Computer-Programming- Beginners/dp/1933988495/)

Scott Hanselman interviewed the two on his podcast back in January:

<http://www.hanselminutes.com/default.aspx?showID=212>

It was a good program.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> And it's free online which is pretty cool.</comment>


Why is software so buggy? - <AUTHOR> https://danluu.com/everything-is-broken/ <comment><USER2> I think another thing to consider (and reason that isn't brought up in this article) is that the longer a piece of software has been available to the public, the more chances there'll be for people to find bugs in it by doing things its creators would never have expected.

Think about it. Let's say you're working on a CMS system for a shop, and that your startup has both automated testing processes and a specialist QA testing team. You'll find and fix quite a few bugs, but you'll then find thousands more coming in when the public gets their hands on it.

Why?

Because the sheer number of use cases people have will push your software to its limits. You simply can't test every 'case' someone may have for the software.

Some might be using an outdated version on a newer scripting language version. On an estoteric choice of operating system. On an estoteric choice of emulated operating system via a virtual machine. With third party or self developed plugins meant to integrate with other random software. With interesting themes that may not have well thought out. You may have simply made a screw up that's only noticeable if you do ten specific things in a certain order. Or if your connection cuts out midway through a process. Or any number of factors that are incredibly hard to predict.

Eventually, the reason comes down to 'it's not plausible to test every possibility and predict everything your user could theoretically do at any one time'. Heck, look at it in games terms. All those games with arbitary code execution setups only have them because someone was bored enough to try and programmatically break the game by doing about fifty seemingly random actions in ten seconds or so. Most speedrun techniques similarly only 'work' because the people who found them spend weeks or months testing random things on the off chance a wall might not hold.

If there's a large enough audience, anything will be buggy.</comment>


New Google Cloud Storage Option: Durable Reduced Availability - <AUTHOR> https://cloud.google.com/pricing/cloud-storage

<comment><USER2> The name implies that the availability is reduced, not the durability. I wonder if this is the case - and, if so, how they keep the durability as high with (I assume) fewer copies...</comment>


Ask HN: How do you organize your bookmarks? - <AUTHOR> Side question: Is there an opportunity to hack on this? It feels like a critical part of my internet life that's very disorganized (compared to photos, files etc...). <comment><USER2> I use direct links on the Firefox bookmarks toolbar for sites I use frequently, like timesheets. I use folders for items I use less frequently, but still often.

I have a Current folder for sites I want to read, that I try to purge periodically. And I've tried Firefox tags which seems to be the ideal way of keeping bookmarks, but rarely search by tag so not sure it's worth it.

Firefox bookmarks sync is nice to us between browsers, but i end up having both personal bookmarks and work bookmarks. Ideally it would be good to keep them separate but yet to find a clean & easy solution.

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't. I use them like bookmarks on dead tree books. When I find an interesting page, I slap one on it so it stands out if I ever want to find it again.

If you use bookmarks so much that you think about how to organize them, organizing them is going to be hell, and you're bound to find lots split between two categories. Better to just name them with lots of keywords so they pop up when you type anything vaguely related on the address bar.

</comment><comment><USER4> Wow, I legitimately forgot that bookmarks still exist. I guess I technically use my email for this since I know I can easily search it and it hasn't changed in ~20 years whereas my browsers get re-installed sometimes.

<comment><AUTHOR> Wow, so you email yourself things you want to remember?

<comment><USER4> Usually if I have something I find interesting or useful I share it with my friends or co-workers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I use Safari's built-in bookmark organizer which is essentially a tree structure with an iTunes-style table UI.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> For searchers, I'm probably going to start using Pinboard (pinboard.in)</comment>


Psychology tells us why older people don't enjoy new music - <AUTHOR> https://qz.com/quartzy/1717718/why-do-older-people-hate-new-music/ <comment><USER2> I think most of the explanations fail to account for a very important point: music doesn't exist in the abstract but comes with a setting, a context and a community. You don't just _listen_ to music, you _experience_ it. Whether it's an opera house or a jazz club or a rave or a rap battle or a dive bar, all music comes with an associated experience. It can be hard to truly 'get in' a genre and understand why people like it if you can't experience it the way most people who listen to it do.

I think the reason many people get stuck with the music they listened to as a teenager is because their most intense experiences involving music occured when they were teenagers. Then they move on, and if they don't obsess about music, they won't have stronger feelings about the new stuff.

<comment><USER3> I think it's unlikely for people to first hear (or first attach to) their favorite songs in a strong environment like a club/rave/bar. We're most likely to hear something new in a setting we control.

<comment><USER4> Sure, but at least for me, the reason they become a favourite song is that they become associated with good memories.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's because it really does suck (for the most part). Product placement and lyrics about consuming culture are at an all time high. This is the radio stuff though, there's still lots of great music coming out.

</comment><comment><USER6> The other day a song came on the radio that I hadn't heard since I was a teenager. I recalled how much I hated it all those decades ago. After a few seconds I realised that I hated it now almost as strongly as back then. But I'm in charge of the radio now, so I turned it off, and that made me feel quite happy.

</comment><comment><USER7> > But I believe there are some simpler reasons for older people's aversion to > newer music. One of the most researched laws of social psychology is > something called the "mere exposure effect." In a nutshell, it means that > the more we're exposed to something, the more we tend to like it.

Yeah, the entire article wouldn't apply to me (35) if it wasn't that little part. I didn't paid much attention to music until my late teens/early 20s, though while i have some genres i like, i always find myself going to different stuff over the years - but that is usually learning about new genres.

But that part explains it really - i learn about music by listening to random music videos made on YouTube (often by unknown artists or channels that mainly promote unknown artists). And YouTube tends to repeat the same (or similar) videos if you leave it by itself :-P.

Though if the topic is popular/mainstream music... i never liked that outside when i was ~12 or something but that was mainly because nothing else was on the TV. Once i had control over what i could listen to, i went my way :-P.

</comment><comment><USER8> There's an element of that psychology, sure. However, for current new music, I think the more convincing answer is that analysis done a while back where new music started sounding the same and louder.

<comment><USER9> I do subscribe to the "music enjoyed during your formative/more emotionally- intense years tends to imprint on you" theory...

...but at least for me, the combo of ubiquitous instrument/vocal quantizing and loudness-war compression really does turn me off to much of modern pop music.

Still, that may just be because it doesn't sound like the stuff I had already "trained my model" of good music on. I prefer a little bit of swing in my drums compared to playing to a grid. I like albums that sound like people playing in a room rather than people plugged into a DAW.

But I also don't have any logical reason why one is better than the other. To someone else, the more "perfect" alignment of quantized beats and vox may sound better than the "sloppy" stuff I like.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> For me, less-commercial electronic music is still pushing the boundaries and developing (in no small part down to technology), but popular music is less catchy, less exciting, less sophisticated, less tuneful, less imaginative, more derivative, lacks humour, is more vulgar, covers a far narrower set of themes, and is of a far narrower range in terms of genre than in the past. I still discover popular music from the 70s, 80s and to an extent the 90s that is new to me and that I rate highly. Every now and then I catch TOTP2 and what really stands out to me is the sheer diversity of what was on offer: virtually every genre one can imagine, novelty acts, one hit wonders, cult acts having one big hit, super-groups, the utterly commercial, all races and sexes represented, etc. etc. Contrast that with today. Western culture has gone backwards.

<comment><USER11> There's a large survival bias at play here - only the "good" music from the past decades is going to be relatively available for you to find in the present day.

> Western culture has gone backwards.

Oh come on...

