New DNA Results Show Kennewick Man Was Native American - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/19/science/new-dna-results-show-kennewick-man-was-native-american.html

<comment><USER2> > _When Dr. Willerslev and his colleagues looked at the Colville DNA, they > found that it was the closest match to Kennewick Man among all the samples > from Native Americans in the study._

> _The DNA of the Colville tribe contains Asian-like pieces of DNA not found > in Kennewick Man. They may have gained that genetic material by having > children with the Arctic peoples._

> _"We were hesitant," said Mr. Boyd, of the Colville Tribes. "Science hasn't > been good to us." Eventually, the Colville agreed to join the study; the > other four tribes did not._

It's a shame that a history of distrust has developed. It sounds like we could extensively map out migration patterns of our pre-historic fellow humans, if their DNA were available. What nefarious purposes can you further by using someone else's DNA?

<comment><AUTHOR> _What nefarious purposes can you further by using someone else 's DNA?_

Perhaps you have not seen the movie "The last of his kind" which maps out how we hunted Indians to extinction or casually exposed them to deadly infections, like small pox, that wiped out entire tribes and then, afterwards, piled their skulls up in our museums to study so as to satisfy our scientific curiosity.

Why should Native Americans trust white scientists?

<comment><USER2> Would they trust Native American scientists?

Are they satisfied with their current histories? Do they not really care much to know how their ancestors moved across the continents?

<comment><USER3> You're coming at this from a white man's perspective. "I can't possibly see what they have against knowing their history!"

Try coming at it from the Native American perspective. Almost every thing the white man has ever told them has been a lie. From trade deals to war treaties. The white man took their lands by force and trickery and soon had them living in reservations or participating in death marches.

Of course natives are going to be skeptical when white scientists tell them their history...history which they have their own cultural representation of. As modern western folk, we like to view the world with our scientific lens, and view what we see through it as the truth. But our science is no more truth than light bouncing off an object is the object itself.

Natives have their own account of their history. It's no more or less important than our account of their history, but our version is certainly going to be met with some (rightful) skepticism.

<comment><USER2> I'm trying to come from the perspective of someone who values data over no data. But you're right, I can't just shed my privileged perspective.

It seems like the point being indirectly communicated (somewhat by you, but also by other posters on this page), is that the concepts of "Aborigines Native American" and "Scientist" are incompatible. Like, it's a role that exists in our society, but not in theirs. Or something like that, their culture doesn't value that kind of information. I don't wish to offend out of my own ignorance of others' cultures.

<comment><USER3> I see where you're coming from, and have a few responses

> someone who values data over no data

I'm saying natives are most likely viewing passed down cultural history as data just as much as historic DNA, but in the case of DNA, the data comes from a historically untrustworthy source. I think it's sad that the suspicion exists between the "white man" and the native people. I have roots in both so I see the issue from your side as well: there's perfectly good data that could help natives tell their story, should they choose to use it.

> their culture doesn't value that kind of information

This is an interesting point. I'm actually not aware of how advanced science is in native cultures, or how much of a drive there is to have advanced science. I know in general there is a resistance to losing their culture. But maybe there are people in various tribes who would jump at the chance to access DNA information from a long lost ancestor.

> I don't wish to offend

I don't think you offended anyone at all as much sparked interesting conversation. A lot of what makes this issue interesting is that there are several different cultural perspectives looking at one thing from many different angles. I think in this case nobody is right or wrong, we all have access to the same information and are drawing separate conclusions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Regarding the whole burial aspect -- the guy was already buried! With a ceremony according to his own religious beliefs as he practiced them, not whatever religion descendents 8 millennia distant currently practice. Shouldn't they just put him back where they found him?

<comment><USER5> It sounds like he actually drifted away from his original burial spot.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I understand that white supremacists were using the Kennewick man to prove whites somehow "owned" America first and that one particular supremacist "religion" (I won't name it) was suing to keep them if they were of European ancestry.

[http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&...](http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=5664)

Looks like the the simplest answer, (walking across the land bridge) is building up a huge preponderance of evidence.

<comment><USER7> There was a claim that evidence of earlier human habitation than the Bering Strait migration had been found in Brazil [1]. I am not sure how the evidence has held-up to further scrutiny (there are issues surrounding dating of the petroglyphs found), but this article [2] has some discussion and nice pictures of the caves and petroglyphs.

