The Innocent Pleasure of Trespassing - <AUTHOR> https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/11/the-innocent-pleasure-of-trespassing <comment><USER2> In the 80's and 90's, trespassing was a kind of hipster sport in Pittsburgh. There were numerous abandoned steel mills and factories-- these were huge facilities that had stopped operating years ago and were left to the elements. Since many of us lived near these structures, it was irresistible to explore them and see what's inside. Photographically, they're amazing subjects. They're also a dream-canvas for graffiti artists. It was also cool to just be there in the middle of the night with your friends, in a place that was so alien from everyplace else in the city.

That said, property management doesn't see it that way. For them, it's a liability. These places are dangerous, there are often no lights and steep drops without guard rails. Sometimes the floor is just missing in places. Sharp objects everywhere and no easy way to get help if there's an accident. And if something did happen, who is to blame if a hipster falls down a chute 50 feet onto concrete? Not easy to say (regardless of what you may think). Security guards patrolled the area and would investigate any flashlights or people sightings. Worst case scenario you would get a citation, though our crew never got caught (in steel mills).

In less dangerous buildings, things were more loose. If you had a camera and were there to take cool shots, security was apt to just kick you out. A camera was like a kind of "passport" for trespassers. Graffiti artists got a much harder response.

<comment><USER3> > who is to blame if a hipster falls down a chute 50 feet onto concrete?

Why wouldn't it be the hipster's fault?

<comment><USER4> Not in the US. The property owner is liable for injury in the property even if the person was trespassing or committing a crime. People have legally shot intruders in their home and then been successfully sued in civil court for the injuries to the intruder. I had a freight elevator door pin my hand and damage a bunch of nerves while I was helping someone move furniture into his illegal Brooklyn loft. I got $50k for it. I carried $1M liability insurance on my Brooklyn townhouse because some visitor could slip and fall and sue me for all sorts of hardship. The system is broken.

On the flip side I now live in a country where the law guarantees public access to the river running alongside of my property. The locals don't actually know how the law works, only that they are supposed to have river access. So they jump fences, walk through my property, steal things on their way by, cut down my trees to make smokey fires for their bbq, piss and shit all over, leave empty beer cans and bottles and trash on the riverbank or in the river, and then swear that it's their right to do so. So when they enter my property, they get a shotgun in their face and they are encouraged to find one of the myriad of other points of entry to the river. The law says they can access the river, but not that they can trespass to do it. Enter from the abandoned field on the other side. It's the same river.

The public don't respect public places. They treat them as private places they can destroy and leave. The article talks about the place where homeless people would shelter from the wind but fails to mention that they also piss there until the spot reeks from 3 meters away. Is that their right too?

<comment><USER5> Wait

> I had a freight elevator door pin my hand and damage a bunch of nerves while > I was helping someone move furniture into his illegal Brooklyn loft. I got > $50k for it.

You were doing something illegal, got injured, and sued? And you say "the system is broken"? The system is broken because of behaviour like yours

<comment><USER6> Much of Brooklyn's "residential" offerings aren't legally residential. They're old commercial buildings that landlords have cheaply repurposed to get a piece of the rising demand in housing.

I lived in Bushwick for a year and a half, never met my landlord, and I'm sure the building was breaking at least a dozen laws, but it was relatively affordable so no one really asked questions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I am a tad incensed. My farm has been broken into..trespassed and squatted upon(literally and figuratively) ..my creek polluted and decades old trees topped off by not so innocent trespassers.

And I was told by my insurance that it was my responsibility to install gates and fences as protection against liability. It costs thousands. How do you fence off creek banks and abutting wilderness for the bird life and wildlife? The law enforcement's hands are tied as they declare themselves homeless and they have advocates and activists. I pay taxes and I have no rights. Except to ask them to leave and they keep coming back after dismantling their tents. And when they leave, they destroy my farm a little more out of spite..tractor and trailer stolen,Metal arches pulled away and placed as tents just outside my property line to throw it at my face because I can't complain about property that isn't mine and power lines running zig zag in my orchard stealing my electricity...greenhouse panels pulled out to build a bridge to cross the creek...trees with nesting birds topped off for campfires. Fences that I put up repeatedly run over by visitors of said homeless camp dwellers.

I could go on..but this is what I surmised: when one thinks it's ok to break one rule(trespassing), it becomes easier to break others. I consider unrepentant trespassing as character flaw and am wary of those who exhibit it.

<comment><USER8> That's heartbreaking - have you thought about setting up cameras so you have unambiguous evidence in case you ever have to bring legal action? Are they ever armed? Would it be worth while patrolling the perimeter of your land with a rifle every now and then or would they just leave and come back later?

<comment><USER7> They stole cameras, lighting, greenhouse shelving, packing house tables. I employ a lot of girls part time and I am a sole operator of a female run business. They just refused to come back and work. And I don't blame them.

I know they are dealing drugs. Sonoma county has legal pot ..so it's not pot. Why would a homeless camping site have BMWs and Hummers and SUVs and other cars come by..they even had a system..bicycles near where they parked to get to the creek area hidden by trees. So people don't have to walk to get to the little apartment like units they built.

I was being punished for calling on the cops because they'd defecate, fornicate and leave poop and condoms and tampons and bottles filled with pee..there is now a sign that says 'restroom' on a tree by the creek. And law enforcement won't do anything. This is California. I don't think I can patrol with a firearm.

<comment><USER9> Are the local law enforcement outgunned?

I was living near Boonville and there was an illegal grow op run by Mexican gangsters. There was a car that had "broken down" by the side of the road and the lookouts openly hung out there "fixing" it. _For months._ I was told that, although the Sheriff knew all about it, he wouldn't do anything because the gang was just too well-armed, violent, and well-connected to bother.

Otherwise, if it's not some weird shit like that, I can't understand how/why the law wouldn't be more on your side.

\- - - -

If your particular tormentors are gang-connected I would recommend you GTFO ASAP.

\- - - -

Are you willing to injure or even kill another human being, considering that these bastards are not threatening your life, just trashing your material possessions? (Which is still really really bad!)

Remember that you don't have to actually shoot the people. A bullet whizzing overhead is known to have a cleansing and tonic effect on muddled thinking.

It might be sufficient to simply post some of your old targets from the shooting range up around the place. Ones with bullet holes in them. It's a subtle way to let your unruly neighbors know that you are reaching the limits of your patience.

\- - - -

edit: Reading some of your additional comments, it seems like guns are totally not going to help your situation at all. Like, not even a little bit.

I don't know what to tell you. It sounds like you're at the front lines of the apocalypse. My heart goes out to you.

<comment><USER7> I license land from the water Dept now..it's urban edge farming. It comes with its own set of challenges including lack of benefits of scale.

This is actually giving me an opportunity to think and figure out how create farm systems in urban settings. Rural areas are degraded and without support ..in some ways..like with law enforcement, basic infrastructure, connectivity, environmental protection etc.

I think the future is melding self sufficient urban centers with modernized rural food hubs. It's the only way. On one hand, we have housing crisis and on the other hand, rural areas that are like the Wild West.

I like to imagine them as new cities of the future and just write down what comes to mind. I suspect much will change in our lifetimes..who knows?...but imagining how it can be better saves my sanity and keeps me from losing my temper in bad ways.

Where I farm..because it's land associated with federal funds has security and a zillion resources that protect it. It's also in an urban area. It can be improved. We can urbanize around rural hubs. We can introduce food producing hubs in urban settings.. Altho it might be smaller in scale...it will reduce supply chain and value chain when part of food production is local.

I understand farmers better now...but I had to walk in their shoes(But had to lose my shirt, as it were..)

<comment><USER9> This is so fascinating to me. Have you seen Christopher Alexander's "Pattern Language"? (Especially the "interlocking fingers of city and country" pattern?)

Or the old "Integral Urban Home" book? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Urban_Home](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Urban_Home)

When I lived in Boonville we had an organic garden that generated a surplus, but there didn't seem to be a practical way to sell it to anyone, even with the Internet.

Also, are you into Permaculture or other forms of regenerative agriculture?

I really respect you for getting out there and doing it.

<comment><USER7> I will look it up. Thank you.

I am taking a break now and only growing/selling from my perennial plantings and fruit from the orchard. The apiary/honey sales is also very healthy. I can see how permaculture is likely more suitable for me. The idea of solo small acreage farming really appeals to me. Because. Labour. People.