<comment><USER3> Assuming you're not being sarcastic, this is easily disproved thru listening to skilled, non-hit musicians.

Popularity isn't tied to "good" so much as it is "catchy". Hooks are easy to package and sell, skill - not so much.

<comment><USER12> Assuming you're not being sarcastic, there has always been a deep catalog of unpopular musicians with catchy hooks.

The reason they never became popular is because they weren't that good compared to their more popular compatriots.

You and the OP are conflating marketing driven Top 100 pop songs that no one will remember next year with the good pop songs that will stay catchy for decades.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> From the Article: " 'mere exposure effect' means that the more we're exposed to something, the more we tend to like it."

From my perspective: This is evidence something is broken with humanity.

I do understand that we need a period of familiarization to better understand and appreciate a new piece of music. I get that we can relive that initial appreciation - after a period of forgetfulness.

From my perspective, that period of forgetfulness should last months or years, not hours or days.

I am strongly, sometimes physically repulsed by Clearchannel music programming, because of repetition. Most genres seem to be equally abused but Oldies/Classic stations are the worst.

As I am well into my 50s, I've heard most "Classic" songs thousands of times - mostly involuntarily. They became unpleasant after a score or so. By the 100th relisten they transition to the sort of torture that the CIA uses against enemy combatants.

I'm in FL; Classic/Oldies playlists are pervasive here. You can't complete a day of chores without traversing countless retail and public spaces poisoned with it. It's like living with a family member who's abusive when they drink and they drink every day.

I like every genre a lot short of hip-hop and opera (but I'm warming up to them) This fall I'm working thru a list of 100 more progressive bands I haven't heard. New favorite finds are Crust (whoo yeah), Milos Makovsky and maybe The Steve Bonino Project which I can't figure out if I like or not. I just listened to Gil Scott-Theron's B-Movie for the first time and it was amazing.

So - all of this is just me making this point. I don't disagree with the article. However, I think it points to a deep psychological malfunction in people (or whatever is the opposite of robust mental health). I'm not even saying that those who are content with their bad mental health, shouldn't be or that it shouldn't ever bleed over to me. I do wish I didn't have to experience it every day and that people I love weren't afflicted with it.

<comment> non-entity This tends to be a very hot take, but I really hate "classic rock" stations. The songs tend to be dull and full of boring cliches, much like how I see pop music today. That said, I try not to discount any "genre" completely and admittedly do enjoy at least a few songs from most.

<comment><USER3> I'd agree that I tend to see much more talent, skill and creativity in modern bands.

<comment><USER13> Modern bands have it easy in every way. They have more music history available, collaboration is easier due to internet (no longer requires physical space or snailmail), electronics made music production a lot easier in many ways, and autotune makes it difficult to sing false.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> It's the packaging... Most new music is made by children of label execs, and children of rich people where they use money to polish a turd... Great music comes from people who are "hungry" and suffering, now Labels don't do A&R (Discovery) to find that kind of tested talent... They just pick a kid off the Disney or America's Got Talent circuit, give them a salary, and teach them how to be musicians, and write their songs.

Social media sites push down good indie music in favor of pop machine record label artists, and listeners are flooded with examples of how modern music sucks, and buying music has now become a process of needing to sift through different music sites just to hear audio clips, and then registering an account that tracks your every move and sends you spam. Click farms boost hits for "chosen" artists to make them look popular even before they have an album out now.

We used to be able to just go to a record shop and listen to CDs based on simple genres, and buy albums at unreasonable prices, but all of that is gone now. It's an endlessly repeating cycle for people. The Recording Industry keeps shooting itself in the foot by practicing Payola as well. We may not have another great artist like Prince, MJ, Led Zeppelin, etc.. for a long time until all this eats itself or gets sorted out.

</comment><comment><USER15> Also, 92% of Top Ten Billboard Songs Are About Sex[0]

Younger people obsess about sex more than older people.

[0] [https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2011/09/92...](https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2011/09/92-top- ten-billboard-songs-are-about-sex/337242/)

<comment><USER16> I'd agree with this perspective honestly. Older people no longer relate to finding as many "bae" or partners as possible. They're generally not looking for a teenage boy band to sweep them off their feet and make their dreams come true. They no longer find ___'s bad boy attitude alluring, as it seems childish.

Popular Music just isn't targeted towards the older age groups, which is why we always look back on it on rose-coloured and sex-hungry glasses. That doesn't mean it's not still relevant to some of them, but it doesn't have the same relevance it did from when we were teenagers.

Plus, songs about how your boss messed up a paycheque calculation, how your child cries for 6 nights straight, which foods give you heart burn, or how hard it is to save for retirement aren't as attractive topics.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Not in my experience and I am in my late 60s. I think current trends are not radical eno

</comment><comment><USER13> My take:

Basically, because older people find it harder to relate to the music. Especially pop music, which is catered to pristine, insecure teenagers and youth. They're well past that stage of life.

As a consequence, they already have nostalgia embedded for previous music. Someone else already commented on the atmosphere (and whole zeitgeist) being part of that. Based on my experience with music (been an avid listener ever since I grew up) I believe it is also instruments (and certain patterns of genres) which can be part of that.

Another explanation is because older people have less of a hearing range (Hz). You can try a test to figure out where you're standing.

</comment><comment><USER18> I'm in my forties and still looking for and discovering new metal, jazz, and classical artists. You don't have to get stuck in the past listening to stuff you discovered as a teenager. But you've got to make an effort.

<comment><USER2> Even music people think is new is actually quite old. I have yet to discover a genre whose origins don't extend at least two decades back (unless you cheat and name an extremely specific subset that sounds like 'hard dark psy tech core' or something)

<comment><USER18> I'm using "new" in the sense of "new to _me_ ". For example, there's a New Wave of British Heavy Metal (NWOBHM) act called Satan that I had never heard of until I was browsing Bandcamp and saw they had a new album called _Cruel Magic_. They aren't new, but they're new to me -- and they kick ass.

Likewise, there's this Japanese pianist named Hiromi Uehara. She's been performing and recording for at least 15 years, and has worked with artists like Chick Corea, but I hadn't heard of her until this morning. She just dropped an album called _Spectrum_ , and it's absofuckinlutely _brilliant_. If I didn't make a point of looking for new music, I'd still be missing out.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Because enjoyment of any music requires, at a minimum, subconscious comprehension of its core pattern and timing and brainwave generation in complement to the same.

Older people have brain patterns which are trained, by tendency, to comprehend and and complement patterns and timing which are quite different from currently popular ones.

The old brain, when induced to produce complimentary brainwaves to new music, usually finds this process very uncomfortable while younger brains remain more malleable in this regard.

</comment><comment><USER20> Partly because they are smarter. The flynn effect is actually only on the non- g-loaded parts of tests. In reality we're getting dumber and can't sustain the sophistication of past music.

<comment><USER2> Except:

-There's doubt that the Flynn effect was real to begin with and isn't just an artifact of a measure that never really made sense to begin with (IQ)

-Plenty of "sophisticated" music is being made right now, perhaps you are not aware of it but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist

-Old people have always hated younger people's music - see the moral panic over the second summer of love, people thinking rock n'roll/metal/techno was satanic etc.

-Most of what people think is youngsters' music (e.g. most electro genres) is actually quite old

Your response is pretty disturbing on many levels I have to say

<comment><USER20> If measuring something like the visual reaction time of people makes sense, then so too does measuring IQ. Nobody is claiming that the Inuits ability to see far away objects in intense glistening brightness of their snowy lands doesn't constitute real intelligence just because it isn't measured on IQ tests.

