Nebraska Abolishes Death Penalty - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/28/us/nebraska-abolishes-death-penalty.html

<comment><USER2> Good. The death penalty ensures a false incarceration can never be corrected, costs millions of tax payer dollars because of the long appeals processes, and shows no correlation with decreased crime rates (states with out the death penalty consistently have lower crime rates according to the FBI [0])

[0] - [http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without- de...](http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death- penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates)

<comment><USER3> The family of the criminal also suffers. If my child was a murderer, I would grieve. If my child was consequently executed I would grieve even more. That's an incredible amount of pain for something I didn't do. After it's said and done, my child would feel no pain. My pain would last forever. I would honestly want to commit suicide over my failure as a parent.

<comment><USER4> There's also the opposite argument that it gives closure.

<comment><USER3> As a parent, there would be no closure in my child's death, no matter what they have done. I look at my 2 daughters and see the most beautiful girls I've ever laid eyes upon. For one of them to commit such a heinous crime would ruin me. For their death to be added on to that, life would mean nothing at all.

<comment><USER5> I think the parent meant closure for the family and friends of the victim, not of the murderer.

<comment><USER4> I meant everyone. The murderer is no longer suffering, and there's no longer looming uncertainty as the days tick down toward a date that keeps changing.

In certain circumstances death is easier to deal than almost-death.

But that's more of an argument to stop death row from being a quagmire, rather than a pro-death-penalty argument. I probably didn't put the comment in the most ideal place.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Good on them. I've seen way too many instances of people on death row that are eventually proved to be innocent. I think that even if the accuracy of death sentences was 99% (for every 99 criminals that truly did the crime, there is 1 that is innocent), that is unacceptably low. Furthermore, I am unconvinced that the death penalty actually deters crime. If you are committing a crime that results in you being sentenced to death, I don't think you are sane enough to have even considered the punishment.

<comment><USER7> _> >Furthermore, I am unconvinced that the death penalty actually deters crime. If you are committing a crime that results in you being sentenced to death, I don't think you are sane enough to have even considered the punishment._

You would think that, but it turns out that isn't the case. [0][1]

[0] - [https://www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/teaching_aids/books_articl...](https://www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/teaching_aids/books_articles/JLpaper.pdf) [1] - [http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without- de...](http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death- penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates)

<comment><USER8> I'm not sure what either of these two sources are supposed to mean --- I mean, literally, I don't know which case you're trying to make (for or against deterrence).

In any case: you can't reasonably make inferences about the effectiveness of the death penalty simply by counting murders in states that do or don't have it, since there are so many other factors influencing how many murders a state will record.

<comment><USER7> I was trying to make the case against deterrence.

You're right, it is hard to draw any conclusions about the effectiveness by looking at murder numbers alone. It seems most experts would argue against deterrence being effective though and I would agree. If you can't say for certain whether or not something such as the death penalty is effective, then I think it is best to error on the side of not killing people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Going to be contrarian here. I see in other comments

> costs millions of tax payer dollars because of the long appeals processes

Well... yes, but the alternative is that you throw someone in prison for life (likely without parole). And since there is no upcoming "event" to force an appeals process (aka execution), it will just never happen. Is that really a better fate for someone wrongfully accused? If you are sentencing them to life in a cage, be honest and call it a death penalty.

So sure you can save some money by getting rid of the death penalty, but it is not likely to make Justice any better served, it will just make you feel better and leave people in prison forever without a guaranteed appeals process.

<comment><USER10> I don't know that life in prison is better than being executed, but it doesn't seem substantially worse. There doesn't seem to be any decent argument _for_ the death penalty, since the only two possible reasons, cost and deterrence, don't hold up. In the absence of a decisive factor, I vote for not killing people.

<comment><USER11> There is the retributive argument, in which condign punishments play an important role in maintaining the balance of justice.

As summarized by the Catechism of Trent, a Christian religious text of historical importance:

"Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment [against killing] which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence."

– _Catechism of the Council of Trent_ , Part III, 5, n. 4 (1566)

[http://j.mp/CatechismTrentDeathPenalty](http://j.mp/CatechismTrentDeathPenalty)

<comment><USER12> While that quote uses the phrase "legitimate avenger of crime", the justification it gives -- that the punishments "give security to life by repressing outrage and violence" is _not_ the retributive theory of justice, but instead a utilitarian view akin to general deterrence in that the purpose of the punishment is to prevent greater harm by modifying the behavior of others in the community (but distinguishable from it, in that it does not seek to do so by creating fear of punishment.)

<comment><USER11> Actually, the Catechism text encapsulates both retributive and deterrence arguments, though I would argue the text bears the former more strongly. The key is to see the "outrage and violence" part not only with respect to potential violence (which might be deterred in view of capital punishment) but also the natural repercussions of injustices left festering when civil authority fails to inflict fitting punishments on wrongdoers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> k-mcgrady Welcome to civilised society Nebraska! :)

Good to see another state abolish this but as someone not too familiar with how the US law system works why is something like this decided at the state level? Shouldn't something like government sanctioned killing of humans be controlled at a federal level? Also does the federal government have a position on capital punishment?

<comment><USER13> Capital punishment still exists for federal crimes, which is why the Boston bomber was given the death penalty despite his offense occurring in Massachusetts, which doesn't have it at the state level.

Also, federal law isn't simply a grab bag of "really important" laws, with states only existing to handle smaller, more trivial things. In theory, federal law is restricted to addressing the things enumerated in the Constitution. In practice, one of those is regulating interstate commerce, which since [1] has steadily increased in scope. Nonetheless, a federal law banning capital punishment would still need to be written with that in mind.

1: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn)

<comment><USER12> > In theory, federal law is restricted to addressing the things enumerated in > the Constitution. [...] Nonetheless, a federal law banning capital > punishment would still need to be written with that in mind.

Considering 8th Amendment incorporation under the 14th Amendment and the enforcement clause of the 14th Amendment, that shouldn't be too difficult, without even coming anywhere near the Commerce Clause.

<comment><USER8> Since SCOTUS has already held that capital punishment is not intrinsically "cruel and unusual", I'm not sure how the 8th Amendment gives the federal government the power to regulate state capital sentences.

Meanwhile: if capital punishment ever is held to be "cruel and unusual", no federal legislative action will be needed to abolish it; SCOTUS will do it by fiat.

<comment><USER12> > Since SCOTUS has already held that capital punishment is not intrinsically > "cruel and unusual", I'm not sure how the 8th Amendment gives the federal > government the power to regulate state capital sentences.

SCOTUS has never held that disadvantaging the disabled is intrinsically a violation of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment (relevant, as the provision under which it has incorporated the 8th against the states), nonetheless, it _has_ held that Congress acted within its power under the enforcement clause of the 14th (and did not violate State reserved powers under the 11th) in, under the ADA, requiring access to courthouses.

While the enforcement clause of the 14th is a fairly lightly litigated power, its pretty clear that it _does_ extend beyond the things where legislation is not necessary because any violation of the law Congress might impose to under the enforcement clause would already necessary be prohibited by the bare text of the Amendment, which seems to be your position.

<comment><USER8> Prepared to be wrong, but: I don't think the federal government can pass laws that bind on state criminal sentencing laws, or on state judges. For instance, SCOTUS has held that federal sentencing ranges don't bind state courts, nor do sentences falling outside those ranges fail for being unreasonable.