I am considering buying a nut orchard or citrus acreage and leave it to farm management. This way I am still a 'farmer' while kind of outsourcing the labour. It will give me some breathing space to figure out what to do next.

The future is automation. Far future. I haven't been able to find any American Agtech for small acreage farmers like me. We don't develop any appropriate tech for small farms(sub 100 acres.

I hosted a demo for a visiting Ag robotics company. It was embarrassing. Rural america ..at least here in CA..is appalling in its lack of infrastructure. Connectivity, power..even the rtk base station clusters weren't always available. One of the fuses fizzled and there was literally no one who had a 80A fuse. There was no radio frequency channel that was free for Ag use. All this was fascinating to me. I hand weed and have a compact tractor. What do I know? At that moment, robots in the field seemed like it was impossible in America.

How are we going to get robots in our fields when there are two different Americas? And this is in a state with 45 billion dollars in Ag income. so much environmental degradation, poor infrastructure and California really isn't throwing money where it needs to stick.

Farmers are a powerful lobby. The big ones. There is no money in farming for others. They say farmers make money once twice. That 'one good year' and when they retire and sell the farm land. Example: a small rancher I know told me that he makes more money from mitigation service fees with the govt than what he makes from his 400 strong herd in his 800 acre ranch. Why? Because there is a tiny little salamander that is endangered in California. It has protected status..which is great! the land cannot be used for anything except maybe grazing or as horse property if the tiger salamander decides to make your property it's home. But the govt also runs a mitigation program where they pay land owners to pick these salamanders and move it to their land. The now cleared property where the salamander used to live is ready to be built upon ..homes and condos.

Relevant Link: [https://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/5759685-181/feds- say-385-...](https://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/5759685-181/feds- say-385-million-needed)

The state makes many times over in property taxes when these lots are used for real estate. And the last I heard, developers pass it on to the new buyers at something like $5.00/sq.ft. The best way to avail $$ is to make a random critter a candidate for endangered status. I would like to think that I am a conservationist. I don't see the logic in taking an endangered creature and transplanting it in an environment that it's not it's native habitat. What is wrong with this picture? Is the problem created so that the solution is offered? And it just so happens that the solution brings in millions in jobs, homes, taxes and recurring property taxes. What are they doing? I don't understand. Colour me jaded.

I guess my point is that there is money only if land is used to build homes. The large farms that are corporations that grow pistachios or almonds or alfafa that bring in forex as they are exports are protected..commodity crops listed on stock market are valuable. Farming corporations with powerful bargaining lobbies for water allocation and tax breaks and monies from state budget get preference. The California residents rationed water so almonds could be exported. We paid more for water and even more for watershed protection and taxes and studies for subsidence where ground water and aquifers were emptied by farmers who had grandfathered rights. We sent alfafa to China during the worst years of California drought. It makes one's jaw drop.

Small farms growing local food don't get subsidies..don't get support or have someone lobbying for them...'hobby farmers' and small acreage farmers growing in marginal land or inherited land with barely there infrastructure and service will never make money.

Local food is important. Food security should be a big deal. Farming should include food for communities and not just exports and trade. Right now, it's cheaper to export food from Mexico or South America. How much longer?

Before we can automate farming or become sustainable or be able to convert food production..an essential activity..into a profit making venture, there ought to be infrastructure improvements and we need the state to treat productive local small businesses better than they treat criminals who get better services than small/family/market farmers. Tax payers shouldn't be burdened with raising taxes without any return on their annual tithing. Example: I paid $300/acre for the adobe fire in Napa/Sonoma Area in my property tax return. I am happy to do that. But PG&E hasn't taken any responsibility and we had fires again this year. What does it all mean? What is the state's role in fixing the foundational rot in CA? I don't know. No one does.

We have the best soils in the country. The world even..our weather in CA is truly golden. 8 months..not a drop of rain. It's a dream to farm in CA. Silicon Valley is in our backyard. There is literally nothing we can't grow in California. What a beautiful place and I have lived all over the USA.(and two other continents) It should be a dream...but it's a nightmare.

I love California so much. I have toyed with the idea of hemp farming or buying something for far less money in some place like Nevada..but there is an irrational attachment to California soil. This is where I learnt to farm. I can not possibly quit. I am going to wait it out until the dumbasses that run this state get their collective acts together. I will never quit farming. Altho I might feel like giving up..but I am going to do it right with round 2. I am going to figure a system that checks all the boxes..Agtech, sustainability, environmental and resource conservation and automation because..no automation, no profits. I am certain about that. I have crunched the numbers every way and even upside down..for farms at all sizes..automation is the only way farming can be profitable again. But we can't do anything about it unless we get the infrastructure right and that's not a private sector endeavor.

I also feel agtech companies that bring in farm robotics or agtech in the field should avoid large corporate farms and focus on automation small acreage farms first. Why? Because each crop is billions of dollars worth..even lettuce is 3 something billion dollar crop in CA. Strawberries are close to that figure too. They are not going to switch to automation and say bye to all their minimum wage cheap labour for a test farm equipment. They have to pass so many hoops and red tape and obstacles before it gets widely adopted. It will take decades to fully transition and it won't be painless. An example is when tomatoes were harvested mechanically rather than by migrant labour. It gave raise to an entire political uprising. Companies like JD or Case or Monsanto or Sygenta etc have too much at stake. All tech will be swallowed by the big players and be left to die in a dark vault until they feel it's time to let it out without cannibalising their own product lines.

We can't afford to wait that long. It's criminal to not apply technology that is possible and feasible and can be field ready at once. We need farm bots and should stop dicking around with drones and sensors. That's all decades old tech. We need foundational changes. Small farms are so small compared to big Ag that application of appropriate future tech is not a danger to the bottom line of the big Ag suppliers or the balance sheet or tax coffers.

If there is one thing I would like to request the tech community..it would be that they ought to create appropriate tech for small acreage farms. It's easy. It's possible. It's low hanging fruit but it's impact would be tremendous. It would create a whole new farm system and initiate a paradigm shift wrt how we grow our food. To the govt, I would say that they treat them as legit businesses. To the public, I would say that they pay more for good food. Quality over quantity. To young farmers, check externalities and don't farm with romance. It should be taken seriously or small farmers will have no voice. But starting with infrastructure and not rewarding criminals who damage such an essential act like farming via turning a blind eye is a good start. One of the reasons it became difficult for me was because I grow food. Poop and urine and condoms and tampons that I picked up shouldn't be in a place where I grow food. I have to pay for certifications and if I have a GAP audit, I would fail if there is a tampon under my mulberry tree. The county owes it to me and my tax paying farm to keep undesirable elements engaged in unlawful activity after I file a complaint. It's not my job to provide sanctuary to trespassers. And that's the full circle!

Cheers and peace out. I said more than I wanted to...thanks again. I will check them out.

Eta: typos. Sorry about that.

<comment><USER9> Wow! That was awesome (also frustrating and poignant.) Should be on the front page of HN, IMO.

I can't write a coherent reply right now, but I wanted to mention some things:

I dream of a world where people can step out of their kitchens and pick their produce from their own gardens, but I know that, realistically, you're right about automation. Most people don't want to tend a garden. But I'm an amateur roboticist and gardener and I'm not confident that automation will be at all easy. Even with the recent advances in ML, et. al., it's going to be hard to displace humans (after all, we are adapted to gathering food from plants.) The easy-to-automate farming might turn out to be microbes ( [https://massivesci.com/articles/iwi-algae-protein- nannochlor...](https://massivesci.com/articles/iwi-algae-protein- nannochloropsis-food-essential-amino-acids/) & [http://boostbiomes.com/](http://boostbiomes.com/) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20687797](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20687797) ), and/or marine farming ( [https://www.greenwave.org/](https://www.greenwave.org/) ).

I'm hoping that it might be possible to make dense "food forests" near to population centers and people can come and glean for themselves. I had an idea for a kind of member-supported farm with a restaurant on-premises. Folks drive out (by appointment) for a fancy meal sourced (mostly) from the farm/garden around them, membership would include a certain number of meals. There's a lot of little details (members can purchase surplus produce online and pick it up after their meals, etc.)

\- - - -

What about some sort of small online distributed Farmer's Market, like Etsy for Veggies, that allows people to pledge to buy produce before it's harvested, or even before it's planted? You would have to allow for e.g. bad weather or bugs/diseases ruining a given crop/area, but it would give small rural farms a stable market, maybe?