> Your response is pretty disturbing on many levels I have to say

Well then I guess I will have to worry about the very real loss of genius in shame and silence.

<comment><USER2> I notice you have conveniently chosen to avoid answering the other talking points and am choosing to believe out of charity that you don't have time to write an elaborate response.

>If measuring something like the visual reaction time of people makes sense, then so too does measuring IQ.

I don't know what you mean by "make sense". To me it doesn't make sense insofar as it purports to put a single number on a very complex concept that no one really knows how to define or agree on a single definition. The traditional "predictor of life outcomes" motte-and-baley fallback isn't satisfactory for most people as it relies on circularity (in our society much of our life outcomes is actually determined by how well we do at tests that are strangely similar to IQ tests) and fails to account for the many, many socially maladapted yet gifted people out there. It's also unsatisfactory as it pretends to capture something from the inner person but outsources its definition to the outer world.

Also, none of that explains how one's IQ test results may predict one's ability to appreciate 'sophisticated music', nor is it clear what is meant by 'sophisticated'.

<comment><USER21> >fails to account for the many, many socially maladapted yet gifted people out there

When has anyone ever claimed that being socially adept correlated with IQ? It's long been a trope that geniuses were eccentric and socially mal-adjusted. Even Isaac Newton, centuries ago, was known to be an odd recluse.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> The issue isn't that older people hate new music, but they hate _most_ new _pop_ music. There is music, good music, that survives for many decades, or even many hundreds of years, that people of all generations love on first hearing. This music is the best of classical music, Jazz 'standards' \-- stuff that passes the test of time. I do think that some rock music is looking like it will pass the test of time. For example, songs before my time, like "Sympathy for the Devil" or "Son of a preacher man" or "Fortunate Son" started out as pop, but they are appreciated by every generation since they came out. Time will tell, but we may be listening to these songs for a long time.

Here is a lovely pop song from the 1920s that appears to pass the test of time:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iYOu8MPY6Y](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iYOu8MPY6Y)

Here is a pop song from the 40s that has passed the test of time so far:

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

And there are songs like that from every decade.

OK, so if everyone loves the timeless songs, what about the other songs? Well, most songs are formulaic, repetitive and just not very interesting from the point of view of _time_. Old people have already heard their share of that. They don't need to redo it. They are looking back at those songs from the perspective of all the songs they've heard and aren't seeing anything special. Sort of like someone who just started reading novels might get blown away by a formulaic novel because they've never seen the formula before. But the 10th novel that tries to repeat the formula will just not be enjoyable. You've seen it all before. You need something really new by that point. That's one of the things that comes with age. I was listening to Lorde's "tennis court" and nearly threw up at the lyrics.

Adding to all this is the notion that the world isn't homogeneous. There are 'moments' that are peak moments. That period of time in the Elizabethan era from 1590-1620 when Shakespeare, Marlow, and Ben Johnson were all writing plays was a golden age of English drama. It's just not the case that someone born in the later 17th or 18th Century would be able to see their contemporaries perform just as well. There are dry spells. And there are also dry spells for different types of music. The 70s may have been a golden age for rock and roll. The 80s for pop. The 90s for rap. Maybe -- maybe not, but you can't assume that there is always the same amount of timeless standards being produced in every decade, because there isn't. Some decades are more fecund than others. Some decades might not be surpassed for a very long time. In that case, it's understandable that someone growing up in the 18th Century might prefer to read plays written in the 16th Century, and if this is true for drama, there's no reason to believe that it's not true for music. Expect dry spells, during which heavily produced formulaic stuff will wow virgin ears but leave older listeners non-plussed. And don't even get me started on classical music. The stuff being written now, compared to the baroque period, it's shameful how bad it is. There are some good pieces, but the quantity of amazing music written between 1650-1750 so completely dominates classical music written between 1900-2000, and I'm a fan of Ives, John Adams, Prokofiev, Shostakovich and Satie. But it just doesn't wow me as much as Baroque music. Listen to these _minor_ baroque pieces that wouldn't even make most "best of" lists:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkJC8p48g6g](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkJC8p48g6g)

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

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2SVwTjNAFg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2SVwTjNAFg)

<comment><USER21> I'd like to say that this is a brilliant and insightful post, and really explains the "old people don't like new music" phenomenon succinctly.

The only minor things I'd add are that the music industry has changed a lot over the decades, and Autotune did not exist before a couple decades ago, nor was the internet a factor back then the way it is now. It just isn't fair to say that older people "don't like new music" when the music itself has changed, as has the industry that produces it, and the way it's usually listened to as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> It's all about emotions (as the article explains). If the music brings back the emotions of youth, then it is more accepted than the music that creates no/less strong emotions.

<comment><USER24> My youth sucked. I had insufficient social skills to handle the transition from childhood into teenhood. Maybe it's why I _like_ a lot of the new music. A catchy tune is a catchy tune.

I wonder if dislike for new music is proportional to a fond youth.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Here's another theory:

Q. What music will be popular with the NEXT generation of kids?

A. Whatever is the most shocking to the parents!

</comment><comment><USER26> My issue is that many mainstream pop songs around now seems to have meaningless, lazy or silly lyrics.

<comment><USER27> Come on. Pop songs have had meaningless silly lyrics since shortly after the invention of singing. I doubt there has been any significant decline in lyric quality.</comment></comment>


GitHub has removed their 'This is note the page you're looking for' 404 page - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/aicp/frameworks_native/blob/master/vulkan/libvulkan/code-generator.tmpl <comment><USER2> It's back.

<comment><USER3> Haha, I was worried we needed a 404 for the 404!

<comment><USER4> A 163216 page!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "Not" or "Note"?</comment>


Innovations For Poor Farmers - <AUTHOR> http://www.gatesnotes.com/Development/Innovation

<comment><AUTHOR> I like the fact that it frames the term "innovative" in a space where maybe very few expect it. My first intuition was toward some fancy tech or smart materials. I was surprised to find out innovative for them means tackling mundane and trivial big problems in cheaper and more effective way: like more fine tuned crops for the type of land or milk jug. I love this guy!

</comment><comment><USER2> A cheap, reliable, simple milk jug design, mass-produced until the marginal cost just vanishes.

Educational fucking videos. Understanding the conditions where food is cultivated. Growing stronger crops.

This is just beautifully simple, realistic and down-to-earth.</comment>


Ask HN: What are your favorite mailing lists? - <AUTHOR> This is the only similar thread I can find and it's from a few years ago:<p>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5892712 <comment><USER2> I like JavaScript Tips Daily newsletter ([http://js2016.tips](http://js2016.tips)), Ruby Weekly ([http://rubyweekly.com](http://rubyweekly.com)) and JavaScript Weekly ([http://javascriptweekly.com](http://javascriptweekly.com))

</comment><comment><USER3> I follow microservices weekly([http://www.microservicesweekly.com](http://www.microservicesweekly.com)).

</comment><comment><USER4> Top weekly HN posts:

[http://www.hackernewsletter.com](http://www.hackernewsletter.com)</comment>


The Many New Indicators of an Epic Job Collapse - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-04-30/jobs-collapse-is-deeper-than-the-government-says <comment><USER2> There is a pretty big disparity between these numbers and the optimism in the stock market. The S&P indexes are only down about 14% right now since February and were priced based fairly optimistic growth assumptions at that time.

<comment><USER3> I agree. Cue the next major correction.

I think markets here reflect the naively optimistic view of many people that everything will return to "normal" in a month or two.

