What do slaveholders think? - <AUTHOR> https://aeon.co/essays/this-is-what-slavery-looks-like-today-in-the-eyes-of-slavers <comment><USER2> I often wondered how slave holders justified their actions. And along those lines, I recall a lecture on Roman slavery. It made the point that it was standard-practice in Roman and other ancient cultures to raid other groups, kill everyone and take their possessions: livestock, food, valuables, etc. That was the way of the world that everyone knew. In the Roman mind, when the raiding party decided to let some people live and sell them into slavery, they were doing the captives a favor. They were saved from death. And from then on the slaves were more-or-less the walking dead with no rights and owing their "masters" everything. They were only alive because of the grace of the invaders. The lecture also noted that there was _no_ writing from Roman times that questioned the morality of slavery. No one thought it was wrong. There are extensive writings from literate slaves themselves, and even these writings fail to question the morality of slavery. And speaking of writing, the Bible was written in a time when slavery was common practice. I don't recall Jesus preaching against slavery or the 10 Commandments coming out against it either.

<comment><USER3> How do we justify killing animals, including their young, in giant torture factories where rivers of blood flow amidst the cries and horror of the victims, while the killers laugh and laugh, as spy videos show repeatedly?

We don't think about it.

How do we justify letting refugees die on sinking ships in the Mediterranean sea, or on the shores of Europe, including young children?

We don't think about it.

How do we justify bombing civilians, hospitals, wedding parties in remote countries we're not even at war with?

We don't think about it.

It's easy, really. The only thing easier than this, is thinking we're morally superior to the Romans, or to modern slave owners, because we don't "own slaves".

We're not (I'm not vegan btw, and do nothing to stop wars or help refugees). We're worse in many respects.

<comment><USER4> You forgot the arena like fights transmitted live on TV with little difference from gladiator fights.

Just with the difference that people usually don't get killed on the arena, and the subject being some kind of martial arts instead of reproducing past battles.

<comment><USER5> Comparing modern combat sports to slavery and animal torture is ludicrous.

The contestants are there of their own free will and the sports are actually pretty safe.

You might as well claim that all physical sports are in the same camp as slavery, because its physical competition and people get hurt sometimes.

<comment><USER6> Not all gladiators were slaves. Many were well regarded for their abilities.

We still have trophy hunters today, who hunt not for food or sustenance, but for a pelt or a tusk.

> are actually pretty safe

We used to think that Boxing and Football were "pretty safe" as well. Then we learned how much impact things like concussions have on a person's life. I can't really imagine that MMA is that much safer when I see people repeatedly being choked out, having joints nearly separated, getting knocked out...

<comment><USER5> Your comparison to trophy hunting makes no sense. One entity killing another unwilling entity for sport is no comparison to two willing participants engaging in a physical contest with rules and a referee where at least one of th goals is to minimize long term damage.

Agree on football and boxing, not a fan of either. As for MMA the jury is still out but I hardly think equating it with slavery makes sense because you "can't imagine" it's safe, even though you don't have the data. I mean, comparing that to literally owning another human?

All sports have physical risk, even solo sports. Does that mean that when I go rock climbing, I might as well be owning slaves or torturing animals?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This article is conflating debt bondage with slavery. This is a huge error. Some debt bondage, like what is described in the article, is abusive and harmful.

But much of it is quite beneficial to both parties. My sister was debt bonded for a while; Crossfit paid for her personal trainer certification, but she had to pay them back if she quit her job in a year. A girl I dated is getting a Masters from Columbia, but she has to continue working for the Diplomatic Corps in her country for 3 years after graduation. In fact, many valley engineers meet the definition of bonded labor: you need to give back the signing bonus if you quit in < 1 year.

Economically, bonded labor with transparent contracts is a way to allow employers to pay to improve the human capital of their workers. On HN we often lament the fact that employers don't invest in employees, and the main reason for this is that they can't recoup their costs if the employee leaves.

In India and the US there is a lot of bonded labor and it ranges across the spectrum. Quite a bit of it - particularly among professionals - is not remotely exploitative and is economically beneficial. An informed discussion should acknowledge this.

<comment><USER8> This article is conflating slavery with abusive human disempowerment. Some slavery, like what is described in the article, is abusive and harmful.

But much of it is quite beneficial to both parties. My cousin by marriage was a slave for a while; his master paid for his financial certification and gave him a small allowance, but he had to save up sufficient funds before he could buy his way to freedom. A girl I used to date used to be a slave, but she chose to remain with the family who owned her even after she bought her freedom, and remains an integral and happy member of the household. In fact, many successful members of our community, particularly business owners and managers, are slaves or former slaves!

Economically, slavery with proper laws and regulations is a way for families and moneyed individuals to improve the quality of their household or business, while giving an otherwise hopeless individual the chance to enter into Roman society. Here at the Tinkerers' Forum we often lament the fact that slave owners don't invest in their slaves, and the main reason for this is that they can't recoup their costs if the slave dies or escapes.

In Rome and its provinces there is a lot of slavery and it ranges across the spectrum. Quite a bit of it - particularly in the educated and enlightened centre of the Empire - is not remotely exploitative and is economically beneficial. An informed discussion should acknowledge this.

<comment><USER7> My sister chose to enter into this arrangement with crossfit. She could have done something else if she preferred. She made an informed choice that being a crossfit instructor was worthwhile.

Your imagined cousin did not have this option. That's the fundamental distinction.

However, it is very much worth discussing slavery in the Greek/Roman context - it did differ very much from American slavery. And even American slavery is known to us these days mainly from works of propaganda (e.g. Uncle Tom's Cabin, or modern propaganda like Django Unchained), so our perception of it may not be accurate either.

<comment><USER9> One group of people forced another group of people to labor for them under threat of physical violence. These people were systematically denied freedoms. Their owners were, naturally, extremely racist.

What exactly about Django is meant to be propaganda? How does it misrepresent slavery other than the exaggerated comedic situations? Do you truly believe Quentin Tarantino was attempting to brainwash people about what slavery was like?

<comment><USER7> Django Unchained was meant to make the viewer enjoy violence against certain people. To do this, they needed to make those people as awful and unsympathetic as possible.

<comment><USER10> Well, it's a Tarantino movie! That's what he does!

But it doesn't mean that slavery isn't evil.

<comment><USER7> I didn't say it wasn't evil. I said that our perceptions of how it actually worked might not be accurate.

<comment><USER10> I get what you say about debt bondage, and how it can be voluntary. And the right to bankruptcy more or less guarantees that.

What I don't get is what about our perceptions of how slavery worked in the US might not be accurate. Except maybe in negligible ways. I mean, people were born into slavery. They could be given freedom. But they typically had no way to earn it. What am I missing?

Actually, what's arguably missing is how widespread debt bondage was. Poor white immigrants were sold just like black slaves, and typically worked ten years to pay for their passage. And children who came with them had to work until 18, and could be sold separately.

Edit: typo

<comment><USER7> _What I don 't get is what about our perceptions of how slavery worked in the US might not be accurate. Except maybe in negligible ways. I mean, people were born into slavery. They could be given freedom. But they typically had no way to earn it. What am I missing?_

What you are missing is that the sadistic behavior seen in Django Unchained was uncommon. Slaves were expensive. People don't usually destroy a $40k Lexus for entertainment - they usually take good care of their expensive capital investments, and they treat their own car far better than a rental.

In fact, slaves were often treated comparably or better than freeman laborers. Here is a modern treatment: [http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/slavery/JLE-1977.pdf](http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/slavery/JLE-1977.pdf)

Or you can read a contemporary treatment, from a northern unitarian abolitionist who visited the south: [http://www.authorama.com/full/pdf/A-Southside-View-of- Slaver...](http://www.authorama.com/full/pdf/A-Southside-View-of-Slavery-- Nehemiah-Adams.pdf)

Note: none of what I've said here should remotely be interpreted as a defense of slavery. Just an acknowledgement that my modern mental picture of American slavery is likely not that accurate.

<comment><USER11> However, if $40k Lexus attempts to flee or disrespect owner multiple times, owner will happily throw away the car or in case of slave violently punish him or her. The "cared about them well due to cost" narrative conveniently ignores situations where ability to be violent toward "property" matters the most.

<comment><USER12> Especially if it would help keep the other Lexuses in line.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I have Indian heritage. My parents are incredibly religious. A large part of India is quite religious and Hinduism is the main religion.

The brahmin, shudra (castes) stems from the ancient scriptures which a lot of people staunchly believe in.

From modern point of view a lot of the scriptures are quite racist and sexist to be honest. I have arguments with my family all the time regarding this. I know quite a number of people who legit believe in untouchables.

I strongly believe that as India becomes less religious, it will prosper and the people will become happier.

<comment><USER14> > A large part of India is quite religious and Hinduism is the main religion

The article mentions:

Ahmed, a middle-class slaveholder in Uttar Pradesh in India, was eager to show me around the village where he was a member of the ruling elite. While I was grateful for the warm reception, I was visiting Ahmed's community because of gross human-rights violations – bonded labour, child exploitation, and outbound human trafficking.

My understanding is that Ahmed is an Arabic name and I had been told that Arab people enslaved Indians and that this practice still goes on today. So I'm confused now. Are Hindus enslaving other Hindus?

Further, I'm wondering how this all relates to the article. The article doesn't mention religion at all so it is unclear to me whether you're saying Hinduism encourages slavery. I have Hindu friends who told me there is no such thing as "scripture" in Hinduism because there is no "god given" book like Torah, Bible or Quran. So I'm having difficulty understanding what's going on in India.

