Why U.S. Corporate Boards Don't Include Workers - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-08-27/why-u-s-corporate-boards-don-t-include-workers <comment><USER2> "A board of three is ideal. Your board should never exceed five people, unless your company is publicly held. (Government regulations effectively mandate that public companies have larger boards—the average is nine members.) By far the worst you can do is to make your board extra large. When unsavvy observers see a nonprofit organization with dozens of people on its board, they think: "Look how many great people are committed to this organization! It must be extremely well run." Actually, a huge board will exercise no effective oversight at all; it merely provides cover for whatever microdictator actually runs the organization. If you want that kind of free rein from your board, blow it up to giant size. If you want an effective board, keep it small."

— Peter Thiel

More board members may increase intransigence, _decrease_ oversight (cover over who is _really_ making the decisions and who is not), and turn US corps more bureaucratic.

Many totally rational worker ideals (keep comfy job) are often very opposed to a company's ideals (upgrade technology, take new risks, automate) that may disrupt current workers in favor of fewer workers or different workers. Boards beholden to current workers may sacrifice a lot of progress to keep things comfy, at the expense of future workers and jobs.

I get why, as this article describes, it happens in Germany and is suggested for the US. But on the face of it that mandating board composition is probably not the best way to help workers in companies. There is probably some better way that throws less sand into gears, that involves fewer attempts to mortgage the future of a company for its present workers, etc. Obviously it "works" in germany, for some amount of "works," but it should need no explanation that US companies as a whole are able to move faster, and in high tech, often with higher wages(!!) than in Germany.

Sorry that my perspective is dragging this in a tech centric, but everyone should ask themselves: Why _are_ tech workers wages _so low_ in Germany compared to the USA, if they have workers on the board? It seems unaddressed in this discussion so far, which I think is a great discussion to have. But lots of people so far are acting like its obvious that the German model will lead to higher worker salaries but its... not true already in Germany, for tech at least.

<comment><USER3> It's not just Germany that has lower tech wages. I've looked at moving back home to the UK many times so that I can spend more time with my family, but can't reconcile the fact that I'd have to take a 75-80% pay cut to stay in this industry. Compared to North America, software engineers are paid pittance in the UK... now that you've brought my attention to the fact it's the same in Germany, it begs me to ask the question - is this the same in _all_ of Europe?

<comment><USER4> I was approached by a German blockchain company last year and the salary range discussed wasn't great. Less than half. And it didn't seem cheaper to live there.

My theory of why tech salaries are higher in the US: the US, public and private, borrows trillions of dollars. It consumes more than it produces. Wages are higher. And so are imports and immigration. It's all a consequence of the borrowing.

If the US stopped borrowing so much and stopped inflating bubbles and re- inflating them after they collapse, consumption, wages, imports and immigration would fall.

If the US started paying down its debt, we'd be producing more than we consume. We'd be exporting more than we import and there'd be more emigrants than immigrants.

The growth industries are the most prone to bubbles. It's easier to believe something that is rising will get big than something that is the same or shrinking. So most of the VC capital goes to growth industries. Well, it would in any case, but even more so when there is an unnatural amount of capital. So that is where salaries get bid up the most.

<comment><USER5> > My theory of why tech salaries are higher in the US: the US, public and > private, borrows trillions of dollars. It consumes more than it produces. > Wages are higher. And so are imports and immigration. It's all a consequence > of the borrowing. If the US stopped borrowing so much and stopped inflating > bubbles and re-inflating them after they collapse, consumption, wages, > imports and immigration would fall.

Just so everyone is clear, this is a heterodox (fringe) theory that is not accepted by economists, mostly because it flies in the face of both macroeconomic theory and empirical research.

<comment><USER6> > Just so everyone is clear, this is a heterodox (fringe) theory that is not > accepted by economists, mostly because it flies in the face of both > macroeconomic theory and empirical research.

It has its bases in reality, though. Remember Yo? 1.5M at 10M$ valuation for an app that broadcasts "yo". This is only made possible because borrowing money is extremely cheap in the US compared to Europe.

<comment><USER5> > It has its bases in reality, though. Remember Yo? 1.5M at 10M$ valuation for > an app that broadcasts "yo". This is only made possible because borrowing > money is extremely cheap in the US compared to Europe.

This is itself reductive and doesn't really represent the full story (venture capital in particular is itself already largely sourced from foreign money).

In any case, the statement "low interest rates encourage investment" isn't fridge (in fact, it is literally tautological). The fringe part is the idea that the US is fueling cycles this way, and the implication that the US economy would somehow be better off by paying off debt instead of printing money.

<comment><USER6> > The fringe part is the idea that the US is fueling cycles this way

I thought that the entire point of lowering interest rates is to fuel the economy? Problem is when the markets have become addicted to cheap money, and politicians don't have the guts to force them to give up the cheap money, so eventually the bubble bursts...

<comment><USER4> It exaggerates the cycles for sure. If the Fed let interest rates be set by the market after the next bubble collapse, the recovery would be slower, less bubbly and growth would be based on the value of things, rather than how easily a sector is stoked by interest rates. And it would be more likely to be sustainable and stable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I recently had a discussion with a board professional, a female, who has sat in boards of publicly traded companies in Germany, Finland and Sweden.

Finnish law does not dictate board composition of companies in any way. In Sweden, companies of 25+ employees in most cases have 2 or more representatives in company board. Germany has a dual board system. Employee representatives have a right to seats on the supervisory board of larger companies – one-third in companies with 500 to 2,000 employees, half in companies with more than 2,000. If I understood this correctly, employees are represented by a union official.

Her view was that the German system is simply a bad model that doesn't work. At the same time she credited the Swedish system for the fairly low number of strikes and union activities in Sweden, saying that board representation creates a more keen understanding of business realities throughout union representatives & employees.

She advocated for Finland adopting similar policy to Sweden.

<comment><USER8> In what way doesn't it work? Germany has quite a few quite successful companies, world market leaders in their fields and a quite good social relationship. Certainly there are issues, but far from "doesn't work" in my observation.

<comment><USER9> Or, Germany has some successful companies that can afford inefficiencies.

<comment><USER8> Maybe. A related question also is what a measurement for "good" is. Successful companies with unhappy society isn't nneccisarily a good society.

That's why I asked for details instead of an anecdotal unspecific remark by one person.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> How would a board seat even represent all of the employees? Would the arrangement be any less corrupt than the way unions represent workers? Would organized crime get involved?

Employees have power over the company. They can leave it for another company. At any time, actually. Companies have to compete for employees.

Of course, employees CAN own stock and accumulate enough to get a seat, assuming they can agree. And that, of course, is the problem. Employees won't agree on everything so the majority of employees will get represented and the rest of the employees will not be represented.

Winner-take-all decision making opens the door for corruption. It plagues our democracy. Why shouldn't it also plague corporate decision making?

If you had an arrangement where employees voted on board issues and the YES employee votes were proportionally assigned to the YES side of the board vote and the NO employee votes were proportionally assigned to the NO side of the board vote, that would make a little more sense.

But that would mean the workers would have to be privy to the board's discussions, which means the world will know what they discuss.

So, without that proportionality, the employee representative can actually make backroom deals with the other board members. Deals that might benefit him but cost those he represents a lot.

<comment><USER10> There's a presumption in the parent that people who work for a living are corrupt and that managers and executives are not. IME, people are people, and there are plenty of corrupt managers and executives - I don't think I need to start listing examples - as well as workers. I don't see that either group should be denied representation or power on that basis - if we excluded people for such things, then there would be nobody left to run the place.

> Employees have power over the company. They can leave it for another > company.

There is clearly a great power imbalance between a company of any size and one worker, unless that worker is a superstar (like a star coder).

> Employees won't agree on everything so the majority of employees will get > represented and the rest of the employees will not be represented.

That's not how democracy works. In order to put together a majority, you have to make deals with different groups and not alienate those who you might need in the future. The 'majority' shifts over each issue and over time, and the leaders compete to please as many as possible.

And regardless, I don't see what the parent is recommending: No power for workers because it will be imperfect/ What makes the current setup any better?

<comment><USER4> People risking their own money tend to be non-corrupt about managing it. Those who pay with other people's money tend to be more corrupt.

It has nothing to do with the color of their collars. Either interests are aligned or they are not. When you pay the costs and get the benefits, you are less likely to be corrupt. When you get the benefits and the costs get shifted to somebody else, you are more likely to be corrupt.

As I've already said, workers have power. They just don't have power that rightfully belongs to the owners. It seems like another way to create a monopoly over the labor supply and it would be destructive in the long run.

<comment><USER11> > They just don't have power that rightfully belongs to the owners.

Tell me more about how rightfully these venture firms acquire their capital?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Tech companies' employees usually receive equity. Perhaps we could provide an incentive for giving stockholding employees, collectively, with a Board seat. This Board member would represent stockholding employees' interest, not all employees, and so find natural alignment with the broader shareholder base. It's probably not the final solution, but it's a moderate and _prima facie_ sensible step.