The federal government _can_ bind state courts not to violate the constitutional rights of the accused, and so for instance Washington can't pass laws requiring judges to apply mandatory sentences based on facts not established by juries. But those actions belong to the federal courts, not Congress.

I don't think Congress can pass a law banning state capital sentences.

<comment><USER14> I bet they could something...something... interstate commerce. Ban the import and sale of lethal injection drugs, ban the manufacture of gas chambers and electric chairs, and force states to use firing squads at the very least.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Intelligence Squared had a pretty good debate on capital punishment a few weeks ago:

[http://intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past- debates/item/1...](http://intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past- debates/item/1254-abolish-the-death-penalty)

<comment><USER15> OT but I'd never seen that site before. Looks really interesting!

<comment><USER8> It's pretty great. The way debates are scored keeps any of them from being foregone conclusions, and some of the results are pretty surprising to me (given the NPR audience).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I've never understood the logic of a state killing its citizens in order to show that killing is unacceptable.

<comment><USER17> Do you understand the logic of the state seizing people and locking them up in order to show that seizing people and locking them up is unacceptable?

That's what we do to kidnappers.

<comment><USER16> Right, and there's no qualitative difference between killing someone and locking them up. You've convinced me that I'm wrong.

<comment><USER13> Your argument against capital punishment was that the role of an actor was irrelevant to the morality of the action. It's entirely correct to apply that logic to other types of action.

There may be plenty of valid arguments against capital punishment. Yours was not one of them.

<comment><USER16> > the role of an actor [is] irrelevant to the morality of the action [carried > out by the state]

That's precisely what I'm saying. You disagree, but that does not render my argument invalid.

<comment><USER13> Then we're back to the beginning. Here is a syllogism that you just said you agree with:

1\. An action is immoral without regard to the actor.

2\. Killing is immoral for a regular joe on the street.

3\. Therefore, killing is immoral for the government.

However, you don't seem as comfortable with:

1\. An action is immoral without regard to the actor.

2\. Demanding someone's money by force (e.g mugging) is immoral.

3\. Therefore, it is immoral for the government to issue a fine.

Or this one:

1\. An action is immoral without regard to the actor.

2\. Kidnapping someone and holding them for years is immoral for a regular joe.

3\. Therefore, imprisonment is immoral for the government.

You could also remain consistent by saying that armed robbery and kidnapping are moral. It's up to you.

EDIT: Typo and punctuation.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Shadowy tech brokers that deliver your data to the NSA - <AUTHOR> http://www.zdnet.com/article/meet-the-shadowy-tech-brokers-that-deliver-your-data-to-the-nsa/ <comment><USER2> I wish we pushed for a law that said you can only serve a warrant for a data request to the person whose data you want. I think from a human rights principle it makes the most sense. The only reason the government can take it from _third parties that store our data for us_ is because it's "easier" for them to do that, and because there hasn't been enough pushback against it.

Imagine if the government said "hey, that money in your bank account, we can just automatically take our taxes from it, because we're not really taking it from _you_ , we're just taking it from the _bank_." Probably not the most accurate analogy, but I think you see where I'm going with this.

Since the ruling that invalidated Safe Harbor, Microsoft has been pushing for laws and agreements between nations that say law enforcement shouldn't be coming to Microsoft (as a cloud service provider) with a warrant for data requests, but to their _corporate customers_. So for instance, if FastMail uses the Azure cloud service, they're saying that if the government wants access to a user's data, they shouldn't be going to Microsoft but to FastMail with the warrant.

It's a small improvement, but Microsoft and all of the other companies should be pushing so this works for _all_ of their customers, not just the corporate ones. It's exactly the same principle, but Microsoft just takes the easier way out here, because that still gets them off the hook, and it's really what they care most about. The corporations (even if they are "people") shouldn't be having _more rights_ than _actual people_.

<comment><USER3> Unfortunately there is a flip-side to that: How do you investigate or prosecute a _company_ (for, say, fraudulent billing) when they insist that you need a million individual warrants to prove your case?

<comment><USER4> Thanks, most privacy activists conveniently forget this argument. In most cases, the absolute approach taken by most privacy activists ends up hurting Students/Patients/Customers etc. since Universities/Hospitals & Insurers/Companies cite privacy laws to escape from the burden of accountability. At the same time the entities are free to mine their own data under guise of "Performance enhancement".

Essentially stringent privacy laws often have adverse effect where activities that might be of public benefit Research on Rare diseases/Teacher Accountability/Class action lawsuits are curtailed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's an amazing racket, the art of making criminals out of ordinary citizens, a racket the US government has got down pat. I have to really hand it to them. When the country and the world no longer requires their existence, they keep coming up with faux reasons for continuing to exist, faux reasons for arresting, torturing, and murdering innocent people, faux reasons to continue to get funding and hurt more innocent people.

You'd almost think that this country no longer has problems (at least none it _wants_ to solve so poverty, justice, racism, education, healthcare, etc. are out), that government's new role is to create problems simply so it can solve them all while making money in the process and justifying its unconstitutional existence. Then you'd be right.

<comment><USER6> >"The mere existence of the "police state" anywhere is the sure sign of old arrangements being propped up by newer forms that have already rendered the older forms irrelevant."

-Take Today: The Executive as Dropout, Marshall McLuhan

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Are there any examples of companies refusing to provide the requested data to the NSA other than lavabit?

<comment><USER8> Lavabit didn't refuse requests --- he had apparently been responsive to others --- until the Snowden incident, where his refusal cost all its users their privacy in a futile effort to preserve one user's privacy.

<comment><USER9> If they can come in at any time and say "we only want this _one_ guy" then the rest of the users privacy is already in trouble.

<comment><USER10> In a sense, yes. One of Lavabit's failings is that they didn't design for scope-limited disclosure. When the FBI demanded their certs, it exposed all their users.

<comment><USER8> Don't overthink it. The failure of Lavabit was designing a system that enabled disclosure _at all_. It wasn't end-to-end encrypted; its users had to trust its operators, which, because operators can always be coerced, is never safe.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> They reference this article, which was also interesting: [http://www.buzzfeed.com/reyhan/the-most-important-tech- compa...](http://www.buzzfeed.com/reyhan/the-most-important-tech-company- youve-never-heard)

</comment><comment><USER12> I've always presumed that ALL of my online activities are visible to the government or other nosy parties. I do stupid things sometimes, but not really stupid.

<comment><USER13> This sounds like a form of "I don't have anything to hide so I don't care if they spy on me."

<comment><USER14> It is.

I've always countered with "So, you'd be okay if a government agent was watching you have sex with your wife? Every time it happened? For the next 10 years?"

You're doing nothing wrong, nothing bad will come of it, but that question always brings that awkward pause: that realization that "wait a second, privacy IS important even if I'm not doing anything wrong."

As a side note, people hide things from other people all the time. That's what people do. None of us would like it if all of our insecurities, resentments, any negative thought were exposed to others. In my opinion, those who say they have nothing to hide, are either profoundly ignorant of their selves, or simply lying to themselves and others, i.e. my job depends on me believing and extolling this untruth.

