Robots have been about to take all the jobs for more than 200 years - <AUTHOR> https://timeline.com/robots-have-been-about-to-take-all-the-jobs-for-more-than-200-years-5c9c08a2f41d <comment><USER2> 200 years is only a blip in human history. First the machines automated physical labor, then they started automating mental labor, and now they're even starting to automate creative labor. As a friend of mine is fond of saying, society has yet to deal with all the ramifications brought by the steam engine. And we're moving way beyond that.

<comment><USER3> The big difference now is that the progress is fast enough for people to start to understand that their job may be automated in their life. Smart truck drivers in rich countries know that they have only at most 10 years left. Children from villages need to move to big cities to survive, as they understand the trend that farming jobs will worth less over time. Also more people that I know are getting interested in programming, though they do that for the money, not because they would understand the power of creation with code.

<comment><USER4> > The big difference now is that the progress is fast enough for people to > start to understand that their job may be automated in their life.

The other big difference is that US hourly wages peaked in the 1970s, and there are enough people experiencing the divergence between expectations of continued improvement and reality since then that its no longer a prediction of harms that might occur in the future, but an explanation of harms that are being experienced in the present.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I can't find the video, but a very powerful example of the folly in this way of thinking is in the mind of a horse. When the car came out, horses could have looked around and said "I know they're taking our jobs today, but for the past 10k years, every time one of our jobs got replaced, we found another one." Yet, despite such a lengthy history of adaptive value, after cars became prevalent, horses were never useful an laborers ever again. It's not far fetched to think that humans are just a better horse, able to stave off economic obsolescence slightly longer than they did.

<comment><USER6> This was the video. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is a clever collection. I'm sure at least one article, on the eve of the moon landing, asked "We've been wanting to go to the moon forever. What's different this time?"

Concerning robots, I can answer that question. This time, we have cheap sensors and connectivity, powerful processors, and machine learning.

It's early, but it's a sea change. Since the beginning, robots have been instructed what to do. Now, increasingly, they can _decide_ what to do. They can react to the environment. Recover from failure. Handle variance.

Most of the focus has been on autonomous driving, but the same sensors and algorithms are applicable to so many varied tasks that have traditional been unapproachable by machines. (The moment this technology enables a laundry folding robot, I'm buying it, not matter what it costs.)

And it's not just manual labor but knowledge work as well. We laugh at strange errors from Siri and Google Now, but I have also started to notice that more and more of my calls don't involve a phone tree and don't have to get escalated to a human.

<comment><USER8> > laundry folding robot

You mean this? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDljo6UUWps](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDljo6UUWps)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> The Luddites were right; they were just early.

As for the 1930s and onwards, I once described the Japanese war in China as indefensible even from a narrowly economic perspective, because developing Manchuria was enough to _absorb Japanese industrial productivity_ for the next thirty or forty years. That phrase is historians' standard way of describing what the Japanese wanted to do, but it was an absolute revelation to a non- historian friend of mine, who realized from that phrase that industrial productivity has been a waste product for the past eighty years or so...

</comment><comment> rm_-rf_slash When AI replaces programmers, mass employment is over. There will be nothing that can be done by a human that a machine cannot do better. _Fallout_ -style "synths" will be able to do everything we need our feet and fingers for.

My only real concern is that the more autonomously powerful and self-aware these new intelligences become, at what point will they perceive humanity to be a net liability? What happens when they don't need us anymore? What if by then (esp with climate change and antibiotic resistant bacteria) we can't live without them?

We'll be lucky if we get the _Neuromancer_ ending, where machines travel the universe while humanity happily farts around on earth. Lucky.

<comment><USER10> It seems like a category error to worry too much about machines deciding that humans are an "inefficiency" or a "liability." The drive towards maximizing efficiency is alien to computer systems that have not been explicitly constructed with that in mind. Organic creatures have an evolutionary impetus to maximize efficiency; machines (at this point and in the foreseeable future, at least) do not.

<comment><USER11> That can be constructed logically with win conditions on what efficiency is.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Correction, Robots _have been taking_ all the jobs for more than 200 years.

They just haven't _finished_ yet.

<comment><USER13> Sure, but the article is about fear. In those "more than 200 years" there's been a worldwide explosion in prosperity, and each time a rise in unemployment was blamed on robots, it later fell again without any retreat by the robots. This suggests that your claim that "Robots have been taking all the jobs" is nothing to fear.

<comment><USER14> We have nothing to fear as long as we can learn and adapt as a society faster than robots can take our places.

The question is, for how long will that realistically continue?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> We already have almost "self driving cars". They are called busses, where 30 people are almost automatically driven by one so it's already 96% automated. We're automating that one last job. If you think about trains, ships and even farms, they are already automated to a higher degree than buses.

And if people are afraid they will be jobless in an economy dominated by robots, there is a way out - becoming more independent. There are a number of ways a person, a community or a city could become more independent from imports and big corporations.

1\. agriculture - if the person or group has land, they don't depend much on other external agents

2\. solar and wind energy - they can be built on premise and don't depend on a central energy production system which could be hard to pay for, in the long run, if you don't have much cash

3\. 3D printing - making us independent from factories which are often on another continent and owned by big corp

4\. open source - anything we put there becomes our common legacy; fortunately AI research publishes almost everything, and we hope to keep it like that

5\. capital - who has capital can invest and have a steady stream of income

So, if big corp doesn't want to hire us and we don't have money to buy their products, we still have our hands, our brains and help from the community to find solutions. We can be independent even from jobs provided by big corps.

By the way - a robot and a 3D printer could build more robots and 3D printers. Think about that. When they can automate the process to a high degree, then any community can self-bootstrap into economic viability without depending on continuous delivery of tech and products from large corporations. That would be great for independence.

</comment><comment><USER16> Also, can we stop calling it "robots." I know it's silly, but I always picture a sci-fi style humanoid robot when they tell me they're taking my job. But we're not talking about that, we're simply talking about machines and computers with vastly more automation than previously.

(A dumb criticism, I know.)

</comment><comment><USER17> Thinking about robots is thinking about cheaper, smaller and more energy efficient devices. For example think about smart phones and communications, think about information storage and transformation. Those aspects are not a single extrapolation of the past, they are a revolution. I see many advances in nanotechnology, machine learning and miniaturization that could give rise to a new revolution, this is like the transistor, we are at the verge of a big change.

</comment><comment><USER18> John Henry dies at the end of the story.

</comment><comment><USER19> There is still a lot of things waiting to be invented/discovered in space travel, the humanity could use the help of robots in that regard.

And when ready I can travel to my own planet, terraform it and live out my artificially enhanced lifespan there.

</comment><comment><USER20> They don't stand a chanse because we're so good in inventing bullshit jobs [http://strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/](http://strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/)</comment>


Dear Bernie. I'm Sorry I Am the Problem with America - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@robmay/dear-bernie-i-m-sorry-i-am-the-problem-with-america-40d03eee071f#.ac5jwrjvo <comment><USER2> I have nothing but admiration for the writers hard work, and I (as a Bernie fan) want to strongly object to it. I think my objections and his mirror the political divide in this country - the left wants a more compassionate world, the right sees the desire for redistribution as lazy people wanting to take from the people who've actually earned. While there's a bit of truth in both viewpoints, I'd ask him to consider :

\- because he had to go through this experience, should everybody? would it be better if we had, say, government-paid college? more opportunity? maybe he could have studied something he wanted?

\- do we really want a society where you pretty much have to choose between entrepreneurship or starvation? No poets? physicist? Teachers?

\- college is far less affordable now then when he or I went to school (didn't read the cite at the end, sorry, but the fact is there regardless of who's responsible)

\- Our society has unquestionably become more economically savage in the last few decades. Out of work? good luck on your health care, sucker. Do we really want a society where everybody has to give up everything to strive to be wealthy because that's the only safe harbor?

<comment><USER3> College is probably a lot more expensive than it needs to be -- do we really want to pick up that inflated bill? There has to be a better solution. I only went to college to get away from my parents (and party) for four years. I probably didn't need the excessive campus and amenities.