Carrots which to mind include:

* Lower reporting requirements from the SEC;

* Tax benefits from state tax authorities or the IRS;

* Limited liability shielding in employee lawsuits; _et cetera_.

<comment><USER13> Employees receive stock options, which are not yet equity. Employees generally also have to sign away their rights to vote.

<comment><USER12> > _Employees receive stock options, which are not yet equity_

These vest and are exercised. Biasing representation, at least initially, to those who have been at the company longer and bought their stock seems prudent.

> _Employees generally also have to sign away their rights to vote_

Above is a proposal to amend that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Just ditch the Unions and most of the Wagner Act.

VW tried to create a workers board in TN similar to the German model, but the UAW got in the way.

[https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/12/adversarial-labor- law...](https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/12/adversarial-labor-laws- volkswagen-tennesee/)

I saw a quote from a German labor leader (I think) saying American unions are overly adversarial against firms and don't care about keeping them running.

I think a lot of firms would gladly include worker representation in various form an there isn't a need to create laws to require it.

<comment><USER15> Isn't the history of labor abuse, company towns/script, corporate thugs at the ballot boxes, etc., a counterexample? Does Germany have a similar history?

IIRC most German engineering firms are privately owned, many of them family businesses. Negotiations would definitely be easier than with typical large, publicly traded US companies.

Edit: I should add that I'm not necessarily defending hostile unions, or unions that do more harm than good. On just pointing out that the labor/corporation relationship in the US has been less than friendly.

<comment><USER16> Germany does have a history of abusing labor, notably from the 1800s, back then if you worked in a factory you likely didn't make enough to live, so your wife worked there too as well as your kids once they're old enough to cry.

A lot of social reforms followed eventually, in part due to pressure from worker parties, and we got most of the labor law up to 1919 when the weekly hours worked was limited at 48 hours. Up until 1945 the laws around labor were updated continuously and around 45 they were cleaned up and unified.

This included a lot of other stuff like overtime payments, break times, required time between work shifts, etc.

Unions also started appearing in that timeframe, first ones in ~1850, and that interacted with the labor law. Around 1870, Labor Unions were integrated into the corporations, which at that point basically consisted of the rich factory owner and the starving workers (cliched, but that was the situation here). The unions immediately went about fixing that and were subsequently banned out of fear (by pressure through the rich factory owners) and then later unbanned again. (Then in the two following wars abused and centralized)

The modern history is less interesting, there is some abuse through the unions but in general they had collective bargains which enabled workers to get a labor contract between their union and the corporation which basically sets the hours worked, compensation levels, days off per year and various other parameters.

Having such a contract basically rids you of most of the protections afforded by the state since you're now in the union and the union is strong enough to negotiate fair labor conditions for you (if it isn't this doesn't apply).

If you're not part of the union then this also doesn't apply, this is only if you're part of the union (though usually the collective labor contract is favorable and people use those even if not in the union).

Generally unions don't have a purely negative image (unless they manage to piss off a lot of people like when you effectively halt public transport). Most of them work along with the corporation to protect workers, ie if the corporation is short on profit they'll suggest that instead of firing a lot of people they could reduce hours worked instead.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Why doesn't the mechanic who fixes my Volvo have a vote in my choice on whether to replace the clutch or where to drive it this weekend? Because it's my Volvo, and my money I'm spending on it not his. He can choose to work for me or not, but can't reach in my wallet or choose a destination. Certainly he is a stakeholder in such decisions. But that doesn't make it his choice.

If a law is passed that gives my mechanic a vote on such things it would partially transfer the car's ownership from me to him, a redistribution of wealth. Whether you consider that to be justice or theft or both or neither, it isn't a great incentive for me to own a car or hire someone to fix it.

<comment><USER18> HN loves it's metaphors and analogies. This one falls apart quite quickly because the transaction between you and your car mechanic is orders of magnitude more elastic/liquid than that of a employee and an employer. This is why the laws that govern those transactions are wildly different.

Once your car mechanic's single source of income is your transaction, which feeds their children and puts a roof over their family's head (as is the case for many employees), then maybe we can revisit this analogy.

Finally, because your analogy was so weak, I would also recommend to reexamine your opinion on employee rights at large, because they may be formed around similarly broken logic. Remember, the more your neighbors are protected from poverty and destitution, the less likely they are to be caught in a lifestyle of drugs and violence, which also benefits you and your family.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I could be mistaken but I believe there are rules in place for public and private companies, as well as non profits, regarding director independence and employees are not considered "independent directors". This came, I believe, as a result of the Enron scandal. Surely this has some role in why employees are not on boards.

Here is a link to a Nasdaq policy on the matter[1].

[1] [https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/34-47516.htm](https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/34-47516.htm)

</comment><comment><USER20> There are something like 25,000 companies in the US with revenues over $100 million. How is it that 25,000 actors - who at that level of revenue are likely pretty sharp business people that are highly motivated by the bottom line - are not coming up with this idea on their own?

<comment><USER21> are you invoking the efficient market hypothesis?

<comment><USER20> Actually I think it's more akin to Natural Selection.

<comment><USER21> has the notion of natural section which you're invoking been articulated in a way that can be shown to be applicable and falsifiable with respect to your claim?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Why would this even be a question? Boards are nothing more than a way to represent owners. You can't have shareholders vote on every single decision.

</comment><comment><USER23> Can workers not get representation on boards already by buying shares and voting on board membership? Or is that not effective for some reason?

<comment><USER24> No individual worker can hold enough shares to matter. Unless you're talking about a labor union buying a non-trivial stake in an employer? I've never heard such an idea before, but I'm sure at someone else has thought of it in the past I would be curious to see how that went. It also doesn't do anything at a private company.

<comment><USER23> Yes I mean the workers collectively buying shares, if they want collective representation on the board. Why do workers need to be a special case? Anyone interested in the direction of a public company can get involved this way already.

<comment><USER25> I completely agree - this is the mechanism through which it makes sense, _for public companies_. Privately-held companies don't typically have such a mechanism.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I wonder if this would make any sense in a tech company. I would generally think a CEO (who is on the board) is going to be more aligned with an engineer's interests than the CEO and a walmart cashier, but they still have some distinct interests. Maybe a representative of non-founders holding the "standard" employee form of stock?

<comment><USER24> Isn't this basically what CTOs and CIOs do?

Would the non-tech equivalent would be something fanciful like a Chief Cashier Officer?

<comment><USER10> CTOs and CIOs are management and represent management. Their priorities aren't wages and working conditions, but bottom line performance and their own power and careers. They represent employee interests as much as the HR director does.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> A good movie about why this is a bad idea is "Other People's Money" (Danny Devito).

Employees will always optimize for themselves, eventually leading to the destruction of the company.

In power law systems, the enemy of efficiency is local optimization. The very thing that allows the behemoth corporations of today to exist and scale to work is the fact that there are compounding factors working - which is the work of the board. These factors would be less likely in a more locally optimized system, which would naturally result in the case of employee run corporations where the employees are treated fairly.

I think it says a lot that many of the most large corporations are the result of this kind of organization structure. It's clear that this isn't the best structure for human beings but is probably very much needed by very high level business like the tech industry. Do you really think employee run business would have led to enough free capital and accumulation of wealth to invest billions of dollars in a pair of AR goggles?

<comment><USER28> Minor Quibble: Many times the CEO is both an employee and has a voting seat on the board.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I'm pretty sure I can get a job if my company dies.

Workers don't have a good incentive to offset the human need to want more more in worker wages which may be counterproductive to the long term viability of a company to compete.

</comment><comment><USER30> No mention of startup employee compensation and board structures? Seems like a conspicuous elision.

</comment><comment><USER31> The simple answer is to privilege capital over all else. And in the US it denotes the triumph of capital and dilution of the value of labour. It's as if labour is an afterthought and not an integral part of value creation.

This bitter struggle has been ongoing for the last 300 years and has seen the rise of communism, socialism and other struggles. And its going to continue. The solutions are simple but entrenched interests with capital will obviously protect their interests.

</comment><comment><USER32> Because according to American accounting standards workers are an expense and not an asset.

<comment><USER17> definition of asset:

1\. A useful or valuable quality, person, or thing; an advantage or resource: proved herself an asset to the company.

2\. A valuable item that is owned.

The accounting term is closer to the second definition. I assume that you don't think a company should consider a worker to be "a valuable item that is owned."

<comment><USER33> Given how I've been treated by various corporations, I'd say that plenty of companies consider workers as "a valuable item that is owned". I had a clause in one contract they tried to insert that stated I was not allowed to work in any company that was a client of theirs or start a business of my own that might compete against them. My lawyer laughed out loud at that clause.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Corporate boards in USA don't include workers because workers would pull money away from the shareholders and executives in the form of pay raises and better benefits for lower level employees.

<comment><USER35> Hm, it did not work like that in Germany in the 90s and 00s. Workers were persuaded not to go after raises, although profits soared, to avoid losing jobs to countries like Poland. The German government decided to keep the surplus from exports and indirectly brag about it, as if countries are households. The result of this idiotic policy was of course that German industry scored record profits, but wages remained stagnant for ~20 years since by not investing in infrastructure the govt kept wages low "virtually". Then negative interest rates came, the EU went berserk and the AfD is the third political power in Germany. So much for the surplus.