I know there are a lot of people who are willing to pay more for healthier, ecologically grown food. Just look at any Whole Foods store, for example. It's a matter of connecting the kitchens and the farms. "Merely" a logistics problem, eh?

<comment><USER7> It is a supply chain and value chain problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> "There was a big high wall there that tried to stop me;

The sign was painted, it said private property;

But on the back side it didn't say nothing;

That side was made for you and me."

      - Woody Guthrie, 'This Land is Your Land' (sometimes this verse goes missing)

<comment><USER11> I literally got in trouble for knowing this verse in elementary school. Dad came down with a tape cassette to show the principal what was up. :eyeroll:

Funny how Guthrie's communist, anti-borders, anthem got co-opted by nationalists so far that they don't even understand the meaning... this verse couldn't make that cut, though.

<comment><USER12> > Funny how Guthrie's communist, anti-borders, anthem got co-opted by > nationalists so far that they don't even understand the meaning

There is a rich tradition in classical liberalism on the universality of land, predating the ideas of communism/Marxism. For instance, see Thomas Paine's advocacy for a tax on ground rent [0]; so-called "absentee landlords" were associated with royal aristocracies and enclosure [1].

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

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

<comment><USER13> Also Georgism and the modern geolibertarian movement:

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

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I've done this all throughout my life. From exploring abandoned buildings & sites to going into "restricted against lowlifes" areas, it's amazing the cool stuff you can see!

I've camped in ghost towns in Oregon. I've visited uncleared temples in Cambodia, covered in underbrush deep in the jungle. I've been in abandoned factories & hospitals, crashed a few gala affairs, visited beautiful beaches... you name it!

And now, living in the former DDR (East Germany), there are so many abandoned places that you can visit a new one every weekend :)

<comment><USER15> How do you spot these places or find out about them, in general?

<comment> et-al Easy access to satellite imagery helps, along with always keeping an open eye and ear out for these things.

That being said, Germany has a lots of abandoned factories and warehouses to explore once one gets out of the major cities. You're looking for places with large _former_ industrial activity. That's why Detroit had so many photos coming out of it in the early 2010s. I'm sure Poland is also rife with buildings to explore.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I've lamented the lack of true public property for a long time. I'm thinking about buying abandoned property in various places, at very low cost, and opening them up to public use.

It would be done through a non-profit land holding company with the stated mission of opening land and abandoned structures to public use. Enter at your own risk signs, and a brief description that this property is now open for any legal use would be the only changes. (Barring removal of true death traps)

<comment><USER9> What about National Forests? Would you consider that true public property?

> National Forest is a classification of protected and managed federal lands > in the United States. National Forests are largely forest and woodland areas > owned collectively by the American people through the federal government, > and managed by the United States Forest Service, a division of the United > States Department of Agriculture.

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

Also, consider Slab City:

> Slab City, also called The Slabs, is a largely snowbird community in the > Sonoran Desert located in Imperial County, California, 100 miles (161 km) > northeast of San Diego and 169 miles (272 km) southeast of Los Angeles > within the California Badlands, and used by recreational vehicle owners and > squatters from across North America.

> The site is both decommissioned and uncontrolled, and there is no charge for > parking. The site has no official electricity, running water, sewers, > toilets or trash pickup service.[3] Many residents use generators or solar > panels to generate electricity. The closest body of civilization with proper > law enforcement is approximately four miles southwest of Slab City in Niland > where the residents often go to do basic shopping. As a result, the site is > described by its inhabitants and news outlets like Vice News as a miniature > de facto enclave of anarchy.

It might be considered a kind of Temporary Autonomous Zone [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_Autonomous_Zone](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_Autonomous_Zone)

<comment><USER16> I don't consider national forests true public property because of entry fees, scheduling camp grounds, restrictions on activity, and length of time you can be there. Also, remoteness is an issue.

I really like the idea of slab city, and have talked to some people who have been there. I haven't been myself. I also love the idea of the Kowloon walled city and the tower of David as models for a public space without top down control.

<comment><USER9> I thought there were places where you could just drive or hike in and camp for up to three nights? FWIW, w/o restrictions you would have folks living there permanently. (I know because I totally would.)

I guess the frontier really is closed, eh?

\- - - -

I saw a BBC documentary on Kowloon and it scared the shit out of me, FWIW.

\- - - -

Anyhow, Christopher Alexander's "Living Neighborhoods" made me realize that what I really want is a lively healthy living neighborhood. [https://www.livingneighborhoods.org/ht-0/bln- exp.htm](https://www.livingneighborhoods.org/ht-0/bln-exp.htm)

See also: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_Homes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_Homes)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This is incredible curious, an upvoted post where (at the time of my comment) every top level comment is downvoted, possibly the most polarizing post I've ever seen on HN

<comment><USER18> Shouldn't be a surprise, as private property (and keeping the government/all other parties out of it) is one of the fundamental tenets of the U.S. Constitution. And so a lot of people come with that mindset.

It's a double-edged sword, and while I agree with a lot of the points in the article (it's one of the primary reasons why Europe is unbelievably pleasant to visit), the US will _never_ implement anything remotely close to free-to- roam (or whatever it's called in the UK, as an analog) policies. Too many private interests against it.

<comment><USER19> Private property is fundamental, but preventing people from traversing across private private property seemed to have morphed from being no big deal into a much bigger offense over the last century. Or at least that is my understanding.

<comment><USER20> > When you trespass, you are striking a blow against hierarchy and capitalism > and uptight motherfuckers everywhere.

I think the controversy comes from the authors overall tone. Quotes like this make them sound like an edgy teenager

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Other than the legal side that is only relevant to EU and NA countries, there's a practical side of "trespassing".

When you enter an abandoned building you take a huge risk. It's called abandoned for a reason - it's not maintained. Steps you step on may collapse. Plastering may fall on your head. Some drug addict may leave a used syringe on the floor for you to step on.

Same goes for undeveloped areas outside of cities no one cares about (that are owned by some private entity and are not public). You may stumble upon on a wild animal, spider, snake. Find a poisonous fruit or berry. Ground may be unstable, some river may overflow.

I've done a lot of wondering around of different areas in different countries but every time I enter an abandoned structure I hope today is not the day it collapses.

<comment><USER22> I see the parent post downvoted, but I don't see why.

Indeed, that was my first thought when I saw the title, and since it's a very long read, I just ctrl+f "danger", which doesn't come up once.

When I was a kid, I went into abandoned houses, churches, private land, and on a few occasions I crawled into old etruscan tombs looking for interesting bits (bits of broken vases, coins and such).

It was very fun, and also very stupid, and I count myself lucky that nothing ever happened to me.

One should be mindful when deciding to break into unmaintained areas, rather than charge in with a the hope of getting a nice instagram picture yelling "YOLO!".

<comment><USER23> I'm actually curious how many people are injured during "urbex" type activities? It might be a little harder to figure this out than you'd expect because the statistics would also likely count the homeless person that breaks into a warehouse and ODs.

While the people are definitely in a more dangerous environment than usual, they are also likely to be on guard for hazards so I'm guessing the number of people actually hurt/killed doing these activities is very small.

<comment><USER24> There was quite a sad case here recently. A midnight bobsled run. They'd done it before. It was great fun and relatively safe.

What they didn't know was that this time the track had been set up for luge. The luge entrance blocked the bobsled track with a big metal gate, and they slammed into it at high speed.

I occasionally went places I shouldn't have when I was a kid, but there's definitely risks to doing so. It's pretty hard to know what you're getting yourself into.

[https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/mobile/trespassing-tobogganing- te...](https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/mobile/trespassing-tobogganing-teens-perish- on-canada-olympic-park-s-bobsled-track-1.2767457)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> There's so much wrong with this article that I'm lit. twitching, but I don't have time to write up a big thing on it.

Let me just say, speaking as someone who was homeless for about four and a half years and who did a little bit of non-destructive trespassing out of necessity, that, generally speaking, trespassing is dangerous and disrespectful. You should avoid it if possible. It's not "a radical expression of freedom, hope, and humanity." You are _not_ "striking a blow against hierarchy and capitalism and uptight motherfuckers everywhere." You're risking your life, jail time, or fines, for a cheap thrill.

Trespassing only seems like fun if you're really really jaded, naive, or literally cannot afford to do _anything_ better. You don't go to the amusement park and stand in line to throw rocks through the windows of an abandoned warehouse, do you?