<comment><USER4> College costs are decided by the market, and right now there is no shortage of those who can get their hands on loans, and there is not much limit to the size of loans they can get, so prices have to go up until supply and demand hit equilibrium.

So it absolutely _does_ need to be expensive, because scarce resources such as an education have an inverse relationship between degree value and number of degree holders. Otherwise it will be soon enough that our advanced engineering degrees are worth much less than before. Software Engineering average salary doesn't even keep up with inflation any more so in my opinion we are already seeing these effects.

Also I would argue a lot of the worthless degrees we see today are worthless due to both the volume of the holders of those degrees as well as the fact that they are premised on a field which doesn't have much practical value but if they were scarce they would be worth much more in the job market.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is one of the most insipid pieces of writing I've read on this site in a long time. Despite apparently achieving his dreams and becoming a millionaire, he sounds very bitter and unhappy because...a politician isn't paying him lip service and personally thanking him? Because people have hard lives and want to see a system that works for them rather than oppressing them under of the guise of "hard work pays off"?

"But the wonderful thing about America is that if you are willing to make the right sacrifices, you can achieve whatever you want."

Except this is patently false for a large, growing portion of people, those that get denied opportunities because of their race, their class, their names, their lack of funds.

The whole rhetoric of "I gritted my teeth and pulled up my sleeves and became a millionaire and you can too!" is so hollow and facetious in its victim- blaming that it's insulting.

So yes, Rob May, I do think you are part of the problem. Not because you are a millionaire or worked hard, but because you are myopic and unsympathetic to anyone who is not like you.

<comment><USER6> This doesn't make a lot of sense.

It is not "patently false" that a large population will not achieve what they want through hard work because they lack a certain racial or socioeconomic edge. It is true that they will have to work harder, but it does not mean they are barred from trying. Why do you think that people are victims of their skin colour and heritage? Why does that make them a second class citizen?

<comment><USER5> I'm not saying they are barred from trying, just that matters are stacked against them and that's why people are upset and want change. Rob May seems to think they just need to "work harder".

>Why do you think that people are victims of their skin colour and heritage?

Because studies have shown that people with "black" or "ethnic" names are often passed over in favor of more European/Christian names. Because an entire generation of minority fathers were systemically targeted by police as part of the misguided War on Drugs. Because nearly fifty percent of the wealth gained by blacks was wiped out in the housing crisis because they were the victims of predatory loan practices.

>Why does that make them a second class citizen?

In America, if you don't have money you are a second class citizen. If you are black, in many areas you are a second class citizen. I wish more than anything this was not the case but it is a reality that I've witnessed and that many have to fight through.

Just saying "hey, sorry things are broken and you are at a huge disadvantage, guess you'll have to work harder!" is a pathetic redress to the economic realities of today.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This man worked hard, took risks and got rewards from it; I don't think this is something that anyone wants to punish. He certainly isn't a bad guy. Neither is any other rich person; they are taking maximum advantage of a system that produces outcomes that can be disproportionate to the hard work and risk that people put in.

Mark Zuckerberg is ~$50 billion (I'm sure theres an exact number somewhere). This means he is likely to be around 1000x richer than the person writing this article. Did he take larger risks or work harder or was he 1000x more effective at his job?

Wall street trading is a high value job and many PHDs are hired to work in the field. It produces almost nothing of value. We have a system that provides incentives for the brightest people to do something that provides no value and hides all their innovations (trade secrets!).

Then there's the question of economic stratification's impact on the market itself; it's largely agreed on that reducing the difference is better (and that everyone equal is equally silly). Billionaires just don't spend the majority of their money or bother putting it back into the economy because they don't have to.

I also want 'free' college. Investing in education tends to pay off for everybody who can hack it. These people contribute more to society (even as artists) and are much more likely to be out of poverty, make more money, advance society and generally be good citizens. Having the government pay 100% gives them more leverage over what the colleges spend money on and may actually reduce the costs (but IANAE). If a productive person has more time in college to explore their interests, might they be more productive overall? Most unskilled service jobs add very little to society; instead of working a job, he could have been building his company or saving that money to put towards his company.

Bernie's rallying cry is politics; it vilifies people instead of the system that they naturally take advantage. This works well as a narrative, but the people aren't villains. I'd much rather have as many productive people as possible take advantage of systems that create the most progress in society overall.

</comment><comment><USER8> A very interesting comment:

"I find it interesting that you don't mention the fact that you're a VP of Datto, which just happens to be one of the companies under investigation by the FBI for Hillary Clinton's classified email debacle. I think most people would think that it is a conflict of interest that you write against the candidate possibly preventing her becoming president, since her being president of the united states would probably take a lot of potential stress off of you and your company… especially since we still don't know who had access to those classified emails." \- Ryan

<comment><USER9> Ooh, I'm glad I scrolled down to see your comment identifying this (I generally avoid the comments section online unless it's on HN, heh).

I was taken aback by a lot of statements made in the article, which seemed to essentially state "I worked hard and it's not fair if other people don't have to, too" but in light of this his stance on the matter makes a lot of sense.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I don't think the author is "the problem with America". On the other hand I _do_ think he should be paying more in taxes.

If you want to talk about "problems with America", well one of them is this notion that we only two choices and they are one extreme or the other.

<comment><USER11> I don't think he's sorry about it either.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Author, over the course of at least 15 years, worked 2 jobs to fund his way through college and went on to start several businesses. He credits his work ethic and contends that he sacrificed a great deal to get where he ended up. However, he feels like Sanders guilts and scapegoats people like him for being millionaires who "everything was handed to (...)" and "don't deserve the money they made".

He descends into bitter resentment towards "people like the smart Yale student who majors in something useless, travels the world, and then graduates with $100,000 in debt that people like me should pay off via higher taxes." People much like "(...) many of the college students [he's] hired in the last few years. They study what they love — philosophy, political science, art, regardless of whether or not they have good job prospects. They travel. Mostly they seem to go to Vietnam and Cambodia. They eat out a lot more than [he] did at their age. They know all the trendy restaurants and hot bars."

Author's experience exclusively reflects of class envy in the Northeast United States: trust fund babies vs. hard-working self-made entrepreneurs, old money vs. new money, liberal arts majors vs. business majors, carefree (careless) people vs. an adversarial 'the world is rigged against me' work ethic. He unironically suggests "Unfortunately, we've come to believe that achievement should be easy. Changing that attitude is the first step towards making yourself more successful." His worldview is framed along this dichotomy; if you're not one, you must be the other. In his view, socioeconomic background has two discrete states: rich by birth and not-yet-rich, race and gender are not considered, and attitude is paramount.

<comment><USER5> The dichotomy between the "liberal arts" students and STEM/ aka what the author considers"successful" people is one of the biggest annoyances I have about modern tech culture. In the 60s and 70s, some of the most significant computing advances were made by implementing ideas from the humanities with an extraordinary degree of technical acumen - this was Douglas Engelbart's whole MO. The book "What the Doormouse Said" is a great overview of this. I wish more tech people realized that they aren't diametrically opposed to one another. They need each other.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> >According to Bernie, the world needs fewer people like me, and more people like the smart Yale student who majors in something useless, travels the world, and then graduates with $100,000 in debt that people like me should pay off via higher taxes.

This is either a cheapshot or a fundamental misunderstanding of Sanders' vision. Sander's policy proposals are designed to benefit the middle class and he isn't even proposing any changes to federal income tax for those households earning under $250k (which is plausible for the author becoming a millionaire over 15 years.) It seems more fair to debate the viability of his policies, than the goals.