Back to the matter at hand... having workers in the board helps, but doesn't secure raises.

<comment><USER36> Er...in the 90s and 00s, Germany was "The Sick Man of Europe", significantly lagging the other Western European countries.

So there were no soaring profits to distribute at the time, and wage restraint agreed by the unions was one of the factors in bringing Germany back (note: not "the" factor, as usual there were many).

<comment><USER37> The reason for Germany carrying that title at the time was the cost of reunification, not the economy itself. West Germany was still doing relatively fine but East Germany required massive investments. Germany was hit by the early 00s recession but that was hardly unique in Europe.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I would hesitate to say that the US system arose out of completely "voluntary" agreements. In the US, most employees, even if they were to band together, have nowhere near the bargaining power to be able to negotiate a seat at the table. As the article itself showed, when companies started falling on hard times, or even when one manager became aghast that the workers were sharing in the profits, the employee councils were out.

</comment><comment><USER39> Having rank-and-file employees on the board seems a little iffy. Maybe it would work if the ownership had some interest in employee perspectives and well-being--like in the Filene case. Filene strikes me as an outlier though.

Without that interest, you're just putting high schoolers up against an NFL team--no match for the wealth, power, and credentials of shareholders and their representatives.

</comment><comment><USER40> tl;dr: the author's answer to the question in the headline is that US unions have become too weak to negotiate adding union representatives to corporate boards.

<comment><USER41> I wonder how much of the "unions are horrible" view that most of us have today was just a effective marketing campaign, much like the "welfare queen" stereotype.

Weakening unions seems to have caused much more damage than whatever evils they were accused of (profligate compensation for unproductive workers)

<comment><USER42> Most of it is marketing. Notice how hard companies fight whenever there is an attempt at unionizing a workplace.

My wife is a member of a nurses union and it is nice to have a contract with your employer (something all top executives have) instead of work conditions being at the whim of a manager.

A downside of most contracts is there is little room for performance bonuses - almost all contracts are based on time in the union and not performance. The effect is an A player and a D player all get the same wages and benefits. There is no reason a union contract has to be structured this way, but for some reason they almost always are based on time and not performance.

<comment><USER42> So what does every nurses get in terms of pay and benefits after they are all averaged together? A pretty good deal! After 20 years almost $100/hour of work, 1.5X that after 40 hours per week. 6 weeks vacation, paid sick time and paid major holidays. The contract is renegotiated every 2-3 years to keep the rates increasing with inflation

<comment><USER28> Are you sure about your numbers outside of a few select localities with high cost of living? [https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Registered_Nurse_(R...](https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Registered_Nurse_\(RN\)/Hourly_Rate/e57a1cea/Late- Career)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


You should be listening to video game soundtracks at work - <AUTHOR> https://www.popsci.com/work-productivity-listening-music <comment><USER2> Two relatively obscure soundtracks I can recommend are Ori and the Blind Forest and Thomas Was Alone.</comment>


Random imaginary album titles and artwork - <AUTHOR> http://fakealbumart.com/ <comment><USER2> Someone already did that here. [https://bandcamp.com/](https://bandcamp.com/)

</comment><comment><USER3> Seems to only have one piece of artwork.

<comment><USER3> Must of just hung for me. Works now.</comment></comment>


So You Hacked Our Site!? - <AUTHOR> http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/So-You-Hacked-Our-Site!.aspx

<comment><USER2> A long time ago I came across a password protected site with a login page at something like:

www.example.com/private/login.html

I was curious so I entered:

www.example.com/private/

Sure enough I got a standard Apache directory listing, which included the password protected page...

</comment><comment><USER3> Is there any way to use Google to search the actual source of a webpage? I couldn't find an "insource:" or similar function.

I'm wondering how many websites use this pasuser() function and think they're actually "securing" content.

<comment><USER4> I believe you can search by language on Google Code search - so you could choose javascript and that'd be basically the same

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Strange, I think I will never be jobless.

</comment><comment><USER6> It's weird, I somehow HOPE it's a scam. If it's "legitimate" (as in, they actually think they're making good work) I think I'll have to shoot myself.

</comment><comment><USER7> Well, that made me laugh.

</comment><comment><USER8> _sorry our site wasn't protected to your standards..._

 _-the guy from the company._

...For some reason I feel like I should respond to this, but it just doesn't seem like it would be worth it.

<comment><USER9> It wouldn't be worth it for two reasons.

First, that's probably not really the guy from the company. Probably neither he nor any of his friends read the sites where this got posted.

Second, he would be right. The amount of security you use depends what you're protecting. For ourdoings.com I SSL-protect passwords and salt+hash them on the server side. For the set of ads described in the article, nominal "security" of a client-side JavaScript password is probably about right. :-)

<comment><USER10> Seems like the guy was either posting there or following the thread. The username and password changed several times and finally the page itself is down.

<comment><USER8> Yeah I'm upset about the page. I wanted to see who fell for their special list.

I'll be their government "agents" are happy about it. No site means they don't have to find companies to hire. No site = No work. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> fluff!

<comment><USER12> Yes it is - but I think it's ok with a laugh every now and then. As long as it doesn't get out of hand.

Having a bit of fun is important.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> that's the funniest thing I've seen on wtf in a looong time. The dummy who made the site apparently even posted on the wtf forum - in all caps, natch.

<comment><USER14> This response ( [http://thedailywtf.com/Comments/AddComment.aspx?ArticleId=58...](http://thedailywtf.com/Comments/AddComment.aspx?ArticleId=5855&ReplyTo=180051) )?

<comment><USER13> Yeah, that's the one. Obviously not in all-caps (I still don't think he helped himself much by posting). Maybe the name submitted in the form ("FEDERAL SUPPLIERS GUIDE CUSTOMER SUPPORT") is what created the impression in my mind that he was shouting and somehow messed with my memory. Interesting what the brain does behind its own back.

doh!

<comment><USER8> Yeah. He wrote his title in all caps, and his message in all lower case. That's probably what threw you off.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I know I shouldn't be bothered, but it really worries me that this is on top of news.yc :-(

</comment><comment><USER16> Yikes. I can't say I expected the daily wtf to make the top of news.yc anytime soon.

</comment><comment><USER17> I once wrote a report for a client for managers only with a special password, "aardvark". Every time I was there, I heard at least once, "Did anyone run the aardvark report yet?" I wonder if anyone ever caught on.

</comment><comment><USER18> that made me laugh so hard...I'm surprised he managed to not _get sued_ by the people he put in the "guide"

If its not a scam, I'll be darned.</comment>


A Supreme Court Pioneer, Now Making Her Mark on Video Games - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/28/technology/sandra-day-oconnor-supreme-court-video-games.html <comment><USER2> > The group has since released 19 free online games, along with accompanying > lesson plans, with the idea of making civics education less about rote > learning and more about giving middle school students an animated glimpse > into how different branches of government and the Constitution work.

What a great idea!

<comment><USER3> Reminds me a little bit of Hidden Agenda[1], the banana-republic simulator game from back in the day. Not a terrible insight into how the State Department worked

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_Agenda_(video_game)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_Agenda_\(video_game\))

<comment><USER4> Tropico! [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropico](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropico)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Strange to hear of famous octogenarian former politicians behind noticeable video games lately...A few months ago, it was Donald Rumsfeld and his card game:

[http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/rumsfelds- game](http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/rumsfelds-game)

</comment><comment><USER6> Having actually played this game, it is somewhat basic, and most importantly, SINGLE PLAYER. You're not debating anyone else. Essentially think of it like an RPG/strategy game, you create your political candidate by picking a party (class) and issues to debate (skills). Then turn based style you pick states to operate in, hold a rally, (direct attack), run a campaign ad, (ranged attack) poll, and raise funding(basically turn-based combat, attack, analyze opponent for weaknesses, heal).

It's interesting, I would've enjoyed playing it a little when I was younger and didn't know anything about how campaigns are run.

</comment><comment><USER7> Sandra Day O'Connor

</comment><comment><USER8> >Compete Civilly

Haha, how quaint.</comment>


IT Security Educational Video – Happy Holiday - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGpA6WBrU_o <comment><AUTHOR> Not sure what to think of the video</comment>


I am tired of reading blog posts from "bubble predictors" - <AUTHOR> http://jordancooper.wordpress.com/2010/11/15/i-am-tired-of-reading-blog-posts-from-bubble-predictors/

<comment><USER2> So stop reading them. Problem solved.

The internet isn't something that needs to be tamed. You don't have to quiet all the people who have opinions. You don't need to correct people when you think they are wrong. Have strength and just walk away.

<comment><USER3> <http://xkcd.com/386/>

Someone is wrong on the internet!

<comment><AUTHOR> i like that

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> For those skipping right to the comments: basically, this is a consumer of startup financing:

* sticking up for the law of supply and demand because it currently favors him, and

* criticizing producers of startup financing for complaining about supply and demand when it disfavors them.