At some point the reality will sink in that a bunch of companies, businesses and jobs are simply gone and demand will take a long time to return to 2019 levels even if supply was capable of 2019 levels of output tomorrow (which it probably is).

EDIT: case in point [1]:

> Americans are so nervous about the state of the economy that they are > stashing cash in the bank at a rate not seen since the first year of Ronald > Reagan's presidency.

> The United States government's Bureau of Economic Analysis reported Thursday > morning that the savings rate surged to 13.1% in March -- up from 8% in > February.

> That's the highest savings rate since November 1981. Americans had $2.17 > trillion in savings last month.

[1]: [https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/30/investing/savings-rate- federa...](https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/30/investing/savings-rate-federal- reserve/index.html)

<comment><USER4> it's a little bit optimism and a little bit just printing money inflating asset prices.

<comment><USER5> As an economist, I just want to add that money printer go brrr.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The old indicators don't necessarily work here. Unemployment is because of the lockdown. Some of them (many of them?) will return after lockdown.

<comment><USER7> To me this feels a little like the situation around 2000 and 2001. A lot of fundamentals were out of whack but things kept moving. Then 9/11 happened which shouldn't have derailed the economy by itself but it triggered the unraveling. So the lockdown may just be the trigger that will pop the bubble that has been building since 2008.

My prediction is that measures will be taken to reinflate the bubble which will then go on for another ten years so we will probably have an even bigger collapse around 2028-2030. And every time more wealth will get moved to the top x percent.

<comment><USER8> I think they'll try, but I honestly think we've got a perfect storm coming.

Now's the best time ever for automation to take off. There's also going to be more big businesses eating little businesses and consolidation.

Globalization's biggest leaders will come out ahead, and thrive as always - but a LOT less workers are going to be needed in general from here on out thanks to ML/AI/Etc...

It's first step towards post-scarcity, except for the millions who will be hurt if govt's don't create repurposing plans to give people a purpose for existing and enough $ to eat and live.

Also, I personally won't step foot in a sit-down restaurant or movie theater for at least 2-3 years, or until there's a viable vaccine. I'm sure I'm not the only person boycotting crowds.

Real estate analysts estimate that 50%+ of mall retailers will close their door by q4 2021. that's a shit ton of jobs gone forever.

I was starting to get skeptical of the claim that 40% of jobs would be gone by 2030, but 2020 definitely is showing it's highly possible. What do we do w/ 40% permanent unemployment?

<comment><USER9> > What do we do w/ 40% permanent unemployment?

This assumes that somehow people cannot be re-trained to do other things, if those jobs really all disappear, which they probably wont.

There's always more work to do, things to improve, people to help. It will be like that forever.

The question is, who allocates labor? Perhaps the kind of market system we have has run its course, perhaps _this time_ it's over.

I predict that the market will recover, just like it always has, but feel free to disagree.

<comment><USER6> Pollyanna thinking.

We'll have what, 30M unemployed people? Who mostly can't be retrained to be engineers, even if we needed that many engineers which we don't.

No, we're entering a post-scarcity economy. Never mind Marxism or Socialism or Capitalism - when Labor has nothing left of value to offer, where do they go? What leverage do they have?

"It'll be like that forever" flies in the face of history. When weaving machines came in 1760, the weavers didn't just get reeducated or reallocated - they starved and died, along with their families.

I always feel sad at the oft-repeated theme "We'll just get everybody working again!". In the 1950's, lots of philosophers and writers imagined a future of robots lifting the yoke of labor from our shoulders, freeing us for lives of leisure. Now that it's happening, all I hear is schemes to make people work again. The old Puritan ethic - if you're not working, your a waste of breath.

<comment><USER10> Seems pretty pollyannaish to think we're heading into post-scarcity anything, for anyone. Where is that idea even coming from? Or is "post-scarcity" just a nice way of saying "massive social stratification built on the exploitation of an effectively permanent underclass"?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> > _There are two main reasons: First, trillions of dollars of stimulus money > from the Fed and Congress come with an implicit guarantee that the > government will limit investors' risk no matter how bad it gets._ [1]

When more people learn details about how much the Fed is pumping to keep the stock market afloat, there may be a revolt.

Investors/retirement account holders can't continue as before with 30 million (and counting) out of work.

1\. [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/29/business/stock- markets.ht...](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/29/business/stock-markets.html)

<comment><USER12> Why would they revolt?

<comment><USER13> They've lost their jobs and homes and can't feed their families. Then they are told there is no help forthcoming from the government as they watch that same government point the money cannon at large corporations.

Why wouldn't they revolt?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> If the Fed does this right the truly massive spending will be when businesses reopen and will place money directly into consumers' wallets to restart demand. Otherwise businesses will have nothing to be open for and layoffs will continue and the downward spiral will steepen.

It will be difficult to time the reduction of business subsidies as consumer demand gets supported. Get it wrong and business feel no price pressure as Fed money overpowers the market signal of resource misallocation while consumers lack the ability to pay 'old' prices or change the goods and services they desire.

<comment><USER15> The way this is heading, and given that that point is probably, realistically, quite far out – I guess there the very real possibility that a lot of people will find themselves homeless and/or greatly and permanently impoverished in the US. I fully agree with you, but even if they get that exactly right, lots of markets will probably have pretty much disappeared and lots of companies won't have a chance to make it. This feels like with all the pessimist views pretty much everyone might still underestimate the sheer size of the tsunami that is rolling in.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> The economic collapse we've been waiting for since the 70s is here. Repent sinners.

<comment><USER17> shame, shame, shame

 _[throws rotten apple]_

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I think if we avoid heavy handed government intervention to "save the economy" things will return to normal fairly quickly. OTOH, I expect gov to jump in as always to create a self fulfilling prophecy.</comment>


Simplify file management in a much smarter way with Tomi File Manager - <AUTHOR> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.tomitools.filemanager

<comment><AUTHOR> Tomi File Manager is user-centered file management application for Android, collects Music, Pictures, Videos, Documents, Downloads and Installed Applications into intuitive categories,and enable easy and fast management to user's finger trips.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> V1.3.0 - Tomi File Manager supports Archive Manager 1\. New Tomi Archiver, supports zip and RAR; 2\. Enable compress files, supports zip format; 3\. Extract archive files, supports zip and RAR;</comment>


Homeownership should not be part of the American Dream - <AUTHOR> http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/03/15/homeownership-should-not-be-part-of-the-american-dream/

<comment><USER2> agreed. The American dream should be about opportunity and hard work. Not specific material gain. There are too many distortionary government programs that encourage home ownership when in fact owning a home can be a disasterous financial decision.

Hopefully minimum downpayments will be raised and things like mortgage interest tax deductions will be phased out.</comment>


Would You Recommend Us? - the only question that matters  - <AUTHOR> http://www.inc.com/magazine/20060901/handson-customer-service.html <comment><USER2> I just pulled some statistics on Monday while I was in San Francisco to help me write a press release (for when I'm at the airport) to finally publicize my product. Anyway, here is what they are:

In an e-mail poll where 153 customers replied over a course of over a year: More than 9 out of 10 customers said they "would recommend it to others".

Also, for each of the following statements, at least 86% or more of the customers agreed with each statement below:

"I received a full response to my question"

"The response speed was prompt"

"The response was clear and easy to understand"

For each case, the possible answers were either "Outstanding" or "Needs Improvement". All surveys were asked after I had thought I answered a technical support question, as you may have guessed. Of course, sometimes it turned out that customers still had a question.

What I found interesting is that you don't have to be perfect in order to have over 90% of the responders say they would recommend you to their friends and family.