<comment><USER15> To which I would ask "Under what circumstances would the government pay a federal agent to watch me have sex for the next 10 years?" This and the similar comparisons that I often see raised in response to the "I have nothing to hide" argument are ridiculous hypotheticals that are raised without taking into account who is violating the subject's privacy and why. When someone says "I have nothing to hide" it's generally short for "I have committed no crimes and I trust law enforcement officials to a) only invade someone's privacy when they have reasonable grounds (implying that they got a warrant); and b) use any data collected only in pursuit of actual criminal investigations (e.g. they're not going to steal my credit cards and broadcast naked pictures all over the internet).

If you're going to change people's minds with that argument, you need to be able to demonstrate that people's data is being routinely searched without just cause and/or police are routinely abusing the fruits of those searches.

<comment><USER14> > "Under what circumstances would the government pay a federal agent to watch > me have sex for the next 10 years?"

When the federal agent is abusing her or his authority, of course. This point can then serve to to bring up deeper research which illustrate that this "ridiculous" hypothetical is a stone's throw away from what has already happened, and what may be happening now. Such as:

[http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-surveillance- watchdog-...](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-surveillance-watchdog- idUSBRE98Q14G20130927)

Or,

[http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/08/23/bloomberg...](http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/08/23/bloomberg_report_nsa_employees_have_deliberately_abused_their_power.html)

The first step of persuasion is describing how the problem for the many is a problem for the individual, i.e. the other party. People are less inclined to read more into things ( or listen to a longer explanation) if they don't see an immediate personal stake. "God, this guy keeps on talking. The NSA is listening in to ten million people's phone calls? Their email too? Well, that's their problem! I haven't done anything wrong!"

> "I have nothing to hide" it's generally short for...

The statement I intended to castigate was "I don't have anything to hide, so I don't care if they spy on me". I did not clearly elucidate that in my original response and instead shortened the statement to "I have nothing to hide", which was a mistake.

"I have nothing to hide" by itself is indeed shorthand that can be said in some contexts without reflecting badly on its speaker. But in discussions about government abuses/ovverreach in which there is ample evidence that law enforcement officials have been untrustworthy, the "so I don't care if they spy on me" indicates some self-delusion.

<comment><USER15> There's a huge difference between those links and showing systemic abuse. When I actually go and read the stories behind your links, what you state is that 13 people in 10 years abusing their position at the NSA to spy on their significant others (and subsequently being fired, resigning or being relieved of their positions[1]) is a stone's throw away from having a federal agent being assigned to watch me personally have intercourse. This says to me that the average American should be about as worried about being spied on by the NSA as they are worried about being struck by lightning on a clear day. The odds might go up slightly if they had a jealous ex working at the NSA.

I have better odds of getting shot by a government agent than being spied on, and I generally manage to get through my day without worrying that I'll die at the hands of the US government. I think that's probably the biggest reason that so few people outside of HN/Reddit/etc. care about Snowden leaks. I can find plenty of people that are upset about police brutality, and there's lots of discussion about implementing body cameras, discrimination in law enforcement, etc. because I can find new, documented evidence of someone getting shot by a cop every other week. It's still not at the level where I worry that I'm going to get shot by a cop. Snowden showed potential for abuse, not actual abuse. That's why "I have nothing to hide" persists.

[1] The source document for the LOVEINT stories (not linked from either of those articles) is [https://www.nsa.gov/public_info/press_room/2013/grassley_let...](https://www.nsa.gov/public_info/press_room/2013/grassley_letter.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Two things:

(1) The NSA is there to protect us, in theory.

(2) There will never, ever be guaranteed privacy or security as long as you continue to use other people's equipment and network. Using the internet expecting privacy is like continually saying, "I'm going to have sex with everyone and going to complain about the people that have STD's."

You could try: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_mesh_network](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_mesh_network)

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

Those are a _little_ safer.

<comment><USER17> > (1) The NSA is there to protect us, in theory.

Do people actually believe this?

<comment><USER18> What else do you think they are around for?

They have bureaucracy and misguided projects and overreaching power but they do protect our national security. They aren't some evil corporation headed by a supervillain, they're full of people just like you and me.

<comment><USER19> They exist to maintain a status quo.

<comment><USER18> What exactly is that status quo? Things are constantly changing and the NSA has itself greatly evolved from where it originally started.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What is the HipMunk of sending flowers? - <AUTHOR>

My girlfriend's father died, and it sucks. She lives far away, and I would like to send flowers.
I just got the feeling of dread that I used to get when I had to go to Expedia. Surely this is a solved problem, but Google is full of SEO'd crap.
If someone could have a working MVP when I wake up tomorrow, that'd be awesome. (Only kind of joking.) <comment><USER2> Sorry to hear of your GF's loss. If you want to shop from a startup, you could try H. Bloom perhaps? <http://www.hbloom.com/>

Never used them but the service seems promising based on product pictures. However, they only deliver to a few US states, which may/not correspond to your GF's city.

</comment><comment><USER3> There's a service called Interflora which lets you send flowers almost all over the world: you specify the destination address and they send the flowers through the nearest flower shop to that address. Try googling that, it's not guaranteed that the location you're looking for is serviced but it's highly probable.</comment>


Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030 - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/apr/07/global-inequality-tipping-point-2030 <comment><USER2> Steven Pinker's new book, Enlightenment Now, has a pretty compelling section on wealth/income inequality. The basic position - and I think the data supports this - is that it really doesn't matter what the top 1% are doing so long as the bottom half are seeing improved living conditions.

Furthermore, wealth isn't a static I win/you lose proposition - much of that wealth has been created in recent history. People spend less as a percentage of income on food and housing, have better access to healthcare, and more leisure time than ever before. It's a remarkable story.

Over a billion people have been lifted out of poverty over the last 30 years thanks to globalization. I think that's much more important than how much money Warren Buffett or Bill Gates have.

Income/wealth inequality has been the state of humanity for all of recorded history, and it seems unlikely to go away any time soon - it's trivially easy to show how wealth accumulation occurs using game theory even if trade is relatively fair. The only events that seem to reliably reset the balance are global wars, huge famines, or natural disasters.

I think it's a natural human inclination to fixate on the rich and to demonize them, and perhaps some are deserving of such demonization, but it doesn't seem to be a terribly useful way to think about improving the human condition. It just spurs on class resentment which is, if history is any guide, just about the worst way to go about things possible.

<comment><USER3> It couldn't possibly not matter, because wealth is not only standard of living, but also power. At the highest level, the wealthy are not simply comfortable. They have the power to shape and organize aspects of the economy, supply chain, and the laws. That has to matter in some way beyond having one's material needs met or not.

<comment><USER4> That's a good argument, and to many it's an argument for wealth redistribution. I prefer to look at it instead as an argument for limiting the powers of government in order to limit its susceptibility to corruption.

<comment><USER5> A small and limited government is a weak government. A weak government is susceptible to corruption.

To avoid corruption you need the state and the collection of the most powerful corporate/private actors be of similar size, and they must be as isolated and independent as possible. This way you get a balance of power, rather than one corrupting the other.

The problem in the US is the isolation/independence part. Money in politics and revolving doors has corrupted the balance.

"Limited government" is an idea sold by people who want government to be weaker so it's more easily corrupted.

What we should strive for is the middle way. Just the right amount of government.

<comment><USER6> > A small and limited government is a weak government. A weak government is > susceptible to corruption.

Your assertion isn't self evident. A government could have great power within its defined scope of power and little power outside that scope.