<comment><USER5> Except that Jordan is also an angel investor, so he certainly has a valuable perspective: <http://jordancooper.wordpress.com/lerer-ventures/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Would be great to have more hard data on this "bubble". Most deal terms are only available second or third hand and require some effort at parsing.

The investments people usually associated with bubbles (stocks, real estate, gold, bonds) are all published widely. Helps fuel mania. I know sophisticated investors who have no idea how angel investing works and have never heard of Y-Combinator. Doesn't sound like bubble conditions to me.

<comment><USER7> I agree it's not a large-scale bubble, but I think it will still qualify as a small-scale one -- a "bubble in a teapot", if I may mix metaphors -- if a lot of angels invest in low-quality deals and run themselves out of money.

There's a key difference, though, between this situation and one conducive to bubble formation: the successes of the deals aren't correlated. The success of one startup doesn't make the next more likely to succeed. It may cause the next to attract more investor interest, but once it gets going it still has to succeed or fail as a business. Thus the valuations are still ultimately grounded in reality. Also, it's not the case that a startup is passed from owner to owner the way that, say, real estate is.

So I prefer the alternative explanation that we as a society are simply getting better at nurturing startups. (I.e., I'm agreeing with you.) _That_ certainly _is_ sustainable.

</comment></comment><comment> DanI-S "Personally, I welcome anyone who wants to cut a $50K check to support a new product and pull a smart mind out of wall street or advertising or any other industry that is not pushing the limits of what can be."</comment>


Thumbprint readers stir fears in Venezuela vote - <AUTHOR> http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Thumbprint-readers-stir-fears-in-Venezuela-vote-3763825.php <comment><USER2> Even if today there's no link made, next time there can be. From a security solution the only acceptable solution is for an air gap between the act of voting and knowing who voted.

The only other reason to change from the old working system to this one is security incompetence. Now, I think evidence is abundant that it is perfectly feasible that this is the root cause, but even if it is, that doesn't change the fact that this system is now capable of tracking who votes for what.</comment>


Sorry New York Times, I decline to be interviewed - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/arram/status/1288140786396143617 <comment><USER2> Regarding the second tweet,

If you plot the word frequency of "coronavirus" it will show a quantum jump on 2020. So what? Journalists report on what's happening around them, so if people keep talking about "male privilege" then of course NYT will pick it up, whether you (or NYT) are for or against the concept.

If you want to argue that NYT or the larger journalism _caused_ the rise of terms like "male privilege", you need a better argument than cute pictures. Using a 10x10 grid of cute pictures cherry-picked to maximize outrage is precisely what people are complaining about modern journalism, or so I have thought?

<comment><USER3> Coronavirus would also spike on google trends which is the control mentioned in the tweet.

<comment><USER2> That doesn't follow, because people normally don't search for "male privilege" or "inequality" or "victimization" \- even those people for whom these words are parts of their daily discourse. When was the last time you searched for "pointer"?

So, of course the graphs aren't going to match. Not to mention the graphs themselves are all over the place. (What insights are we supposed to get from the decreasing trend of "general motors"?)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> That second tweet with word usage trends of the NYT is shocking. It's like a phase transition.

<comment><USER5> Wait but the words highlighted in the word usage trends don't support the claim that NYT "abandoned it's commitment to nonpartisan reporting"

Explain how a big uptick in the use of words like "feminism", "islamaphobia" and "anti-semitism" mean the NYT became partisan?

I have a lot of beef with the NYT but the graphs don't show what he claims. And if he actually believes they do, then I have seriously questions about his viewpoints.

Especially considering events that happened around the phase change, like the muslim ban and Me Too movement, that could easily explain the step changes in word frequency around 2014-2016. And is there any comparison with other news outlets word frequencies?

If anything, the step changes show that before 2014ish, NYT was failing at recognizing important issues that they have now started reporting on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> fl3x

</comment><comment><USER7> > The data makes it plain that the NYT has abandoned its commitment to > nonpartisan reporting. When the internet threatened their business they made > a devil's bargain to amplify outrage and us-vs-them psychology.

They abandoned any such commitment in 1946, when they introduced the still- active editorial rule [1] that:

 _race should be cited only when it is pertinent and its pertinence is clear to the reader. The race of a victim of a hate crime or the subject of a police search is clearly germane, an essential part of the person's description. But the race of a person convicted of a crime is not pertinent unless the case has racial overtones;_

It is left as an exercise for the reader to find out in which cases race was _pertinent_. Reuters and AP have similar rules.

[1] New York Times Manual of Style and Usage, 2015 Edition, pg. 2183 [http://1.droppdf.com/files/bp7ed/the-new-york-times- manual-o...](http://1.droppdf.com/files/bp7ed/the-new-york-times-manual-of- style-and-usa-allan-m-siegal.pdf)

<comment><USER8> I fail to see how this decision in 1946 is relevant. Its clear you are just pushing a narrative and reaching way, way, way into the past to try and sell it.

<comment><USER7> Way into the past? The rule is still in place _today_.

<comment><USER9> I'm totally lost, because I can't see why this rule is a problem. It seems logical to only include a subjects race, only when race is relevant to the article.

<comment><USER7> And if the NYT only deemed race relevant when the perpetrator was Black and victim was White, filling the pages with "Black kills White", and never the reverse, would you see the problem then?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


ARM Launches Hollywood Approved Anti-Piracy Processor - <AUTHOR> http://www.torrentfreak.com/arm-launches-hollywood-approved-anti-piracy-processor-130603/ <comment><USER2> Curious about this article I went on a short research trip down content protection lane. Now, if I understand correctly, high-definition media is re- encrypted at each link in the chain from origin to display device (let's not mislabel this as "end-to-end encryption"), which is why HDCP has to be as much a legal construct as it is an engineering one (and broken in both domains).

Since unlicensed HDCP strippers (basically counter-encryption devices that take encrypted HDMI in and talk unencumbered HDMI out) can be ordered straight off Alibaba, I don't see how this processor is any further impediment to the systematic bootleggers of high-definition content and its redistribution in alternative forms.

I concluded that the practical application is therefore limited to impeding the casual viewer from cloning original media files or streams.

What it further provides is another sterling opportunity for interoperability failure between devices.

<comment><USER3> How do "casual viewers" clone media streams anyways? They aren't so casual at that point. Whatever hacks a casual viewer needs in order to copy a stream, they could just as easily download a DRM-stripped one. So, on the surface, it does not seem like this helps anything at all.

The only effect of HDCP I've ever seen is sometimes AppleTV can't stream Netflix because of an HDCP error.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Large American institution with a history of infringing on people's rights attempts to enforce a design of a commercial computer chip? Hmm, where have I heard of that before...?

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip>

<comment><USER5> I would say that NSA was less disturbing. They didn't want you to prevent you from doing anything, just wanted to know they could take a peek.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Is this something scarier than simply a video decode IP block that's TrustZone aware, or is Torrentfreak hyperventilating?

<comment><USER7> The source blog post suggests it's exactly that. Whether that's scary or not depends on your perspective - I doubt it will prevent any material from leaking out, but it certainly could encourage companies to restrict video playback to devices that support the feature, which would be rather annoying for users of other devices. That is, if manufacturers bother to actually use it...

<comment><USER6> At this point in the development of ARM, an argument against TZ-aware video blocks is basically an argument that ARMH should _deliberately_ hamstring its IP blocks to prevent them from being used to implement content protection, right? TZ isn't spooky DRM technology.

<comment><USER7> TZ in video decoders has little use other than content protection, and ARM is explicitly positioning it for use as such. While the article is certainly very hyperbolic, and many more steps will need to be taken before an annoying scenario of the type I described is likely to come to pass, I think it is a valid concern.

<comment><USER6> Any security feature in a video decoder is going to be designed for rightsholders. :)

If you're concerned about content protection, the inevitability of hardware- assisted content protection as hardware security improves is a valid concern.

But since TZ is (a) a technology with more non-DRM uses than DRM uses and (b) a fundamental part of the overall ARM architecture, not extending it to other ARM IP blocks would have been an odd choice. That's all I'm saying.

<comment><USER8> It's not necessarily true that TZ in video = DRM. It could also be used in secure UI scenarios.

<comment><USER6> A video decoder block? What's an example scenario there?

<comment><USER8> Secure videoconferencing? But yes, a stretch use case, I know!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> When I saw this I remembered about the time Netflix launched on Android, and how they only made the app available only on certain devices with "hardware DRM" [1], at least initially.

So I don't think ARM was the first to do this. Both Qualcomm and TI seemed to have some kind of hardware DRM before, although ARM may try to "out-compete" them in this department now, and offer a more advanced/harder to crack solution, which can only mean Qualcomm and Nvidia will probably offer something similar in the future.

[http://blog.laptopmag.com/netflix-for-android-demoed-on- qual...](http://blog.laptopmag.com/netflix-for-android-demoed-on-qualcomm-ti- chips-with-drm-support)

<comment><USER9> > available only on certain devices with "hardware DRM" [1], at least > initially. > So I don't think ARM was the first to do this.