<comment><USER15> > I have Hindu friends who told me there is no such thing as "scripture" in > Hinduism because there is no "god given" book like Torah, Bible or Quran. So > I'm having difficulty understanding what's going on in India.

There's no short answer to your question. The real "answer" is that Hinduism is a multifaceted religion which encompasses a massive range of different beliefs and practices, which cannot all be neatly classified with a single stroke.

To give you some perspective, it's arguably easier to make statements about Abrahamic faiths as a whole (encompassing everything from Satmars to Salafists to Mormons) than it is to make statements about Hinduism as a whole.

<comment><USER16> > To give you some perspective, it's arguably easier to make statements about > Abrahamic faiths as a whole (encompassing everything from Satmars to > Salafists to Mormons) than it is to make statements about Hinduism as a > whole.

I'm not disagreeing, just to be clear, but fascinated by this statement. Could you provide some evidence for it?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Debt: The First 5,000 Years is a book by anthropologist David Graeber published in 2011. It explores the historical relationship of debt with social institutions such as barter, marriage, friendship, slavery, law, religion, war and government; in short, much of the fabric of human life in society. It draws on the history and anthropology of a number of civilizations, large and small, from the first known records of debt from Sumer in 3500 BC until the present.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt:_The_First_5000_Years](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt:_The_First_5000_Years)

</comment><comment><USER18> Michael Munger of Duke University talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about how attitudes in the American South toward slavery evolved over time and what we can learn from that evolution about the role culture plays in our lives: [http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2016/08/munger_on_slave.htm...](http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2016/08/munger_on_slave.html)

</comment><comment><USER19> I wish this article went into more of the philosophies of the slaveholders. Slavery is bad no doubt, but I can see how someone would rationalize it as providing security and peace of mind. If you give up your freedom and personal responsibility in return for guaranteed food and shelter, I can see it sounding okay, especially if the other option is to question where your next meal comes from. The problem is the power imbalance that leaves you at the whims of your master.

</comment><comment><USER20> The techniques listed here, especially emotional manipulation, aren't too dissimilar from what low-wage employers in developed countries do.

<comment><USER21> Curious what your experience in working low-wage jobs is?

<comment><USER22> [http://www.channel4.com/info/press/news/sports-direct- invest...](http://www.channel4.com/info/press/news/sports-direct- investigation-reveals-harsh-working-conditions)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Slavery is a subject I find fairly interesting, but sadly, it only 'appears' to be discussed, frank discussions of slavery have the problem that most people or assume that anyone with any slight impression of defending slavery in any for is 100% evil, or they assume others expect that behaviour, and 'pretend' they have it, stifling discussion and research.

For example research into the african slavery, and the result of slavery on the lives of africans transported to the Americas (not only US), frequently just result in researchers dismissed as being 'revisionists', and no real discussion show up, the few people that end having courage to discuss it for real, frequently are actual bigoted racists, that don't care about the wider public opinion of them, on both sides of the coin (I saw blatant racists both anti-white and anti-black).

<comment><USER24> Sorry if I'm misunderstanding, but are you talking about debating the merits of slavery? Forgive me if I'm incredulous, but what kind of results are there to debate? Are you implying that there were good results to come from slavery? I am genuinely interested in what there is to know, as I'm horribly ignorant of it myself.

I was reading on slavery today, and came across an interesting couple of quotes by Engels:

>The only difference as compared with the old, outspoken slavery is this, that the worker of today seems to be free because he is not sold once for all, but piecemeal by the day, the week, the year, and because no one owner sells him to another, but he is forced to sell himself in this way instead, being the slave of no particular person, but of the whole property-holding class.

and

>The slave frees himself when, of all the relations of private property, he abolishes only the relation of slavery and thereby becomes a proletarian; the proletarian can free himself only by abolishing private property in general.

I'd say myself it's a greater shame that _wage slavery_ is discussed as sparsely as it is.

<comment><USER25> Slavery (as well as private enterprises) is a form to coordinate efforts of an enterprise that _requires_ more than one worker to function. "Requires" means that without a coordinated effort the enterprise won't be possible. Such enterprises are more productive than single workers and the gain is not linear, i.e. an enterprise that has two workers is more productive than two separate workers put together. This is why slavery (= coordinated team effort) is beneficial: it increases the wealth of the society more than when everyone is free and works on its own.

Of course, slavery is a very crude form of coordinated team effort. Private enterprise is much better and much more flexible; in fact, this is the best form so far. Best practical form, that is. I can imagine maybe a more attractive setup on a smaller scale, something like a community where the team effort is coordinated by the leader and everyone obeys because the leader is wise and knowledgeable or out of tradition; a monastery would be a good real- life example here. But I fail to imagine that this would scale.

Now, I believe that coordinated team effort in any form has to strip team members out of some of their liberties. E.g. if your enterprise is to work around the clock (and it may have to due to technical reasons), then some people will have to work nights. Yet coordinated work is so much more productive than single-person efforts that it's beneficial to accept these limits. Remember a DIY hamburger experiment where a guy wanted to make a plain hamburger all by himself and ended up with around $5,000 in costs and even that wasn't cheat-free?

<comment><USER24> >Slavery (as well as private enterprises) is a form to coordinate efforts of an enterprise that requires more than one worker to function.

I'm not arguing against coordination of efforts; rather I am talking about coordinating efforts on a small and preferably ad-hoc basis as a form of project management. Abolishing the class which appropriates surplus is by no means abolishing project managers and engineers. People partake voluntarily, and how much work is done is decided by direct democracy beforehand, either with delegates subject to instant recall or in person.

Yes, some people may need to work nights, though working nights is usually an effect of the fact that a product needs to be finished by a certain point in time in order to meet profit expectations. However even when there is a deadline, working nights need not be something involuntary as it almost is nowadays.

Businesses collaborate on projects at a small scale, and many projects can be put into 'monastery-size' collaborative teams. My main point is that the participation has to be voluntary, and that no surplus should be appropriated at any stage.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> The author of the linked post is associated with Free the Slaves, a highly rated charity [1] that I'd recommend supporting to anyone troubled by modern slavery. He has a follow-on article up on their website. [2]

[1] [https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summar...](https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=11051)

[2] [http://www.freetheslaves.net/why-i-chose-to-research-what- sl...](http://www.freetheslaves.net/why-i-chose-to-research-what-slaveholders- think/)

</comment><comment><USER27> This is an amazing article. Writings about slave holders all seem to fall into two sorts. One defends them and says they are the finest of people, and the very foundation of civilization. The other sort says they are evil through and through.

This article instead gets at the actual reality of their psychology, which turns out to be a lot more complicated.

Let me add one point, which is that slavery seems to largely be a function of economics and the level of technology of a society. In nomadic foraging societies, from what I have read, slavery is unknown because it is impractical and has no economic value.

But with agriculture slavery becomes possible and can produce great wealth and many other sorts of value, and so it becomes wide-spread. But then with industrialization it again becomes uneconomic, and so is abolished. What the article describes quite clearly is a country moving from a largely agrarian economy to an industrial one, and how slavery is being slowly eliminated in the process.

</comment><comment><USER28> _How do its beneficiaries justify it?_

Because they can get away with it. Or more precisely: because _we_ let them get away with it.

Granted, the remedy (in so many words: rigorous supply-chain screening + a homeopathic dose of consciousness raising among the general public) is far from trivial. But _doable_. Yet so far we're only taking baby steps at cracking it.

</comment><comment><USER29> Just as a flower grows from rot and decayed matter, the unpleasant things in human history and unpleasant things in human nature have provided what was needed for that which we have which is beautiful and life giving and good right now.

We look at a little slice of time and moralize. Which is all we can practically do. But morality changes and it doesn't come out of nothing either.

</comment><comment><USER30> > _What do slaveholders think?_

Not anything that different from "sweatshop" employers or any shitty employer for that matter.

</comment><comment><USER31> When Florida was under British control, Denys Rolle, British MP, brought settlers to his royally granted estate for the purpose of turning it into a capitalist plantation.

This was before the first (haha) American Revolution.

They took the closest thing resembling a flight from London to sunny Florida that there was back then. It was a sailing ship. -passage alone was 6 guineas (Pounds Sterling at the time)

Fundamentally the chattel slaves were treated as cargo and expensed, everyone else was paying in one way or another for the venture to improve "their share" of the estate "provided" them.

In this way the granted estate as a whole could be made "real" for the grantee (Rolle) after having first been nothing but decreed royal rights to not-yet- fully surveyed land.

Attempted Florida real estate in its infancy. Make it more real than it was, so those who come along next will pay more rent.

1766 terms of settlement -help turn wilderness into a foundation for building Rolle a productive multinational agricultural venture -these one-way bundles include passage -all get a small lot in "town" and 5 acres for farming -plus "no limits as to quantity" of additional heritable farmland for a fee -all for a low, low, "small quit-rent" (property tax)

indigent class - 4 years indentured sharecropping in lieu of 12 guineas -expected to achieve the wherewithal to "purchase nearly two negroes" of his own after 4 years

third class "bare necessaries" \- 12 guineas -you get survival materials, farm tools and a pig

second class - 21 guineas -you also get craftsman's tools and more livestock -you still have to perform your own labor

first class - 51 guineas -"The remaining 30 guineas may be employed in the price and wages of indented servants, or a working negro may be purchased with it."

The sections in his own words do lend an idea about what the slaveholders of the traditional British aristocracy might have thought. The following document is worthwhile in its entirety but Rolle's account starts about halfway down the page:

[https://books.google.nl/books?id=Z2ZZAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1...](https://books.google.nl/books?id=Z2ZZAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=Extract+from+an+Account+of+East+Florida&source=bl&ots=QNsyfRR4oJ&sig=wvFh4YSDMROOO1_tl45aD8RIbhM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JIvUs_tBZOjhge21ID4DQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Extract%20from%20an%20Account%20of%20East%20Florida&f=false)

Later, after the British lost the war they ended up ceding Florida to Spain in 1783, and Rolle relocated his downsized plantation to the neighboring British territory of the Bahama Islands, claiming great losses due to the political change of sovereignty.