</comment><comment><USER14> Comments like this (from the author in response to another comment): "Also, where is this hunger problem? I keep reading the poor have an obesity problem. Which is it?" makes it very hard for me to sympathize with anything he has to say.</comment>


CoreOS follow-up: log aggregation with Logstash, Elasticsearch - <AUTHOR> http://marceldegraaf.net/2014/05/05/coreos-follow-up-sinatra-logstash-elasticsearch-kibana.html

<comment><AUTHOR> As last time, I'm available here for questions/comments about the article :-)</comment>


Ask HN: Sending large files over HTTP - <AUTHOR>

I was wondering how sites like http://wetransfer.com and http://yousendit.com makes it possible to send huge files over http? I was always told that sending more than a few 100 mb over http was a bad idea but there seems to be a lot of sites that do exactly that. So, do they chop up the file in smaller files and send them on the client side or what? <comment><USER2> You can try <http://valums.com/ajax-upload/> and <https://github.com/23/resumable.js> for javascript only uploaders. As a bonus, you get resumable uploads as well.

</comment><comment><USER3> There's also a draft for a File API which should solve the problems with uploading large files.

<http://www.w3.org/TR/FileAPI/>

</comment><comment><USER4> Neither seem to work without a Flash plugin -- so this is not about POSTing a large file.</comment>


Vista draining laptop batteries, patience - <AUTHOR> http://news.com.com/Vista+draining+laptop+batteries,+patience/2100-1044_3-6181366.html <comment><USER2> Go and read Slashdot if you want to see posts like this. This is Startup News.</comment>


Neptune may have swallowed a planet - <AUTHOR> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527522.900-neptune-may-have-eaten-a-planet-and-stolen-its-moon.html

<comment><USER2> Uranus and Neptune, the two outermost planets?

Still not used to the fact(?) that Pluto is not a planet anymore. :-/

<comment><USER3> Welcome to hacker news :).

A part of me still wants to call it a planet, especially since I grew up where Pluto was discovered, in Flagstaff at Lowell observatory.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Though it's likely impossible, I can't help but imagine a Neptune where the core is quite simply this theoretical planet it swallowed- i.e., since it is a gas giant, the super-earth just passed into it's center. Now super-earth has a really thick atmosphere, and we call the result Neptune.

This is part wishful thinking, part imagination, and part me having a really hard time wrapping my mind around the idea of a ball of gas with no solid core.

A few other notes; what happens to solid matter introduced to a gas giant? Does it just go to the core after all? And, how the heck does gas colliding with a planet create excess heat? This makes sense if the planet is thermally active like the earth, and adds to the total heat, but while gas exhibits friction they'd have to collide pretty fast to generate much heat, right?

<comment><USER5> It does go to the core, because it's heavier and it sinks.

But that's not the whole story - the mass of the solid planet is enough that it _becomes_ the new planet. You can think of the solid planet as sinking into the core. OR, you can think of the solid planet as stealing the gas from the old planet and wrapping itself in this gas.

And both are correct, and both happen at once.

The collision speeds they are talking about here are indeed immense. Truly stupendous amounts of energy. However it only works if one of the two planets was in a very elliptical orbit, otherwise they are both in the same orbit when they collide, and little energy is released - they will just gradually merge. And the heat is not really from friction, it's more collision heat. (Like when shoemaker-levy crashed into jupiter.) But elliptical orbits are not "natural" they are created by action of some other body, or by capturing a non-orbital planet from far away.

Another thing they just passed right over is how the pre-neptune moved to a new orbit. Are they suggesting some sort of tidal exchange with the sun? Friction with the leftover gas doesn't work since the gas would move at the same speed as the planet (they are both in the same orbit).

It's much better to think in terms of momentum rather than energy. To move pre-neptune to a new orbit you have to transfer the momentum somewhere. And I can't think of anyplace except slowing down the rotation of the sun (much as the moon slows the earth, and moves farther away in the process). Maybe transfer to a different planet? I'm not sure that would work.

Edit: they link to an article with more detail, where they suggest jupiter did it.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do you measure developers productivity? - <AUTHOR> Hey guys, i am wondering, how do you measure productivity of developers in your  team? I have been using RescueTime app but is too general, not focused on developers. Also, i tried WakaTime plugin into code editor, but it is saying a much... just general stats. Any tips which data collect? Or how to measure collected data? Eg. number of commits a day, number of pull requests? Lines added vs lines removed? Etc?<p>Thanks in advance George <comment><USER2> This sounds like trying to judge a visual artist based on how many liters of paint they used, or installing a security camera to monitor how long they sat in front of their canvas.

<comment><AUTHOR> Nothing like this... mainly i want to know for my personal benefits like... am I productive or not?!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> When I worked as a dev in an agency - I _hated_ with a passion anything that felt like it was tracking my time or productivity. It made me not want to be there and made me felt like the time I spent figuring out how to do my job was wrong. Maybe I'm being oversensitive, but it just felt so untrusting.

Working for myself I use Harvest. Start the clock when I'm working on something, stop it when I'm not. That gives me a decent idea on how to charge for what I do.

</comment><comment><USER4> give reasonable deadlines and ask them to meet them.

any of the metrics you're asking about are useless for measuring developer productivity.

<comment><USER5> I completely agree about the uselessness of the proposed metrics, and sort of agree with you on deadlines but even those shouldn't be coming down from on high if they're to ever be met. They need to be arrived at after thoroughly consulting with the people who'll be doing the development, and then refreshed after one or both feel the need.</comment></comment>


Flow – Create automated workflows between your favorite apps - <AUTHOR> https://flow.microsoft.com <comment><USER2> This is an area I work in [1]. Folks understandably mention IFTTT/Zapier a lot but the big players in the enterprise integration space are SnapLogic, Mulesoft, Informatica, Dell Boomi, with maybe a couple of others making noise also.

App integration is only one part of it (and arguably the easiest part) - there's also Data integration, IoT/event streaming pipelines, and integrations suitable for Big Data processing.

Enterprises naturally have quite specific demands on things like security, governance, encryption, support etc. that move things away from the free integration products, and also

I haven't seen much of Flow so far but will pay attention to it. The UX appears quite simple - it is difficult to build an effective integration product that is friendly to non-technical folks, while still being powerful enough for orchestrating complex pipelines by skilled data architects and developers.

It's a crowded space however, so getting traction may be challenging. I'm interested to seeing how they go forward with this.

[1] [http://www.snaplogic.com](http://www.snaplogic.com)

</comment><comment><USER3> This seems like a IFTTT + pipes mashup? With multiple steps, simple logic blocks, and enterprise integration.

<comment><USER4> I don't know if IFTTT should be worried –or happy– about this.

<comment><USER3> Maybe worried. I looked at IFTTT a few times and came back with "I'd like to use that, but I need a filter / processor in between". I suspect there are more people like that.

<comment><USER5> Pretty interesting. Which filtering or processing are you interested in doing?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I recommend digging into the available actions, this looks more flexible than anything else in this space (eg IFTTT, Zapier). There's control flow (if and while), and some actions aren't tied to any service: there's a "Recurrence" action that allows to trigger actions at specific intervals, an "HTTP" action that can send a request with any URL+method+headers+body+auth, there's a "Delay" action, FTP and SMTP output actions...

edit: "HTTP" can also be a trigger.

edit:

List of service agnostic triggers:

\- Recurrence (RecurrenceTrigger an event to run at regular, customized time intervals)

\- HTTP (Trigger an event based on a select REST API)

\- HTTP + Swagger (Trigger an event based on a select Swagger-enabled API)

\- Button (Manually trigger a flow)

\- Request (This is an incoming API call that could use actions in a Logic App or other API to trigger this flow)

\- RSS - When a feed item is published (Triggers a workflow when a new feed item is published)

edit:

List of service agnostic actions:

\- S/FTP - Create file (This operation creates a file)

\- S/FTP - List files in folder (This operation gets the list of files and subfolders in a folder)

\- Delay (Set how long an action should be delayed once the flow is triggered)

\- Delay until (Delay an action until a specific date. For shorter time periods, use the Delay action instead)

\- HTTP (Choose a REST API to invoke)

\- HTTP + Swagger (Choose a Swagger-enabled API to invoke)

\- Response (This is an incoming API call that could use the results of an action to trigger this flow)

\- Compose ?