There's two things going on here, the "old" thing is secure boot / secure os, which is a hardware/software solution that only allows signed code to be run on devices. I think this is what was meant by the original Netflix announcement.

The "new" thing here is hardware memory protection for video data that is there to prevent the CPU, GPU or other engines on the SoC from accessing protected memory and only the display controller is allowed to read it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Does DRM usually just mess with people who actually paid for the content? I mean make it inconvient for them to access their content else where?

<comment><USER11> Wonder how much battery it burns to do the decode compared to a non DRM video.

<comment><USER6> To a first approximation, TZ is just an extra bit on addresses. So, probably not so much.

<comment><USER8> Well, decryption has costs - and the question was DRM and not TZ specific. But yes, doing the work in the secure world is as cheap as the normal OS

<comment><USER12> There's no decryption. It's encrypted all the way to your screen's each pixel.

<comment><USER13> That makes no sense. You might not be able to get at the decrypted pathway from software, but at some point there's got to be a decrypted linear buffer to drive the pixel array.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This definitely doesn't sit right with me, and it will hurt sales if they move forward with hardware DRM. Is it going to allow me to play content that I purchased physically and ripped? If I can run a ripped version, what stops me from running a friend's ripped version?

Either it will lock people out of their own stuff, or it will be totally useless. I hope for ARM's sake that it's ineffective.

<comment><USER8> Yes, you can play your own media. What this does is to keep the entire process of media decryption outside of the control envelope available to the (regular) OS, so not only are keys not visible but also decrypted content is also not exposed outside the secure environment. But this is only for encrypted media from a organisation that is using a TrustZone infrastructure - all other media will continue to work as today.

<comment><USER15> At some point the decrypted content has to be exposed outside of a secure environment in order for us to see it. Could you possibly intercept the signals sent to individual pixels, or would you have to actually film your screen?

<comment><USER16> HDMI out is pretty common on the types of high end phones and tablets that this sort of chip would target. HDCP is long-since broken, so none of this matters to pirates unless the content people also force the device makers to kill HDMI out as a feature which seems untenable. But the pirates are just going to keep ripping the Bluray discs leaked out a month or more prior to retail release anyway since that's even easier. As with the vast majority of DRM, this will only fuck over legitimate users. Pirates will still download the torrent, whether it comes from a Bluray rip, captured HDMI or as a last resort the analog hole.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Even if there is magic inside someone will crack it.

<comment><USER5> It is not about cracking. It is about control. The ability to third party to execute code on your device without your knowledge or oversight makes the world more insecure place.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Can you use DRM hardware for anything other than DRM? For example, are there extra DSP registers that can rapidly decode stream?

<comment><USER9> No, this is a hardware memory protection scheme implemented in the memory management unit. There's no encryption or other processing going on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Who is "Hollywood" the article mentions?

Unless it's tinfoil hatism, he must provide at least one credible source other than "Hollywood approved"

<comment><USER20> Who, other than the copyright lobby, would be demanding this technology? Users are not going, "Gee, I wish my computer would stop me from committing piracy!"

<comment><USER19> Right, i can guess this too.

But if you're writing about one entity doing something, you have to at least give me the right name of said entity. You can't write with the informal definition.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Even if it is still hardware-based, they must download a movie definition file somewhere for future movie reference. If not, then it seems that the only movie segment they would be comparing the signatures to is the intro credits or at the last part of the credit scene. This is just my speculation of how this might work.

</comment><comment><USER22> Why would hardware providers put something like this into their device? Pressure from the media industry?

</comment><comment><USER23> >> Until now the major movie studios have been hesitant to move some of their videos to mobile platforms since these are harder to secure

Phones are harder to control than laptops? That seems unlikely.</comment>


US intelligence: al Qaeda attack attempt on US soil certain - <AUTHOR> http://thesecuritytimes.com/?p=995&sms_ss=hackernews <comment><USER2> So what's on the wish list of DHS now, so they need to drum up a little hysteria to push it through?

Logically, simply making such an announcement greatly diminishes its likelihood. If I were a terrorist that planned something in July, I'd let those 6 months expire uneventfully, and then in September I'd unleash my plans. Then I get a twofer: panic for six months for free just through the media, and then another "real" panic when I do my deeds.

And if the best they can do is underwear and shoe bombers, it's not much to get excited about.</comment>


German Space Center has constructed the world's largest artificial Sun - <AUTHOR> http://newatlas.com/dlr-artificial-sun/48579/ <comment><USER2> I worked on the light fixtures for the US Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, vehicle research center. [http://www.iihs.org/iihs/about- us/vrc](http://www.iihs.org/iihs/about-us/vrc)

These lights were 72,000 watts each, with a total of around three-quarters of a million watts of lights in the crash hall. (Almost as as much power as the German sun installation.) High speed cameras need a lot of light.

I've stood in front of one of the lights in protective gear - but the heat still just goes through your body.

The first time the IIHS lights were turned on it blew a power substation 20 miles away.

<comment> vhost- Slowmo Guys actually have a video detailing some of the challenges of filming in high speed (most of which have to do with light - or lack thereof): [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lZvF- YyP0s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lZvF-YyP0s)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I saw the large space simulator (LSS +) at the ESTEC test centre (ESA) a few weeks ago where they can simulate up to eight times the solar intensity (the solar intensity is 10 times as high at Mercury) in their 15m by 10m vacuum chamber using xenon lamps. The surface temperature of the BepiColombo spacecraft due to launch next year will be around 500°C. That was impressive already.

This one does not work inside a vacuum chamber but manages 10,000 times the normal solar radiation with the temperature reaching 3,000°C. Wow!

\+ [http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Engineering_Technolo...](http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Engineering_Technology/Test_centre/Large_Space_Simulator_LSS)

</comment><comment><USER4> _Synlight is a giant parabola made up of 149 7-kW xenon short-arc lamps_... so a total power draw of about 1 MW? That's nuts. Hope they remember to turn it off when they leave the room.

<comment><USER5> More importantly, I hope they remember not to turn it on when they are _in_ the room.

<comment><USER6> Ha

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I moved to Jülich in November. There's all sorts of interesting industrial, technological, and scientific research going on here---it's not just the Forschungszentrum and the space agency. Cologne and Aachen aren't far. Worth a look if you're looking for an affordable place in Germany with good access to cities and lots of smart people to start a company.

<comment><USER8> Since (from your profile) you have also worked in a lab in the US: How does it compare to that? Do you like Germany so far?

<comment><USER7> I didn't live in Livermore, I lived in Berkeley, and though I had a long anticommute I had a better network of people there. I like Germany so far (arrived in November), but I'm more of a city person. I'm looking to move to Cologne, but the rent is too low (although locals say it's very high), the demand is through the roof, and the supply is small. People I've spoken to say a year to find something to your liking isn't out of the ordinary. So I feel isolated, but I'm trying to fix it. But a year out of a three-year postdoc is substantial.

FZJ and LLNL are both astounding places to do science. As a postdoc you don't notice it, but it's harder to do science at LLNL, since their core mission is security. Both places have excellent computational resources and friendly, brilliant people. You definitely notice the machine guns and the culture of security at LLNL, and it can make it difficult to have foreign visitors. It seemed to me that at LLNL / if you have DOE funding generally an inordinate amount of your time is spent justifying and fighting for your funding, whereas the German funding cycle seems to be a lot longer.

The German system of supporting universities by having laboratory scientists responsible for at least 1 course a year is very interesting and healthy, I think. It's also easier to coordinate than it might be in the states where universities aren't all state run. Some US labs have very close connections to universities and often have joint positions (LBL and SLAC spring to mind), but the connections are stronger and obligations greater in Germany, I think.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Watched a TV clip about this. I was surprised that apparently the control system was programmed by one guy (Dmitrij Laaber). I found a Master Thesis explaining control software for a prototype of this: [http://elib.dlr.de/108662/1/Deepak%20Chopra- Master%20Thesis....](http://elib.dlr.de/108662/1/Deepak%20Chopra- Master%20Thesis.pdf) (is Deepak Chopra a common name?)

<comment><USER10> Doesn't surprise me. It's an Engineering and not a software company. Somebody just writes the software, because it needs to be written. When I worked there a couple of years ago, E-Mailing source code files was a well established process. (Depending on the department though)

<comment><USER9> IIRC it was even software _and_ the hardware (wiring etc).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Pretty cheap installation for the amount of knowledge they could potentially get out of it. I wonder how much it costs to run for an hour.

<comment><USER12> Industrial rates in Germany are around €0.15/kWh

149 x 7kW = 1043kW

1043 * 0.15 = €156.45/hour

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> ...and they couldn't be bothered to turn it "on" and have at least one photo in the article.

It's like saying "Bavarian Water Center has constructed the world's largest artificial waterfall" ... and then not bother to show what it looks like when the water is flowing and it is all dammed up.

</comment><comment><USER14> A little OT- does anybody subscribe to this site? Is it worth supporting?