This takes place a few years after the most recent American Revolution (same war as above) which had started in 1776. Florida was not one of the 13 North American colonies which had declared independence from Britain.

In the interim period Rolle had made the transition to pure slave labor going forward, instead of the original indentured arrangement.

The thoughts of this same gentleman 14 - 17 years later can be further hinted at by this next document from 1780 - 1783. The Rolle information again starts about halfway down the page:

[http://www.unf.edu/floridahistoryonline/Plantations/plantati...](http://www.unf.edu/floridahistoryonline/Plantations/plantations/San_Marco- Jericho-Chichester.htm)

Detailed is the work output expected of the various slave types (considered to be probably exaggerated for the purpose of his bureaucratic claim for financial compensation).

Among pages of claims, chattel slaves were by then valued per head at:

100 Pounds Sterling for Trade workers 50 for Field workers 15 for "Rising Generation" children 0 for "Past Labour" kitchen workers no longer capable of Field performance

Quite a bit of inflation, if it can be believed.

Only the chattel slaves have been made illegal since then, but there are bound to be ruling classes over a period of centuries where when the prohibition of slavery came along, it was treated as a technicality. Depends on where the line is drawn. I believe this line is called labor law.

But it's not only a matter of where the line is drawn and what the terms are, but more importantly who draws the line and sets the terms.

</comment><comment><USER32> Just ask ranchers and dairy farmers.

<comment><USER33> Likely many people will downvote this, but I see your point.

<comment><USER21> Enlighten us?

<comment><USER34> I assume the point is that intelligent mammals like cows are being held and abused against their will for the benefit of their owners, and so dairy farmers and ranchers are the beneficiaries of this "slavery".

<comment><USER35> More generally, philosophers like Peter Singer talk about the connection between human rights and animal rights. Singer describes "the expanding circle" in which moral progress involves accepting more people into the circle of those we care about: first just the family, then the tribe, then a nation, then greater and greater groups (different races, religions, etc.), and so forth, and a further step is to include animals as well. [1]

Another perspective on the connection between human rights and animal rights is that it is no coincidence that sociopaths often abuse animals. Those that wish to harm humans often wish to harm animals and vice versa.

Likewise, most humans that see factory farming are horrified. We can't help but emphasize with them.

[1] [http://animalethics.blogspot.com/2004/06/peter-singer-on- exp...](http://animalethics.blogspot.com/2004/06/peter-singer-on-expanding- circle.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> What was slavery like, for the slave? It depended on the quality of your master. What is government like for the governed?

</comment><comment><USER7> Suppose I were to write "slavery is economically beneficial, ...a bunch of evidence goes here...". Do you believe an intellectual discussion would result?

I'd gamble at 3:1 odds that I'd be downvoted and called racist. Just look what happened to Yarvin for merely comparing slavery to government (a more longwinded version of this: [http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/no...](http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/nozick_slave.html) ).

<comment><USER37> > Suppose I were to write "slavery is economically beneficial, ...a bunch of > evidence goes here...". Do you believe an intellectual discussion would > result?

The problem is that the distortion of your ethics and values would have to be so extreme to arrive at such a conclusion that anyone who read that sentence would know that you have an extremely "different" way of looking at the world, and not in a good way.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owI7DOeO_yg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owI7DOeO_yg)

<comment><USER38>
       distortion of your ethics

It's interesting to reflect on the fact that there were many slave revolts in antiquity, but the revolting slaves did not seek to abolish slavery, they merely wanted to stop being slaves and have their own slaves. In other words, even slaves had no problem with slavery as an institution.

We also should always be aware that every serious discussion of slavery must begin with the question: what do you mean by "slavery", for the term is used in wildly different ways.

<comment><USER39> Could you give examples of this. Of the slave revolts I can remember in recent history none of them wanted to replace their masters. They just wanted out.

But pondering further. If you have a successful revolt what do you believe the punishment for the perpetrators should be. Would death be a just punishment? What if the empowered slaves offered enslavement of their former masters as an alternative?

<comment><USER38>
       Could you give examples of this.

Example of what? The standard text on the subject [1] says there are no known instances of slave revolts in antiquity that sought to abolish slavery as an institution. If you know counterexamples, I'd be interested to learn about them.

       Would death be a just punishment?
       What if ...

I can't see either being particularly productive. It's really very simple -- albeit unpleasant: there is a reason why some small group of people manage to enslave a large number of people: slavers are _better_ than slaves. Better at cooperation, better at conflict avoidance, better at socially organising violence, better at dividing-and-conquering their enemies, better at science, better at engineering, better at teaching their children, better at forming and maintaining society. Slaves should learn from slavers, not kill them. But learning is hard, and not immediately emotionally gratifying.

The Haitian slave revolution of the late 18th, early 19th century lead to immediate genocide of the remaining whites and and mixed race inhabitants [2]. Haiti, which was once the wealthiest Caribbean island has been a basket case ever since.

Coincidentally, after the successful revolution, the black leadership reinstituted slavery, albeit symbolically abolishing the whip [3].

The Haitian slave rebellion teaches us a large number of lessons about humanity, most not very palatable.

[1] Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realencyclop%C3%A4die_der_clas...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realencyclop%C3%A4die_der_classischen_Altertumswissenschaft)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1804_Haiti_massacre](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1804_Haiti_massacre)

[3] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_Revolution#Free_republ...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_Revolution#Free_republic)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> It is everywhere illegal yet slavery persists in many corners of the global economy. How do its beneficiaries justify it?

This piece was written by a professor, isn't there an error in the subtitle in the proper use of the English language ?

The subtitle would be corrected by stating: It is illegal everywhere, yet slavery . . . . .

(switch everywhere and illegal)

<comment><AUTHOR> As a native speaker of American English, I'd say that neither ordering is incorrect. Your suggestion ("illegal everywhere") is indeed more common, and would usually be better choice in conversational speech and popular writing. The subtitle ("everywhere illegal") isn't wrong, though, just stilted. Presuming the author is a native speaker, it's almost certainly not an error, but a conscious choice to employ "hyperbaton".

Overused, this sort of inverted word order can leave you sounding like a mishmash of Monty Python, Yoda, and a bad fantasy novel, but applied selectively, it acts as a defamiliarization that adds emphasis. Here, the inverted ordering conveys a sense of being legalistic, Biblical, and archaic. Presumably this is intended to hint to the reader that piece will argue that the practice of slavery is similarly out-of-place in the modern world.

<comment><USER41> I also think this added emphasis. I liked the way the author phrased it, i.e. "...everywhere illegal". To me, it gave the impression of focusing on the word "everywhere". (I'm not a native speaker.)

<comment><USER42> > it gave the impression of focusing on the word "everywhere"

That's precisely my understanding of it. I am a native English speaker (British English).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> HN comments debating the merits of slavery. Yikes. Besides being a head scratcher it's kind of a disgusting, albeit fascinating, look into some people's minds. Maybe it's the weekend crowd.

</comment><comment><USER33> Also somewhat related: 5th-Grader 'Sold' in Mock Slave Auction at New Jersey School - [http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_58d1d687e4b02d33b746c2cf](http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_58d1d687e4b02d33b746c2cf)

</comment><comment><USER44> The poor job of propaganda in this article made me laugh. You can tell it has more to do with "modern politics" than any dive into what slaveholders think. My favorite quote.

"It's only now that we are waking up to ask new questions about Right-wing movements such as the Ku Klux Klan and Al-Qaeda. A fresh generation of scholars are writing books about the Tea Party and those who protest on behalf of the rich"

</comment><comment><USER45> The same that capitalists think. Those mongrel are so much better of due to my hard work. They have food, shelter and something to do with there lives. Else they would vandalize on the street.

What if a slaveholder is a slave? Can dependancy hell apply to a owned person?

</comment><comment><USER46> The problem with word changing, which seems all the rage, is intelligent, logical people see through it and get put off.

And to make it worse the dumb dumbs start saying stuff like there are more slaves today than ever.

Not understanding comparing real slaves numbers in the old days to indentured servitude today, leaves out the fact most people were in indentured servitude for most of history.

But the dumb dumbs have the numbers, I guess playing them might be the best tactic to eradicate this awful practice.</comment>


How Small Arms Work (WWII Training Film) - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJzXG7MYX1c <comment><AUTHOR> I posted this both because it is a fascinating subject, and because this is a remarkable model for pedagogical video. It's hard to believe the resources and ingenuity that went into every aspect of the American war effort, including something as small (and also, obviously vitally important) as teaching soldiers how guns work.</comment>


Place recognition with WiFi fingerprints using Autoencoders and Neural Networks - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/aqibsaeed/Place-Recognition-using-Autoencoders-and-NN <comment><USER2> I've worked on a similar approach for Indoor Locationing, I had 5 APs with OpenWRT reading the RSSI of my phone and some Neural Nets implementation, which eventually learned where I am in the house.

Video: [https://youtu.be/eY0BQJJPdX4](https://youtu.be/eY0BQJJPdX4)

</comment><comment><USER3> If something simple like the location of a AP changes, would this system have to train from scratch with the entire dataset?