\- Filter Array

\- Mail (Sends an email)

\- Push notification - Send a push notification (Sends a push notification to the Flow app)

\- RSS - List all RSS feed items (Get all RSS feed items)

\- SMTP - Send Email (This operation sends an email to one or more recipients)

<comment><USER7> Not sure if you've looked at Zapier recently, but they've added all sorts of functionality: multi-step zaps, filtering + logic

You can even write your own code to extend things in Python and JS.

<comment><USER6> I did not. I'll take a second look. Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Given Microsoft's increasing emphasis on businesses, it makes sense that this is more enterprise-focused.

The product itself doesn't seem much different from Apple's Automator. Microsoft's marketing of Flow, however, is better at demonstrating the product's power. Apple never quite did that.

<comment><USER9> Hopefully its UI isn't as inscrutable as Automator's.

<comment><USER8> I agree. I've opened Automator with a naive optimism that I can learn it and become more productive. I've been wrong each and every time!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Microsoft Flow has been around for few months now (in Public Preview), but they just announced its General Availability.

[https://flow.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/announcing- ga/](https://flow.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/announcing-ga/)

</comment><comment><USER11> It's got potential, mashing up pipes and IFTTT with Enterprise as others have said, but I can't help hearing Admiral Akbar's "it's a trap!". It would need to be amazing _and_ look long term viable enough before I'd suggest putting key processes in to it. Something like this seems more appealing: [https://github.com/cantino/huginn/blob/master/README.md](https://github.com/cantino/huginn/blob/master/README.md)

</comment><comment><USER12> Do you _have_ to include a Microsoft asset somewhere in the flow pipeline, or can it work totally independently of any Microsoft apps? (eg/ Twitter => Slack etc.)

<comment><USER13> It doesn't need any Microsoft asset in the pipeline.

<comment><USER14> Besides Flow itself, of course.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I've been using this for a little while. The RESTful interface is pretty cool for stuff that isn't natively part of the interface.

</comment><comment><USER16> Previously - [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11600739](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11600739)

</comment><comment><USER17> Microsoft's attempt at Zapier?

</comment><comment><USER18> I'm sure I saw this as a tech demo (on the Azure equivalent of AppSpot) a year or so ago. Anyone remember it?

<comment><USER19> Yes. This was announced earlier this year. Just looks like an IFTTT copy. [http://www.theverge.com/2016/4/29/11535232/microsoft-flow- if...](http://www.theverge.com/2016/4/29/11535232/microsoft-flow-ifttt- competitor)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> IFTTT + Sanctioned by corporate IT? This could be huge.

</comment><comment><USER21> Reminds me of Yahoo Pipes but on a OS level, which is very interesting. I hope it gets the ease of use it deserves so that it's not just a fringe of users that end up automating their tasks. Thumbs up from me!

</comment><comment><USER22> There is also the similar open source project: Bip.io = [https://github.com/bipio-server/bipio](https://github.com/bipio-server/bipio)

</comment><comment><USER23> I miss Mayhem. Mayhem was an open source IFTTT-like application that ran on your own PC that Microsoft made a few years back.

<comment><USER24> You can follow us at [http://www.nodecode.io](http://www.nodecode.io). It is a flow based programming platform written almost entirely in c++ that runs completely on your local network but you can connect to it using a secure websocket from outside your NAT. It is still early for us and we are still working on adding micro-services but the Raspberry Pi GPIO, Insteon, Twitter and basic remote command line services seem to be working well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> So like Zapier?

<comment><USER26> Should Zapier be worried ? Probably not, unless Microsoft suddenly forms a large division out of this and manages to get a 100 - 200 integrations going.

<comment><USER27> Zapier has a built in lock in in their business. Once you get workflows running why move them over to a new service.

<comment><USER28> Does Zapier allow you to download an xml backup of your workflow definitions?

If so, if a solid competitor arrives, that maybe has one killer feature, and they can read those xml files, you can move with minimal downtime.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Here's a small how-to on how to add your own service: [https://powerapps.microsoft.com/nl-nl/tutorials/register- cus...](https://powerapps.microsoft.com/nl-nl/tutorials/register-custom-api/)

</comment><comment><USER21> Side note - Is anyone else's CPU going mad on that page? Chrome PC just goes flat out sitting on that page.

UPDATE: it's my adblocker. It blocks a part of the page and the javascript tries to constantly load it if it fails, resulting in about 1000 errors/second in the console :)

<comment><USER28> This might explain a long running mystery I've had when I have loooots of tabs open.

But then, how to find the tab that's stuck in that process? (In FF in my case.)

<comment><USER21> I had to close the tab while looking at the CPU % to work out that it was that tab.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Would love your feedback on our app integration platform - Flowgear (we came first!)

You can see what our workflows look like without creating an account at [https://flowgear.me/s/hZfxYnf](https://flowgear.me/s/hZfxYnf)

</comment><comment><USER31> They're trying to charge for the ease? of doing things like sending notifications for item creation in Sharepoint lists, when Sharepoint does this already for you free. It looks like a hard push for transitioning the whole suite of products to the Azure cloud. $$

</comment><comment><USER32> Seems like IFTTT will end up being a niche for IoT-specific integrations while this will be used for enterprise integration. What is the value here for Microsoft when you can create integrations between only competitors like Google services?

<comment><USER13> >What is the value here for Microsoft when you can create integrations between only competitors like Google services?

[https://flow.microsoft.com/en-us/pricing/](https://flow.microsoft.com/en- us/pricing/)

<comment><USER32> Missed that, thanks

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Off topic but the name, Flow, will get confusing fast.

Flow is already used by several projects including Facebook's Flow, a direct competitor to Microsoft Typscript.

Meanwhile FlowType.js helps with typography.

Not to be confused with Flowjs, which is for HTML5 file transfer.

This is probably going to end up in a search ranking dance off with whoever has the deepest pockets winning.

[https://flowtype.org](https://flowtype.org) [http://simplefocus.com/flowtype/](http://simplefocus.com/flowtype/) [https://github.com/flowjs](https://github.com/flowjs)

<comment><USER34> So only confusing to JS devs

<comment><USER33> Well that's OK then. :)

That was really just first three things that came to mind as I know that Typescript competes with Flow (the open source project started by Facebook).

Other non-javascript products with the same name include project and workflow management software.

My point was more about how larger organisations usually win when they take a common or functional name for their products.

Microsoft has a long history of trademarking generic terms. I mean if I use the phrase "an SQL database server" or "a windowing operating system" which products do you think of?

In the case of "Flow" it's an overloaded product name and whichever entry comes up first in Google's search results will probably end up 'owning' the name. Currently for my results it's Microsoft.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Does Google have anything equivalent to this?

<comment><USER5> Doesn't look like it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> So... this is... apples automater?

</comment><comment><USER37> Looks like if in Microsof were trying hard to assimilate things that are present in Linux since decades.

</comment><comment><USER38> So a competitor to AWS SWF?</comment>


Suicide Rate at Foxconn is lower than Chinese Average - <AUTHOR> http://www.osnews.com/story/23359/The_Foxconn_Suicides If the 486,000 employees at Foxconn committed suicide at the average rate of suicide in China, then 68 would commit suicide each year.  In fact, only ten have.  It must be a pretty good place to work.  In fact, fewer Foxconn employees commit suicide than the US average too. <comment><USER2> " _These are very basic statistics._ "

Too basic, comparing a whole nation's official rate to a (self-)selected subset that we can be certain doesn't match the former.</comment>


Ask HN: What is the best billing system? - <AUTHOR>

Specific needs:
1)  Recurring/subscription billing.
2)  Multiple payment types (X at N month/year)
3)  Credit card processing
4)  API Support
5)  Utility billing/overage billing <comment><USER2> At M5hosting.com we use Ubersmith. Its designed for hosting and it supports everything on your list. We are very happy with it, and the company is very responsive to support and to feature requests etc. I have never been entirely happy with a billing system, but Ubersmith is the best for us and we are very happy. Perhaps the worst software I have ever bought ot used was ModernBill (maybe now called Parallels billing). Good luck.