There is also a reasonable argument that as the scope and strength of government power increases so does the desire to corrupt and control that power.

Which is more dangerous a corrupt but weak and limited government or a corrupt strong and expansive government?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Communism went away. It's not that communism was better. It's that it was competition. There was, for half a century, a competitive threat - do better than the USSR, or face a revolution. That threat was taken quite seriously in the US for decades. Industrialists (the US economy was mostly manufacturing back then) were careful not to get too greedy or power-hungry.

They feared expropriation. Britain nationalized many industries. Most telcos were run by governments. Monopolies were routinely targeted by democratic governments.

Capitalism now has a monopoly position and acts like it.

<comment><USER8> Capitalism is so ingrained now, nobody can even imagine that alternative system could exist. In the minds of most, communism is a synonym of authoritarianism. Communist governments tended to be authoritarian, but it's not clear to me if it's a natural consequence of communism. It's more likely that authoritarianism is a consequence of violent revolutions. Is it possible to combine communism with democracy?

<comment><USER9> There is no way for a communist government to be non-authoritarian communism can't work in any other way.

Planned economy and lack of personal liberties cannot coexist in what we would call a democracy unless your definition of democracy is a slightly less violent conflict resolution method.

Overall democracy works because it respects the wishes of the individual essentially it gives everyone the right to express their wants communism has no room for any form of individualism.

<comment><USER10> That's not communism, though. Communism requires the withering of the state, so a communistic government is a contradiction of terms.

<comment><USER9> Now we're back to the "no true scotsman" argument, a communist government is not a contradiction unless you go by the most extreme anarchist interpretations of communist doctrine.

But sure show me how you transition from the "dictatorship of the proletariat" phase to this stateless paradise and I'll concede my argument.

<comment><USER10> Read Marx, then come back.

<comment><USER9> I had, so again please tell me how we switch to communism without the dictatorship of the proletariat or any mechanism through which we can evolve through it and I'll concede my argument.

By Marks himself the dictatorship is a critical phase in the process.

<comment><USER10> That's a twisting of terms, in the correct context, it's a temporary switch from a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie over the proletariat, to the opposite. The term dicatorship is only used because it retains the state, as it will not yet have withered away. Thus it does not meet the definition of communism.

But it is not the same as the common defition of a dicatorship, with oppression and selfish tyranny, which seems to be the association you want to make.

I loathe linking to Wikipedia, but the page in question does sum it up quite well: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletar...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletariat)

<comment><USER9> Again in practice how do we switch from A) to B), the truth is that you can't and you won't since any dictatorship will naturally always elect to preserve it's power.

The stateless version of your so called communism is essentially pure libertarianism the problem is that both are just as impossible and unlike the latter the former cannot coexist with the free market of ideas which is the natural state of a nationless/stateless society.

<comment><USER10> >"the truth is that you can't"

Only defeatist quitters speak in such absolutes.

Again, it is not a dictatorship in the commonly understood terminology, but rather a term that is used for a political system where one part has political power over the other under the existence of a state, because we don't really have a proper and precise term for it.

<comment><USER9> How do you call a system of government that by definition does not operate in a free market of ideas, respects individual freedom and property rights and consists of a monolithic political ideology?

>"Only defeatist quitters speak in such absolutes."

Can you have a system that does not conserve energy? No, there such things as absolutes.

Communism besides being the mother of all bad ideas and the most vile ideology humanity has created is also deeply internally flawed and essentially ensures that it's final outcome can never be reached.

And even if we take that final outcome as our starting point it has no mechanism to sustain itself once there is no government and now laws that dictate social behaviour anyone can do whatever they want and no one can stop them.

So if at T+0 we have the withering of the state and perfect communism at T+1 nothing would stop me from taking control over whatever resource I want and saying well fuck you now you gotta pay.

<comment><USER10> Ah ok, you've obviously bought in 100% to US-style anti-socialism propaganda. I refuse to argue with fanatic True Believers.

<comment><USER9> I have no problems with social democracies I live in one, we're talking about communism.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Worldwide, if you make over $32k per year you're 1%. I suggest folks think carefully about this fact before suggesting hanging the rich or anything else Marxist-Leninist.

[https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal- finance/05061...](https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal- finance/050615/are-you-top-one-percent-world.asp)

<comment><USER12> Top 1% of earning, not necessarily top 1% of wealth.

I remember checking my moderately above average European income on a site that showed this. I think I was in or close to the top 1% of earners. But not being on the property ladder I think I was closer to top 6% by wealth. (It was a while ago so my numbers may be a bit out, but I hope you get the idea).

<comment><USER11> >> Top 1% of earning, not necessarily top 1% of wealth.

When it comes to hanging the rich nobody cares about such details.

<comment><USER12> On a moderate but above average salary in Spain. If I get some inheritance when my parents die and have my own apartment paid off, then I could be in the top 1% in 20 years time. I am by no means rich by western standards, just a bit above average. Do you suggest we hang all pensioners who have paid of their properties and earned a reasonable wage throughout their lives in Western Europe?

Jordan Peterson seems correct for a certain percentage of people when he says 'Middle Class Socialists don't like the poor but they hate the rich'. Your comment comes across as backing that up.

<comment><USER11> I suggest not hanging anybody. You have reading comprehension issues.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Any student of history is well aware of these cycles of ever increasing concentrations of power and wealth followed by violent grassroots overthrow of 1% types where control and wealth returns to a more productive distribution ... rinse & repeat ... for example look at Italy from the years 1000 to 1400 which experienced several such cycles ... its a natural expression of the will to power ... the real crime to humanity happens when poor children are starved of education and opportunities while 1% blithely hordes resources in blind faith that more is better when in-fact everyone is better off when the people at the bottom are maximally lifted into self actualized individuals knowing they have skin in the game ... anything less than this is wasting human potential on a massive scale

</comment><comment><USER14> USA wants to be #1 at the GINI index and coefficient, we are challenging Brazil, Mexico, Turkey, Chile, African countries and more for the top spot! USA! USA! [1]

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_eq...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality)

<comment><USER15> I wonder if the pendulum will eventually swing the other way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I wonder what percentage of Hacker News readers are in the international 1%. That's about $32,000/yr salary. My guess is it's much greater than 50%.

<comment><USER12> We should clarify if we are talking about top 1% of earnings, or top 1% of wealth. The housing boom in the UK in the last 15 years has made wealth very related to age.

<comment><USER17> 1% of wealth is USD770k in net assets.

However, don't forget to include any defined benefit pension (state provided or otherwise) to the list of assets.

A pension paying USD$30k/yr (20yr length, 4% growth) costs USD$425k[1]. Add on an employer provided defined benefit pension (e.g.police, fire, military, federal employee), that can be worth a lot of money.

[1] [https://www.bankrate.com/calculators/investing/annuity- calcu...](https://www.bankrate.com/calculators/investing/annuity- calculator.aspx)

<comment><USER16> Net assets is greatly skewed toward later ages, for obvious reasons.

What percentage of HN will be in the international 1% in assets by the time they die? I'd still guess more than half.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Top 1% of composers are most of all classical music played ( probably over two-thirds ). Of their music, maybe 1% of their songs are the ones that get most of that playing.

Celestial bodies also have exponential inequality. Get a little mass, get more gravity, get more mass. Inequality is within nature itself.