<comment><AUTHOR> NN can be trained online.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> this is really interesting, company I work for has recently started working on "location analytics" using signal strength (rssi) of the signal sent when your phone scans for wifi</comment>


Maine Is Drowning in Lobsters - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-05-18/maine-is-drowning-in-lobsters <comment><USER2> I'm in the middle of reading _Owning Our Future: The Emerging Ownership Revolution_ by Marjorie Kelly, which talks extensively about Maine lobster fishery rights.

Along the sensitive areas of the coast, only owner-operated boats are allowed to fish, and these people must all have certified lobster fishing licenses. Their licensure also gives them voting rights around regulations for lobstering- in a sense, they own the commons and collectively make rules governing it. Kelly argues that this ownership of the lobstering commons, in a cooperative-like structure, leads to greater sustainability.

 _Large corporate boats can operate only in designated areas. Instead of permitting limitless liberty to absentee owners for the seeking of wealth -- by hired hands indifferent to local custom -- Maine set spinning a new governing pattern…. That the right to make a living comes before the right to make a killing. That fairness for the many is more important than maximizing for the few. That sustaining the prosperity of larger living systems, both human and wild, is the root condition for the flourishing of all._ (page 138)

I'd highly recommend the book, which introduces the dichotomy of "generative" organizations (which by design seek to produce social value in addition to profit) vs. "extractive" organizations (which maximize financial value above all else).

I'm surprised this article skips over this topic entirely.

<comment><USER3> _> Kelly argues that this ownership of the lobstering commons, in a cooperative-like structure, leads to greater sustainability.

>> Large corporate boats can operate only in designated areas. Instead of permitting limitless liberty to absentee owners for the seeking of wealth -- by hired hands indifferent to local custom -- Maine set spinning a new governing pattern…. That the right to make a living comes before the right to make a killing. That fairness for the many is more important than maximizing for the few. That sustaining the prosperity of larger living systems, both human and wild, is the root condition for the flourishing of all._

At least insofar as Kelly's argument pertains to the management of fisheries and other commons, it is—economically speaking—more wrong than right.

A tragedy of the commons can be avoided in several ways, and none of them has much to do with putting "fairness for the many" ahead of "maximizing for the few". Indeed, a tragedy of the commons arises only when "the many" have unrestricted access to a scarce resource, and proceed to exploit it in an unsustainable way, due to the strategic nature of the situation.

Kelly would have you think otherwise, but "large corporate boats" are not the root cause of overfishing; the root cause is the desire on the part of each fisherman in an unregulated commoms to haul in the biggest catch he can before someone beats him to it. So aside from imposing regulation, another way to prevent a tragedy of the commons is to get rid of the commons: grant exclusive use of the former commons to a single party, who then has an incentive for good stewardship.

And quite contrary to Kelly's characterization of it, Maine's solution to managing its lobster rights can be seen as an instance of favoring the few over the many: lobstering was restricted to a relative few legally priveledged parties, few enough to make coordinating sustainable lobstering practices feasible. As is often the case when the law arbitrarily privileges some parties over others, there is an overlooked harm here, suffered by would-be lobstermen that the rules say cannot be.

So it seems to me that Kelly's words express her worldview and her somewhat misplaced good intentions—it is the curse of the economically uninformed that their good intentions will often lead them to a destination they didn't seek—but nothing more.

<comment><USER4> > another way to prevent a tragedy of the commons is to get rid of the > commons: grant exclusive use of the former commons to a single party, who > then has an incentive for good stewardship.

There is a single party, and it is The State of Maine.

> And quite contrary to Kelly's characterization of it, Maine's solution to > managing its lobster rights can be seen as an instance of favoring the few > over the many

I fail to see your reasoning here. A single corporate entity would would prefer to employ the smallest number of people possible.

<comment><USER3> _> There is a single party, and it is The State of Maine._

That's an interesting way of looking at it, but it doesn't strike me as one that contributes much to understanding the phenomenon. Individual licensed lobstermen, not the State of Maine, bear the costs and reap the rewards of their catch. The role of the State of Maine is to set rules about how and how much they catch (to their collective benefit), but the state is not in any meaningful sense catching lobsters.

 _> I fail to see your reasoning here. A single corporate entity would would prefer to employ the smallest number of people possible._

I'm not sure what reasoning you think you're failing to see. I did not say anything about how many people unitary ownership would employ, nor did I express any opinion about the merits and demerits of unitary ownership as a solution to the tragedy of the commons; I only noted that it is one, to illustrate my point that Kelly's characterization of the problem and its solution in terms of "fairness for the many" versus "maximizing for the few" exhibits no understanding of either the problem or the solution and seems to express nothing beyond her sympathies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I for one will do my part to help pick up the slack in demand.

While the wholesale price has fluctuated, has there been much change in retail/restaurant lobster prices? I certainly don't see restaurants near me lowering the price of a lobster roll. If anything, looks like Old Port Lobster Shack in Redwood City increased theirs judging by what Google shows in their menu listing for a "Maine Lobster Roll" ($18.75) vs. what their website shows ($22.95). But that's just a local price in a market that in general seems to see prices racing upwards due to the influx of cash in the area.

<comment><USER6> Some of the New England area McDonalds sell Lobster rolls: [https://newengland.com/today/travel/new-england/places-to- ea...](https://newengland.com/today/travel/new-england/places-to- eat/mcdonalds-lobster-roll/)

No idea if they are any good, but they are $8.

<comment><USER7> I've eaten them. It's the worst lobster roll I ever had, but the best McDonalds sandwich I ever had.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I live in Maine.

So far this year in Maine, the price is about 2x what it normally goes for. Locals say it's because there's such strong overseas demand (China, etc). The average price of a lobster roll I'd say is around $18.

Contrary to what the article says "it's not making anybody rich" I can tell you the lobstermen who typically sell lobster for $2/lb off the dock are very happy with $4/lb. A friend on a very good day will catch 2,000 pounds, so the extra margin this year is welcomed.

<comment><USER9> They seem to be starting to come down. They were $7/lb. at my local Hannaford's in Massachusetts today. (Down from about $12 fairly recently.) I assume that these are new shells coming in but I didn't buy any.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> One of the non-obvious factors of the economics of farming (fishing a specific region included): since most of the inputs are the same (weather, and with the emergence of commodity crops over the last century, seed too), if you have a good year, so do your peers, which drives down the value of the crop; when the year is bad (driving up the value) your yield has likely sunk.

This is the justification of ag cooperatives (like the recently invalidated California Raisin Advisory board [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Raisin_Advisory_Boa...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Raisin_Advisory_Board)) which are/were granted monopoly control over marketing and enforcement of production controls.

These boards have been really useful (in some fisheries like Ayre Peninsula / South Australia, and according to this article perhaps in Maine) and really terrible (e.g. Wisconsin milk boards).

<comment><USER11> The regulations in the Eyre peninsula, and SA in general, benefit the single boat owner over the corporate fisheries and I think that's really cool. The strange side effect of the free market eventually benefiting large corporate entities makes the concept of a meritocracy somewhat warped. It's hard to pull yourself up from your bootstraps if your competitor has ten boats full of cheap boots. With just the right amount of regulation, you can make something that works well for many as opposed to very well for few.

Anecdotally: My father was a skipper on a cray boat, catching crayfish in the south east of South Australia. The boat owners in those towns were essentially the wealthy elite. But the work was tough and most of my fathers friends hit 50 with significant ailments. One has an elevator in his house as he can't ascend stairs, the other suffered a stroke at 48 and is constantly in agonising back pain, and I bumped into one more in a neck brace who was doped up on opiates to cope. They made their money and retired early, but there was definitely a cost and perhaps they never got to truly enjoy the fruits of their labour.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I went to Stonington last fall with my family. It's a beautiful and interesting place. We were fortunate to rent from a lifelong local and tour with a retired oil industry scientist and learned about a lot of this while there.

The locals are very proud of the lobster industry and efforts to regulate it pragmatically but also humble and understanding that it could disappear quickly if the overall ecology changes and especially if the water temperature sweet spot continues moving north.

There is concern for the economic prospects of those who leave school early or skip college to take fishing jobs young and may not be prepared for much else if the fishing goes away.

I thought they said many lobster boat captains made more like double the article's stated $45k; of course, that's only for the owner/operator. It's no desk job, for sure: those guys are out on the water before sunrise every day (except during thunderstorms) and it is cold out there. They do wrap up pretty early in the afternoon.

<comment><USER13> > take fishing jobs young and may not be prepared for much else if the fishing > goes away

Why not just go back to school and retrain for another career? Offshore and deepsea fishing is backbreaking, labour intensive work. I'd hope most of them were smart enough to figure out they aren't going to do this for the rest of their lives. Hell, I was a bartender once and even I figured out that standing on my feet 8-12 hours per day won't be possible after so many years.

<comment><USER14> >Why not just go back to school and retrain for another career?

You make it sound like such a trivial thing. There is usually considerable debt and lost wages taken on for attending school, even for someone fresh out of high school. Throw a family into the mix, and it becomes very, very difficult.

<comment><USER13> There are some jobs that are high paying, short-term only. If you're being realistic you realize that and try to extract as much money from it as humanly possible before the jig is up. Some examples include oil derrick roughnecking, professional sports, modeling (obviously), deep sea fishing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I remember reading about how abundant lobsters were on a historical plaque in Cape Breton. From travel Canada - "There was a time when these crustaceans were so plentiful and underappreciated that only the poorest children took lobster sandwiches in their lunches while the rich kids ate bologna." [http://www.torontosun.com/2016/07/27/learning-about- lobster-...](http://www.torontosun.com/2016/07/27/learning-about-lobster-on- cape-bretons-cabot-trail)

<comment><USER8> Folklore told here in Maine said that lobsters were so abundant they would walk up on the beaches. It was considered to be "trash" food and they fed it to prisoners.