If you want to be radical, _feed someone._

</comment><comment><USER25> The only time I trespassed was in Croatia, close to the Serbian border. We had taken the wrong road and ended up on a dead-end. A Serbian living there explained that the road ended up at a summer house of Tito, which was also intended to be used in case of Nuclear war, as it's built above a spring. We went to visit the building, which had been thoroughly trashed since the break- up of Yugoslavia. I also wonder why it hasn't been converted in a hotel, since it's close to one of the natural park of Croatia.

</comment><comment><USER26> Yes, we all like breaking into places in ways that 'nobody cares about', and we all like beholding beautiful scenes which a majority of people don't think to look for.

But there's a reason why most places discourage this sort of freewheeling exploration; when you visit a place and disrespect its boundaries, you often end up damaging it for the people who come after you. Even footsteps will eventually wear away stones, knock things loose, and disturb delicate habitats/ecosystems such as fungi. As the old saying goes, "plants grow by inches, but they die by feet."

And if you play confidence games like the author, you're making it more likely for other people seeking the same location to get caught and punished.

Yes, the sunbeams that cut through the jagged broken windows of an abandoned train station are gorgeous, and the view from the top of a palatial tower is hard to beat. But it's also sort of like driving through a wetland or ignoring 'please stay on trail' signs in the wild; if we derive pleasure from these places and consider them special, showing them off and visiting them regularly without regard for conservation seems like a poor way to honor them.

Honestly, I have trouble seeing the views espoused in this article as anything other than selfish. Even publicly-owned lands have limits on their use, because we all share these spaces. They don't belong to _you_ , they belong to _all of us_ , and that includes future generations who will have the same yearnings that we do. I'd be interested to hear other takes, but as an occasional trespasser, this manifesto feels disrespectful and I feel like it might paint the community of urban (and natural) explorers in a bad light.

<comment><USER27> Indeed. Even the relatively harmless example of going up to a hotel floor to look at the view out of (I assume) the lift lobby is something that only works if you're the only one doing it.

If a bunch of people start doing it then all of a sudden guests start noticing crowds of people outside their rooms, the hotel is obliged to post security guards to stop it happening, and bingo, suddenly life is slightly worse for everyone.

If you find yourself saying "it's okay that I break the rules" with a full awareness that if everyone broke the same rules it would be terrible, then you are exactly the kind of selfish asshole that is the usual answer to the question of "why we can't have nice things".

<comment><USER28> > _something that only works if you're the only one doing it._

Tangential, but I wonder if there's a name for this, and how much it has been studied. While I appreciate the wisdom behind Kant's categorical imperative, there are many activities in the world that lose all meaning and authenticity if you're not the only one, or one of the few, engaging in them. The current zeitgeist seems hell-bent on normalizing and averaging everything out, but assuming something is bad just because not everyone can do it seems to me like a recipe for a duller society.

Related:

> _If a bunch of people start doing it then all of a sudden guests start > noticing crowds of people outside their rooms, the hotel is obliged to post > security guards to stop it happening, and bingo, suddenly life is slightly > worse for everyone._

I think the problem here is the hotel choosing an obnoxious way of stopping it from happening. I think it should _not_ be generalized into "if too many people do something, doing it will become impossible, which is bad", because arguably _nobody_ doing it is even worse. It's like with non-renewable resources - yes, exploiting them now makes them inaccessible in the future, but not exploiting them ever is as if they didn't exist; the only utility there is is in the exploitation.

<comment><USER29> > > something that only works if you're the only one doing it.

> Tangential, but I wonder if there's a name for this, and how much it has > been studied.

These non-universalizable actions. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universalizability](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universalizability)

There have been hundreds if not thousands of philosophy papers written on the subject.

In particular, I think the cases you're referring to are a "contradiction in the will"\-- where it's not logically impossible that everyone would do the thing, but it would produce a result that no one would want.

<comment><USER28> Thanks, didn't know these terms before! I'll read up.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I hope a bunch of stoned teenagers show up in the author's office to explore the pleasures of trespassing.

(Owned by evil corporations! Private not personal property! Fair game!)

<comment><USER31> You are attacking something the author did not say. I will assume that this strawman was unintentional (if I were to instead assume that you were acting in bad faith then there would no point responding to you; if you _are_ in fact acting in bad faith, please take a moment to consider why it is that your argument requires a distortion of the truth to be defensible).

The author does say that trespassing on private property, owned by corporations, is not wrong like other forms of "trespass" may be. His argument has one critical nuance that you ignore, however: he says that trespass is not wrong when it is an act that reclaims fundamentally _public spaces_ from private ownership to make them accessible to everyone. A park, a corner between two buildings, and even a view of the city are deeply _public_ things.

Your office (especially the specific area in which you work and the items there) are not, and have never been, public spaces. These specific areas and items are also (by most interpretations) private property, which is another criterion that author has for property that should not be violated. To say that the author suggests that your office should be trespassed upon is an assertion ignorant of these components of the author's argument.

<comment><USER32> Quote from the article: "Needless to say, this kind of trespassing is usually bad, unless you're breaking into one of Jeff Bezos' homes."

So it's ok to break into your house as long as you are very rich?

<comment><USER33> People breaking into one of my many unused houses? I'd say it's a nice problem to have.

<comment><USER32> I don't have many unused houses, however my family does have a tiny summer cottage that we don't use in the winter since it's not insulated and so on.

Coming to it in the spring and finding that some kids decided to have a party in there and almost burned it down wasn't exactly a nice feeling. I certainly hope that it doesn't happen to anyone else, including mr Bezos, however much you may disagree with his business practices.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> It's important to note that the author seems to be an anticapitalist; hence trespassing becomes a non-violent form of protest against the system he despises.

Which is ironic, because he seems to be on the richer end of it (eg a white westerner who can afford intercontinental travel, on a job with a healthy work/life balance).

<comment><USER35> "Which is ironic, because he seems to be on the richer end of it (eg a white westerner who can afford intercontinental travel, on a job with a healthy work/life balance)"

Which means they're exactly the sort of person who SHOULD be protesting the system. It's easy to criticize when you're not on the inside.

I suggested an article to a colleague of mine. He was recently complaining about stale wage growth, and the article I suggested was showing reasons for of wage growth stagnation. He simply dismissed it by saying "yeah, but the person who wrote it is probably on $200k". End of story, point invalidated by privilege...

WTF is that attitude? The overwhelming majority of voices you can hear are those in a position of privilege, even in the age of the Internet. A long-form article like this one isn't going to come out of rando ne'er-do-well xchan channel.

Speak out from a non-privileged position: Pfft, work harder slacker

Speak out from a position of privilege: Pfft, your words mean nothing from that ivory tower.

Zero sum. That is not the way forward.

<comment><USER36> I guess I'm old fashioned in that I care about the content and character of what people have to say and not where it is coming from. It could come from a billionaire, a gay man, a woman, a poor person, whoever. In fact the less I know about your background the better, so that it might not bias or color my opinion (Seems to be the exact opposite these days.)

Growing up I thought the Internet would be a great leveler. Anyone with a computer could anonymously make a point about something. But something changed around 2005ish; websites started requiring real names, social networks became about cementing existing social connections instead of creating new ones (For example compare the days of LiveJournal to Facebook) Most online entertainment is simply re-creating television. A few "influencers" and a lot of passive consumers. Which is sad and disappointing because everyone has the potential to create something that others would be interested in, even if the audience is small and you might never be famous doing it.

<comment><USER37> People care about the person it comes from because of so many calculating posts. You'll see a single entity argue against regulation that hurts them because "regulation is bad" and then later argue for regulation that helps them because "we need to set boundaries on what people can do." If you can get X% of the population to support repealing any regulation and a different X% of the population to support passing any regulation, and Y% of the population doesn't care about regulations that don't directly affect them, then the unprincipled will get exactly the set of regulations they want, so long as X+Y > 50.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> It's truly amazing to me that people accept landlording as legitimate. Nobody made land, so why should some people be allowed to make money out of it at the expense of others?

<comment><USER39> By that logic you have to reject all property ownership entirely and modern society becomes totally unable to function since no one could ever build a building.

I think the vast majority of us find the ability to own land to be more useful than everyone living in grass tents that someone else could knock over because they want to sleep there.

<comment><USER31> I think the GP is drawing a distinction between private and personal property. If you outlaw private property (e.g. things owned in absentee by entities, usually to seek rent, like landlording) then you are not outlawing people owning the places in which they work or sleep.

It is only when you outlaw personal property (e.g. your clothes, your home) that you encounter the problematic scenario that you suggest.