Actors in hollywood. They release one movie, now they get 50 offers for other movies. They quickly get more than 2/3 of the opportunities, relative to an unknown. Inequality will always exist because trust exists, and if you trust someone, you will want to work with them.

Capitalism is great, because even if you're an unknown, you can do a good job(at whatever field you want), and get more opportunities, and do more good jobs, and get exponentially more opportunities.

<comment><USER19> Capitalism isn't very good at the initial bootstrap, start from zero and you have to take stop gap jobs that exhaust you while long term having a chance to build skills for a future job could have far better outcomes for everyone economically.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Top 1% worldwide is not a great statistic. In many US cities that is just above poverty due to CoL at ~32k.

<comment><USER21> Is there a better one instead? Or is it useless to measure global inequality and weatlh accumulation? Is there a local/national/global threshold that would make you concerned?

<comment><USER22> There should also be 0.5 and 0.9 quantiles since just knowing the 0.99 doesn't really say too much about the overall distribution.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Someone else on HN commented that the poor need to stop reproducing in order to improve equality. At first I found the comment kind of troubling, but the more I think about it the more it _seems_ to make sense.

Watching this video kind of backs up the point to a degree, even though the topic is immigration.

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

Can someone come back with a decent counterargument? I haven't been able to yet.

(It's worth remembering that a good percentage of people reading this will be in the top 1% despite not being "rich" by western standards).

<comment><USER23> His argument is akin to arguing that the Soviets lost WWII because they lost so many more soldiers than the Germans. But that's not what happened. The Germans might have had a higher score, but the Red Army still pushed them all the way back to Berlin and Hitler died in a bunker. Success is measured in achievements, not by lack of failure.

For the poor to stop breeding would be ceding their one and only competitive advantage. Humans, and for that matter, life on Earth in general, aren't "judged" (in the sense that extinction/flourishing is a judgment) based on how many failed organisms they produce. Rather, that determination is based on how many successful organisms are produced.

As residents of richer countries, we're conditioned to breed at or around the replacement level and to view each failure as a catastrophe. So when we see those 80 gum balls being added each year to his misery containers, we're viewing it through the lens of seeing the failure. But in poorer countries, people adapt to the increased chance of failure by having more kids. They breed well above the replacement level knowing that, in all likelihood, not all of those kids will succeed. From that perspective, you need to focus on that 1 or 2 gum balls being allowed into the richer countries. That's the success. And having fewer kids runs contrary to that goal.

<comment><USER24> _conditioned to breed at or around the replacement level_

The concept to read up on here is r/K selection. Life is certainly judged by how many offspring, but there are various strategies for producing them, and one of the trade-offs is number vs. investment in each. Among all animals humans are far at the r-strategy end (high parental investment).

But different societies choose slightly different points, probably related to their history of farming. And the richer countries today are those traditionally towards the r-strategy end.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> It is said the Chinese plan out 100 and 1000 years.

Why not continue the extrapolation past 2050 and 2100, it might provide sound bites with more teeth "One person to control 99% of wealth by date 20XX".

<comment><USER26> This is silly. Chinese history is no more predicable than anywhere else. If any such plans exist, they are pretty worthless.

<comment><USER25> "Plans are worthless, but planning is everything"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> To put it in perspective: today you are in the global top 1% if you have at least $744,400 in household assets.

You are in the top 10% if you have at least $71,560; top 50% (median) if you have at least $2,220. And the mean wealth is $52,819 per adult.

source: [https://www.economist.com/news/business-and- finance/21710771...](https://www.economist.com/news/business-and- finance/21710771-new-analysis-how-worlds-wealth-distributed-you-may-be-higher- up)

</comment><comment><USER28> Top 1% Global Income - $32,500/year

Top 1% Global Wealth - $770,000 assets

via [https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal- finance/05061...](https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal- finance/050615/are-you-top-one-percent-world.asp)

<comment><USER29> This feels like a large disconnect?

Assuming these two sets of people are not the same -- there are a lot of people in the west earning > $32K a year and having less than $770K in assets.

So they are in the top set but not the bottom. Since the cardinality of the sets is the same, where are all the people that have more than $770K in assets but earn less than $32K a year.

Even a fairly modest 5% return would produce more income than that, or are the stats excluding investment income?

People with that much equity in their home wouldn't realize the income ... but how many people in the west even live in $700K+ homes and yet have less than $32K in income a year? Maybe some seniors, but surely not a very large group.

<comment><USER28> I agree. It does feel weird. I suspect radically differing methodology may be at play.

Then again if you take a teacher who made $40k/year for 30 years but has a decent pension and owns a normal home maybe it's possible?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I keep seeing mentions of Bill Gates, Warren Buffett etc. when people talk about 1%. 1% are lawyers, Doctors, Senior Software Eng. etc. it's over 3 mil. people in US alone. Billionaires are 0.018% of that 1% and Gates and buffet are the top 1% of billionaires.

</comment><comment><USER31> A more accurate title would be "Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all _capital_ by 2030". Wealth is not equivalent to capital. The vast majority of capital is tied up in the market capitalization of corporations, and only a small fraction of the market capitalization corresponds to actual physical wealth. If tomorrow the global stock market took a 10% dip across the board, then nearly 10% of the world's capital would vanish in the blink of an eye, but the worlds material wealth would not change at all.

There's no doubt that there is dramatic capital inequality in the world, but as long as that capital is being put to productive use (generating and distributing wealth) all is well. There's also vast wealth inequality (though, numbers wise, it's not nearly as bad as capital inequality), but as long as the minimum wealth is not desolation, wealth inequality is not a fundamental problem. As humans (or just as animals), we will always crave what we do not have, but if the cost of fixing wealth inequality is transferring capital to those incapable of applying it productively, thereby lowering the worlds total wealth, I do not believe we should bear that cost. Rather than focusing on wealth inequality, we should focus on building solid safety nets and proper incentives.

<comment><USER32> That same 1% would then also lose 2/3rds of 10% of their net worth. Something to remember..

Politicians can hate on the wealth inequality, but it's a problem they themselves have created in part through QE.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> In the US, a large part of this trend is due to the tax code. Examples: 1) in real estate, a "1031 transfer" allows the tax payer to not pay tax on the gain from the sale of property so long as they purchase another piece of real estate. 2) Capital Gains tax rates are lower than Ordinary Income tax rates. So, the tax you pay on income derived from wealth is lower than the tax rate you pay on income derived from employment.

<comment><USER34> Re: 1) it only applies to your primary residence. It's by no means the way top %1 in wealth maintain or create their income. [Edit: I thought it does. But I'm not so sure anymore. Better scratch this comment]

2) I'd suggest examining double taxation. Corporations already pay taxes. It's unclear why an investor should pay additional taxes too on top of it, for the same profit.

<comment><USER33> 1) That's inaccurate. From my own direct experience, it applies to any investment property. 2) You're making an argument to not tax dividends, not capital gains.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Every simple RPG game must have faced this problem - the rich get richer exponentially. Programmers sometimes introduce weird rules such as , the more you have the costlier it is to buy sth etc. Capitalism has a real problem. Piketty has exposed it adequately. People need to put forward solutions, to get the money flowing again. Taxation is not the only solution, in fact its impossible to get it right in today's globalised economy.