[http://www.history.com/news/a-taste-of-lobster- history](http://www.history.com/news/a-taste-of-lobster-history)

<comment><USER16> Others who are into lobster folklore I suspect will enjoy listening to episode 33 of "The Memory Palace" podcast: [http://thememorypalace.us/2010/08/episode-33-lost- lobsters/](http://thememorypalace.us/2010/08/episode-33-lost-lobsters/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> _> On average, it takes about a pound of herring to catch a pound of lobster._

That is very interesting and something I didn't know. I like herring more than lobster. It has greater nutritional value. It's kosher. And it is not a giant sea insect fed to prisoners. What is not to like.

I wonder whether similar actions to protect herrings are being taken as once were taken to protect lobsters.

</comment><comment><USER18> Some data points in no particular order:

\- The Secret Life of Lobsters, I highly recommend this book about lobsters, science and lobstering industry. It was a best seller so don't let the title turn you off.

\- Lobsters enter the trap, eat the bait - and leave. (This is a relatively recent discovery.) Lobsterman it turns out, have been feeding the lobsters all this time. This might explain the consistently large catch.

\- There were laws at one point that limited the # of days a week you could serve lobster to your hired help.

</comment><comment><USER19> The Lobster chart in the article reminds me so much of the Cod Collapse( _)

(_) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_Atlantic_north...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_Atlantic_northwest_cod_fishery#/media/File:Surexploitation_morue_surp%C3%AAcheEn.jpg) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_Atlantic_north...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_Atlantic_northwest_cod_fishery)

</comment><comment><USER20> Is the herring they use as bait the same fish I buy in cans or jars in the supermarket? I'd rather eat that than lobster most days.

<comment><USER21> Yes, as bait fish they're quite easy to catch. Drop a line with a few shiny gold hooks and you'll likely pull it back up with a herring on each hook. For some reason they really like shiny objects.

Only problem is they only taste good smoked, and when I had easy access to fishing for herring, I didn't have a smoker :-(

<comment><USER22> Herring is also delicious when pickled in vinegar with onion, and also in some canned varieties. At least I love it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I recommend reading the essay "Consider the Lobster" by David Foster Wallace :)

<comment><USER24> Funny coincidence, but I just read it a few weeks ago.

Yes, highly recommended reading.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> From the article it says it's the same in Canada? Lobsters catches are down here in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence this season prices are about $8/pound for markets (big lobsters). Maybe they meant south-west Nova Scotia since it is close to Maine. [http://www.seafoodnews.com/Login.aspx?ReturnUrl=/SearchStory...](http://www.seafoodnews.com/Login.aspx?ReturnUrl=/SearchStory/Lobster/1061105)

An interesting point lobsters are supposedly immortal they just keep on going if not caught of course (and if not eaten!).

Also interesting in December 2016 there was a mysterious die off of many types of sea life off south-west Nova Scotia. I guess this didn't affect Maine but I'm not sure if it affected NS since their lobster season is in the fall [http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/nova-scotia- dead-h...](http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/nova-scotia-dead-herring- lobsters-starfish-mystery-1.3914056)

</comment><comment><USER26> I've had difficulty eating lobster due to the whole boiling alive bit after reading this: [http://www.columbia.edu/~col8/lobsterarticle.pdf](http://www.columbia.edu/~col8/lobsterarticle.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER27> If you found this interesting, I highly recommend Frontline's The Fish on My Plate [1]. It chronicles this quirky author's journey into the world of seafood. He does a "Supersize me" like experiment with seafood. I learned a lot and it even inspired me to modify my diet. Mussels not only are delicious, they help clean up the excess runoff from farms.

[1] [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/the-fish-on-my- plate/](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/the-fish-on-my-plate/)

</comment><comment><USER28> Am I the only one who thinks this sounds delicious?

</comment><comment><USER29> It concerns me that the creatures that devour dead stuff in the ocean are thriving. Is it not a possible explanation that there are a lot more dead animals in the ocean for the lobsters to eat? It wasnt suggested a possible reason in the article.

<comment><USER30> As someone who grew up in coastal Downeast Maine and has been lobster fishing on multiple occasions, it is my understanding that the lobsters partially feed off the dead herring used as bait. Fresh herring (freshly dead) is used as bait in the traps. Every time the trap is pulled up to check for lobsters (every 1-7 days), the old herring is pulled out of the bait pocket and fresh herring (freshly dead) is put back into the bait pocket. The old herring is tossed overboard where it sinks to the bottom and becomes food for lobsters. In a sense, the fishermen are cultivating the lobsters by feeding them. Here is a photo that I took, while lobster fishing, of herring that was used, pulled out of a bait pocket, and subsequently tossed overboard. Warning: graphic picture of dead fish. [https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1120/5100863905_1d9520e7eb_b.j...](https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1120/5100863905_1d9520e7eb_b.jpg)

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> How can I help? I'll bring my own butter and salt.</comment>


Leaked video reveals Amazon's union-busting playbook - <AUTHOR> https://boingboing.net/2018/09/27/red-scare.html <comment><USER2> Im not surprised, it is standard for a lot of US companies that rely on cheap labor. That said, I certainly don't agree with it and im not sure it should even be legal to stop people from forming a union in any way, it is a voluntary agreement among employees, not an agreement with the business.

<comment><USER3> FYI: Many US unions are involuntary.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Also, the original Gizmodo article linked to from Boingboing[0]:

[0][https://gizmodo.com/amazons-aggressive-anti-union-tactics- re...](https://gizmodo.com/amazons-aggressive-anti-union-tactics-revealed-in- leake-1829305201)

</comment><comment><USER5> "We are not anti-union, but we are not neutral either"

It either means that they are pro-union, or that a very dumb amazonian wrote this.</comment>


Ask HN: startup idea - Market place for unused coupons? - <AUTHOR>

Market place for unused coupons.<p>I thought about creating a marketplace where people can exchange coupons they purchased from sites like Groupon, but haven't used yet.
Do you think this is a good idea? anyone implemented this yet in the USA? <comment><USER2> There are a few that already exist if you just do a quick Google search:

<http://www.lifesta.com/> <http://www.dealigee.com/> <http://www.dealsgoround.com/> <http://couprecoup.com/>

Now if you're talking about non-Groupon type coupons as well such as regular retail coupons, there are a few of those as well including the major bargain aggregating communities.

Some are definitely successful businesses. Whether or not it's a good idea is up to you (it's going to be subjective for everyone). Just because you have an idea for a social network doesn't mean you'll be a Facebook. You could be one of the other thousands of unknown networks. It's all about how you execute.

</comment><comment><USER3> I believe that Groupon gives refunds, but it still might work with other sites.

<comment><AUTHOR> i do see they have refunds, but "ticketed events" are not refundable after the day of purchase.</comment></comment>


Adios, Pacific Garbage Patch: This Teenager's Invention Could Clean It Up - <AUTHOR> http://www.takepart.com/article/2014/06/12/ocean-clean-machine-invented-19-year-old-could-pick-half-pacific-garbage-patch <comment><AUTHOR> now if he can just get the $2MM to try it.</comment>


Unified APIs or API Standards, The Race is On - <AUTHOR> http://blog.programmableweb.com/2011/05/02/unified-apis-or-api-standards-the-race-is-on/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ProgrammableWeb+%28ProgrammableWeb%3A+Blog%29 <comment><USER2> Great post. As one of the Windsoc developers, I obviously believe in the Unified API. Things typically tend to move too fast for standards to be developed. OAuth is the only real "standard" people are using, but even still everyone does it just a little bit different. <http://activitystrea.ms/> is another great standard that very few people use.</comment>


In Defense of Chinese Tour Groups - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/startup-grind/chinese-tour-groups-suck-9d9d941fd06a <comment><USER2> I don't mind them. They stick to the same three things and leave me alone. Tourist traps make for excellent containment areas.</comment>


What Can Happen in the Course of Vulnerability Disclosure - <AUTHOR> http://www.insinuator.net/2015/09/sending-mixed-signals-what-can-happen-in-the-course-of-vulnerability-disclosure/ <comment><USER2> So, just immediately publish my research next time instead? Got it.

</comment><comment><USER3> Earlier discussion today: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10204720](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10204720)

</comment><comment><USER4> This just makes it more likely to drop info without involving vendors. Why expose yourself to this?

<comment><USER5> Indeed, although there is some risk they'll come after you for trade secrets or espionage or copyright or whatever. If you can find out where the line is beforehand, maybe you won't cross it. It seems they were heading towards agreement, with only a few things deemed too sensitive, before it went off the rails.

<comment><USER6> It seems likely that there was good-faith negotiation between the researchers and some reasonable people at FireEye. Then some dumbass executive (general counsel, perhaps?) got wind of the proceedings and decided to blow shit up.

<comment><USER5> That's not surprising. Being nice can come back to bite you if the other party turns out to be not nice.

Alice says "hey, we'd like if you toned it down a bit, but otherwise appreciate your research. Good luck with your presentation." Bob then releases all of Alice's source code in his presentation. Alice sues bob, but oops, she said "good luck." No dice.

Independent of whatever is "right" or "just" or "reasonable", there are more downsides and potential liabilities to saying "yes" than saying "no".</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Turn your iDevice into a motion sensor - <AUTHOR> http://appdelegateinc.com/blog/2011/04/13/motion-activated-camera-for-iphone/

<comment><USER2> haha, the picture of the cat should be on icanhascheezburger</comment>


4G: Bad coverage, crap battery life - but at least it's really expensive (UK) - <AUTHOR> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/26/4g_no_thx_no2/

<comment><USER2> My biggest concern with 4G is that it will move people from using static line ISP connections to using mobile connections for everything.