An independent migration to S. America, most likely from Africa, is obviously possible, even if that population later died out. Consider that Madagascar was initially populated by people from the South China Sea, a claim initially met with much incredulity.

[1] [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/28/world/americas/discoveries...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/28/world/americas/discoveries- challenge-beliefs-on-humans-arrival-in-the-americas.html?_r=0)

[2] [http://www.rockartscandinavia.com/images/articles/brazila9.p...](http://www.rockartscandinavia.com/images/articles/brazila9.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Url changed from [http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/kennewick-man- finally-...](http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/kennewick-man-finally- freed-share-his-secrets-180952462), which is a dupe of [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8223448](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8223448), to the recent news about the Kennewick man.

I think this is the first time we've made a url swap like this, but given that there is genuine news about the same topic, it seems better than burying it as a dupe like we normally would.

<comment><AUTHOR> I can't win for losing. :-) I was looking for something more substantive and HN-worthy than the Fox News coverage of this story: [http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/06/19/dna- says-8500-year...](http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/06/19/dna- says-8500-year-old-kennewick-man-closely-related-to-native-americans/)

I was living in the Tri-cities when Kennewick Man was found. We were living in a rental in Richland, but my husband's duty station was the Kennewick recruiting office behind the mall. I don't normally pay much attention to the news, but this was exciting stuff. Also, I have a smidgeon of Native American blood (Cherokee, in my case) so news about Kennewick Man hits close to home for me.

Thanks for updating.</comment></comment>


Response to "Where did all the PHP programmers go?" - <AUTHOR> http://blog.nickj.org/2008/06/05/response-to-where-did-all-the-php-programmers-go/

<comment><USER2> Phrased much more adeptly than my "painting with crayons" argument.</comment>


Blackboard Buys 2 Leading Supporters of Open-Source Competitor Moodle - <AUTHOR> http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/blackboard-buys-2-leading-supporters-of-open-source-competitor-moodle/35837?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en

<comment><AUTHOR> Is this a case of if you can't beat 'em, squash 'em?</comment>


Tool detects patterns hidden in vast data sets - <AUTHOR> http://www.broadinstitute.org/news/3784

<comment><USER2> I'm running this on the Gene Expression dataset. What kind out output should I expect? The Mine homepage, <http://www.exploredata.net/>, shows a node graph, but the site is sparse with details and references the published paper which you have to buy if you want to read.</comment>


Show HN: MyCryptoWiki – A free cryptocurrency coin wiki - <AUTHOR> https://mycryptowiki.com <comment><USER2> Definitely agree there is a lack of easily accessible information on coins. I started putting together [https://www.orc.press](https://www.orc.press) though my sense is that it's overly technical for most users.

<comment><AUTHOR> What a coincidence we're actually working on similar things at the same time

<comment><USER3> Not much of a coincidence at all given how insane everyone went for blockchain lately.

<comment><AUTHOR> I have been around Crypto since 2016. I am surprised no one has done this yet.

<comment><USER4> The Wikipedia cryptocurrency list and the pages that it links to are not bad.

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> How come Litecoin, which would be #5 by market capitalisation is missing? Yet many I've never heard of are included. Has some fan of an alternative deleted it or something?

<comment><AUTHOR> Lol. Highly unlikely.

It would be awesome though if you help the community add Litecoin. That's why I made it a wiki. So anyone can add missing information. Crypto is so big now I definitely can't do it all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Honestly curious as I only know of a few cryptocurrencies. - \- Are there over 500 types of cryptocurrencies? \- If so, can anything past top 5 even survive (long term, like a few years?) \- Doesn't the increase in amount of coins dilutes its own value?

<comment><USER7> This is a common question. I suggest you think of it like stocks on the NYSE or NASDAQ. Does every IPO decrease the value of the already listed companies? Just as Comcast and Dish are both television distribution companies that manage to serve different markets, so to can different coins coexist. This is especially true when the coins have completely different objectives and are not just chasing the retail point of sale niche.

<comment><USER6> Thanks. That makes sense.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> After "two months of hard work" the Bitcoin page has only one paragraph?

<comment><AUTHOR> That's why I made it a wiki. Cause I definitely can't get all the info myself. I figured a minimum text would suffice to get other contributions rolling...

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'd be interested if it also had pages for different technologies used by multiple cryptocurrencies.