</comment><comment><USER36> isn't inequality bred by our insistent concept of pecking order throughout our organizations, which results in the people at the top of the stack hoarding more than sharing...

simply just because they can, maybe this hoarding is fueled by the unease and insecurity they they too feel. especially when someones livelihood is totally tied to their job(healthcare, education, housing). in that kind of environment can you blame anyone in an advantageous position to want to hoard so that they feel secure against the winds of change. secure for their family more than anything. imagine someone with a big family who loses their job and has to feed all of them, has to be responsible for all their health-care, housing and education.

some societies have created an environment where if you lose your job your life is totally wrecked, seeing as most americans don't have a nest egg to fallback on since saving is not really part of consumerist culture.

knowing all this, can you blame the 1% for wanting to feel secure? just like everyone else. they have exaggerated the need to hoard and their bags of loot provide long term comforts not basic needs.

</comment><comment><USER37> And many of them are not very sympathetic, [https://www.npr.org/2018/02/19/586457604/whats-it-like-to- be...](https://www.npr.org/2018/02/19/586457604/whats-it-like-to-be-rich-ask- the-people-who-manage-billionaires-money).

</comment><comment><USER38> I mean.. 1% controlling more than half of all wealth sounds bad and all, but according to the article, quality of life has been improving faster than ever for the remaining 99% too.. As long as that second part holds true, I don't really care about the first part to be honest

<comment><USER39> It's arguably unstable though, regardless of quality of life improving overall. Things can, and have, changed very quickly. And so far the species hasn't adequately predicted the sequence of events leading up to destabilization, and how to avoid the inevitable equalizer: war

The top 1% should worry, but there's something euphoric about being that wealthy, almost like oxygen deprivation.

[https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/02/scheide...](https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/02/scheidel- great-leveler-inequality-violence/517164/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Plutocracy is to economics as inbreeding is to genetics.

<comment><USER41> Howso?

<comment><USER40> If beliefs were fluid and adapted continuously and were challenged by the current state of the world I would maybe argue differently. But ask yourself this. How frequently do you change your fundamental beliefs about how the world works? How do you think the people who enjoy success beyond your wildest dreams feel about changing the system that has benefited them and their families for countless generations?

On top of that, which "causes" would you decide to support? Would you choose to support a cause that disproportionately affects your family's net worth in a negative way as long as it made the rest of the world a better place to live? The fact is no one knows the precise ingredients to a healthy society or what the real solution to wealth inequality is, but only the wealthy and powerful get to steer the ship.

<comment><USER41> Thanks, that clarifies and greatly improves your initial quip.

I've been changing numerous of my fundamental beliefs and can report that perssonally it's been difficult, painful, and disconcerting as hell. There's a quote on enlightenment by a recent Cupertino mystic I ran across a few years back:

"Make no mistake about it -- enlightenment is a destructive process. It has nothing to do with becoming better or becoming happier. Enlightenment is the crumbling away of untruth. It's seeing through the facade of pretense. It's the complete eradication of everything we imagined to be true."

Slightly more: [https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/78lr8h/enlight...](https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/78lr8h/enlightenment_is_a_destructive_process/)

As for human frames, world mental models, and ideologies, they seem profoundly tended to be highly self-serving, particularly of the powerful.

As to the relationship of wealth and power: "Wealth, as Mr Hobbes says, is power." Adam Smith, _An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> > "If the system of capitalist liberal democracy which has triumphed in the > west is to pass the big test of globalisation – and the _assault from > radical Islam_ as well as its own internal pressures from post-crash > austerity – we need some new thinking on ways to widen opportunity, share > ownership and philanthropy. Fast."

Sprinkle in a little radical islam fear mongering for kicks. This was funded by the Labour Party - not saying the message about inequality isn't true, but really strange to see that completely out of nowhere.

</comment><comment><USER43> So the whole world would look like Brazil by 2050?

</comment><comment><USER44> Does it matter? The expenditures for the US in 2016 we're nearly 4 trillion. Trillion. The top 10's wealth if siezed wouldn't even come close to that.

</comment><comment><USER45> Until poverty become a rarity and they start to pay for it.

</comment><comment><USER46> So when do we get trickled down on exactly?

<comment><USER47> If you are reading this site in a Western country you are almost certainly in the global 1%. Household income of $30k if I remember correctly.

<comment><USER48> No. The world's population is 7 billion so 1% is 70 million. That's less than the population of Germany.

<comment><USER49> depends if the measurement is income or wealth. Income is like $32k, wealth is much higher.

<comment><USER50> That doesn't really matter. The original claim categorically can't be true given that the population of all "western countries" is much, much larger than 1% of the total population.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> two-thirds of all wealth? Not if cryptocurrency holders have anything to say about it!

</comment><comment><USER52> Until the other 99% switch to a new blockchain where ownership is distributed differently.

<comment><USER53> That'd be ideal of course, but as of today, blockchain doesn't force equality. China had a good grap over Bitcoin where the big money miners where due to cheap electricity.

<comment><USER52> That's why I said _new_ blockchain. A blockchain for the rest of us.

<comment><USER54> Its profoundly unclear how merely throwing the word blockchain does anything useful for equality.

Having a different way to record ownership doesn't change how ownership is distributed. Logically the blockchain would be a good way to record ownership in a more equal society in same fashion as forks and bricks would be useful tools in a new and more equal society.

<comment><USER52> Imagine you and I cannot afford each others services because all of the money is owned by those greedy 1%.

So like slaves, we sweat away for them. Day in. Day out.

But if we agree on a new currency where you and I own 100000 coins each, we can happily start working for each other.

<comment><USER54> We can already vote in people who agree to redistribute the currency we already have.

This doesn't appear any more revolutionary or likely. Why would any of the people who own real resources like deeds, stocks, stores, things agree to give them to you?

<comment><USER52> Say you are a designer and I am a coder. As soon as we have a common currency, we can start working for each other. No voting or stores needed.

<comment><USER54> You will still be expected to pay taxes in the official coin of the realm and will probably want to keep it in something slightly less volatile than current cryptocurrency.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> This should make poor Republicans super happy based on how they vote.</comment>


What is character limit on a hacker news comment? - <AUTHOR> asking for a friend <comment><USER2> This is kind of a Turing test. If you can't find the answer by experimentation, you're not a hacker.

</comment><comment><USER3> At least 32 characters it seems.

</comment><comment><USER4> 99,220</comment>


Ask HN: What do you think about a Social Web OS? - <AUTHOR>

Hello HN,
We've just been turned down by YCombinator (2 visits to our demo & video) and because they don't give feedback I'm here to ask you guys what do you think about our project:
weeZeel is a Social Web OS. It's a website written in HTML5 and JavaScript (using jQuery) that takes the concept of a traditional Operating System to the cloud.
We have created a web desktop for everyone to use as their computer. They can edit documents, watch movies, play games… using our apps or any other app available in weeZeel Store, where anyone can sell an app developed using our API, with the feature of being 100% social. All these apps have the ability to work on real time thanks to websockets.
And because weeZeel is social, you can share all the files and folders you want with your contacts with one single click and you can interact with them in any app.
If you want to try our demo (still work to be done) just use this url: http://www.weezeel.com/demo.php <comment><USER2> -Who's your target audience? -Why would someone want to use weeZeel?

I'm having a hard time trying to understand the benefit of something like weeZeel. It may be that I'm just not your target audience.