The problem with this is that mobile providers seem to be a lot more invasive when it comes to blocking content, leaking personal data and imposing restrictions on the use of the data service.

<comment><USER3> This will be limited by the costs. I get 5GB of monthly traffic for 10€/month on 21Mbps 3G (average speed: 4Mbps), but I get unlimited traffic at 150Mbps for the same price on a static line (average speed: 80Mbps). Cloud-based storage and services means I will do a lot of traffic, and this brings great costs for a mobile connection. Right now I'm backing up 1.8TB of data with CrashPlan. I couldn't do that on 3G.

<comment><USER4> Getting over 5GB on one SIM card at decent speeds seems to be almost impossible. Having rung around a lot on this, most UK networks say they'll only do it for video advertising boards next to motorways and such.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Until the standardised VoLTE software (Voice over IP for LTE) is working correctly aren't LTE phones all going to suffer from poor battery life thanks to having to keep both the LTE and the 3G radio on even in LTE capable locations?

</comment><comment><USER6> £51 for 5GB of data, and unlimited voice and text. That's currently $82.

Compare:

$110 for 4GB and unlimited voice and text on Verizon & ATT, which includes tethering.

$90 for T-mobile's cheapest "4G" data plan, which is "unlimited" data, but not LTE, and has no tethering.

$80 for Sprint's crappy non-LTE coverage, but only 450 minutes of voice, and capped tethering. Otherwise $110 for unlimited everything, and capped tethering.

Sorry, but this must be a different definition of "really expensive" than I was previously aware of (hanging preposition be damned).

<comment><USER7> £51 for 5GB of data is expensive. I'm in the UK and on t-mobile I pay £17 per month for unlimited data (not 4G though), all calls and all texts (well there are limits, but for my moderate/heavy usage it's as good as unlimited) and those calls include some international.

And until this year, it also included a free handset, last one 20 months ago was a desire HD. So £10/GB does sound expensive.

<comment><USER6> Granted. When I was in the UK on business, I brought an old Google Nexus One, and was able to get sim-only prepaid 3G voice and data dirt cheap. It was slow, though (Vodafone).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm growing tired of data caps being measured on 'how long it would take you to download that amount of data'. Faster speed and lower latency are boons for less data intensive applications too.

My iPhone's on a 3G plan with a 500MB monthly cap at the moment. I never go over it, even though the good 3G coverage here is plenty fast enough for video streaming etc. - I just don't want to use it for that. I'd love a faster, lower latency connection, but I don't anticipate my habits changing such that the /quantity/ of data I consume increases.

<comment><USER9> Are you sure your data coverage is good? I've noticed that with sinking latencies and rising bandwidth (but probably mostly the latency), data consumption rises.

For me at least.

<comment><USER8> I couldn't place it on a scale or give you figures, but it seems good to me in use. I certainly never feel its stopping me from doing anything.

As well as browsing, maps etc., I also use it to listen to (low bandwidth, admittedly) radio streams while jogging and iTunes Match occasionally with no problems.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Bad coverage in the UK? I live in the USA. For the past year, I've tried enabling 4g on my phone every time I go to a new city. I've never seen it work once.

Edit: In response to the dead reply "Even in the Bay Area?", since I can't seem to reply directly.

Yes, in all zero of the times I've been to the bay area, 4g has worked a total of zero times.

</comment><comment><USER11> Maybe for an individual user "3g" is sufficient, but my understanding is that it is a poor use of spectrum. One big motivator to move to LTE will be in congested areas where everyone simply cannot be served sufficient bandwidth with the legacy technology.

</comment><comment><USER12> Bad article, according to tests for example the iPhone 5 don't appear to have worse battery with let compared to the 4s.

<comment><USER13> Citation? AFAIK this is just Apple's claim, not a real test: [http://www.macrumors.com/2012/09/26/iphone-battery-life- grea...](http://www.macrumors.com/2012/09/26/iphone-battery-life-greatly- impacted-by-cellular-signal-strength/)

I love how Apple locks down apps, but dislike how many taps it takes to toggle LTE.

<comment><USER14> > The iPhone 5 manages to match Apple's estimates, just breaking the 10 hour > barrier.

<http://www.anandtech.com/show/6330/the-iphone-5-review/13></comment></comment></comment>


Bank Of America Promoting Bitcoin To Its Business Customers - <AUTHOR> https://smallbusinessonlinecommunity.bankofamerica.com/community/running-your-business/merchantservices/blog/2013/10/09/beyond-cash-or-credit-exploring-alternative-payment-solutions-for-small-businesses?utm_source=SBC_Newsletter&utm_medium=EmailSBC&utm_term=More_Article_8&utm_content=SBB&utm_campaign=Nov_2013

<comment><USER2> This is one of those cases where the title of the post really needs to be changed. As posted on HN it's totally false. (It's currently "Bank Of America Promoting Bitcoin To Its Business Customers" in case it's later changed.)

Bank of America isn't promoting anything here. This is a community site run on Bank of America's domain. See the current list of articles here:

[https://smallbusinessonlinecommunity.bankofamerica.com/commu...](https://smallbusinessonlinecommunity.bankofamerica.com/community/running- your-business/merchantservices)

<comment><USER3> I thought HN rules required the link title to match the article title with no editorializing? In that case, the title of this post most definitely needs to be changed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Strictly speaking, it's a community blog post. The author, Touchpoint, probably paid BOA to put the post up there: [https://smallbusinessonlinecommunity.bankofamerica.com/peopl...](https://smallbusinessonlinecommunity.bankofamerica.com/people/Touchpoint)

I guess we've found the next forbes.com

</comment><comment><USER5> I'm curious, if sales tax applies, how do you apply it to the sale and remit it to the city? Do you send them USD or BTC?

<comment><USER6> That's already well established for barter transactions. Yes, sales tax must be collected and remitted. The amount is calculated on the fair market value in USD of the goods received. Tax must be remitted in USD. This is one of the reasons that national currencies are referred to as "fiat currencies," because the government dictates their use for paying taxes.

<comment><USER7> That's not what "fiat" means. That's what "currency" means. (That is, if you can't pay taxes to defer the threat of state sponsored violence against your person then it's not valuable currency.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I bet that this will be taken down once it receives enough hits or attention.

</comment><comment><USER9> Wow. That was...unexpected.</comment>


Academic Publishing Is a Goddamned Exploitative Farce - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/age-of-awareness/academic-publishing-is-a-goddamned-exploitative-farce-75930d3ce3d0#.3lp6xrxvb <comment><USER2> What babble. So much is wrong with that article, I don't know where to begin. The only thing right was the signing away of copyright is bunk.

<comment><USER3> I only skimmed, but I didn't see anything horrible, what in particular are you complaining about?</comment></comment>


8088 MPH - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHXx3orN35Y

<comment><USER2> Awesome! I need to try running this for myself! It's amazing to see what this could do. I remember my PC took 2 minutes just to compile Hello World in Borland C.

I still have my IBM PC with CGA card (my only computer from 1987-1993, although it was 1981 technology (1983 BIOS to support hard drives though)) still and since this uses composite output and PC speaker I could actually run this! (I don't have a CGA monitor anymore so I have to use composite out to a TV which is what this demo uses. I also don't have the 8-bit Sound Blaster I had put in it when it was my main/only PC.) I will have to transfer it to the PC over serial cable (only one of my modern PCs even has a serial port). Fortunately I have Telix (terminal program for modems) still installed on the 20 MB Seagate hard drive and it still works.

I wonder if it needs 640KB because I have a couple back RAM chips and so it's short by one bank of RAM (a few KB). I can probably find the chips to replace them if needed.

<comment><USER3> It depends on how much conventional RAM you have after DOS is loaded, but if you're only missing the last few kB it should be fine (we targeted 640kB but it tops out at about 507kB).</comment></comment>


Superfast military plane hit Mach 20 before crash - <AUTHOR> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44208437/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/superfast-military-plane-hit-mach-crash/

<comment><USER2> This is exciting, because it opens the door for space elevators that don't rendezvous with a stationary point on the ground, but with hypersonic planes.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non- rocket_spacelaunch#Hyperson...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non- rocket_spacelaunch#Hypersonic_bolus_.28HASTOL.29)

[http://www.enotes.com/topic/Tether_propulsion#HASTOL_.E2.80....](http://www.enotes.com/topic/Tether_propulsion#HASTOL_.E2.80.94_Earth_launch_assist_rotovator)

This puts the tensile strength necessary into the realm of existing high- strength polymer cables.

If we could build a robust fully-reusable space plane that can go Mach 15, and we could also find a way to rendezvous it with a rotating tether, we could free ourselves from the nastiness of the rocket equation and achieve inexpensive space access.

<comment><USER3> Would you care to talk about why anyone would ever want a space elevator? (as opposed to just rockets)

<comment><USER4> It's wish fulfillment for sci-fi geeks, a deus ex machine made out of unobtanium which purports to answer the question "Is there any reason to go to space other than fulfilling the fantasies of sic-fi geeks given that getting to space is so fantastically expensive as to swamp all benefit of commercial activity other than artificial communications satellites?"

<comment><USER5> It's not quite that expensive -- NASA's budget from 1958 to 2011 was about $800 billion. To put it into perspective, the US has a yearly military budget of about $660 billion.

<comment><USER6> US military budget is well over 660 billion. You only get that low by separating things like military pensions and healthcare costs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The most significant difference between this prototype and existing ICBM technology is that the reentry vehicle has more lift and less drag.

It's counterintuitive, but re-entry vehicles are typically bluntly shaped because it reduces the heat load on the nose cone by pushing the bow shock further out in front of the craft. The downside of this is higher drag and less lift, so ICBM warheads fall more than they glide.