E.g. : a page on PoW, a page on PoS (or possibly multiple pages for the different versions of PoS), any other similar mechanisms, ERC20, different styles of handling balances (e.g. Bitcoins UTXOs vs. Ethereum's using a merkle tree of balances), merkle trees in general, ways of doing anonymous transactions (e.g. Zksnarks and such), etc.

Edit: I mistakenly called ERC20 EIP20. I have corrected this.

<comment><AUTHOR> Would you be so kind as to add them. Thanks. It's a community effort

<comment><USER8> Ah! Yes, I could try contributing some for that! I wasn't sure whether it fit with the intended design. If it does, then great!

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes it does. The info can then be linked to in the Bitcoin page. Thanks

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm amazed this doesn't already exist. But you're right there's no single source you can go to for a brief, unbiased description of even the top 50 tokens. If you can get the community going, I think this could be a big help.

Any plans to add live data?

<comment><USER10> If you want very brief, I made this Google doc that describes the top ~500 cryptocurrencies in 4 words or less:

[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/151E3d26SIRNhXQewq-55...](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/151E3d26SIRNhXQewq-55dcvsJ8CEz70pzjCDg- B_350/edit#gid=1082450401)

<comment><USER4> Yesterday I ran across Nick Young's visualization of 25 cryptocurrencies by creation date and use case [https://imgur.com/YGwn9n9](https://imgur.com/YGwn9n9)

Source: [https://github.com/nickwb/cryptographic](https://github.com/nickwb/cryptographic)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> here is an infographic with the history of the popular blockchains by types

[https://github.com/ciocan/Blockchain- Files/blob/master/the-h...](https://github.com/ciocan/Blockchain- Files/blob/master/the-history-of-blockchain-infographic.png)

</comment><comment><USER12> How are you going to stop it from becoming inundated with spam and scams?

<comment><AUTHOR> It's built with the same software running Wikipedia, with adequate spam controls. However, the community is what I will rely on as the information affects all our pockets atm

<comment><USER13> > the information affects all our pockets atm

That's precisely the problem... people will do anything to try to manipulate their favorite cryptocurrency. It's going to be an uphill battle trying to keep this unbiased.

<comment><AUTHOR> Don't undermine the power of hate in Crypto. A coin much loved is also much hated. People will do anything to keep it clean from shills.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Did you just installed some app at hosting and call that a wiki?

</comment><comment><USER15> This is a really great start. I'd love to help.

<comment><AUTHOR> Great! Thanks. You can start off by adding any coins you will like to see

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Honestly? Good job. Also honestly? Why not Wikipedia?

<comment><USER17> Wikipedia's notability policy means that many cryptocurrencies don't get included, even some major ones. Even Bitcoin was deleted as not notable at one point.</comment></comment>


PyPy 1.9 Released - <AUTHOR> http://morepypy.blogspot.it/2012/06/pypy-19-yard-wolf.html <comment><USER2> That is impressive performance, and steady progress. I have a renewed interest in Python since all the work for a new customer is in Python. I usually use Ruby, Clojure, Common Lisp, and Java - but, I am finding Python to be perfectly acceptable.

<comment> j-b I'm curious to know what about Python is 'acceptable' in comparison to Ruby? Does Ruby have capabilities that you find better?

<comment><USER2> I decided 6 or 7 years ago that I "needed a scripting language" and used Python for about a half year. I then tried Ruby and found it more to my personal tastes, mostly because of blocks. No disrespect intended re: Python</comment></comment></comment>


CA Law Was to Give Uber Drivers New Protections. Instead, Comedians Lost Work - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-california-law-was-supposed-to-give-uber-drivers-new-protections-instead-comedians-lost-work-11599883243 <comment><USER2> Honestly this is the worst part of contracting, when two consenting parties can't work together. If I prefer the gig economy and contract work to full- time employment, CA gets in the way. It's been much more challenging trying to get long-term contract work as companies are afraid of me being classified as an employee and then owing the state (or me) taxes and penalities.

I have a skill that adds value to a company. They want to pay me to do it. I agree to the price. What's the problem? According to CA, a lot.

<comment><USER3> >I have a skill that adds value to a company. They want to pay me to do it. I agree to the price. What's the problem? According to CA, a lot.