<comment><AUTHOR> hello vlad,

do you know how many many of your users found out about the service via a recommendation/referral?

<comment><USER2> Once in a while customers actually tell me that they've referred someone, so it must be happening. It's nice to have customers say they would tell their friends in a survey response, whether or not they actually do. :)

Also, the best part, by the way, is you can then contact those who said "needs improvement" and ask them what happened. The article talks along the lines of you "can" do this. I say, you HAVE to do it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I happen to know that iPowerWeb was totally unscrupulous and oversold way beyond what anyone would consider reasonable. They were greedy and didn't care anything for their customers. They were just out to make a quick buck and it showed.

I love this question and I think every company should poll their users and graph the response over time. What better way to make sure you're doing things right. Probably a great way of solving internal debates: "Let's see what the customers think"</comment>


No I won't sign your NDA, here's why. - <AUTHOR> http://blog.jpl-consulting.com/2012/04/why-i-wont-sign-your-nda/ <comment><USER3> This is _very_ anecdotal, so your experiences probably are very different (especially since I'm in Arizona, a lot of people here just aren't nearly as hacker-friendly as the Bay area).

Out of the ~15-20 project ideas that people have talked to me about, I've been asked to sign an NDA 4 times. I found something interesting about the people who asked for an NDA: they weren't very good at following up. For most of the other "pitches" (I use the word pitch loosely, because I'm not a VC or anything like that -- just a college student who likes to help friends and acquaintances with projects), I'd get follow-up emails and a lot of lengthy discussions in coffee shops about the idea.

The times I signed an NDA? Maybe a phone call once. Maybe a small conversation. The discussions always fizzled out. An NDA almost directly indicated (in my situations) that the person asking had a vision of grandeur without any idea of the work that would go into making that vision a reality. If the idea doesn't make me gasp when you tell me, it probably isn't worth an NDA. And the NDA always indicated that the person is just "looking for a techie guy" to crank out code.

The people who asked for an NDA were never really interested in what _I_ had to bring to the table, because it seemed like they assumed that their idea was enough to make a product regardless of the team they assembled. I'm fine if I'm not qualified to build a product (I'll be up-front about the limits of my skills, because I already have enough work!) or a good match for the team they are looking for. I run _as fast as I can_ if I meet someone who _doesn't care_ who they're hiring. I'd rather be _rejected_ than work for someone who doesn't appreciate my work.

If I'm going to partner with someone who isn't a hacker, I want them to at least appreciate the difference between good and bad execution on a technical level. If they can't effectively evaluate my work, the relationship is automatically dysfunctional. And that starts with the NDA -- if they prioritize the value of the "idea" over the value of the _people_ , they are already headed in the wrong direction.

<comment><USER4> The very request to sign an NDA assumes the idea could be could and executed upon listening to a 15 minute speech about it. This is a clear litmus test that the idea itself is not worth much. Without intrinsic IP or competitive advantages, the wanna-be-preneur resorts to artificial protection measures like the NDA, secrecy and quickly becomes delusional. Requests to sign NDAs are one of the worsts red flags an early stage entrepreneur can have.

<comment><USER5> The question I routinely ask whenever someone tells me about their amazing business scheme is "what is your plan to stop competitors from copying the basic idea and overtaking you?" or "what is to stop the established player in the market expanding their product to include this idea (probably as a check- box option) and making your company irrelevant?"

<comment><USER6> What's the right answer? Because if it's anything other than "nothing" I'd like to hear an example.

<comment><USER4> Your competitive advantage is your sword. Your barrier to entry is your shield or "moat". Typically, these should be hard to copy things that you can evolve over time to make your business stronger. Here are some examples...

\- Classic competitive advantages:

1\. A strong sales force created by partnering which regional players that agreed to exclusively serve you (i.e. Groupon). In this case the barrier to entry is that, assuming you filtered your selections well, is very hard to get more or better seasoned/connected people to compete with an established player.

2\. An algorithm that we developed and academia thinks is not going to work (Google). If academia thinks your algorithm is a good fit for the problem them that knowledge is public, well studied and been executed upon. (Google used secrecy, designed new systems and engaged in many partnerships with data centers initially to make their algorithm work at scale)

3\. Network dynamics: Enlist developers and become a platform faster and better than the competition. This would create to barriers to entry: a spiraling viral growth curve that is hard to follow and the recognition and trust that developers will bring to your brand. Facebook won in part because of this and in part because MySpace, Ning and the other players couldn't execute as well as they did.

\- Strong barriers to entry:

1\. You already have 20M in VC, went global and have dominated most of the SERPS (search engine result pages) for your content network. This is a form of market share domination and you need to fight using guerrilla tactics in this case. For example, promote your site using social media, start in unexplored geographies or complete in the virgin mobile market. Some companies that fight using this technique are AOL, About.com, Demand Media and Mahalo.

2\. A strong patent portfolio and the money and will to defend them. IP is not enough, you need good lawyers, the will to fight for your turf and a good set of Plan B's to execute when the competition infringes on you. Notice that you can't instantly avoid infringement, only deter it. Good examples of companies that use this include UStream, Apple and HP.

3\. Brand and execution: People already know that DropBox is best to share files. But what if Apple created a new service to share files. They tried! But people are already familiar with the DropBox brand and prefer their execution: because now they can share files across platforms. Now, in order to win, the competition has to follow DropBox's model (which is the standard by which users measure quality) and then leapfrog them.

Business model design is a fascinating subject, if you which to answer most of your questions regarding this field and become a Jedi in the architecture of competitive advantages and barriers to entry, I suggest you do the following:

\- Read "Business Model Generation: A Handbook for Visionaries, Game Changers, and Challengers" \- Read Bill Gates Biography: Hard Drive (that has some fascinating stories about how Bill expanded Microsof to Asia and dominated the market!)

\- Follow Clayton Christensen on twitter and read some of his papers. He portraits many, many strategies for startups to disrupt markets and compete in uneven situations. <http://claytonchristensen.com/bio.html>

<comment><USER7> _An algorithm that we developed and academia thinks is not going to work (Google)_

That this an interesting thought. I am not sure it is really a classical competitive advantage, though. It's actually the first time I hear this. Is it really applicable in that many cases? You were giving Google as an example. Which algorithm were you referring to? I can think of these three from the top of my head: PageRank, MapReduce, Paxos. Of these only PageRank is what I would consider an substantial competitive advantage, but it had actually been published in an academic paper by Larry and Sergey.

I think Larry Page said on occasion that the early competitive advantage of Google was that the two founders were doing their PhD on how to build a search engine, so they simply knew much more about it than anyone else. Reading published papers about algorithms is all fine and well, but you having the intuitions to come up with them is much more powerful.

<comment><USER4> Which is akin to saying that, while doing their Phds and writing papers, they didn't publish all their accrued knowledge in the field. And instead when on to apply that to Google. Obviously, algorithmic intelligence was key for Google, but systems implementations where also very important.

The secrecy they exercised was not only regarding to algorithms, but also to capacity, os design and infrastructure partnerships. They really did a good job at hiding the scale of their operations. Perhaps this secrecy was their biggest advantage, but take into account that they hid much more than algos. And still, the have a huge base of secret IP.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Related: the abysmal state of IP clauses in developer contracts. This and the NDA bandwagon all stem from the same root sickness in society - the delusion that someone can own an arbitrary piece of information in the same way that they can own a physical object.