</comment><comment><USER15> Came for fusion reactor, left disappointed.

<comment><USER16> I was hoping to see recent news on the Wendelstein 7-X [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendelstein_7-X](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendelstein_7-X)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Denpock?

</comment><comment><USER18> So, they put up lamps.

</comment><comment><USER19> Ugh, here I was hoping for an article about nuclear fusion... so disappointing. Instead of making power, we're wasting it.

<comment><USER20> This is research that directly pertains to the fusion in the sun.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> "It refuses to work at night" ... yeah, that's exactly how the Sun works. Very annoying stupidification of the content, in my opinion.

Humans calling the Sun "finicky" is a bit like ants calling an aircraft carrier "slow and cramped", or something.

<comment><USER22> Curiously, that's the line that caught my attention too. Because, solar is so popular but the sun is so 'unreliable' \- another case where popular enthusiasm contradicts simple engineering. The sun is a terrible power source, simply because it fails at least half the time everywhere.

<comment><USER23> Solar construction is dominated by energy and finance companies, with large projects in places that don't have subsidies. Popular enthusiasm is barely relevant.

<comment><USER22> Hm - what's the impact of roof solar in California? My brother's electric rates went from $0.24 per kwh to $0.46 and we suspect its because the power company is recouping its losses from buying all that off-peak rooftop generation at retail rates. So he's installing rooftop solar too, just so he's on the other side of that equation.

relevance: its popular enthusiasm that got the buyback rate set at retail instead of wholesale. Thus fueling a statewide boom in pointless rooftop solar.

<comment><USER23> Doesn't make sense to me. For the costs to be that significant, net metered kilowatt hours would have to be a huge chunk of their generation, and rooftop solar is smaller than utility solar, which is maybe ~10% of the market, and rooftop doesn't net meter most generation, it consumes it off the grid.

It could well be the case that solar is changing the cost mix and driving up prices, but I doubt net metering is driving that.

<comment><USER22> But they're related in a strange way: they raise the rates a penny, they have to pay a penny more _back to solar_ at 'retail rates'. So its a funny feedback loop.

<comment><USER23> The numbers just don't work. California power consumption is something like 40 gigawatts, net metering is a fraction of 4 gigawatts.

So even if the net metering is somehow 100% cost (it isn't, they sell the power), it still wouldn't do anything like double rates.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Firefox to get massive JavaScript performance boost - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080822-firefox-to-get-massive-javascript-performance-boost.html <comment><USER2> For a lot of web apps, including the one I'm working on, the JS interpreter isn't the bottleneck, or even close. Basically, anything involving rendering or the DOM is orders of magnitude slower than pure JS computation. So what's the point of optimizing function call and loop overhead? For what real-world apps will this make a noticeable difference?

When we ran our app in FF3 for the first time, we were dismayed to find that, after all the talk about browser performance improvements, it had actually gotten a lot slower (especially when scrolling) [~]. As far as I can tell, they're optimizing the wrong stuff. It's possible that our app is unique, but I doubt it. To judge by Google, many people appear to be experiencing the same thing.

[~] Safari 3, on the other hand, sped up our app considerably.

Edit: The only person I know of who's raised this issue is John Resig: <http://ejohn.org/blog/javascript-performance-stack/>

<comment><USER3> > _… what's the point of optimizing function call and loop overhead? For what > real-world apps will this make a noticeable difference?_

It will make a difference in real-world apps which are currently impossible because they would perform poorly. It will become reasonable to start putting real number-crunching into browser-side JavaScript code—things like crypto, physics calculations, etc. As one example, JavaScript games are going to get a whole lot better in the next couple of years.

(Not to say that they shouldn't be optimizing DOM access, or scrolling speed, or whatever.)

<comment><USER2> What you're saying is reasonable - for apps that don't need much UI. I wonder, though, how many real-world examples there are of apps that people have tried and failed to write in Javascript for this reason.

For those of us working on things where the UI requirements are more intensive, little progress has been made. Perhaps the pure JS stuff is getting more effort because it's more glamorous?

<comment><USER4> >Perhaps the pure JS stuff is getting more effort because it's more glamorous?

funny you mention that, but I think a lot of things are driving by glamour or fashion.

Although in this case its clearly an engineering achievement, so kudos, and its great to have 2 competing and excellent open source browsers.

But still... glamour...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is nice, but the only upgrade firefox actually needs is multithreading and they won't do it (according to some blog I read, which I couldn't re- find).

They can optimize all they want, and it'll help, but Intel hit a wall with CPU performance, and multi-core is the future.

<comment><USER6> > according to some blog I read, which I couldn't re-find

I think this is the blog post by Brendan Eich you are referring to:

       So my default answer to questions such as the one I got
       at last May's Ajax Experience, "When will you add
       threads to JavaScript?" is: "over your dead body!"

       There are better ways. Clueful hackers keep rediscovering
       Erlang. Then there is STM. One retro stylist I know
       points to an old language-based solution, Hermes.

       A requirement for JS3 (along with hygienic macros) is
       to do something along these more implicit lines of
       concurrency support. In all the fast yet maintainable
       MT systems I've built or worked on, the key idea (which
       Will Clinger stated clearly to me over lunch last fall)
       is to separate the mutable unshared data from the
       immutable shared data. Do that well, with language and
       VM support, and threads become what they should be:
       not an abstraction violator from hell, but a scaling
       device that can be composed with existing abstractions.

       So here's a promise about threads, one that I will
       keep or else buy someone a trip to New Zealand and
       Australia (or should I say, a trip here for those over
       there): JS3 will be ready for the multicore desktop
       workload.

[http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roadmap/archives/2007/02/thre...](http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roadmap/archives/2007/02/threads_suck.html)

in essence, he plans to take advantage of multicore processors not with threads but with better and/or more programmer friendly methods.

<comment><USER5> Yah, that's the one. And we'll see if he delivers, but I know one thing right now: when I sit and wait while one very slow site freezes the whole browser, I get quite annoyed.

Does he not realize that the browser is basically the OS these days, and he's keeping it in Windows 3.0 territory?

It's time to make a thread for the UI, and a thread for each window, and each tab (child windows AKA popups, shall thread with their parent). JS can't cross those walls anyway, so his probably with concurrency are not as bad as he thinks.

<comment><USER7> I think Eich is advocating against explicit thread support in JavaScript like e.g. Thread.run() in Java. Separate threads per tab is an unrealated issue as long as the tabs cannot communicate. Tabs might however be able to communicate if one tabs opens another through script. In that case it might introduce racing conditions if the tabs runs in different threads.

Btw in HTML5 there is a proposal for cross-window communication <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/#crossDocumentMessages> which is asynchronous. This would allow communication between different threads using message passing.

<comment><USER5> >I think Eich is advocating against explicit thread support in JavaScript

Oh! Well I sure read that wrong. I thought he was against threads in the browser. So I guess there is hope.

If one tag opens another, it's a child of the first, so they should thread together.

Javascript already has threads anyway (setTimer, and events), they are just serially scheduled - on a single core it's identical to regular threads. So you already have to deal with concurrency issues in javascript apps (although it's not as bad as full threading since I think a single function is allowed to run to completion before something else is scheduled).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is a huge achievement for the future of the web. While the basics of what we're doing now are very simple, the ability to have code be compiled on the fly is exactly is needed to get JavaScript near pre-compiled code boundaries. I do yearn for a world where our biggest successes are much bigger than forums that graduated into social sites.

As gruseom stated, interacting with the DOM and rendering as still significantly slower than iterating through an array. I believe tracing very well could be the key to unlocking advances in that area s well.

</comment><comment><USER9> While I consider myself a WebKit man, it's good to see Firefox competing, The competition benefits everyone.

Unfortunately, IE is still quite slow. I think we'll soon reach the point where it's not the browser feature inconsistencies limiting what cross-browser JS apps can do, but the performance difference.

<comment><USER4> I think its already here for the bleeding edge. I have seen some (small) apps where they give up on IE purely for performance reasons (their users are happy for that compromise) - buts its ONLY for performance reasons.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> (push 'javascript _dynamic-languages-faster-than-C_ )

</comment><comment><USER11> This is great news. I thought the boosts in JS for Firefox 3 were nice, this looks even better!</comment>


Pwnat: NAT to NAT client-server communication - <AUTHOR> https://samy.pl/pwnat/ <comment><USER2> Wow. This is awesome. So essentially the client pretends to be a "hop" with a specifically crafted ICMP packet. The NAT simply forwards it along as if it were expecting it. Neat!

The only thing stopping this would be flooding these ICMP packets to pwnat servers. The server would get the wrong IP and do extra work. In practice, it would be difficult to figure out if pwnat is running since it probably isn't meant to be a long running process.

Also: I know that some providers prevent UDP forging on the "source" address. Do they do this also at the ICMP level? If so, I guess this is another set back.</comment>


Humans Are Underrated, F*CK AI - <AUTHOR> http://halisback.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> We did Hal because AI doesn't work yet, so why try to turn a computer into a human when there's a lot of us out there? s?