</comment><comment><USER3> You could use WePay.

The API is solid, has good documentation, and supports multiple types of recurring payments. People can pay you with a credit card or bank account.

<https://www.wepay.com/developer/reference>

<comment><USER4> What do you do for international payments?

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Chargify: <http://chargify.com>

</comment><comment><USER6> I want to add a couple more to the list...

<http://www.accumulus.com/>

<http://www.zuora.com/>

</comment><comment><USER7> Braintree: <http://www.braintreepaymentsolutions.com/>

<comment><USER8> Braintree looks interesting - would I be able to get rid of Freshbooks + Authorize.Net + our merchant account with this service?

Also, is it US only?

<comment><USER7> Yes, it's all combined. You need a US corporation to signup I believe.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Billmax, hobviously</comment>


New FTC Complaint Filed Against Facebook - <AUTHOR> http://www.allfacebook.com/2010/05/new-ftc-complain-filed-against-facebook/

<comment><USER2> If any budding developer out there needed a reason to try and build the next THING in social networking, here's your chance.</comment>


A simple solution to eliminating terrorism on planes. - <AUTHOR> http://www.google.com/buzz/amichail/TgPjwEJCJup/A-simple-solution-to-eliminating-terrorism-on

<comment><USER2> This is quite possibly the worst idea I've ever heard. So what happens if you buy a ticket and there no one on the plane who knows you and can approve you? I travel by myself most of the time and I'm not a celebrity.

<comment><AUTHOR> You would need to plan your travel ahead of time with friends and colleagues who will be on the plane with you.

Traveling by yourself would not be an option unless you are very rich and can afford to buy all the tickets on the plane.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> The cost is that you eliminate most of the airline industry. (Some people might see that as an ancillary benefit, of course.)

Edit: Or other passengers will charge to vouch for you. Zero security benefit.</comment>


Cleaning git branches in 1 command - <AUTHOR> https://blog.splice.com/cleaning-git-branches/

<comment><USER2> Useful article for pruning merged branches, but this title is misleading and link-bait.

The actual title on the blog post is "Cleaning Up Git Branches", which is much more appropriate for an article that uses 5 commands including potentially fragile grepping and regex's to get the job done.

<comment><USER2> Ah, I see at the very bottom of the post is the "one command", in the form of an alias:

      alias gitpurge=" \
        git checkout master && \
        git remote update --prune | \
        git branch -r --merged | \
        grep -v master | \
        sed -e 's/origin\//:/' | \
        xargs git push origin"</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Did anyone else's goggle fi phone just turn red? - <AUTHOR> My status and nav bars turned bright red for about an hour. Tried to get a call back... After not getting one, chat was seriously disappointing... Then it cleared up during chat... Have come to expect more from G... Wondering if anyone else feels the same... <comment><USER2> This is a common low power indication.</comment>


Safari/Mac OS X first to fall at pwn2own - <AUTHOR> http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/safarimacbook-first-to-fall-at-pwn2own-2011/8358

<comment><USER2> Amusing how paranoid the browser developers have become about CanSecWest:

Pwn2Own browser day: March 9th, 2011

      Safari 5.0.4 released March 9th
      Chrome 10.0.648.127 released March 8th
      Firefox 3.6.15 released March 4th
      Internet Explorer 8 didn't get a patch this cycle (too cool for school)

Mobile day: March 10th, 2011

      iOS 4.3 released March 9th
      Nexus S 2.3.3 released Feb 24th
      Not sure about WP7 & BB

<comment><USER3> FWIW, Safari 5.0.3 was used for the competition.

Besides, if most competitors arrive at the competition with carefully- researched exploits available to use, I'm not sure this sort of last-minute patching would make much difference, even if it was intentional.

<comment><USER2> Apparently the last weeks code rule was a surprise, I don't think the vendors knew about it.

 _I'm not sure this sort of last-minute patching would make much difference_

Even if the vulnerability is still there, screwing with the way the binary is built and linked could easily make it so they'd have to put it back in a debugger and retune the exploit.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Every year the press makes it sound like a race, or that being exploited first is somehow worse than being exploited later in the day. The fact is that time slots are assigned randomly: <http://twitter.com/VUPEN/status/40078022325444608>

</comment><comment><USER5> Interestingly, according to [http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9214002/Safari_IE_hac...](http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9214002/Safari_IE_hacked_first_at_Pwn2Own?taxonomyId=82&pageNumber=2) , the researchers who signed up to hit Chrome have either not shown up or decided to concentrate on Blackberry instead. Seems their sandbox holds up quite well.

</comment><comment><USER6> Taking down the Mac gets you the best laptop and the most press. Simple.

It would be different if the other OS/browsers didn't go down too, but because the Mac is always first to go just means it's the most desirable target.

<comment><USER7> I can see how you associate it being the least secure with it being the most awesome. I don't see what could go wrong with your ability to take some legitimate and important criticism about something you like and turn it into something awesome about said thing.

Mac's always go down quickly in these contests. The people who make it happen often say that its considerably easier.

 __edit: Charlie Miller: "It's really simple. Safari on the Mac is easier to exploit. The things that Windows do to make it harder (for an exploit to work), Macs don't do. Hacking into Macs is so much easier." -[http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/questions-for-pwn2own- hac...](http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/questions-for-pwn2own-hacker- charlie-miller/2941)

<comment><USER8> The existence of the vulnerability itself is now obvious-- no one is arguing against it. (And thus, I don't think anyone's arguing that a fully-patched OS X system is fully impenetrable). But the fact that the winner gets to keep the hardware certainly has a lot to do with which target they choose to attack.

Did Safari fall first because it is the least secure, or because it is the hardware everyone wants to win? It really is difficult, if not impossible to tell.

Personally, I'm quite sure that the Windows machines are at this point far more secure, simply because Microsoft takes so much battering by being in the dominant position. But I wouldn't use this as evidence for it.

EDIT: Question about your quote-- later in that article, Miller suggests that there is no "randomization" in OS X, while this year's article says his exploit bypassed ASLR in OS X-- is this a new feature in OS X that wasn't present in 2009?

<comment><USER9> >Did Safari fall first because it is the least secure, or because it is the hardware everyone wants to win? It really is difficult, if not impossible to tell. >But the fact that the winner gets to keep the hardware certainly has a lot to do with which target they choose to attack.

That's just weak, the prizes were $15,000 even for IE8 and Google was offering $20K.

How many Macbooks can you get for $15K or $20K ?

[http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9207939/Google_bets_2...](http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9207939/Google_bets_20K_that_Chrome_can_t_be_hacked)

The easiest way to get a lot of Macbooks would be to exploit the easy software to hack and just buy them from the store.

<comment><USER2> Historically this was more of a factor though - it's definitely something Miller has mentioned as being a part of his decision making. The prize structure has changed a lot: in 2009 Tipping Point offered $5,000 + the machine, in 2010 it was $10,000 + the machine and now it's $15,000 + the machine.

<comment><USER9> The other laptops have been decent too. The Chrome netbook would be a novelty to show people and Alienware/Sony VAIO machines are not bad at all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Later IE8/Win7 falls: [http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/pwn2own-2011-ie8-on- windo...](http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/pwn2own-2011-ie8-on- windows-7-hijacked-with-3-vulnerabilities/8367?tag=mantle_skin;content)

</comment><comment><USER10> I question the metric used in these contests. Reports always makes it sound like someone just walks up completely unprepared and hacks a machine.

"We had to do everything from scratch. We had to create a debugging tool, create the shellcode and create the ROP (return oriented programming) technique,"

Obviously there is a fair bit of preparation involved.

<comment><USER2> They're all prepared in advance. I don't really understand what you mean about the reporting though, as you point out the discussion makes it clear none of this is off the cuff.

<comment><USER10> Yeah that is my point, then why is there a focus on who is first?