<comment><AUTHOR> weeZeel has been created so you can have your whole OS everywhere you go. In weeZeel you can have all your files and many apps so everywhere you go and in every device you use you'll be able to acces all your apps and data.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> By the way, a designer has joined our team and has made this design:

<http://www.weezeel.com/test.jpg> <http://www.weezeel.com/test2.png>

What do you think?

</comment><comment><USER3> What makes this different than the other "Web OS" projects that have been done before? There's been quite a few, and no one seems to want them.

Isn't the Web OS the browser? Why should we add another layer (your-app)?

What is the value-add?

<comment><AUTHOR> yeah, it's true there've been plenty of web OS, I think the most important ones where youOS (YC) and eyeOS. ¿What makes us different? All our code is based in HTML5 and Javascript, that means we can work in almost every device in the world, it doesn't mind if it's a pc, a mobile, a tablet... we work in all devices that have a modern browser.

We use websockets, all our platform will be based in websockets, this makes weeZeel and all the apps available work in real time, no ajax used, everything is instant. We also offer an API so everyone can develop an app (I think only youOS did this), anyone can develop an app using html, css, javascript and php (in the future we will offer more languages) and sell it through weeZeel Store (doesn't exist yet).

A really important point of weeZeel is it's social, you have an app called "Social" where you can add and arrange all of your contacts, due to this in all the apps available in weeZeel you'll be able to interact with all of your contacts (maybe send or share someone a file or play a multiplayer game).

Finally because of all the progress in coding, thanks to HTML5 and Javascript we are much more fast than other webOS, a really important point if we want to simulate we are just as a fast and reliable as a traditional OS.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Sounds cool! :) And definitely not something easy to build. But why are you building this, why would someone want a web desktop? What problem are you trying to solve? <friendly and curious questions>

<comment><AUTHOR> jajaja yeah, it's reaaaaaaally difficult to build, we're having a lot of work and many problems building it.

Why someone wants a web desktop? Nowadays throughout a day someone may use plenty of devices: their home computer, a notebook, a tablet, a smartphone, their office computer or even a smart tv!

weeZeel has been created so you can have your whole OS everywhere you go. In weeZeel you can have all your files and many apps so everywhere you go and in every device you use you'll be able to acces all your apps and data.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Congratulations on multiple views.

Who are potential users?

How will it be monetized?

How will it compete with GooglePlus, Docs, and Gmail?

Good luck.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks you very much!!!

Actually our potential users are those who are used to using many devices throughout the day. We think of people between 16 and 40 years aprox. We also want to be used by companies in the future, but we know we'll need to have a big community and many apps available to make them want to be in.

We will win money in three ways: we offer 3GB free to everybody, if you want more disk space you'll have to pay; we will also offer special accounts for companies, with linked accounts and special features; finally, we will ask for 15% of the income developers make using weeZeel Store.

We know Google is one of our competitors and we know it will be really hard to win. With Chrome OS Google has proven thay think just as we do, but we aren't afraid, we know it will be a very tough fight but we aren't scared of them.

One of the big problems Google has is that their products aren't well linked. They offer Google+, Gmail, Calendar, Drive, Docs... but it's like they were different products that don't work so good together (by the way, weeText works better than Google Docs).

Another problem about Google is privacy, if you read their terms and conditions you'll see ALL the data you upload will automatically become theirs. When talking about taking all your files to the cloud will you really upload your personal files knowing they will become property of Google?

Finally, Chrome Web Store only works in Google, if you want yo use all the apps available you have to use Chrome. This also happens with Chrome OS, you have to have it installed. weeZeel is universal, it works anywhere you go and in every device you use, you just need internet and a modern browser in order to enjoy weeZeel.

<comment><USER5> _"by the way, weeText works better than Google Docs."_

That sounds like the minimum viable product. If it in ran in my browser regardless of an internet connection, that might make it an alternative to many text editing tools.

Good luck.

<comment><AUTHOR> Using HTML5 offline tools we will make that possible, we want to serve a good offline experience

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> You should, somehow, integrate development tools there, like cloud9

<comment><AUTHOR> we've thought about it many times and you're right, it would be fantastic if we did, thanks!</comment></comment>


Show HN: Instantsearch.js, UI components for high performance search - <AUTHOR> https://community.algolia.com/instantsearch.js/ <comment><USER2> This website is beautiful, but as far as I could understand it is not "UI components for high performance search", but "UI components for Algolia search", i.e., not a standalone library that can be used by anyone, but only an Algolia browser client.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes indeed it only works with Algolia search.</comment></comment>


Operating System Development - <AUTHOR> http://wiki.osdev.org/Main_Page <comment><USER2> Doing your own toy operating system is a great learning experience and I can recommend it to anyone who has the right hacker attitude and a little bit of prerequisite knowledge.

OSdev is a pretty good starting point for basic resources. You'll need to build your own GNU toolchain (gcc + binutils + gdb) for cross compiling (don't try to use the one that ships with your OS, it will subtly fail when you don't expect it to), get an emulator (e.g. qemu or bochs) and a bootloader to get started. Do _not_ write your own bootloader code or try to stick to pure asm, you'll get nowhere fast. Use the multiboot protocol so you can easily get booted on emulators and real iron using GRUB2. Note: I assumed you want to work on x86.

In addition to OSdev, the Intel manuals are an excellent resource. They are a pretty nice thing to read even if you don't intend to write an OS. Although reading through them will probably get your OS hacking itch going and you can't stop yourself. That happened to me. The Intel manuals are here: [http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/architectu...](http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/architectures- software-developer-manuals.html/) . Volumes 1 and 3a are the most important.

And here are the humble beginnings of my hobby operating system: <https://github.com/rikusalminen/danjeros>

<comment><USER3> When I read "Do not write your own bootloader...", I immediately objected until I saw "assumed...x86". In that case, I agree. If you are going to build an OS for ARM or MIPS, you really learn a lot if you make your own bootloader.

<comment><USER4> Only when you want to run it on real hardware. Most qemu targets can boot straight from a binary blob or an ELF image (the emulator initializes the emulated hardware and then sets the PC to the address where the blob is loaded). Those that can't are easily modifiable to do so.

Also, U-Boot can boot a lot of things this days.

So if I were to build an OS for ARM or MIPS I would:

1) Build it on an emulator that can boot from ELF or a binary blob.

2) When it's time to run on real hardware, try to use U-Boot.

3) If that fails, write my own boot loader.

The moral of the story is: bootloaders are not my kind of fun, so I'll avoid writing them at all costs.

<comment><USER5> Right, but you've presumably already done it once and thus extracted all pedagogical value from it.

<comment><USER4> Yes, you're right. For my OS class when I was in school, instead of doing the proposed homework, I convinced the professor to let me do a x86 OS. We were a group of 3. I started doing everything in C with as little as assembly as possible, but the other two decidet to do an all-assembly little monster.

At the end of the course, we had only the boot loader and a little command interpreter, aside from FAT-12 support.

Then, much later, I messed with OS by playing with the code from the Minix Book [1].

Last year I wrote a little emulator for a virtually unknown architecture that can run uClinux on a modern browser (i.e., Chrome)[2].