When Marx says he wants to abolish private property (i.e. the means of production), he does not mean to abolish personal property. I think this nuance is often ignored or unknown, which is unfortunate.

<comment><USER39> So you are saying that people may only own land if they work or live on the land? This is not desirable for most businesses where renting property makes much more sense since it gives them the flexability to expand or downsize. It is also not desirable for people who are living somewhere temporarily.

<comment><USER38> Renting itself is fine. Property ownership is actually a huge, annoying pain in the ass which, putting aside financial security reasons, and the fact that renters are often treated like scum, nobody would want to go through.

What is at issue here is landlording for private gain. As I pointed out, these rents are entirely unearned because nobody made land, and so should flow to the general public, not private owners.

<comment><USER40> Under that logic wouldn't a farmer farming for private gain have unearned money? They didn't make the land.

Not that there is never unjust rent-seeking activity but there are real investment of capital and work involved and merely "dependence on land" isn't a sufficient arguement.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Banks need to take on Amazon and Google or die - <AUTHOR> http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/bc70c9fe-4e1d-11e3-8fa5-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2mvWDIBZk <comment><USER2> I think banks are in deep trouble whether they know it or not.

Google won't be able to compete -- their attitude towards customer service is to drop trou and shit on their customer. It's annoying enough when it's your email, but if I where to move $10-$100k of cash to them I would expect to pick up the phone and get a human being empowered to make decisions on the phone. I've been on the wrong side of their customer service enough that I actively try to prevent relatives and friends from depending on anything google makes.

Amazon, however, loves coming into medium to high capital requirement low margin businesses and destroying the competition. I'm actually a little surprised they haven't been more aggressive here. The small credit unions that can offer local service and actually answer the phone may survive, but what differentiates citi/bofa/wellsfargo/bancorp etc? Not much that I can see -- unless you're a high net worth individual, there's little reason for most people who don't eg have international banking issues to bother with them.

I've been a customer of a local credit union for nearly 5 years. In that time, I've entered a branch exactly once: when I opened my account. I've opened new accounts, had my credit card stolen, gotten fraudulent purchases refunded, purchased a car via a loan, refinanced another loan, and gotten a quote for a mortgage mostly online with a handful of phone calls.

<comment><USER3> > but what differentiates citi/bofa/wellsfargo/bancorp etc? Not much that I > can see -- unless you're a high net worth individual, there's little reason > for most people who don't eg have international banking issues to bother > with them.

I actually switched from a big bank (PNC, great service but slow on the tech side to evolve) to Simple [[http://www.simple.com](http://www.simple.com)]. I get a debit card, beautiful mobile and web apps, and I can do everything I could with a regular bank except going to a branch. And I _never_ go to a branch (mobile deposit, ATM network, debit card, done).

Their support is excellent as well, something I'd never get from Amazon or Google.

<comment><USER4> One weird thing you can't do with Simple is deposit cash directly through any ATM. They do not allow that. The only way is to get a cashier's check or similar instrument OR deposit cash in an account that does accept cash then transfer the money (and wait several days for it to clear)

<comment><USER3> This is correct, and while I haven't and should never have the need to do that, I understand some people may require that functionality.

EDIT: It appears you can get a money order at Walmart for 70 cents, and $1.20-$1.60 at USPS. Cashier's check at a local bank would be ~$5-10, depending if you're a customer or not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> These content paywalls are killing me. I can't even read the story. Even one of my local newspapers decided to put up a paywall. They're losing a lot of readers because of it.

<comment><USER6> So pay the subscription fee.

<comment><USER7> I have a subscription to a couple of news sources. I'm not super willing to just subscribe to things that show up on HN. I know FT is highly regarded, but the only articles I've ever successfully read on it are those bizarre fetishistic lunch interview things.

There is some sort of balance you need to strike between porous and impenetrable with a paywall. FT is too closed to be compelling to me, and probably a lot of other people.

More broadly, if you're putting a link on HN, it's your responsibility to make sure people can read it. If they can't, don't post it, please.

<comment><USER8> Micro-payments. Quick, easy, one-time. Then you don't need to worry about a thousand subscriptions to rarely-read sources.

Sounds easy, but I don't believe anyone has something that works?

<comment><USER9> Micro-payments have two fundamental problems:

The first problem is inertia. You need a critical mass of users before anyone will bother to accept a particular payment processor, but users don't sign up if no one accepts the payment service. This is the reason why people still use Paypal.

The second problem is fraud. If someone commits fraud over a matter of $0.20, what amount of resources can you really afford to spend investigating it? A micropayment processor that thoroughly investigates fraud will have to charge the sellers a large chunk of the payments they process, but one that doesn't will be bankrupted by fraudsters.

Crypto currencies have some potential to break this by changing who eats the loss in the case of fraud. If it isn't the payment processor (or there is no payment processor) then micro-payments become viable. You still have problems with e.g. malicious software stealing bitcoins, but they're _different_ problems that don't break micro-payments.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This article is horseshit. Just because some random sees google/amazon disrupting other industries doesn't mean they'll disrupt banking too. Not saying it couldn't happen ever, but it has the same basis as saying google is going to disrupt the railroad industry or the carpet and flooring industry. There aren't any particularly strong signs that point to amazon wanting to service your mortgage anytime soon.

<comment><USER11> One interesting sign(regarding commercial banking) is that amazon has started offering loans to some businesses who sell using it's platform , and is able to offer better terms using sales data they've got.

<comment><USER10> I've heard of that. PayPal also has Bill Me Later, and there are niche players like Kabbage. They're all still a ways off from full scale banking operations like JP Morgan Chase. The big banks are nearly as large as Google in Market cap individually and have trillions of dollars worth of assets on their balance sheets. My point being they are players with the resources to go up against a google in Washington, D.C. If anyone is a threat to banking, I would say it is PayPal. They have over 100M people signed up in the US alone to transfer money, but that only competes with a small aspect of bank business (service fees), the larger parts being investment banking and loan operations/net interest income

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> You can view the artical by googleing for it by the title (same as on HN) and then clicking the link from there (or change your referral site to google.com I suppose)

[https://www.google.com/search?q=Banks+need+to+take+on+Amazon...](https://www.google.com/search?q=Banks+need+to+take+on+Amazon+and+Google+or+die&oq=Banks+need+to+take+on+Amazon+and+Google+or+die)

</comment><comment><USER13> Interesting the mention of payment processors like PayPal or Dwolla but little mention of payments. If banks became the primary interface for making payments, that would change everything for businesses and allow the kind of data usage they're talking about here.

That's what I'm working on, nice to see someone pointing out some of the things we've been talking about internally!

</comment><comment><USER14> Any start-ups trying to help mortgage brokers / originators? Many like Ellie Mae, LPS and others feel like old school application vendors. Of the banks, who "gets it?"</comment>


Ask HN: Biggest obstacles to widespread Machine Learning adoption - <AUTHOR> Is it problems with ETL, lack of labelled data, shortage of data scientists, disconnect between research, engineering and management or something else entirely <comment><USER2> Customers don't understand what you're talking about and they don't like blackbox solutions. I.e. ML-heavy offerings are throwing ML-rich buzzwords while customers want to solve problems who "talk" their language.

<comment><AUTHOR> If solutions were demonstrated, do you think customers would still care about black box vs understandable?</comment></comment>


A web service demo that uses async IO while possible - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/wb14123/web_benchmark <comment><USER2> This might make a good "Show HN".

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the suggest. I've put it here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10891574](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10891574) . I don't know if I should delete this thread?</comment></comment>


Foursquare cracking down on location cheaters - <AUTHOR> http://blog.foursquare.com/post/503822143/on-foursquare-cheating-and-claiming-mayorships-from

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't see how they can really stop cheaters until they do something like force businesses to post a unique verification code inside their store (or print on the receipt) that changes every day, and require that code to get any rewards.

With the way it's set up now, can't I just use my computer to send whatever HTTP request my iPhone sends, but with bogus coordinates?

<comment><USER2> And you can fake your location, or run FourSquare in an emulator, or open up your phone and inject fake signals on the GPS traces, or ...

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> My wife was complaining that she couldn't check in at any location yesterday because they all showed her being more than 100m away.

Most of the locations are marked by inaccurate GPS fixes in the first place.

This morning when I was using it, all the iPhone app was giving me was error messages. I think FourSquare might have just jumped off a cliff.