<comment><USER8> I think this is why they are called "ballistic missiles." They fall to earth as if they were an artillery round.

<comment><USER9> That and the fact that most of the flight is in an unpowered, "ballistic" mode, rather than powered for the full duration.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> >The HTV-2 is part of an advanced weapons program called Conventional Prompt Global Strike, which is working to develop systems to reach an enemy target anywhere in the world within one hour.

Wait, but don't ICBMs have like 40 min strike time for any target in the world since, like, sixties? (Ok, in the sixties they couldn't aim this fast).

<comment><USER11> Yes, but launching an ICBM has the rather unfortunately consequence of telegraphing the message that you are about to nuke someone. Hence the program is a non-ballistic one that seeks an alternative means of delivering a payload as quickly. As a bonus, I gather that the HTV program promises to be more accurate.

<comment><USER12> It's my impression that the rocket used to launch this thing would likely still set off early warning launch detection systems.

<comment><USER13> It seems like that sinks the entire idea. A weapon that is suitable for a nuclear first strike doesn't seem like a weapon that is suitable for much else, unless we're on unimaginably good terms with all the other nuclear powers. The fact that we must consider the possibility of military conflict with China makes it especially troubling to consider building a weapon like that and developing a defense strategy that depends on it. Can you imagine getting in a war with China and suddenly launching a dozen ICBMs with conventional weapons on them? Of course we would never do that. It would be insane to do anything that looked like a first strike during a conflict with China. Or Russia, for that matter. Hell, it would probably be insane to do it even if we weren't at war with Russia or China. The mere fact that this plane could deliver a nuclear weapon to Moscow or Beijing in under an hour means that it would be unwise to use it for anything else.

<comment><USER14> Why "must" the US consider a conflict with their main overseas creditor?

<comment><USER13> The US already has interests all over the world, and China is barely emerging as a world power. They will consider it fair for their influence to grow, and we will see it growing at the expense of ours. China's interests in Africa, its win/win deals with African nations that need industrial know-how and have raw materials to feed Chinese growth, already made the news here in the U.S., if only for a little while. Chinese culture and American culture are different, and as we come into competition for international influence, clever xenophobes on each side will attempt to frame the competition as a showdown between good and evil. Add to that the machinations of people and corporations whose financial interests are at stake, and you have powerful forces pushing for war. It seems naive to think that we won't go to war with China, to hope that we are the first generation that can avoid war under these circumstances.

Then again, it is each generation's duty to hope to rise above the last. I hope that friendly attitudes and cosmopolitan cynicism can combine to keep conflict from flaring up, and to snuff out any little conflagrations that spring up instead of escalating them out of pride and fear. But inevitably we must plan for the opposite contingency. At the very least we must plan for mistrust and tension, and therefore, at the very least we cannot depend on a weapon that is indistinguishable from a first strike. The only reason to develop it is for research purposes.

P.S. Oh, man, isn't it a tempting idea to snuff out your main creditor? Nobody in the Congress has a more realistic plan for getting rid of the national debt.

<comment><USER10> You make an interesting point, but it seems that current way of thinking is that mutually assured destruction of the nuclear war will prevent the war between US and China.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I know they're very different beasts and in completely different situations, but it's still interesting to remember that Voyager 1, using 30+ yo technology, is currently going about three times as fast as this plane.

<comment><USER9> 30 year old technology... and a few gravity assists.

<comment><USER15> Even older 'technology'...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> SO the worlds highest-bandwidth network protocol just went from a 747 full of thumb drives, to this scramjet full of thumb drives!

<comment><USER17> This scramjet is not particularly large. A 747 on the other hand, while traveling 20-40x slower, could fit petabytes of data.

<comment><USER18> Given that, I'd bet a decent-sized freight train, or tanker, would be able to vastly out-do a 747. With worse ping time, but for sheer bandwidth...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> That plane will render anti-ballistic missiles useless and make possible long- range targeted assassinations.

<comment><USER18> ICBMs have been going roughly this speed for a while now, so anti-ballistic missiles either have been useless for a while, or will continue to work. The shuttle goes a good deal faster (mach 25) on re-entry. And as soon as you strip away the need to land and be re-used (the hallmarks of an "airplane"), your anti-super-fast-airplane missiles become much cheaper and faster than the plane, so even a small success rate serves as an effective deterrent in many cases.

This is a tech experiment. It may lead to advances in airplanes, but I highly doubt it is cost-effective compared to an equivalent _missile_ that just slams home.

<comment><USER20> ICBM's fly outside of the atmosphere and they don't turn... IE. they're ballistic. I could see that something designed to hit the predictable path of a ballistic missile at mach 20 would fail to hit an aircraft which can turn at mach 20. (How well this thing can actually turn is another question.)

<comment><USER21> see my comment below: radius of an 8g turn at mach 20 (330 m/s * 20) is 555 km. I choose 8 g because that's roughly what we think a sunburn (ss-n-22) can do, and that thing is built like brick shit-house.

now, to add to that: the radius of a 1 g turn at mach 20 is 4444 km. The radius of the earth is 6378 km. They've got to at least consider orbital mechanics just to hold altitude constant. Able to maneuver and highly maneuverable are two different things. The Titantic was able to maneuver. Just couldn't move fast enough.

Now, let's think about some other fun stuff, everybody join in.

Here's one: at mach 20, you need something along the lines of the shuttle's thermal protection system. We're talking plasma hot. Wrap this thing up in 3 inches of glass and I'll bet you've lost significant payload volume.

<comment><USER19> In terms of payload, and as someone asked below, "ordinance and yield" Would it actually need any? Smashing mach 20 into a target would yield tremendous kinetic force without explosives.

Same principle as a <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun> where projectiles travel at 5,400 mph, and the gun can be situated on an aircraft carrier.

On that note, the article above mentions railguns as way to launch spacecraft into orbit: applicable for this Mach 20 plane.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Some months ago I observed an object crossing the sky at night from Coventry UK. It crossed the entire extent of the sky in about 2 seconds. It was very high up and had a red glow like that of a jet afterburner. It didn't fade out or change brightness as you might expect of a meteor and wasn't white as you'd expect of a satellite. I wondered at the time if someone was testing a very fast military vehicle. It would be interesting to know what various nations are working on.

</comment><comment><USER23> does anyone know if they had telemetry to the thing (which is difficult because of the plasma, but used to be possible at least at shuttle speeds from the tail)? or are they hoping some kind of black box survived? and if they had no telemetry is this report inferred from observations of the flight (only)?

[related - does the telemetry problem mean that if something like this ever went into production, it would be largely autonomous?]

<comment><USER24> The reports I've seensay they had a live datalink (I guess one-way only) which lasted nine minutes. They said they're happy with the data anyway, even though they don't know where it crashed (technically they don't even know it crashed, only that it stopped sending data), so they're clearly not relying on a black- box.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> It looks like the spaceship from Flight of the Navigator.

</comment><comment><USER26> Wait. 3 minutes at Mach 20 will get you from SFO to PDX easily, though I suppose it will take longer than that to take off and land.

</comment><comment><USER27> I thought they couldn't find the plane after it was lost? Did they find where it came down?

<comment><USER28> Telemetry data was logged during the flight. They don't need to recover the aircraft for telemetry.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> What ordinance and yield is it designed to deliver?

<comment><USER30> Surveillance camera, faster and less predictable than a satellite (and faster than the SR-71). Nothing can fly as fast inside the atmosphere, no way to lob a missile or artillery at it.

<comment><USER31> _Nothing can fly as fast inside the atmosphere, no way to lob a missile or artillery at it._

Assuming it's going in a straight line (Which wouldn't be unreasonable at that speed), you just need to send something up to block its path.

<comment><USER32> We already have the technology to shoot it down and have done for years:

<http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/ekv/>

Inevitably, someone else probably has it too.

<comment><USER14> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-400_%28SAM%29>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Keep in mind that this vehicle was just for collecting data, a conventional rocket did the work to accelerate it to mach 20. There's nothing the HTV-2 can do other than decelerate and maneuver.</comment>


The Peacock Problem - Part II - <AUTHOR> http://www.jamiebgall.co.uk/the-peacock-problem-response/4581250090 <comment><AUTHOR> The original (as linked above):

[http://www.jamiebgall.co.uk/the-peacock- problem/4581216632](http://www.jamiebgall.co.uk/the-peacock- problem/4581216632)

Submitted and discussed: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6832988](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6832988)

A response from someone on Twitter:

[http://therationaliser.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/the-peacock- pr...](http://therationaliser.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/the-peacock-problem- response.html)

This submission is a follow-up from the original author.</comment>


Python 3.7 released - <AUTHOR> https://www.python.org/downloads/release/python-370/?hn <comment><USER2> Notable parts of this release (IMO):

* Data classes ([https://docs.python.org/3.7/library/dataclasses.html](https://docs.python.org/3.7/library/dataclasses.html))

* New breakpoint() builtin ([https://docs.python.org/3.7/library/functions.html#breakpoin...](https://docs.python.org/3.7/library/functions.html#breakpoint))

* Dictionaries preserve insertion order. (Implemented in 3.6, but now is part of the official spec.)

<comment><USER3> Data classes are awesome! No more boilerplate __init__(self) methods needed.

Another notable part of this release is type annotations:

[https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0560/](https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0560/)

<comment><USER4> I love python typing, and have been using it extensively in 3.6. Great to see it in the CPython core!

I've been looking forward to trying data classes, should be nice to avoid unnecessary code.

<comment><USER5> > The typing module is one of the heaviest and slowest modules in the standard > library even with all the optimizations made.

Have you noticed any decreases in performance using core typing?