[1] Operating System Design and Implemenation: [http://www.amazon.com/Operating-Systems-Design- Implementatio...](http://www.amazon.com/Operating-Systems-Design- Implementation-3rd/dp/0131429388/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1342719082&sr=1-1&keywords=minix)

[2] <https://github.com/ubercomp/jslm32/>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> this and geezer's site are the OGs of OS dev. Both offshoots of alt.os.dev, iirc, and have been around for more than a decade.

if I were messing with OS dev today I would probably study the _algorithms_ in a friendly HLL, there are some texts that use Java. these sites are more helpful to actual implementors, specially driver developers.

x86 architecture is terrible for pedagogy in many ways, and it's probably harder today than it was 10 years ago, with real-mode now finally gone, except for the first few nanos after machine boots.

<comment><USER2> > x86 architecture is terrible for pedagogy in many ways, and it's probably > harder today than it was 10 years ago, with real-mode now finally gone, > except for the first few nanos after machine boots.

x86_64 is a pretty clean actually. The instruction set is pretty horrible but rest of the moving parts are fairly consistent. Page tables, interrupt controllers and things like that work pretty nicely through memory mapped i/o.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I bought a Raspberry Pi with a view to developing a hobby OS. Turns out that the graphics chip spec is closed and will only work with a Linux binary blob provided by the manufacturer.

<comment><USER8> You might want to try that Exynos 4/Mali 400 $130 development board that was in the news recently (O-DroidX was the name I think). I know some developers were working on the open source driver for ARM's Mali GPU's, called "Lima". You might get more documentation for Mali from ARM as well.

Edit:

[http://www.hardkernel.com/renewal_2011/products/prdt_info.ph...](http://www.hardkernel.com/renewal_2011/products/prdt_info.php)

<http://limadriver.org/>

<comment><USER7> Thanks. Mali had caught my eye before, as it's used on this board: [http://gooseberry.atspace.co.uk/?page_id=31#ecwid:category=0...](http://gooseberry.atspace.co.uk/?page_id=31#ecwid:category=0&mode=product&product=12061571)

<comment><USER8> Right. This might interest you as well, then:

[http://www.cnx-software.com/2012/07/17/hackberry- allwinner-a...](http://www.cnx-software.com/2012/07/17/hackberry- allwinner-a10-development-board-with-1gb-ram/)

<comment><USER7> It does - I'll keep an eye on this. Many thanks

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Interesting, but very Intel-centric, the name of the site should probably reflect that. Anyone doing this stuff for fun would probably have a lot more fun on a 68k or MIPS or ARM.

<comment><USER2> > Interesting, but very Intel-centric, the name of the site should probably > reflect that. Anyone doing this stuff for fun would probably have a lot more > fun on a 68k or MIPS or ARM.

OSdev is very x86 centric. However, x86_64 is not as bad as you seem to imply. The instruction set is horrible but it's not like you're going to mess with assembly a lot anyway. Memory management units and interrupt controllers, etc are the important bits and they're just fine in x86.

I get a great satisfaction of being able to boot into my toy operating system on the hardware I normally use. And that is an x86. Running inside an emulator or a dev board with dangling wires is not half as fun.

<comment><USER9> Dealing with both timekeeping and interrupts on x86 systems is _awful_. Anyone that thinks that the x86 interrupt architecture is "just fine" has rocks in their head.

<comment><USER2> Yeah, it has it's hairy parts but it still doesn't deserve all the bashing it gets. I found the LAPIC and IOAPIC controllers okay to deal with, I guess there are better ones but multi-core interrupt handling is a complex matter so you can't expect the hardware to be very simple either. Some of the legacy parts are quite hairy, but you can work your way around them quite quickly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The list of reference books [1] on the site is quite formidable. Each book in that list deserves a lot of time to do justice to the content they have in them and the hard work/experience authors have put in.

Anyway, even if you start developing your own OS, you may not end up writing the whole of it all by yourself. Most people get a lot of help from outside and that is not at all bad, infact it has already proved itself to be the way to go by the open source Operating systems that are around today.

[1] <http://wiki.osdev.org/Books>

</comment><comment><USER11> Been dabbling with OS stuff for a while now, looking at xv6 sources and using Tanenbaum's Minix book.

Have got to say I'm very excited about this site, it looks incredibly useful.

</comment><comment><USER12> My friend created a toy OS several years ago (he wrote it in C, then "manually" translated it to binary). He said to me <http://www.osdever.net/tutorials/index> is a good site. I don't know about it, but if you're interested, chick this site out too.

</comment><comment><USER13> This site is great and contains so much information. Unfortunately it's hardly meaningful part of knowledge you need to write any modern OS. Unfortunately, because it's realy good fun to do stuff like that. It's quite hard to enjoy for a long time creating stuff that even you would not use.

<comment><USER14> I don't know, I've had a lot of fun making stuff I wouldn't use. Designing and implementing things (programming languages rather than OSes in my case) is more fun than actually using them :).

Not planning to use your project also gives you a certain freedom. You can do all sorts of crazy and impractical things just for fun. My language lets you change the precedence of operators at runtime. It's a stupid feature that would only cause misery in the real world, but I'm not writing my project for the real world :).

That said, it is also fun to write things people actually use. In fact, just having users or using your own program yourself makes up for having to deal with boring issues, annoying corner cases and reality in general.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I really recommend the irc channel #osdev (freenode). When I was making my os, I get stuck many times and debugging an OS is pure pain (I used bochs) but some people on #osdev help me to find the bugs and learn in the process.</comment>


NYT exposé on Trump's Wuhan lab conspiracy proves Beijing's point - <AUTHOR> https://news.cgtn.com/news/2020-05-01/NYT-expose-on-Trump-s-Wuhan-lab-conspiracy-proves-Beijing-s-point-Q8jX58ueQ0/index.html <comment><USER2> > The explanation is simple: claims to knowledge are mere hyperbole

I think if anything is true in that article, it's that sentence fragment - which funny enough undermines the entire "know-it-all" tone of the article.

</comment><comment><USER3> Wow, so much crap in that it's hard to know where to start.

I guess with what they consider a central point - just because it was a natural virus doesn't mean it couldn't have been released from that lab.

That lab has had serious issues with controlling substances in and from it - one report noted tissue from the lab ended up in the wet market next door! Think about that for a moment.

I'm a firm believer in the whole "do not attribute to malice that which can be more easily explained by stupidity" - I think it's far more likely it was general carelessness that released the virus into the environment; after all they have already done it multiple times before - and those are the incidents we know about! China isn't exactly known for being an open book.

Where things obviously got malicious was in their handling of the outbreak once the thing was unleashed on the public. Actions such as blocking people from entering but allowing people to leave for days after announcing a full lock down in a few days - if you are sincerely trying to contain something you don't give everyone a three day heads up to get the hell out of town or be trapped for who knows how long.

I've heard a couple of analyst suspect China realized they were going to take an economic hit from having to contain this thing internally and didn't want to take the hit alone. Yup, that's pretty cynical but it sounds entirely plausible to me. After all, these are Communists - that anyone should be surprised they don't value their citizens or anyone else's life should not be a surprise. If you find this implausible, I highly suggest you brush up on your world history from books 10 years old or older. There's been a lot of people carrying water for Chinese propaganda in the western world for some time now; it's time to root it out now that the CCP has shown their true colors in the handling of Covid-19.</comment>


Why I'm Won't Buy an E-book Reader -- and When I Might - <AUTHOR> http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb/blog//2010-01/2010-01-13.html

<comment><USER2> "Why I'm Won't Buy"? Are you seriously attempting to discuss literature?</comment>