<comment><USER2> Each day the rules get looser making the compromise easier. I can't find the 2011 rules easily but here they are from 2009:

      Day 1: Default install no additional plugins. User goes to link.
      Day 2: flash, java, .net, quicktime. User goes to link.
      Day 3: popular apps such as acrobat reader ... User goes to link

iirc it's only the last year or two that most of them have been falling on day 1

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> So you win a version of the most vulnerable software/hardware?

</comment><comment><USER12> "VUPEN won a $15,000 cash prize and an Apple MacBook Air 13″ running Mac OS X Snow Leopard" ... and Calcuator.app, whether he wanted running it or not.

</comment><comment><USER13> I'm not surprised, this is what the third year in a row now? I hope Apple pays attention to the things Google is doing with Chrome. If I'm not mistaken, Lion will be shipping with WebKit2 and sand-boxing.

I've tried Chrome, but I just always go back strangely to Safari it just feels right at home.

<comment><USER14> Isn't the surprise rather that it is not the guy who knocked it over straight away three years running?

This is really embarrassing for OS X fans.

<comment><USER5> It's not surprising because he [Charlie Miller] was fourth or fifth in line.

Everyone who signs up for this has exploits already in the bag that they've been working on for weeks, it's not like it's hackers showing up and racing each other to discover exploits from scratch (which, incidentally, renders the whole "first to fall"/"browser X pwned in seconds" style of headline asinine)

<comment><USER13> Right, here was the article with the former, three time champ: [http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2011/03/likely-pre- pwn2own...](http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2011/03/likely-pre-pwn2own- safari-patch-unlikely-stop-three-time-pwner.ars)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Apple Products Banned In Germany By Motorola - <AUTHOR> http://www.techieinsider.com/news/13190 <comment><USER2> Not quite correct so. A court granted an injunction which would allow Motorola to ban 3G Apple products in Germany [¹]. However Motorola must deposit 100m € if they want to make good on that right as a guarantee in case a subsequent court ruling lifts that injunction.

[¹] [http://www.heise.de/mac-and-i/meldung/Schwere-Schlappe- fuer-...](http://www.heise.de/mac-and-i/meldung/Schwere-Schlappe-fuer-Apple- im-Patentstreit-mit-Motorola-1393064.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> Long ago (and probably more recently as well) there was a funny little info- graphic regarding which mobile companies were suing which. Has anyone stumbled upon a similar summary of knowledge regarding who is banned from selling where?

I honestly don't know who started this whole thing and I don't want to point fingers but it feels as though someone thought it was a good idea to try and block the sales of some product and opened a whole can of shitstorm.

</comment><comment><USER4> One man, one company, one device in Germany?

Remember those Vic Gundotra shot's at Google I/O ? "Draconian future, a future where one man, one company, one device, one carrier would be our only choice." "Not The Future We Want."

Now, when Motorola (Google) succesfully banned iOS in Germany, someone should ask Vic, what is he gonna do about it. This IS the future they DID NOT wanted.</comment>


Why is Color named "Color"? - <AUTHOR> http://www.quora.com/Color-Labs-startup/Why-is-Color-named-Color

<comment><USER2> Another question about Color on Quora, with a surprising answer:

      *How will Color Labs (startup) handle inappropriate photos?*
      Simply swipe a photo from someone, and a popup will show you
      to choose Nudity, Violence or Hateful.
      That person will then be banned from Color, thus the only way
      to get back on the system is buying a new iPhone or Android. [...]
      We also will ban a person from Color for abusing
      the reporting system.

That sounds pretty harsh. It makes me wonder if they ban users automatically when a report comes in or if they screen the images before taking action. Also, what qualifies as 'nudity', 'violence', or 'hateful' according to Color Labs?

I installed the iPhone app a couple of days a go. I didn't see any warning that nudity wasn't allowed. Sure, I had to agree to their _terms of use_ , but it had the length of a Tolkien novel, so I doubt anyone will bother reading it. I think there's a real risk that tons of users will be banned without ever having realized that their risqué photos weren't allowed.

And then there's the last line of Color Labs' answer: on HN, I frequently flag articles that I deem inappropriate. If I do so on Color, I risk being banned, not knowing whether my tolerance for offensive imagery is lower than that of Color Labs.

[http://www.quora.com/How-will-Color-Labs-startup-handle- inap...](http://www.quora.com/How-will-Color-Labs-startup-handle- inappropriate-photos)

<comment><USER3> _the only way to get back on the system is buying a new iPhone or Android_

Guess they haven't heard that trusting the client is a poor security model. I can think of about 10 ways to make a web app think I have a new phone.

<comment><USER4> Let's hope, then, that you do not choose to share violent, nude photos of yourself. For most people, though, I think this is an adequate (and, in my opinion, not _too_ harsh) deterrent.

<comment><USER5> I think that the negative reaction is based on the lack of a check or balance. If I swipe a picture of you petting your puppy and call it a hate crime, and you get banned, what's the recourse?

What's to stop somebody like me from going album to album and flagging things?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Good response from Nguyen, but I also think one of their great features that I've read about, also gives credence to their name: the photos you share in common with people you are "connected" with slowly lose their color over time as your connection with them goes stale, basically turning black and white! Great idea and creative tie-back into the "color" name!!

</comment><comment><USER7> So, a $350,000 tribute to Apple?

<comment><USER2> I was stunned to find that Apple Inc. hadn't registered the Color trademark, they've had a software product by that name since 2006 [0]. There weren't any software products with the Color trademark, so it was awarded to Color Labs on January 20th.

[0] <http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/color/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Uh... what?!</comment>


MayDay PAC - <AUTHOR> http://avc.com/2014/07/mayday-pac/ <comment><USER3> The key thing that I don't think enough people understand is that this campaign finance reform that Lessig is working on is an issue for anyone who has ANY cause. Whether your cause is is climate change, net neutrality, or anything else, meaningful change with that issue is largely blocked by THIS issue (money in politics).

Lessig's personal path of giving up his work copyright reform as his "issue" to focus on corruption is exactly this understanding - that this needs to be treated as the core problem before any progress can be made with net neutrality, immigration or other issues.

For this reason I'm very surprised that the tech community, who is so loud about net neutrality, isn't speaking up more about this corruption. Sure, there are different approaches to fighting against it, but I think Lessig's experiment is a great one and definitely worth our money.

<comment><USER4> This issue is about limiting the ability to speak. Anyone that is against Super PACs and "getting money out of politics" is arguing that speech needs to be reduced. It's treating the symptom, not the cause. The reason so much money is being spent, is that the amount of money the government controls and the amount of regulations it creates the potential for groups to get significant advantages.

The correct solution is to decentralize power; it easier to win one election instead of 50. And to reduce the amount of activity the government does, less pork spending and less market distortions.

<comment><USER5> His platform is not that speech needs to be reduced. It's that as many parties as possible need to be able to have a voice, and because certain entities can spend dramatically more money than the rest of society, they can drown out the voices of others.

Lessig gives specific examples of possible policies to illustrate that it's actually an increase in speech rather than a decrease in it, here: [https://mayday.us/the-plan/#fundamental-reform-in-the-way- el...](https://mayday.us/the-plan/#fundamental-reform-in-the-way-elections- are-funded)

<comment><USER4> It does reduce the ability for people to speak. You said it yourself, it makes it so they can't drown out the voices of others.

People are not equal and we need to recognize that; some are famous - <USER2> speech is hear by more people than mine, some are rich, some are well connected, some are beautiful, some own a newspaper, etc. Not everyone has the same voice, and that's ok.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'll probably donate to this in a few hours, but to understand it more fully, what is the argument _against_ getting PACs/money out of politics?

(Clearly there's a simple argument against MayDay PAC itself, that it might be unsuccessful in its mission, but that's a much weaker argument.)

As far as I understand it, there are four main arguments for money in politics:

1) Money is speech; protecting free speech is important, and protecting political speech (and thus financial donations to campaigns) is probably the most important form of protected speech.