[http://www.exratione.com/2011/11/the-miserable-state-of- inte...](http://www.exratione.com/2011/11/the-miserable-state-of-intellectual- property-clauses-in-developer-contracts.php)

The topic for today is the sorry state of affairs that the intellectual property behemoth has brought to contracts between developers (programmers, coders, pick your word of choice) and companies that hire developers. The standard legal boilerplate incorporated into every consulting, contract work, or full time hire paperwork I've seen in my years in the industry included one or more of the following declarations:

a) All intellectual property I produce during the period of work belongs to the company, regardless of its nature, regardless of whether it has anything to do with the work I am performing for the company, and regardless of whether or not I produce it on my own time.

b) All intellectual property I produce during a period of time (commonly some months) after the work ends belongs to the company.

c) All intellectual property I have ever produced in my life belongs to the company, barring that which is listed in an appendix to the contract.

d) I may not create intellectual property on my own time and be remunerated for it by anyone other than the company during the time I work for them.

e) The onus is on me to prove that I own any of my own intellectual property.

I sent back every single one of these contracts with edits to remove the obnoxious and grasping provisions, replacing them with some variant clause to say that "what I produce for you while working for you on your software is yours, and everything else is mine."

<comment><USER9> FWIW, I just signed an employment agreement with a major development firm which included similar clauses. I was about to reject it and ask them to send one without such onerous restrictions when I got to the end of the section which included a large caveat "This section shall only apply to work performed on company time with company equipment," just in more legalese.

As a graduating college student I've heard others getting similar wording to allow for the employee to work on personal projects outside of work and retain ownership. Maybe things are getting better?

<comment><USER10> As a counterpoint, I recently wound up refusing to sign a contract that was an absolute mess. The prospective client wanted absurd things, like for me to indemnify them against any future IP litigation, whether I infringed on a patent knowingly or not. And they wanted ownership of every piece of code I typed, according to their contract I couldn't even hit backspace unless I committed the mistake first.

We never reached any middle ground. This happened months ago, and they're still looking.

I assume they'll continue to have this problem, because they're trying to hire a senior level person, but they want that person to make junior level mistakes wrt to the contracts they'll sign.

<comment> X-Istence I was asked to sign a contract like that and I had my current employer change it so that it didn't include those lines/words.

I can't indemnify someone against patent lawsuits. I can't know whether the code I am writing that is coming out of my head is in a patent somewhere. Not only that, but the contract asked me to assign to the company any and all ideas/thoughts/previous work that may or may NOT be relevant to their line of business and that by signing I had agreed I had done so (not even to the best of my knowledge, so if I forgot to give them a text file that I wrote years ago with a great idea then I'd technically be in violation).

Under no circumstances am I going to sign over any part of my work prior to the employment contract, nor am I going to sign over work that is completed on my own personal equipment outside of company time that isn't for the company.

To me it just felt like they were overreaching, and the guy I was discussing this with told me that wasn't their intention and that I should just go ahead and sign it because they would never hold it against me, and I told him no, I told him to go fix it, then maybe I'd sign it.

<comment><USER10> Sounds familiar, except for the part where your employer changed the words.

This offer also came with verbal assurances that it was just a formality so I should just sign it.

I offered them two potential solutions. I had my lawyer modify their docs so they'd be acceptable to me, and I also offered my own docs which are specifically drawn up to be just about as even-handed as legal documents can get (I sign regularly as both buyer and seller), but they didn't find either of the options satisfactory.

I'm somewhat disappointed that it didn't work out, because the work was very well suited to my background and the other team members seemed great; but if that's how management treated me while trying to convince me to join their team, god only knows how they would've treated me down the road.

After that fell apart, I wound up with a new primary client who was much more reasonable. They passed me lousy docs, and I asked if we could use my docs instead. After a reasonably quick review from their legal counsel and some minor tweaks, we were off to the races.

<comment><USER11> _This offer also came with verbal assurances that it was just a formality so I should just sign it._

This excuse is common, and is nonsense. If they don't plan to litigate based on it (or hold you to it) (which is what they are verbally telling you), then they would have no problem with you scribblying it out. Their answer to that tells you their intent.

 _if that's how management treated me while trying to convince me to join their team, god only knows how they would've treated me down the road._

And how would they have treated you down the road if you had signed away all your rights and given them a golden ticket in the NDA?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Frankly, I am getting tired of this "ideas are worthless, execution is golden" mantra. Of course, "let's build a online shop" idea is useless, but it's not really an _idea_ to begin with. An idea that is worth discussing with others would typically include some minimal validation, an execution and marketing plan and, in general, some amount of thought put into it. Because otherwise it's not an idea, but a random brainfart.

Moreover, the value of a good idea _is_ in that extra thought that was put into it, something that is well worth a bit of protection. This is not an abstract MBA point. I am involved with a project that can be fully described in just 4 words, and these are plenty sufficient to tip off the competition and loose the first-to-market advantage. Should we not have been careful with how we talked to other people about the idea, we might've lost it to the established players already.

(edit) I am not disagreeing that a lot of people asking for an NDA upfront are lunatics, because they are. It's the black and white take on the value of ideas that I have an issue with.

<comment><USER13> I still think ideas are basically worthless. That's certainly true literally; 20 years in software and I've never heard of anybody selling one for significant money. First-mover advantage can sometimes be helpful, but it rarely determines success. Look at Amazon, Google, and Facebook, for example: leaders in their categories, but none of them was first.

A person with a brilliant idea who can't execute well is almost certainly screwed. A company that starts with a bad idea and executes well can turn out fine, though. That's because in the startup context, great execution involves a lot of exploration, validation, and the now-ubiquitous pivoting.

Take PayPal. Their first idea was two-factor authentication for handhelds. That turned into money transfer via handhelds. Which turned into a web-based money transfer product. But that wasn't the real deciding factor; the IP that let them win was anti-fraud software. And the reason there's a PayPal Mafia is that the execution-focused culture kept creating successes long after the original idea was played out.

Even supposing that there's an occasional rare idea that actually has some value, I think we should still keep the mantra because it's inarguable that there are an ocean of chumps who think that the idea is the hard part.

<comment><USER14> If Google went around telling everyone about their Pagerank idea, writing about it online, etc, do you think this would be inconsequential to their success?

<comment><USER13> You mean, say, if they published academic papers about it? Like these?

<http://ilpubs.stanford.edu:8090/361/> <http://ilpubs.stanford.edu:8090/422/>

Of course, PageRank was only one of many relevant innovations. A key one was the open bidding for ads. Another was focusing on a high-quality user experience, which included no banner ads and highly relevant search results ads. Both of which were totally visible to competitors, and only came well after the business was underway.

They have kept two major sorts of innovation secret. One is their aggressive pursuit of very low cost computing infrastructure. The other is the relentless improvements to search quality. PageRank is only a small part of that now. That IP has a ton of value. Not because of some secret Big Idea, but because they have taken a lot of little ideas and relentlessly winnowed them, yielding actual knowledge.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Best line I ever heard about NDA's (not mine):

"If you are capable of broaching your NDA in a couple of sentences, you had nothing NDA'able there in the first place."

I heard it at an entrepreneurship panel in 2004, so I don't remember the speaker. I think it might have been somebody from Broadcom.

Interestingly, the people who (misguidedly) asked me to sign an NDA are usually receptive to this explanation when I tell them why I won't sign their NDA.

<comment><USER16> Broaching or _breaching_? -- the line might have been either "broaching your idea" or "breaching your NDA".

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I recently turned down a freelancing contract where the client asked me to "kindly keep this confidential". Nothing legal more than this (does it have any legal validity?). The reason why I turned down the job offer is exactly because of this irrational "fear of disclosure".