</comment><comment><USER4> Oh oh. There goes growth (cheaters, and there are already many complaints from users that the new feature isn't working properly). Must've been scared by the Yelp lawsuits.</comment>


Ask HN: Recommendations for tool to manage optional tasks? - <AUTHOR> Hi, I'm starting to think about an approach to minimal documentation/tracking of tasks when tackling software work and I'm curious about any tools that might make this easier.
The core concept would be something like a checklist manager where each thing you want to get done (let's call that a workItem) gets a consistent checklist of tasks.
Each of the tasks must be addressed in some way, either by completing the task OR by stating why you're not going to complete the task.
The workItem should contain a minimal record of the work done and choices made.
e.g. one task might be ROI Assessment - For some features this might be a formal document with assumptions, for a bug it might be very cursory. For something like a piece of work related to compliance it might be totally irrelevant.
The point is that no one forgets it, or assumes that it's unnecessary. The decision to do or not do something is always taken positively and transparently.
I guess this could be hacked into any number of management tools, I was just interested if anyone had heard of something purpose built like this or a system that favors this approach?
thx <comment><USER2> I quess a lot of existing tools allow to do the same or something similar. For example, Riter ([https://riter.co](https://riter.co)). It requires minimal efforts to create any task - you just need to specify its title, other parameters are optional. When necessary, you are able to add something else to the tasks - topics (tags like bug, feature, backend and others), description, todos, comments etc. Each task has a state (in progress, estimated, done and so on). In future you will be able to add your own set of states (maybe "debug", "checking" or what you need).</comment>


Ask HN: Interesting Statistics Books - <AUTHOR>

I have noticed a lot of cool algorithms involve statistics, however, I am hindered by never having taken a real statistics class (absolutely terrible professors and books). I would like to basically start fresh and learn some of the core statistical concepts from a standpoint of understanding and not on formula memorization.<p>I am wondering if anyone recommends a book (or any resource) that could teach me statistics for the purpose of understanding the core concepts that may open up the world of statistical algorithms to me. I would prefer this to be a book that is more about explanations/examples and less about proofs/abstractness, but I am open to all suggestions. <comment><USER2> [http://www.amazon.com/All-Statistics-Statistical- Inference-S...](http://www.amazon.com/All-Statistics-Statistical-Inference- Springer/dp/0387402721)</comment>


Why Google Might Be Going To $0 - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2012/03/31/why-google-might-be-going-to-0

<comment><USER2> Already posted --- discussion here --- <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3779960></comment>


Why venture capital doesn't build the things we need - <AUTHOR> https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/06/17/1003318/why-venture-capital-doesnt-build-the-things-we-really-need/ <comment><USER2> Another MIT article which shows either stupidity or dishonesty when complaining about not doing things completely outside of its domain. I have to ask if they live in reality given how they bring up COVID and slow tasks like vaccine and cure development. At best they essentially would make essentially advanced research equipment for the actual biological specialists.

The complaint about unemployment is especially funny both because of the luddite fallacy and ignoring outsourcings, impact but because they get even more complaints about the accessible jobs that they do create with things like ridesharing and delivery services. And those low rates are subsidizing the wages no less!

The title is essentially clickbait - the question doesn't get answered in favor of slipping in as many irrelevant cheap shots and snide insinuations as possible.

If we are going to have an honest discussion about limitations of venture capital funding it would help to focus on problems that investment can actually help with on a time scale in the first place. As opposed to shaming Silicon Valley for not being literal magical wizards.</comment>


Watch YC Startup School 2012 Live - <AUTHOR> http://startupschool.org/?video <comment><USER2> Best RonCo quote: "you're going to make money while this guy fights with the record labels" -- why you should do a technology and maybe b2b startup rather than a music (or maybe even consumer generally) startup.

<comment><USER3> Its funny, everyone says not to do a music startup but there is so much potential there. Maybe I'm crazy to pursue it, but it seems that from history, innovation happens when everyone is looking the other way.

<comment><USER4> In what way is everyone looking the other way?

<comment><USER5> There's almost no one doing anything interesting with the creation and distribution and marketing of new music.

It's 2012, and the major labels are still enormously powerful.

<comment><USER4> I guess I was thinking of all the cool things bandcamp (which I love) and soundcloud are doing for indies, not to mention Spotify, rdio, grooveshark, itunes, amazon music, and google play.

I've been looking at the space and don't really know what I could add. It looks really crowded with innovators to me. If I read you right, you're just saying that there's still room for something better?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Here's the schedule: <http://i.imgur.com/iodVL.jpg> (Photo taken by Robert Scoble)

<comment><USER7> Thank you so much! One would think this would be on the 'Speakers' page.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I really enjoy watching but I am a bit occupied today. Where can I find a recording?

</comment><comment><USER9> No webcast for Horowitz? Why?

<comment><USER10> It's possible that he might have requested it if he expected to divulge some sensitive information.

<comment><USER11> I doubt attendees had to sign an NDA - even if they did, Scoble is there ;). Pretty lame (not your comment, the 'no webcast').

<comment><USER12> Whatever he talks about will get posted somewhere, guaranteed. It's just going to be released in a spotty way now. Lame.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> A lot of the stuff Spolsky's covering right now is coming from his Strategy Letter I (<http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000056.html>). That's probably my favorite thing he's ever written.

<comment><USER14> Not trying to be a hater, and I know this isn't Reddit, but it kills me when people don't know the different between Effect and Affect.

Other than that, great advice and well written article.

<comment><USER15> Are you referring to the linked article? I didn't find any incorrect usages of affect or effect at all.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> "It wasn't about taking over the world, it was about being baller in San Francisco." -Travis Kalanick, Founder of Uber

Sounds like a good starting goal to pursue with a start-up.

</comment><comment><USER17> Who is that startup that had their funding yanked after signing documents and moving from Houston to San Francisco?

<comment><USER2> (EDIT: This was a YC company, and she specifically said it wasn't a YC co, so this probably isn't it, but similar)

Storenvy (Kansas City, Mo not Houston)

[http://joncrawford.com/post/20378314843/how-i-got-kicked- out...](http://joncrawford.com/post/20378314843/how-i-got-kicked-out-of-y- combinator-and-then-raised)

I assume that's the one you mean -- I met the guy and he's actually pretty reasonable, so I think the whole thing was just an unfortunate situation.

<comment><USER18> I thought she said it wasn't a Y-Combinator company that had this happen to them.

<comment><USER2> Ah, doh. I didn't see the talk (was trying to find parking for 45min before giving up and just watching online. I _really_ hate the Stanford campus.)

<comment><USER19> I gave up and parked in a restricted zone. No ticket!

<comment><USER20> Many ticket zones are also only enforced mon-fri.

<comment><USER19> I had thought this was the case, but all the restricted zones I saw were open, so I thought it might be for a reason. But after going up 4 floors I decided to ponder instead the effects of herd mentality. As it turns out, you exit through the top anyway :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> What did Weebly do to start getting an upward trend? Good talk but a little light on some key details.

<comment><USER22> seriously, this is what pissed me off most about the talk. He talks in detail about the straight up and down in user signups after Time, Newsweek, and TC features, but when he shows the graph of up and to the right, he just said it was "word of mouth" and nothing else, it seemed like he acquired his users through magic.

Did users just start to get it? What changed to make it hockey stick growth? It just seemed like it was a lame pitch to work for his company because he has a ping pong table and a room that can be opened with a book.

<comment><USER23> Weebly was YC Winter 07, which roughly coincides with his "18 month" milestone, no? I don't recall him offering much data in the YC realm, so that could have been an overall force.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I wish they had two separate video feeds, one for the speaker and the other for the slide presentation.

<comment><USER18> It seemed like there was when Jessica Livingston was on. Her slides were showing to the right of the video. When Patrick came on it just showed his name and title there the whole time instead.

<comment><USER23> I don't remember Patrick having any slides. Only half of the speakers made any use of slides, with Jessica the most effective (to me) and Weebly/Pinterest/Spolsky tied for distant 2nd.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> launch ticker is live blogging in case you miss anything

<http://launchticker.com/#/rooms/Ticker>

<comment><USER26> The notes are great.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Is there any place to watch previous videos for those of us who missed them?

<comment><USER28> <http://www.justin.tv/startupschool>

<comment><USER27> Nope. I'm looking for videos from this year, not previous years.

<comment><USER28> They'll probably be up on that link in the next day or two.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Can anyone who's there please post the schedule for the day ?