2) The utilitarian argument: if money is taken out of politics, groups with less economic power but greater organization and numbers will become dominant. (I'm not sold on pure democracy either). Control of "large audiences" without control of money to reach the public might become important; I'd rather live in a world where I can donate hundreds or thousands to EFF to influence policy vs. a world where Pat Robertson or Oprah are the only people who can influence voters.

3) The implementation argument: if this eliminates a fairly accessible form of financing (the PAC), those who control smaller but more enduring forms of money for political contribution will rise in power. IMO, those people tend to be much more objectionable than people who contribute to PACs. Or, if companies are kept out of politics, but unions are allowed to continue donating, etc.

4) Priorities: this might NOT be the most important issue right now. Maybe immigration is. Maybe not going to war in Iran is. etc.

I don't know how valid these arguments are.

<comment><USER7> One of the strongest arguments against FEC limits on speech is that many (very long-term) incumbent politicians support it. If these people support limits, it is most likely that they believe unlimited spending by outside groups will influence the populace in ways that are politically inconvenient (for the elected officials). Almost every American voter is (rightfully) skeptical of the honesty and integrity of their elected officials, and wants to allow for more political dynamism. It seems plain that unlimited campaign spending by outside groups will allow for new ideas, and real change.

<comment><USER8> > It seems plain that unlimited campaign spending by outside groups will allow > for new ideas, and real change.

Absolutely not! Money is one of the most obvious forms of power in society, and therefore any group that has a lot of money to spend, is, by definition, already a significant part of the power structure. "Outside groups" with money are never true outside groups.

<comment><USER7> If unlimited campaign spending is so advantageous to the political insiders, and entrenched interests, then why are they (McCain, Feingold, and other long- term career politicians) so opposed to it? How often do you see a politician advocate for something that puts them at a significant disadvantage, and helps their critics?

<comment><USER9> Long time incumbents can assume their position is safe unless there is a well funded challenger. Incumbents have plenty of air time and name recognition.

<comment><USER7> > _" Long time incumbents can assume their position is safe unless there is a > well funded challenger."_

You have restated my position quite succinctly; FEC campaign regulations are a way of preventing "well funded challenger[s]".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm frankly surprised that there is any sort of funding shortfall for this idea. For US-based profitable start-ups or established companies, this is absolutely in your best interests.

Two issues alone, Net Neutrality and the NSA overreach directly impact your ability to operate or expand globally and should be of major concern to smaller US-based technology companies.

It's not like Lessig is some nobody. If anyone has the ability to truly pull this off, and make change, I'd put my money on him.

<comment><USER11> Lessig is probably the only honest reason I'm donating. I've been following his career for quite some time and a lot of the things he's written are persuasive and coherent and insightful. There are similar SuperPACs (WolfPAC) but, again, I wouldn't have been super aware of them if it weren't for Lessig and some of my own research.

<comment><USER12> I've donated $100 three different times. I just got to the point where I have to do something and this seems like a good start.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> If you want less corruption and cronyism in Congress, and you want your voice heard again in D.C., I honestly think the best thing you can do is give Lawrence Lessig your money, before the day is over.

</comment><comment><USER14> Can someone more knowledgable give some specific details about their plan? I've read what I could on their website, but I can't really get a hold of what the specific platform is, if any parties are involed...etc. For example, they want to win 5 races. Who would these candidates be? Is pure election reform their only task?

It's very easy for me to understand the anger. But my pessimism makes me skeptical of yet another political group asking for money to change politics.

I was very disappointed that their website homepage really didn't list any of the details or the specifics, it just detailed the anger. It also had the usual array of celebrity endorsements around that anger. I dunno, at its face this looks very similar to the splinter group party stuff on both sides.

Again. I'm just not someone super versed on this stuff and am looking for info. What makes this different and why will this work?

<comment><USER15> Here is "the plan" from their website. [https://mayday.us/the- plan/](https://mayday.us/the-plan/)

If you are interested, Republic Lost by Lessig is a great read on the reality of campaign finance.

<comment><USER16> And if you don't feel like shelling out the money, Lessig has posted a PDF of the book online (presumably under a Creative Commons license, but I didn't check into it that far as I already own the book)

[http://lesterland.lessig.org/pdf/republic- lost.pdf](http://lesterland.lessig.org/pdf/republic-lost.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Ron Paul Revolution.

I'm not sure if anyone remembers it, but they were great at raising money online. They had a lot of good ideas and frankly they were right on a lot of issues that helped win Obama the election when the rest of the Republican party was still gunning for more war in the Middle East the public no longer supported. Oh, and the economy.

Here's what happened...

Even with millions raised, the Republican nomination went to John McCain who brought us Sarah Palin. Months after a sound defeat, Fox News and Glen Beck co-opted the Ron Paul/Tea Party movement, which they previously spent 2 years making fun of, into the corporate political machine that it is now. The Tea Party of current times has little in common with the Tea Party that tried to get Ron Paul the nomination, twice.

This is a very long winded way of saying I've seen political movements pop up online before and they tend to fizzle and die, or have the energy co-opted into something that is not the same thing at all.

I fully expect if this becomes a big enough deal for some Democrats and Republicans to once again crow about campaign finance reform (because it sounds good, just ask John McCain), that it will get co-opted by big money into somehow reinforcing the current system or otherwise giving big moneu politics further advantages.

I'm not sure that any of us fully grasp how much money truly controls the political process at every level. There is so much money it's basically impossible to expunge it no matter how hard you try.

It's nice to see the excitement around this, even if I don't think it will pan out.

<comment><USER18> I think the issue with this PAC (and others with similar slate of goals) is the naiveté that if we are able to reform election policy and cutoff unlimited funding from lobbyists and other 3rd parties that the interests behind that money just disappear.

These groups still have money and still have an agenda, and they will work to the very limit of the law (and possibly more) to exercise that agenda. I can see this pac achieving their goals only to find out the top spenders dramatically increase their employee bonuses with a wink and a nod as to how it should be spent. I'm sure they can be more creative than that.

I wish that this reform would work but it won't. I'd rather go after term limits or combine the two. Its much harder to influence a politician who won't be around next term.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I just found out about this and immediately donated.

Maybe that's stupid, but I really think this is the fundamental issue facing America today. If there's even the smallest chance something like this could be effective I want in.

</comment><comment><USER20> I heard that if the July 4th deadline is met, the money will be matched.

Does anyone know who is providing the matching funds?

<comment><USER21> At least for this second round of five million, I don't think they've announced at this point

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Save your money, people.

I'm sorry, but this just seems like another in the long line of Lessig projects with laudable goals but will ultimately amount to very little. Remember Rootstrikers?

From MayDay.us:

> The funders of campaigns are holding our democracy hostage. We want to pay > the ransom and get it back.

This analogy only works if the campaign funders _also see themselves as holding democracy hostage._ But guess what? They don't see themselves that way.

The moneyed elites see themselves as exercising their right to free speech on the issues important to them. And they have the Supreme Court and the House of Representatives in agreement with them on this issue.

And this is where Lessig errs. As his diagnosis for what ails our democracy is wrong, his treatment cannot be successful.

\----

Lessig sees our political system as a small cabal of wealthy black hats thwarting the will of the people while he fights on the side of the white hats trying to revive small-d democracy in America.

But how do the "black hats" in this scenario see it?

They'll see it as this _other_ moneyed interest group trying to stifle their First Amendment right to free speech. And they'll fight like hell to prevent Lessig's group from being successful. They're not going to just "accept the ransom" and slink back to their mansions.

And because of the terrain Lessig has chosen to fight this on ("Fight money in politics with more money in politics! Embrace the irony!") we're back to square one: One group of moneyed interests fighting another group of moneyed interests. Exciting, right?

Only now, the "white hats" face a distinct disadvantage. The "black hats" can raise $5 for every $1 raised by the "white hats." Sheldon Adelson can drop tens of millions like _that_. How do you like them odds?

\----

What's my suggested fix? Well, to quote _The Wire:_ "The game is rigged, but you cannot lose if you do not play."