<comment><USER6> For those wondering, like I was, where that quote comes from, it's from PEP 560 "Core support for typing module and generic types" \- [https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0560/](https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0560/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The new importlib.resources[0] module is a nice solution for accessing static data-files within a package/module. It replaces pkg_resources (or perhaps, standardizes/guarantees-presence) and is supposed to be more efficient.

There's also the new module-level "__getattr__(name):" function[1] which behaves as the class method does: catching undefined variable names and providing a way to easily, for example, generate objects dynamically, handle deprecated variables, and lazily load submodules. I have a feeling it's going to be (ab)used to do some really great meta-programming.

[0] [https://docs.python.org/3.7/library/importlib.html#module- im...](https://docs.python.org/3.7/library/importlib.html#module- importlib.resources) [1] [https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0562/](https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0562/)

</comment><comment><USER8> I've become a heavy user of attrs, a small library that makes it easy to replace named tuples with a class that automatically includes initialisation and string representation functions.

So I'm very glad to see data classes bringing this to the core language.

<comment><USER9> Why? attrs does it already.

<comment><USER10> I'm not a python dev, but isn't less dependencies generally better? Or is attrs in Python natively already?

<comment><USER9> Attrs isn't in python natively. Not sure why less dependencies would be better though.

<comment><USER10> Every dependency is one more thing that can go wrong in my mind. I always drop them at every opportunity.

There are some exceptions. Like I really don't want form building to be in the standard library, and I don't want to write it myself.

It is nice when your package manager only takes a short manage to fetch and build though, and you can have more confidence that any mistakes will be your own (under your control) rather than someone else's.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Data classes seem pretty neat. I haven't used attrs yet. And I rarely extend namedtuples, but it's nice to have a mechanism to do that built in.

breakpoint() is certainly more memorable than the current incantation.

<comment><USER12> Yes! I've never been able to convince anyone to use pdb.settrace. I think they see the pdb and assume there's a whole new thing they'd have to learn.

If I tell them you just call breakpoint() they might be willing to try it out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Nice to see deterministic pycs made it in. Hurrah for reproducibility.

</comment><comment><USER14> Love data classes! Would've been even cooler if they could've been made immutable.

Oops, never mind: "It is not possible to create truly immutable Python objects. However, by passing frozen=True to the dataclass() decorator you can emulate immutability. In that case, dataclasses will add __setattr__() and __delattr__() methods to the class. These methods will raise a FrozenInstanceError when invoked."

</comment><comment><USER15> Every time I read about the module-level __getattr__ I'm reminded of the infamous Wat talk and how the speaker says Ruby is awesome. Python is equally awesome, finally :p

[https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/wat](https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/wat)

</comment><comment><USER16> Hey, does anyone know where to find information about how python's releases are structured? For example, 3.6 exists and 3.7 is released. Without looking at the release details, should I be upgrading? Should I assume that it will break stuff, or assume that it won't, or should I make no assumptions? Etc...

<comment><USER17> 3.6 to 3.7 is a minor release, only supposed to have new features, and not break existing code. Obviously, the probability of bugs is higher than in a micro release (e.g. 3.6.2 to 3.6.3), which only contains bugfixes. But I can't remember code from 2.6 breaking on 2.7, nor code from 3.5 breaking on 3.6.

<comment><USER18> Only point releases are support to avoid breaking code (though they sometime do).

Minor release may break code, though it should be rare. Python 3.7 reserves 'async' and 'await' as keywords so assignments like "async = 3", which worked in 3.6, will now fail.

Python has a deprecation warning system which can detect cases like this, but it must be enabled:

      % python -Wall
      Python 3.6.5 (v3.6.5:f59c0932b4, Mar 28 2018, 05:52:31)
      [GCC 4.2.1 Compatible Apple LLVM 6.0 (clang-600.0.57)] on darwin
      Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
      >>> async = 3
      <stdin>:1: DeprecationWarning: 'async' and 'await' will become
      reserved keywords in Python 3.7

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I found the post on RealPython easier to digest for a quick glance of the new features:

[https://realpython.com/python37-new- features](https://realpython.com/python37-new-features)

</comment><comment><USER20> Does anyone know how long new versions of Python take to get into Homebrew? Will current Python 3.6 installations on Homebrew autoupdate to Python 3.7 when brew update/brew upgrade is run and the new version is packaged?

<comment><USER21> Try using [https://github.com/pypa/pipenv](https://github.com/pypa/pipenv)

<comment><USER2> Did you mean pyenv? pipenv is a package manager. You can specify in pipenv which version of Python your project needs, but to utilize it requires that that the version is already installed on your system.

<comment><USER22> > to utilize it requires that that the version is already installed on your > system.

Almost correct. It requires either that the version is already on your system, _or_ it can find an installation of pyenv configured in the standard way (and, on some quirky situations with OSX, configured but pristine--without any pre- existing Python builds). In the latter case, it'll ask you if you want it to automatically build and cache/install a Python of the specified version.

And yes, the names all suck.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Abalonia: The Island Nation That Never Was - <AUTHOR> https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/cortes-bank <comment><USER2> "The idea of someone trying to resurrect a sunken island is such an American idea to me"

This did make me smile given the amazing work of the Dutch over hundreds of years to turn what is effectively a delta into a (not only viable but) thriving living space, including the resurrection of areas that were previously inhabited, subsequently flooded; though it didn't always go to plan! [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saeftinghe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saeftinghe)

</comment><comment><USER3> > However, they didn't know about the waves.

> Also involved ... aquatic expert James Houtz.

Not much of an expert if the didn't know about the waves.

<comment><USER4> No one really did back then. It wasn't until the mid 90's that the monster swells there became any sort of common knowledge.

I'm hoping to head out there next summer, apparently the undersea island and the wreck are incredible for spearing tuna and yellowtail.

<comment><AUTHOR> Even so, if I was planning on starting my own country, I'd probably, like, go check it out once or twice before starting. Or ask some local experts who could tell me about it. Something, anyway.

<comment><USER5> You could check it out a hundred times, but uless you were there during a relatively short window of time after a big storm in the eastern pacific, you wouldn't have seen these waves.

In the 60s we didn't have satellite photography or radar, so only a handful of 'lucky' people would have ever seen conditions like that. Remember - it's 100 miles offshore, it's not inhabited...</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Idea feedback – Service where people pay to reach your inbox - <AUTHOR> Problem - The bar to sending an email is too low resulting in casual low-effort messages. These messages take up time and attention and are difficult to filter. For instance, recruiter spam.
Solution - A service where a person pays a nominal amount, say $2, to land in your inbox. These messages will have 'PRIORITY INBOX' in their subject. This lets you filter the high-effort messages at a glance.
Possible use cases
1. Recruiter spam - This will let you filter the serious from the casual requests at a glance. Messages with 'PRIORITY INBOX' in the subject tell you the recruiter paid to get your attention and likely worth your time.
2. For an influencer - Say you run a blog and review developer tools every week. If you get tons of requests to cover different tools, you could use this service to filter out low-effort requests
3. Mentor-mentee - As mentor you can filter high-effort queries via this service. As the sender pays to reach your inbox, the messages are likely to be more focused so that you respond
This model can apply to other types of unsolicited messages where
a) Sender wants to stand-out from the generic low effort messages
b) Receiver wants to quickly filter high-effort and casual messages
I'd like to get HN's thoughts on
1. If you see value in such a service
2. For what type of messages, filtering quality and low-effort messages is of most value to you? (like developer-recruiter, mentor-mentee)
3. What concerns about this service would keep you from using it? (Assuming privacy and mail deliverability are handled to your satisfaction)
I've started work on this product. If you want to join private beta, signup here - https://airtable.com/shr6ifqw3468JFT0H <comment><USER2> On the receiving side, I would not like this, I don't want a random person influencing my priority inbox. Would likely create filters to send them to spam.

Someone paying to prioritize their email would indicate low quality sender to me.

On the sender side, why can't I just add the same PRIORITY INBOX subject text on my own.

The real issue is that senders don't take the time to understand and write a personalized email. I don't think charging them will improve the quality or situation.

<comment><AUTHOR> Do you think using templates for certain kinds of emails would improve the quality of communication?

Like how there are issue templates on Github, say you defined a template which recruiters could use to approach you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> \- Will the sender have to pay for each mail or it is a one time thing? \- Will the receiver have the option to adjust the nominal amount and who keeps the amount paid by the sender?</comment>


Ask HN: Recurring payment provider fees at 10-15M/yr? - <AUTHOR> 	Hi, Curious to see what other companies are paying for credit card processing w/recurring revenue capabilities and e-commerce, using something like Stripe, Braintree, or Recurly. Are you getting interchange plus pricing? Or if fixed, what's reasonable to expect? Would also love examples of companies this size that are doing this and the rates they're getting. <comment><USER2> Once you cross $1M, $5M, $8-10M you should be re-negotiating rates with any provider.

An example, we used Stripe for an ecommerce client and once they crossed consistently more than $100k/month we were able to get them a better rate, but a couple of years later the client returned to us and their revenue had grown many times over and so we helped them do a competitive price analysis (+dev costs). In that analysis we included banks, even firstdata who I loathed prior integrations to them, and we were able to significantly save them money integrating to their primary bank directly.

Rates are extremely variable so it is hard to tell you what you might get just on revenue alone because processors/clearing houses also take into consideration business risk, charge-backs, company financials etc. For example, if you are an e-commerce company that sells common low risk household items you'd have a much lower rate than say if you were an e-commerce company selling porn products. Likewise, if the company is less than a few years old you will continue to pay higher rates than if you are 5-8 years established or more. Lots of factors.</comment>