</comment><comment><USER30> Great work guys, thanks for live streaming it; tired of missing out on awesome events just because I don't live in San Francisco

</comment><comment><USER31> Some Ben Horowitz gems (paraphrased):

You have to have a 10x better product to beat (established) competition.

There is no number 2 in tech.

Over time, "wants" become "needs." (Ex: the refrigerator)

When Loudcloud was burning cash and going downhill: "I sleep like a baby... I wake up every two hours and cry."

Breakthrough ideas seem like hallucinations.

<comment><USER32> > There is no number 2 in tech.

Depends entirely on the market, although it's often more likely in tech because of the global reach of companies, positive network externalities, and other factors like that, that make it a very different sector, than, say "small Italian restaurants".

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Awesome, though I wish they would write the name of the person/company actually speaking, since I don't know what some of these (<http://startupschool.org/speakers.html>) people look like

<comment><USER33> Patrick Collison Founder, Stripe [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/87/Patrick_...](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/87/Patrick_Collison.jpg/220px- Patrick_Collison.jpg)

Ron Conway Partner, SV Angel [http://images.businessweek.com/ss/08/11/1106_ceos_on_electio...](http://images.businessweek.com/ss/08/11/1106_ceos_on_election/image/ron_conway.jpg)

Ben Horowitz Partner, Andreessen Horowitz; Founder, Opsware [http://tctechcrunch2011.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/ben- horo...](http://tctechcrunch2011.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/ben- horowitz.jpeg)

Travis Kalanick Founder, Uber [http://www.washingtonian.com/blogs/capitalcomment/images/201...](http://www.washingtonian.com/blogs/capitalcomment/images/2012-01-11-TravisKalanickUber-01_1.jpg)

Jessica Livingston Partner, Y Combinator <http://www.foundersatwork.com/author.html>

Hiroshi Mikitani Founder, Rakuten [http://www.japantimes.co.jp/images/photos2007/nb20070331a2a....](http://www.japantimes.co.jp/images/photos2007/nb20070331a2a.jpg)

Tom Preston-Werner Founder, GitHub [http://mixergy.com/wp- content/uploads/2011/08/Preston-Werner...](http://mixergy.com/wp- content/uploads/2011/08/Preston-Werner.png)

David Rusenko Founder, Weebly [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/David_Rus...](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/David_Rusenko.jpg)

Ben Silbermann Founder, Pinterest [https://talentmechanic.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/ben- silbe...](https://talentmechanic.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/ben- silbermann.jpg)

Joel Spolsky Founder, StackExchange, Fog Creek Software [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/73/Joe...](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/73/Joel_spolsky_on_20_sept_2007.jpg/220px- Joel_spolsky_on_20_sept_2007.jpg)

Mark Zuckerberg Founder, Facebook [http://static.guim.co.uk/sys- images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/20...](http://static.guim.co.uk/sys- images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/10/4/1349376428882/Mark-Zuckerberg-010.jpg)

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Please post links to videos, youtube ? you cant watch it here? how do i watch it?

</comment><comment><USER35> Is there a recording somewhere for those who missed it?

</comment><comment> wes-exp Given the choice between switching to a computer with Flash (I'm on an iPad) or not watching this, I'm choosing not to watch.

</comment><comment><USER28> I love watching these talks every year! It would be really good if there was a way to pause/rewind the feed, though.

<comment><USER36> And to make the feed lower resolution.

<comment><USER37> and buffer slower

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Is there a list of people who have already spoken? I have missed quite a few.

<comment><USER18> This link should help. It seems like they've live blogged everyone who has been on.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4677964>

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> we need a site for matchmaking startup entrepreneurs

</comment><comment><USER39> please find your seats guyzzzzz</comment>


California Health and Human Services Open Data Portal - <AUTHOR> https://data.chhs.ca.gov <comment><USER2> The large popup window which shows up when I navigated to the website is quite intrusive. I would suggest making this more user friendly.

<comment><USER3> Its a government website which provides data to you. They've moved to a new platform and they're asking you to provide a bit of information so that they can improve their platform which in turn should improve the developer experience. Are you fucking kidding me? More user friendly? How about they don't ask anything, guess at what the developer wants, so that a few years from now you can come back and comment how their data portal is shit.

<comment><USER4> There are other, less obnoxious ways to ask for feedback.

<comment><USER3> Their intent is purely to improve the developer experience.

> There are other, less obnoxious ways to ask for feedback

Yes I agree but I don't think that applies to this specific use case.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Just the other week I stumbled on the CDPH's excellent data site when trying to find the old page they had for immunization data. Besides making a data portal where datasets are easier to find, I feel it's important to give the CDPH a shout-out for good-practices when it comes to overhauling their websites.

So this was a file I was trying to access which worked on the CDPH's old site:

[http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/immunize/Documents/2016-17_C...](http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/immunize/Documents/2016-17_CA_KindergartenSummaryReport.pdf)

If you visit that site, you get this excellent 404 page, screenshotted below: [http://imgur.com/a/7z7xJ](http://imgur.com/a/7z7xJ)

Maybe I've run into too many poorly-maintained government (and non-gov) websites, but here's why the 404-page impressed me.

1\. Written for laypersons ("May we assist you in locating information during our transition?")

2\. Contains contextual information about why the 404 happened ("Our most popular content is moving from our former site which was renamed to [https://archive.cdph.ca.gov](https://archive.cdph.ca.gov) on May 1, 2017.")

3\. Contains bullet point tips on how to find that old URL ("Try replacing the 'cdph.ca.gov' or 'www.cdph.ca.gov' portion of the URL with 'archive.cdph.ca.gov' in your web browsers address bar." and "Please use our search on [https://cdph.ca.gov](https://cdph.ca.gov) using the topic of interest.")

In other words, the old file I was trying to find can be found in the archive domain:

[http://archive.cdph.ca.gov/programs/immunize/Documents/2016-...](http://archive.cdph.ca.gov/programs/immunize/Documents/2016-17_CA_KindergartenSummaryReport.pdf)

Just the fact that they archived their old site so that the near-decade of URLs accumulated are exactly mirrored onto a subdomain is an impressive amount of planning and courtesy in itself. But to have a 404 page _at all_ , nevermind a helpful one, is a pleasant surprise when it seems the status quo is to do an auto-redirect that confuses the hell out of laypersons and technical-skilled folks alike.

FWIW, the immunization data used to be provided in a set of Excel spreadsheets, one URL for each year. It was a fun web-scraping/collating exercise, but now the data portal has it in convenient, tidy (as in, "tidy data") CSV:

[https://data.chhs.ca.gov/dataset/school-immunizations-in- kin...](https://data.chhs.ca.gov/dataset/school-immunizations-in-kindergarten- by-academic-year/resource/1ddb239e-9014-4340-b356-2fc3462630ec)

<comment><USER6> This is very project-specific with respect to CA.gov sites. (My sister contracted on a number of projects and told me horror stories).

One example is that they completely replaced their legislation and laws search engine (texts of codes) but _left the non-functional deprecated site in place for months_. An obscure reference link to the new site was added in small text (the smallest font used). The old page appeared to "work" but always returned "No results found."

I would have preferred an ugly but obvious instruction, even a big red 'X' with maybe
Go HERE, dummy!

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> In case anyone was curious, this data portal is built using a service/company called Socrata which offers data portals and related services for cities, states, federal departments, etc.

You can browse some of their data sources here: [https://www.opendatanetwork.com/](https://www.opendatanetwork.com/)

<comment><USER8> Your comment is completely incorrect. This is a platform called OpenGov that uses the open source CKAN data portal as its base. They offer additional visualizations and hosting support on top of the open source offering, but this is definitely __not __Socrata.</comment></comment>


Dealing with the U in CRUD - full vs delta updates - <AUTHOR> http://bruno.linker45.eu/2010/05/21/special-report/

<comment><USER2> If you have "truckloads" of fields, with images in the db or something enormous like that, perhaps you should refactor your schema into tables of each enormous field (or even just shove it in the file system), and store the relations in a relational database, with the entities stored somewhere else.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> You did establish a good point with placing the photos/binary objects on separate tables, but take for instance the Contact/AddressBook example: almost 100% of the times I'm fetching a Contact from the database, I also want the picture to serve it to a client, so putting it on a separate table would force the RDBMS to an avoidable extra effort.

My DB spiritual advisor tells me the rule of thumb is <= 500KB -> DB, > 500KB -> filesystem. I'll have to test performance of storing the binary stuff outside of the DB.