Stop trying to beat the wealthy at their own game. Change the game entirely.

Look around, people. The whole system is beyond repair and has been for years. We're _way_ past the point where a _SuperPAC_ will fix a goddamn thing.

Nothing short of wholesale, violent revolution and a complete re-structuring of our society and economy will suffice. We have to utterly smash the bastions of privilege and power if we want any hope of a fair and democratic society in our lifetime.

Happy Fourth :)

<comment><USER23> > We have to utterly smash the bastions of privilege and power if we want any > hope of a fair and democratic society in our lifetime.

... then we end up with violent revolutionaries in control. What could possibly go wrong?

<comment><USER22> Compared to the philosopher kings we have now?

Congress has an 80% disapproval rating. The President rains death from above via flying robots and secret kill lists. The Supreme Court routinely stacks the deck in favor of the powerful. Inequality keeps rising and more and more people keep falling behind.

> ... then we end up with violent revolutionaries in control.

You mean like how the United States itself was founded?

> What could possibly go wrong?

Not sure. Maybe we'll have a lot of parades in 240 years.

<comment><USER23> > You mean like how the United States itself was founded?

Or maybe the Khmer Rouge? When was the last time that a violent upheaval turned into a peaceful democracy?

[edit: Let's also be honest with ourselves here. The American Revolution did _not_ overthrow a government. They didn't overthrow the British government. They drove them out from occupying a far-away land. I think that the American Revolutionaries would have had a much harder battle if they were attempting to overthrow the entire British government, even with the support of France.]

> Not sure. Maybe we'll have a lot of parades in 240 years.

The only downside to a violent revolution is 'parades in 240 years?' If you want to think that a violent revolution of the United States government will turn out all ponies and rainbows, that's your prerogative, but at least be honest with yourself about the risks of ending up with a less than desirable result.

Some less than desirable results:

* Skinheads or some radical fundamentalist Christian group use the chaos to seize power.

* Revolutionaries take a "either you're with us or against us approach." Conscientious objectors like the Quakers or the Mennonites are slaughtered wholesale for refusing to take part / take sides.

* Witch-hunts abound as 'revolutionaries' search out "1%-ers" to hold public executions. Anyone drawing parallels to McCarthy-ism, Nazism, or the Salem Witch Trials is branded a sympathizer and executed as well.

* The US is divided into several smaller nation-states each controlled by groups with competing interests. Years of war, bloodshed, cease-fires, broken cease-fires, border-skirmishes, etc ensue.

* Disruption of the government leads to disruption of the supply-chain feeding modern society with food. Mass starvation ensues.

* The revolution is successful, but the disruption of the US government leads to global economic depression. Foreign-relations suffer severely as the new government, spear-headed by the leaders of the revolution, is viewed as the cause of the depression, and scapegoat for all their suffering. Perhaps said global depression triggers a new, global wave of nationalism & isolationism, global relations nose-dive as a result.

<comment><USER22> Good points on all. Thanks for taking the time to engage, at any rate.

You're right: I'm too sanguine on the possibilities of what "wholesale, violent revolution" could look like.

I felt after bashing Lessig, it would only be fair to offer my thoughts on the matter. But I probably should have sat it on overnight and given more thought to the last third. C'est la vie.

If I could re-calibrate my "suggestions," I would disavow the violence while still emphasizing that reformers put themselves at a disadvantage when they try to play this incremental, inside game on the elite's turf.

But, I guess we'll see. I'd love to be proven wrong on this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I really wish I could donate, but I'm not a permanent resident. This is an amazing initiative.</comment>


Can Uber Ever Deliver? Pt3: False Claims About Uber's Competitive Advantage - <AUTHOR> http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/12/can-uber-ever-deliver-part-three-understanding-false-claims-about-ubers-innovation-and-competitive-advantages.html <comment><USER2> > Given the short notice this does nothing to increase total taxi supply, but > merely redistributes drivers to higher fare areas.

Firstly, I'm skeptical that surge pricing cannot be predicted in advance to some degree. The weather bureau is predicting rain at 10pm on a Saturday night - doesn't that say something about the chance of surge pricing in a nightlife area? And look at the second chart on this page [1] - the surge multiplier between 7:30am and 9:30am is fairly predictable.

Secondly, this argument ignores the long-term changes to supply. Surge pricing increases the pay of drivers, so over the long term there will be more drivers signing up (even if it didn't bring out more drivers at surge times)

Lastly, even if supply was completely fixed and surge pricing simply redistributed drivers to higher fare areas, doesn't that lead to efficiencies which are shared between driver, rider and Uber? If I'm late for a job interview, I want to be able to outbid an old lady who is going to the supermarket to do her weekly grocery shopping. My gain will be larger than her loss.

[1] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/04/17/how-u...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/04/17/how- uber-surge-pricing-really-works/)

</comment><comment><USER3> I spent 3.5 years driving people around in a Taxi in Phoenix, Arizona. This was from February 2012 to October 2015, before and during the rise of "ride sharing".

For the most part, everything in this article is spot-on. For example, I agree that there is nothing especially innovative about these companies. I wrote 'Electronic Taxi Dispatch' [1] to show how a pre-smartphone GPS-enabled electronic dispatch system worked.

[1] [http://www.taxiwars.org/electronic-taxi- dispatch-v1.0/](http://www.taxiwars.org/electronic-taxi-dispatch-v1.0/)

The one area where I think the article is slightly off are the comments about serving poorer neighborhoods. Taxi drivers don't like going into sketchy neighborhoods because poor people are more likely to not be able to afford their ride than rich people. Under the app system, drivers can be reasonably certain they're going to get paid, so I presume that app-drivers are slightly more likely to pick up a fare in a sketchy neighborhood, than a taxi driver who doesn't know what to expect [2]. Even so, app-drivers are looking for big fares too, and I presume they're more likely to head to well-to-do areas where they think people have plenty of money to spend on a long ride.

[2] The woman whose taxi I drove (30-year veteran) wouldn't pick up new fares when she dropped off in certain neighborhoods, not even in the daytime, because she's an old woman, and didn't want to take the risk.

edit: (note to self) [https://mattermark.com/recent-uber-revenueprofit-debate- expl...](https://mattermark.com/recent-uber-revenueprofit-debate-explained/)</comment>


Fast Grants - <AUTHOR> http://fastgrants.org <comment><USER2> Better title:

>Fast Funding for COVID-19 Science</comment>


The Cure for Ebola (2014) - <AUTHOR> https://blog.rongarret.info/2014/12/the-cure-for-ebola.html <comment><USER2> This is extremely great news. Ebola is such a devastating illness.</comment>


Sell everything; this looks very much like 2008 [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://static.guim.co.uk/ni/1452594796380/European-Rates-Weekly-08011.pdf <comment><AUTHOR> "My bullet point themes into 2016 are (remain): o bearish China o bearish global commodities (hards, softs, fluids). And more specifically . . . o bearish oil (target $26, then clear risk of $16) o CBs (mostly everywhere) will ease more o The world has far too much debt to be able to grow well – global output gap widens o Emerging market majors (outside India & Eastern Europe) all remain sells o Automation on its way to destroy 30-50% of all jobs in developed world o Currency war / mercantilism And my new bullet point themes: Andrew Roberts My old credit crunch mantra makes a comeback: Return of capital, not return on capital European Rates Weekly | 8 January 2016 Page 3 o Global disinflation risks turning into global deflation in 2016 o Everyone thinks 'goldilocks'. We thought this strongly for >2 years (on our liquidity theme) but now worry about equities/credit, both huge, multi-year, well held positions. Negative returns in 2016 are probable, though without a recession they should be manageable, think -10-20%, rather than a rout o If we see weaker 'risk on' products, the last safe 'high yielder' is the EMU periphery. Our new 0.75% 10y BTP target could prove too high a yield o Risks to 0.16% new 10y bund target are on the downside, not upside o Main risk comes from oil. A plunge sub $20 would aid consumption"</comment>