</comment><comment><USER2> Humans are not underrated. Humans are just expensive. How much is the monthly cost? How many request can I make monthly?

<comment><AUTHOR> It will be 7,99U$ and you will be able to do as much as you want.

<comment><USER2> As an estimation of your costs, using the minimum wage rate, $8 pays for 1hour of HALs. Assuming that each request takes 5 minutes, there are 12 monthly request, i.e. 3 request for week.

How are you going to handle people that makes more request or non trivial requests?

For a comparison, at the beginning of the class season I sometime listen to students that want to change from one classroom to another, or from one course to a course of a different topic. Just the trivial cases take 10 minutes, and in many case I have to go to the Students Office to request more accurate data so replying takes probably half an hour or more.

<comment><AUTHOR> We will use the sharing economy. Hal has a big system from behind that will allow users to apply and become a Hal so they will be able to reply users whenever they have some time and it will randomly send the questions to the available Hal´s.

There is a lot of people out there without work or doing nothing and now they will be able to literally work whenever they want from any place they want.

Uber, but from your computer, more comfortable, easy and cheap to do it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> This seems exceptionally stupid.

<comment><AUTHOR> Why?</comment></comment>


Unanswered (random) questions - <AUTHOR> http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2008/06/unanswered-rand.html <comment><USER2> Re: question 2, a lot of people in these countries aren't even aware of the existence of brown rice.</comment>


Google discovers the key to good teamwork is being nice - <AUTHOR> http://qz.com/625870/after-years-of-intensive-analysis-google-discovers-the-key-to-good-teamwork-is-being-nice/ <comment><AUTHOR> I found this (and the article it summarizes [1]) to be an interesting counterbalance to yesterday's post about not being a "people pleaser" [2]. It's simple advice to always be direct and honest with someone, but I don't think it's practical without being sensitive to the psychological safety of the other person. These things are certainly not mutually exclusive, but finding the right balance is more nuanced than simplistic advice would indicate.

[1] [http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/magazine/what-google- learn...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/magazine/what-google-learned-from- its-quest-to-build-the-perfect-team.html?_r=0)

[2] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12262237](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12262237)</comment>


Ask HN: What SaaS apps have a great UI ? - <AUTHOR>

I'm building a new SaaS web app and looking for inspiration on UI design.
Can you name some web apps that you find have a really great UI/UX ? Is there any website that showcases such web apps ?
Some web apps that come to my mind: 37signals.com's apps, Mint.com, FreshBooks.com
Thanks HN ! <comment><USER2> <http://www.getballpark.com/> <http://www.campaignmonitor.com/> <http://www.getharvest.com/>

also you can find a bunch of other good examples on <http://cloudomatic.com/>, a directory of SaaS applications

<comment><USER3> Check out <http://www.metalabdesign.com/> (the makers of BallPark) for some great inspiration.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> +1 for MailChimp. The fact that they make sending out emails fun means they're doing lots of things right with the UI. They serve as inspiration for many of the things I'm starting to do with my own SaaS web app.

Regarding the 37signals apps, I find Highrise the most impressive from a UI standpoint.

</comment><comment><USER5> Smashing mag. has some good articles on this topic.

[http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2010/02/25/designing-user- in...](http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2010/02/25/designing-user-interfaces- for-business-web-applications/)

[http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2009/01/12/10-useful-web- app...](http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2009/01/12/10-useful-web-application- interface-techniques/)

I have worked pretty hard on the UI/UX experience for <http://simplton.com/screenshots> and have been happy with the results.

Also, look no further than Google, their interface work with Google Reader and Docs is excellent.

<comment><USER6> Ok, so I will be that guy. You should really talk to a designer about your site UI/UX. To me it looks very much like a windows/java application and I honestly wouldn't use it or trust it with my data.

I know that sounds harsh, but trust me. It's better someone tells you and you can fix it then if everyone stays "nice" and doesn't say anything.

<comment><USER5> Appreciate taking the time for the feedback. Great advice.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> <http://wufoo.com/> is beautifully designed, really useful UI and great work with all the colors.

</comment><comment><USER8> We leverage Cappuccino to get a near-desktop experience for <http://www.enstore.com>. You can create an account to play around yourself or watch a video here: [http://cappuccino.org/discuss/2009/10/06/cappuccino-in- check...](http://cappuccino.org/discuss/2009/10/06/cappuccino-in-checkout-3/)

</comment><comment><USER9> This is a really hard one, but we've come across a ton of beautiful apps since starting Cloudomatic:

\- List of Cappucino apps (these are always beautiful): <http://cloudomatic.com/tag/cappuccino/> \- One that we added yesterday: <http://www.staction.com/> I think the app is simple and the ui is beautiful/something new.

If there's a large enough list of more obscure/unknown apps, I'll try to highlight the top 5 when I'm on this week in cloud computing later. Apps doing some crazy HTML5 /cappuccino stuff are always a plus.

<comment><AUTHOR> Never heard of Cloudomatic before, but I wish I had. It seems like a great service and I actually like your UI ;) Good luck with it !

<comment><USER9> thank you! We're putting something new out today that should be really useful.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm a fan of Jesse BC (<http://31three.com/portfolio>). His designs are always top-notch IMO.

Some examples are: <http://www.campaignmonitor.com> <http://expressionengine.com>

</comment><comment><USER11> Without trying to be overly self-promoting, we've spent a lot of time making our UI look good over at <http://www.woobius.com> . Worth having a look and including it in your inspiration list, perhaps.

</comment><comment><USER12> <http://freeagentcentral.com/> and <http://campaignmonitor.com> are both paragons of SaaS UI: beautiful form, and elegant function.

</comment><comment><USER13> I'm pretty impressed with <http://www.freeagentcentral.com/>, it's "great UI/UX" in the sense that as much as looking good, it also functions well.

</comment><comment><USER14> The Invoice Machine has a pretty good interface. Simple yet aesthetically- pleasing: <http://invoicemachine.com/>

It may not be much of a looker, but I always appreciated how MailChimp manages to make a boring subject like mailing lists fun: <http://mailchimp.com/>

</comment><comment><USER15> Here's some more great examples of effective UI design: <http://flowtown.com> <http://survs.com> <http://pulseapp.com> <http://www.xero.com>

<comment><USER16> Wow - thank you for the Flowtown love #humbling

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> <http://www.xero.com/> <http://www.crazyegg.com/>

It may not be the most beautiful, but <http://www.salesforce.com/> works extremely well for its application.

</comment><comment><USER18> I've always been a fan of Urban Airship <http://urbanairship.com>

</comment><comment><USER19> We use Pivotal Tracker at my day job and I really like the UI/UX. It's intuitive, functional, and simple, all things I look for and try to emulate in my own work.

Update: Link <http://www.pivotaltracker.com/>

<comment><USER15> Agreed - we've moved all of our DEV queue into PivotalTracker after benefiting from it's ridiculously simple UI and workflow.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> This is PaaS, but Heroku looks amazing and has a great UI. Also, Divvyshot was beautiful.

<comment><USER21> I felt the same way about Divvyshot but now can't find screenshots of it anywhere (and I don't have an existing account, so I can't log in to see it anymore)

Do you know where I can find some screenshots of it for reference?

<comment><USER20> Here are a few:

<http://cl.ly/Zhy>

<http://cl.ly/cQs>

<http://cl.ly/a50>

Their home page is also stunning though: <http://divvyshot.com/> (check out the map at the bottom of the about us page for example)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I am biased, but Guestlist is pretty good. A lot of our UI design focuses on making the app feel faster than it is while remaining highly usable: <http://www.guestlistapp.com>

<comment><USER23> Guestlistapp is great, the integration to 3rd party tools is extends the service and federates additional services (particularly for best-of-breed services like Campaign Monitor, though I'd like to try it with MadMimi).

I keep hoping for additional functionality, i.e., can't wait for the next release.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> <https://rightsignature.com>

Upload a document and play with the tools. Very easy to use and the control you have is amazing.

</comment><comment><USER25> Big fan of Pivotal Tracker (<http://www.pivotaltracker.com/>). Great product, great UI.

<comment><USER26> Argh?

The piv UI is horrible. Sometimes it auto-updates, sometimes it doesn't, the whole open/close item metaphor is horrible as it pushes stuff around constantly, the text-areas are way too small, can't edit your own comments, stuff more or less randomly jumps to other tabs when changing status (which may or may not be currently visible)...

Well, that's just what _immediately_ popped into my head, I'm sure there's more if I look again.

Pivotal has easily one of the worst GUIs of any ticket tracker I have used. It's right down there with bugzilla, just in a different, over-ajaxified way.

<comment><USER25> Pivotal isn't mainly a ticket tracker (although it can function as that too).

It's primarily a sprint planning / user story device. The way it can track sprint velocity and aid immensely with figuring the optimal size of future sprints (as long as your stories are fleshed out and points set for them) is fantastic.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I've been a big fan so far of Cashboard. <http://www.cashboardapp.com>

</comment><comment><USER28> <http://carbonmade.com> is another webapp with a great and exciting UI.