I am not saying that there aren't cases where NDA can come into play. But what I'm trying to mention is that, just like the author of the blog, I'm very put off by people trying to protect their ideas. My reasons are very similar to the ones mention in the article, I'll add this:

By asking me not to disclose your idea, the client gives me the impression of someone undervaluing the execution part. She's establishing a framework where the "idea" is the core value and "execution" can be applied by some random code monkey she heard about through a friend of a friend; code monkeys are a dime a dozen, the "idea" is unique.

Who in their right mind would want to work under these conditions? I backed out, clearly. My point is, if you have an idea, and are looking for someone to help you code something, secrecy and NDA won't make you come off good.

<comment><USER18> > "kindly keep this confidential"

Turning down freelancing contracts for such silly reasons is not going to go very far unless you are swimming in work.

Really, as such requests go that's about as nicely put as I've seen it, and even if it wasn't said I would think that you would do that anyway, so where is the loss?

Of course you don't go around disclosing the details of the work you do, that would make you absolutely unemployable as a freelancer.

Confidentiality is assumed by default between an employer and an employee, unless you're flipping burgers. Any serious freelancer should take that to heart and if and when you do decide to talk about what's going on at some employer or business relationship please remember that it is a small world and you only get one reputation to mess up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I been at both sides of the table, had every idiot out there with TNFB ("the next facebook") ask me to sign a poorly written NDA before sharing their half- asses ideas.

But it stops being funny when you consider how much it would suck to get not only your idea but your entire plan for a startup stolen.

I heard this story at TheFunded about how a certain well-known startup began in that way. The original founders pitched it to some investors who liked it, but had doubts about the team, so what they do? they give everything (biz plan, doc, mockups, etc) to their EiRs and they launch an exact copy of it, sans the domain name for obvious reasons.

For me it was just another story, until I talked to one of the investors at that fund and instead of flat out denying it he said "how do you know that?"

Consider that whatever verbal contract you got with investors or other entrepreneurs is not legally valid, so if they actually copy your ideas you are SOL.

</comment><comment><USER20> An NDA really is a "poor man's patent". But thinking in term of patents can be useful. Recently I've determined to only sign NDAs that are severable, that only cover the patentable aspects of a business. If it isn't patentable it isn't NDA-able.

Case in point: last year I took on a project for a personal fitness trainer looking to launch a web app where users could enter their weight, height, activity level and exercise goals (lose weight, build muscle, etc). With this input the app would return meal plans, exercise routines and supplements schedules.

Nothing I've mentioned so far is patentable - these features are obvious to anyone who has tried to lose weight and already exist online.

So what was the patentable bit? Well, the client had devised an algorithm that worked the inputs and emitted the diet recommendations & exercise plans. That he had created in an Excel spreadsheet. And I am more than happy to keep that confidential under the NDA.

</comment><comment><USER21> I don't sign an NDA unless there's something I want on the other side. For example, I sign them all the time with potential customers before they'll tell me their traffic numbers. In this case, I skim and sign. The same goes for potential partners who want to share their roadmap or confidential business information. I've also asked people to sign an NDA before sharing financials. No, I won't sign an NDA to hear your business idea, but if it's the only thing between me and the information I want, I'll keep my thoughts about NDAs to myself and just sign it.

</comment><comment><USER22> Indeed. What if you sign an NDA, and then they tell you some completely obvious idea: Are you now bound from it? Etc.

<comment><USER23> Some NDAs are worded to excluded any information available publicly attainable from third party or if the client makes it public.

<comment><USER22> So?

I make you sign an NDA to hear my TOTALLY REVOLUTIONARY idea. You sign it. And then I tell you, we're going to do [incredibly obvious thing related to your current business].

If you then go and do it (like I said, it was obvious) I sue you for taking my idea.

Oops?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I could put it in a single sentence: because I don't want to increase my exposure to lawsuits.

</comment><comment><USER5> Not only wouldn't I sign an NDA, I've also started getting very careful about when I might contribute my own wisdom and experience. Far too often, I've found those sorts of meetings to be as much about trolling for free advice as anything.

I explain to these people that consulting is one of my services, and the price is on my rate card.

<comment><USER13> Personally, I've always been happy to give modest amounts of free advice. My standard rule when I was consulting was that I was happy to meet with anybody for lunch. The overhead of signing a contract isn't worth it for an hour or two, and it was fine free advertising. It's no bad thing to have a lot of people know you as that smart person who really helped them out in a pinch.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Quite Frankly, I don't get what the big deal is in signing an NDA. If you believe the idea is in the public domain or the person with the idea can't execute, whats the big deal? The paper is basically worthless in both instances.

Not wanting to sign an NDA is probably more about the way it makes you feel that someone thought of something so good they wont share without legal protection. The feeling that this guy thinks he is SO MUCH BETTER THAN YOU that you must sign a contract for permission for him to show you up with his latest spark of genius.

This is about ego, about flexing muscles and seeing who can best the next bloke.

Bottom line, I most likely wont ever ask you to sign an NDA and probably wont sign yours either, but lets be honest, it is about how you make me feel, not about protecting you or me.

<comment><USER26> If the person can't execute the idea, you're still legally bound not to disclose it yourself, which renders you legally liable. Later, you may be sued because you pursue something superficially similar and the other party believes they have grounds because you signed an NDA.

<comment><USER25> I'd be fascinated to learn of one such experience. I'm not saying it cant happen, I am just saying, people demanding to or not wanting to sign NDA's over sharing just ideas revolves much more around ego than it does around practicality.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I love this: boy it's true...

It's a well documented phenomenon how idea-havin' first timers just need a programmer to bring their vision to life, as though the idea is somehow half the battle (or 90%, as folks like me often get offered sweat equity deals–10% seems to be a popular number).

<comment><USER28> The idea is half the battle. If it wasn't, you could write a hello world app and make a million dollars.

I'm a developer and from my experience, coding=50%, timing+idea=50%.

The reason most idea guys are worthless isn't because ideas are worthless. It's because they usually only have a very general picture (I want to write a Facebook clone that does X) when the details are what really matter.

<comment><USER27> The idea is huge. The vision and ability to execute it is huger. Point is I won't even work with people who think think "I just need a programmer" - <USER2> will not value your contributions and try to chisel you out of as much a s they can. After all, you're just a programmer, THEY had the idea.

This w/o getting into the fact that: product == original idea == never happens ....

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Unless things have changed since I was an intern at a VC fund almost a decade ago, VCs rarely sign NDAs, especially before due-diligence is complete. There are a lot of good reasons for that, and I've since found it a good personal policy when working with potential clients - the legal liability incurred by signing an NDA that covers something you don't really know the scope of isn't usually worth it.

I hate to beat the 'all ideas are worthless, only implementation matters' drum, but a lot of ideas are pretty worthless. If I had a dollar for every time someone tried to get me to sign an NDA for an idea that was literally "Build a web page that we can charge people to list their website on.", well, I'd have a lot of dollars. People are generally a lot less clever thank they think they are.

That said, I don't think it is too terrible to sign a limited-scope NDA once you have a general idea of what information you might be coming into contact with and are ready to actually start working. There are very few ideas that are so powerful that you can't at least have some high-level discussion about prior to signing an NDA, but there are certainly a lot of details worth protecting in some cases.

</comment><comment><USER30> When I am asked to sign an NDA or non-compete contract I explain to the client that I understand that their ideas have value, but so does my ability to work once their project is complete. I tell them I will read over their contract but will not sign it unless they agree to pay me 70% of my billing rate for 30 hours per week until the NDA/non-compete expires.