PS: By "truckloads" I mean tables with anything over 10 fields. I hate god tables/objects :)</comment>


Stuff Is Meaningless - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/06/19/stuff-is-meaningless-why-brides-grooms-are-asking-down-payments-dominos-pizza-tsa-pre-check-instead <comment><USER2> All marriage achieves in current society is discrimination against single people, who pay more taxes.

It's about time it stops being a legal concept, becoming ceremonial only.</comment>


Visual Studio 2013 Launch - LIVE - <AUTHOR> http://channel9.msdn.com/

<comment><USER2> The site is down. Is this an example of using Azure to scale?</comment>


Bangladesh Bank exposed to hackers by cheap switches, no firewall - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fed-bangladesh-idUSKCN0XI1UO <comment><USER3> This article states that the systems related to SWIFT transfers were supposed to be on an isolated network, but were not. Specifically that cheap unmanaged switches were used rather than expensive managed switches that would have allowed network isolation. Of course anyone who understands network security would point out that to rely on switch-based isolation alone is too risky. Switches can be compromised and mis-configured and sometimes don't provide the expected level of isolation even when correctly configured.

<comment><USER4> Not to mention that L2 networking alone should not make or break security. What about host-based restrictions? What about authentication, authorization?

Security comes in layers, and L2 networking is one of those layers. But blaming this on switches is like blaming a home invasion on your fence because someone jumped over it and walked into your open door.

<comment><USER5> Of course, professionals know better than to blame the equipment. But the presence of unmanaged switches in a network for high-volume transactions between banks is a red flag the size of China. I don't think "blame it all on the switches" is the point the article is trying to make. The switches are mentioned to signal the complete lack of network security at the bank.

We use this kind of signaling a lot: I work in IT, and we regularly perform entry-audits for new SMB customers. We use phrases like in the article to illustrate the competence level of the client: "the desktops are still on XP", "their network is a single /16", "they have Sweex switches", "the main equipment room is shared with the janitor". That doesn't necessarily mean that there's nothing else wrong at the client, and there may even be a good reason for that particular situation -- but between engineers, it still provides a good indication of what the client environment is like.

More on topic, I have to ask: doesn't SWIFT (which is a global organization specifically for interbank communication) have security baselines for connected banks to meet? Don't they perform physical audits before connecting a new bank to their network, and recurring audits thereafter? How on earth can there be "a handful of central banks in developing countries that [are] equally insecure", yet still connected to SWIFT?

They're banks FCOL, operational security should be their core business. It's not like they can't afford it, just one less Bentley for the CEO.

<comment><USER6> I worked in infrastructure consulting for a few years and share your point of view. Often times managers and directors of i.t. are appointed into a position because of who they know not what they know.

I witnessed the meltdown of a privately held global business that had us redesign and rebuild their corporate network during an expansion.

The week I was on site at their HQ they hired 400 new people, so it's safe to say they were expanding quickly. At the time they had a global network of satellite connections that routed back to corporate for Internet access. Before we arrived, each location had access to one another, to every device at corporate, and to their other u.s. based sites that connected via mpls. The network had a bunch of residential grade Linksys routers hooked up as switches and AP's throughout their building, and oh so much bad wiring that we were pulling hundreds of pounds out a day... We spent over 100 hours just plugging everything in and removing the residential equipment. We put in VLAN's isolated by a firewall and acl's for important devices, enabled a proxy for some of their global Internet access, and a bunch of other things to increase redundancy.

We followed up a few times and aided them in configurations, assuming things were going well. A year after our last chat they called us up in a panic! They had a crypto locker variant crawling along their global network locking up all their data. ALL OF THEIR DATA!

Basically, they told us they couldn't figure out how to manage the network we built and the owners didn't want to pay us to do it. They decided they would rip out all the equipment they bought and paid for plus paid us to configure and they put everything back on one network with residential gear.

They then decided they would share the important files off each hard drive across the network with everyone because it took too much time to configure security and they thought that since they had mcafee they were safe.

No backups. No disaster recovery.

They fired the poor i.t. director that day. They filed for bankruptcy protection that month. Last I checked the owners formed a new entity and somehow retained one of the products they sold out of the proceeding company. They are a much smaller company now.

Anyway. If you see any Linksys routers in production within a business you know what's up. You should expect this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is totally unsurprising to anyone that has seen in person the state of "enterprise" IT at a large organization in India, Pakistan or Bangladesh.

<comment><USER8> Can you expand?

<comment><USER7> Without going into detail that violates an NDA or reveals who I am, I've seen the back-end database/billing/network monitoring infrastructure for the three largest mobile network operators in Pakistan. It's scary. The banks in PK are worse. The lack of giving a fuck (or clue) is endemic to the region. People in south asia build their networks the same way they build their municipal electrical grids, in-premises 230VAC electricity, and municipal gas pipeline networks (in a very scary slapped together way).

This may be partially explained by a brain drain effect where everyone who really knows what they're doing on a *nix platform leaves the country to work for $70,000+ USD/year somewhere outside of PK/IN/BD. Those who are left are very far from the best network security, network engineering or sysadmin talents.

<comment><USER9> "This may be partially explained by a brain drain effect ..."

Arguably, nobody with a brain would still be living in a failed state that is a sponsor of global terror.

<comment><USER7> Now that's just xenophobic and ignorant, you expect all 175 million people to go where? It's like blaming every single person in Maricopa County, AZ for the actions of Joe Arpaio.

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I have a feeling, but not evidence, that this bank's security was this bad on purpose to aid the thieves. Someone in the middle or on top might be getting a cut. Has anyone looked into that angle?

And does anyone have an I.P. address to another Bangladesh bank with $10 routers and stuff on SWIFT network? Just so I can try to SMTP a warning to that address to help them avoid being hit, too.

</comment><comment><USER11> Short of building/installing your own router how can a highly sensitive business protect themselves from things like this? Obviously you don't want to be running random vulnerable hardware that is never updated. But what else?

I was thinking about having multiple layers ( _security loves onions!_ ) with interchangeably components that you roll over at random. That way any given attack vector at one point might be mitigated by a different interface below it. Literally unplugging and plugging things in to shake things up.

<comment><USER12> At least from the networking perspective, it's a solved problem. You assume the network is insecure, and encrypt the traffic.

This can be done on the protocol level, or wrapping the protocol with a secure shell like SSL/TLS, or wrapping everything with an encrypted VPN tunnel like IPSec.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Managed switch or linksys router how the hell is it so easy to push that much money around even if I work in that "room" and give you access to my computer for a hour there should have been some software to notice somethings going on. The switch is could have been a $10,000 switch and it still sounds to easy. I'd say inside job unless scanning the up range screamed out the company name and some easy vulnerabilities/old software versions which could have also been the case.

</comment><comment><USER14> "Most of the payments were blocked but $81 million was routed to accounts in the Philippines " Given that in most of the countries "Know Your Customer" (or its variations) is strictly followed, I wonder what makes it so difficult for multi nation police( involving interpol) to reverse track the hacker - <USER2> money receiving accounts -> account holders -> beating the s __t out of them to reveal senders name.

<comment><USER15> KYC laws are not strictly followed in the Philippines, in fact people accused of laundering the money in the Philippines have routinely cited bank secrecy laws when questioned.

<comment><USER16> Even if they are followed these are likely organized international criminals and KYC is just a speed bump for them to cruise over with stolen identities.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I don't feel comfortable attacking such a poor country on the prince of their networking gear.

<comment><USER18> Having lived in Kenya for 2 years, I really don't like these arguments. I'm sure the bank has many pieces of modern equipment (cars, air conditioners, etc...). Good IT equipment really isn't that expensive comparatively and we all need to be on the same page about the value delivered by proper gear.

WHO has a list of essential medicines for all countries. Maybe we should have a list of essential technologies for all organizations.

[http://www.who.int/medicines/publications/essentialmedicines...](http://www.who.int/medicines/publications/essentialmedicines/en/)

<comment><USER19> Yes, agreed completely. Most people have this mental image of the second/third world (or occupied nations) that doesn't match reality. For example, when we bombed the shit out of Iraq and destroyed most of their infrastructure and then occupied the country, there were still flights going in and out of the airport from Lebanon, the banks were still operating normal banking hours, the power was still on (for a few hours a day), people still went to the market, and poor farmers could still get gasoline to drive their crops to those markets. The university in Baghdad still conducted research and most of the country still had internet and cellphone access. I think popular culture has presented this picture of "not first world" places as basically one giant explosion, and that image is what most people see.</comment></comment></comment>