</comment><comment><USER29> BitsyBox Hosted CMS w/API <http://www.bitsybox.com>

</comment><comment><USER30> Check out www.tungle.me - Super simple very intuitive social calendar.</comment>


FireFox continues gains against IE - <AUTHOR> http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1035_22-5545930.html?tag=btxcsim

<comment><USER2> That was three years ago. Everybody knows that since then Firefox and IE has closed shop and that the only browsers on the market are Opera and something that runs in Emacs.

Well, ok, not really. But it's been three years and FF doesn't have just ~5% of the browser market any longer.

</comment><comment><USER3> "Jan 22, 2005 12:47:00 AM"</comment>


Is it kosher to deduct your new iPad from your tax bill? - <AUTHOR> http://gizmodo.com/362112/deduct-av-gear-from-your-taxes-whaaaaaaawesome Anybody here doing it? What are your thoughts on a web developer writing a new toy off on Uncle Sam? <comment><USER2> If you are in business and in Canada it is. Until February 2011 all new computer purchases for business can be written off 100% in the year in which they were purchased.

Include in Class 52 with a CCA rate of 100% (with no half year rule) general purpose electronic data processing equipment (commonly called computer hardware) and systems software for that equipment, including ancillary data processing equipment if acquired after January 27, 2009, and before February 2011. To qualify for this rate the asset must also:

        * be situated in Canada;
        * not have been used, or acquired for use, for any purpose before it is acquired by the taxpayer;
        * be acquired by the taxpayer:
          - for use in a business carried on by the taxpayer in Canada or for the purposes of earning income from property situated in Canada; or
          - for lease by the taxpayer to a lessee for use by the lessee in a business carried on by the lessee in Canada or for the purpose of earning income from property situated in Canada.</comment>


This Rocking Lead Singer is a 3D Hologram - <AUTHOR> http://singularityhub.com/2010/10/20/this-rocking-lead-singer-is-a-3d-hologram-video/

<comment><USER2> An earlier submission on this story:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1817237></comment>


Meteor 0.7.0: Scaling realtime queries using oplog instead of poll-and-diff - <AUTHOR> https://www.meteor.com/blog/2013/12/17/meteor-070-scalable-database-queries-using-mongodb-oplog-instead-of-poll-and-diff

<comment><USER2> It seems as if continuing to address these scalability issues is what will be one of the largest deciders in Meteor's future. It seems as if I near constantly am perusing posts on the framework here, and after going through the Discover Meteor book as well as several small projects that were largely simple prototypes, I've began to have a lot of faith in it for these reasons:

1\. It is EASY. Like, really, really easy. I went through Discover Meteor in less than two days, and was easily imagining how to implement other applications after one run through.

2\. It is accessible. The free deployment on the .meteor domain, the open source sensibilities, the constant growth. It's got a good snowballs path going on growth.

3\. The developers really believe in this product. Everyone on HN has an opinion of the best way to develop software. That said, I feel there is a certain intrinsic respect we share for one another here(MOST of the time ;]) and to ignore developers who are as passionate as these guys building a functional product that clearly has room to grow, we'd be fools to ignore them if we didn't have the time and/or interest (and the interest is hard to not have with what it offers so easily).

This article seems to really further my faith in Meteor. Stopping the "pull and diff" method is a great first step towards making it truly scalable in the sense other frameworks have developed the capability.

<comment><USER3> I've been working with the framework almost daily and regarding your comments:

1.) Yep. I've gone from a jQuery-mostly front-end dev to being able to build full blown apps inside of 6 months. Not only that, the apps run really well.

2.) Incredibly. Even without the meteor.com service, it's super easy to deploy using things like Demeteorizer ([https://github.com/onmodulus/demeteorizer](https://github.com/onmodulus/demeteorizer)) which strips down a Meteor app to a raw node.js app that can be deployed anywhere (that supports node, of course) in < 2 minutes.

3.) My favorite part about the framework is that the core devs have meetups/hackathons frequently to talk about progress on development, show off demos of pre-releases, and allow community devs to showcase their own work (if you're curious, I highly recommend checking out the Devshop videos: [https://www.youtube.com/user/MeteorVideos?feature=watch](https://www.youtube.com/user/MeteorVideos?feature=watch)).

Even if it doesn't sound like your bag of chips, at least do what the OP did and check out Discover Meteor: [http://discovermeteor.com](http://discovermeteor.com). It's worth the day or two it will take you to complete.

<comment><USER2> The core devs are great with how active they are. Some have even reached out to me on twitter when I've mentioned them. It's great to see how much passion they have. What sort of product are you working on with meteor?

<comment><USER3> Right now I have two available: [https://properapp.com](https://properapp.com) and [http://whatwhenapp.com](http://whatwhenapp.com).

<comment><USER2> These look great! Need any help with development? I'm about junior-dev skill level but am actively looking to get into some side projects until I land a job in the industry now that I'm out of the programming bootcamp I was at. I'd ton a bunch of C/Python/Ruby before that, but it really solidified my core software dev skillset and is allowing me to learn at a rapid pace and I'm loving it :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Was 0.6.7-0.6.9 skipped? There was a release candidate for version 0.6.7

The big change with this version is the oplog tailing instead of the poll and diff which has dramatic performance improvements over the previous version. More details at the wiki: [https://github.com/meteor/meteor/wiki/Oplog- Observe-Driver](https://github.com/meteor/meteor/wiki/Oplog-Observe-Driver)

<comment><USER5> About the version number: [https://github.com/meteor/meteor/commit/8bd400e56065b0f2d61e...](https://github.com/meteor/meteor/commit/8bd400e56065b0f2d61e18dd220becb6a2bf7ac8)

I would have expected Meteor UI to be in 0.7, but that not a big deal and that will probably be in the next version.

<comment><USER6> Yeah, we have several big projects in flight, and we're shipping them in the order that they're ready.

We push them out first as prereleases (which you can run by passing a --release flag to meteor, and it will automatically download and install everything) and announce them to meteor-core and see what people think. In this case both oplog tailing and Meteor UI were out as prereleases, but there was more feedback and more feature requests for Meteor UI, so oplog tailing ended up winning the race.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm working on a project currently that needs this but we're an express / mongo stack and not a meteor stack. Anyone know of anything similar I can add to the mongodb node driver? Or can I switch to meteor's node driver without the rest of meteor?

<comment><USER8> @krebby, you can create a DDP client that works outside of Meteor, which would allow you to run a Meteor server + Mongo with your own front end.

The other option is to use Racer from DerbyJS.

If you're interested in adding a real-time data layer to an existing Node app, then Derby is probably the easier path.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Trailing the oplog for events is a great strategy. 10gen use it to generate point in time snapshots for disaster recovery and various companies have described systems doing this to react to data changes in mongo. Web Scale database triggers. Ahrmm.

<comment><USER10> Side note, 10gen has been renamed to MongoDB Inc

<comment><USER11> Given the flak MongoDB has been getting lately, that might have been a bad decision.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Can't you scale realtime queries by just timestamping everything in the database so you know if something comes back in your query where timestamp > oldtime, then it's new?

</comment><comment><USER13> Looks like Meteor is becoming more like the Q platform.

[http://qbixstaging.com/QP](http://qbixstaging.com/QP)

[http://github.com/EGreg/Q](http://github.com/EGreg/Q)

(Not yet released though :)

<comment><USER14> No.

<comment><USER13> Why

<comment><USER11> Pretty cool framework Greg. Disregard comment above, they lost every key on their keyboard except for two.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Can we get government out of the copyright enforcement business? - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2013/01/16/aaron-swartz-followup-can-we-get-government-out-of-the-copyright-enforcement-business/ <comment><USER2> So true! Actually I think many more [non-violent] "infractions" should be civil rather than criminal matters. The classical objection to this is that then only the wealthy will be protected, but as Greenspun points out only the wealthy enjoy the protection of our current system. The least they could do is pay for it themselves.</comment>


U.S. website blackout draws praise in China - <AUTHOR> http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-china-internet-20120120,0,31035.story

<comment><USER2> OK while the title is technically correct, it is misleading.

"U.S. website blackout draws praise from some bloggers in China"

would be more accurate.

Unfortunately this sort of headline is common. It leads a casual reader to false conclusions about the options of average people in China (and other countries).

All this is is a couple quotes dropped into a ready-made article.

</comment><comment><USER3> Evan Osnos also has a good write-up in the New Yorker:

[http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/evanosnos/2012/01/the-...](http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/evanosnos/2012/01/the- chinese-view-of-sopa.html)

</comment><comment><USER4> It would be more encouraging to see the Chinese government praising the actions of legislators like Reid and Smith. If they praised SOPA and PIPA, the Chinese government would look as if it were telling the US government Internet censorship was needed. Since there already are fears of the US looking like China, the every day citizen might draw the conclusion that the US is turning into China, and could potentially hurt lawmakers seeking reelection because of this so-called equivalence.

I'm not an expert in Boolean algebra. Is this a logical fallacy?</comment>