</comment><comment><USER31> In some industries, NDAs are essential. You can ruin a production by releasing important plot details before the product is released.

<comment><USER32> This isn't a rant against NDAs. He carves out a point where they are actually beneficial when specific operating details are discussed. But when your "idea" is still vague, then the signer now has to navigate a minefield because of how much overlap there can be in what that "idea" could mean.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> I have a friend and partner who is building the back-end to a project I talked to him about. I presented every aspect of it, built a comprehensive wireframe and I'm working on the design.

He has plenty of work and talent, all I tried to do is explain myself clearly and try to spark his curiosity a bit. Then I built something on my side to be able to present to him and show that I'm also bringing something to the table. I don't want him to feel at any time as if he's working for me rather than with me.

Of course it helps that for him the task is <britishaccent>"Really fuckin' easy!"</britishaccent>. I'd deal the same way with someone I don't know as well and I think that openness and equally perceived work load are key elements to a successful working relationship where you might feel as if the other has a more useful skill set.

</comment><comment><USER34> I once refused to sign a contract that was basically an NDA, but not labeled as such. It had a clause that said if I leaked information about the project and the project failed, I'd be liable for all damages.

When I refused to sign it, the owner started screaming at me that I was trying to sabotage his business, and I'd sign it if I wasn't. I refused to sign and left.

Later that day, I returned with their CD with all their source code. They had lent me to the CD to determine if I'd be able to do what they wanted. I didn't have to sign _anything_ to get that CD, and they didn't ask for it back when I left.

It was quite an eye-opener for me, and I'm vary wary of NDAs to this day. At the very least, they need to have a termination date and be very specific about what they cover.

</comment><comment><USER35> _An NDA should also be dependent upon the signer being compensated in some non-trivial way, as in a condition of being hired or part of terms of a sale. Requiring one prior to that is highly suspect, and signing one, I say, is highly inappropriate._

Great point.

Had an odd variant: One of my students, enamored of some idea involving the then-new iPad, wanted me involved I his idea but would not give any hints until I signed an NDA. Not one to make spontaneous commitments, I said I'd look over the NDA and get back to him next class about it. He never came back to class. Point: if you're not even going to bother passing my class (much less assuring serious compensation for signing an NDA blind), no I won't sign.

</comment><comment><USER36> My rule was to ask people who ask for NDA, yes, I will sign it, but, you have to write EXACTLY what ideas are new and never seen before, explain what is protected in very specific terms and how this can't be found elsewhere. If it can, then we don't need NDA. Most people will send you NDA they found googling online and expect you to honor it and obey, even though they most likely didn't read it.

I agree with author of this article fully and completely.

People who wrote even small business plan usually don't ask for NDA, yet they already have something tangible.

<comment><USER37> An example of the "googling…didn't read" thing: I once signed an NDA that barred several common means of transmitting information about a project, but made no blanket prohibitions—so walkie-talkies, ham radios, telegraphs, semaphore, Morse transmitted by flashlight, &c. were all perfectly admissible. ;)

<comment><USER36> :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The thing that confuses me about all this is that an NDA is a non DISCLOSURE agreement, not a non COMPETE agreement.

Therefore and NDA is pretty worthless when it's at the 'idea's stage. Most people seem to think it will prevent you telling anyone about it AND copying it. Or am I missing something?

<comment><USER38> If you built the idea for yourself, you'd have a hard time launching it on the web without disclosing the idea to someone (i.e. any prospective customer).

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I do share the OP's sentiment and have refused my share of NDAs and have lost potential clients.

That said, NDAs are important when protecting one's patent prior to filing. So if you have something novel that you want to patent, be sure to get NDAs before disclosing it.

</comment><comment><USER39> Once when I was asked for an NDA, I stood up, stuck out my hand (to shake) and said "THIS is my NDA." I got the contract.

</comment><comment><USER40> once upon a time i signed an NDA about an NDA, it was probably the second most stupid thing i ever signed (the first one was a "unternehmensgründerförderungsvereinbarung").

nowadays i only sign NDAs that are shorter than one page, prohibit one or two specific actions and have a fixed expiration date (not to far in the future).

</comment><comment><USER39> "I have this idea for an awesone house design. If you build it I will cut you in for half the profits!"

</comment><comment><USER41> great. we'll never be able to do business with you since we can't disclose information about our customers to 3rd parties without one. way to limit your options.

<comment><USER42> The type of people this article talks about don't have any customers yet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> I think its time to stop signing NDAs on job interviews too. (Is anyone still doing this?) I guessed that was what the article was about before I read it. The article is good, and I agree with all the points. But I'll go further.

Realistically if there's some piece of information that needs to be kept secret, and that piece of information, if released, would significantly damage your business, there's no way a startup is going to reveal that information in an interview with a job candidate. The reason is, even _with_ and NDA, the info getting out would do the damage long before they might be able to enforce the NDA.

Thus NDAs are essentially pointless on Job interviews. Back in the last decade, when I was still willing to work for others for a salary, I would refuse to sign NDAs that had terms that were too onerous (like many companies had a combo NDA & IP assignment, that they'd ask me to sign on interviews! Others had terms in the NDA subjecting me to potential audits, including inspection of my living space, for the next 12 months!)

I don't know what common practice out there is, but its time for job seekers to not sign NDAs.

In fact, I think being _asked_ to sign an NDA, is a good sign that the people running the company are either of the "idea is %90" type or doing it just out of tradition.

I think most of the NDAs I was asked to sign on interviews were out of tradition-- somebody back in the day, made off with a customer list, so now its "best practices" to have candidates sign and NDA.

But this is a big clue itself: It tells you management just mindlessly follows "Best practices" without thinking about them and applying them intelligently. That tells you something about how... nimble... management is going to be (and whether they're ready to run a startup.)

Many of the startups that failed in my experience-- second only to fights between the cofounders and bad VC advice-- failed because they were started by people who'd gotten lucky and thought that meant they were brilliant. (EG: worked at Microsoft or Amazon at the right time and made a lot from their options, but didn't really actually know much about running a business.)

I remember, a decade ago, having such a brilliant idea that I asked my friends to sign these stupid NDAs I'd drawn up before they got the privilege of "Advising" me on it. It was absurd. I think I realized it almost right after, and I stopped doing that. Since then, I just don't talk about what I'm doing-- mostly because, I'd rather do something, _then_ talk about it, and if you've not shipped it feels like bragging about what you're gonna do-- we all know the guy whose "gonna do" this thing that's so great. Don't want to be that guy.

If your business or startup is worth working for, it doesn't need candidates to sign NDAs.

Asking them to implies you're just an idea.</comment>


Scientists receive $1.3M to study new propulsion idea for spacecraft - <AUTHOR> https://www.plymouth.ac.uk/news/scientists-receive-13-million-to-study-new-propulsion-idea-for-spacecraft <comment><USER2> The existence of Unruh radiation is not universally accepted or even detected.

G. W. Ford and R. F. O'Connell (2006) Is there Unruh radiation? Physics Letters A 350 (2006) 17–26. [https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/947a/f319b47bf9eccad97896bc...](https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/947a/f319b47bf9eccad97896bcd07550442acafb.pdf)

>Abstract

>We present an exact analysis of an oscillator (the detector) moving under a constant force with respect to zero-temperature vacuum and coupled to a one- dimensional scalar field. We show that this system does not radiate despite the fact that it thermalizes at the Unruh temperature. We remark upon a differing opinion expressed regarding a system coupled to the electromagnetic field</comment>