Are you arguing that all labor laws, workplace safety laws, minimum wage laws, anti-compete laws and so on should be repealed? After all, they all get in the way of two consenting parties deciding to work together. If not then it's merely a question of where the line is drawn and that's a murky issue.

<comment><USER4> > Are you arguing that all labor laws, workplace safety laws, minimum wage > laws, anti-compete laws and so on should be repealed? After all, they all > get in the way of two consenting parties deciding to work together. If not > then it's merely a question of where the line is drawn and that's a murky > issue.

We should repeal every minimum wage law, yes. They were created a century ago with racist intentions, their effects are still racist and yet today they are defended as being "anti-racist." The actual minimum wage is and always has been $0, and more people get to (not) work for this wage in the minimum wage regime than would without it.

I have yet to see a reason why a body of torts and collective bargaining would not be completely effective at resolving the real issues that need solutions in labor law and workplace safety. (I'm not sure what you mean by "anti- compete" laws in a labor relations context.) The existing regime where administrative bureaucracies are essentially intermediaries with perverse incentives to reduce exchange between two otherwise consenting parties seems like the worst possible world.

To reframe your question, I think the solution is not "no laws," but laws that encourage more exchange but in a way that reduces power imbalances between consenting parties and give the parties a solid basis of legal (or equitable) recourse for undeniable wrongs that happen that were not anticipated by the contract.

<comment><USER5> Raising the minimum wage in Seattle was shown to help the local economy. The economy doesn't grow if people don't have money to spend. The marginal dollar made going to a worker making 15 dollars and hour or less is better for everyone than if that marginal dollar made goes to a capital owner of the company because the worker will have a higher utility from that marginal dollar and they will spend it in their local economy, which causes local economic growth. If the marginal dollar instead went to a capital owner of a large corporation or franchise owner, the dollar has left the local economy, and the economy has shrunk. Obviously there is a limit to this, you can't set the minimum wage at 200 dollars/hour, but the balance of evidence we have shows that increasing the miminum wage will increase the US GDP because those dollars go to things like hair cuts and groceries, not savings accounts. You need to spend money to grow.

<comment><USER6> It seems academic literature shows the Seattle min wage had the opposite effect of your claims. It hurt workers and drove up prices, as expected. Here's two representative papers; you can find more using Google scholar.

[1] [https://www.nber.org/papers/w23532](https://www.nber.org/papers/w23532)

[2] [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/107808741878766...](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1078087418787667)

<comment><USER7> For your first paper, the same team published a study a year later that complicated their initial results: [https://www.nber.org/papers/w25182](https://www.nber.org/papers/w25182). And "workers in low wage jobs earned less money" does not necessarily imply that workers are earning less money overall in any case.

The second study is a survey of what employers say they were doing. It is not terribly surprising that they feel raising the minimum wage was bad.

I'm not saying raising the minimum wage was a slam dunk in Seattle or anything, but if we want to have an actual evidence-based discussion, let's not cherrypick papers. It's also worth noting that employers simply "taking their business elsewhere" is much easier if the minimum wage increase is highly local as it was in Seattle, which isn't the proposal most people are talking about.

<comment><USER6> >the same team published a study a year later

And from that paper: "We attribute significant hourly wage increases and hours reductions to the policy." and "Approximately one-quarter of the earnings gains can be attributed to experienced workers making up for lost hours in Seattle with work outside the city limits."

Read the paper. It does not appear that the min wage of Seattle was a net positive for the workers or the city.

>The second study is a survey of what employers say they were doing. It is not terribly surprising that they feel raising the minimum wage was bad.

It's also not surprising that an increase in labor costs results in less labor being hired and an increase in prices.

Feel free to post papers that contradict the findings.

>let's not cherrypick papers

Agreed. Post papers if you think these were cherry picked and not representative of the outcome of Seattle min wage. You don't like the results I posted, which I think are representative (I've followed the academic lit on min wage for a long, long time), yet you don't post supporting evidence for your claims.

Simply type seattle minimum wage into Google scholar and look at the papers. I've found many with results similar to these, and none with the opposite claims.

For those following, the Seattle min wage seems consistent with what you'd expect from price floors: benefits for a smaller pool of workers at the cost of other workers priced out of work, increased prices, a decrease in labor hours, and some workers having to go outside the price floor (here, working outside Seattle) to make up the lost money.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The root cause of all of this is the abysmal safety net in the US. If vitally important things like healthcare, unemployment and disability weren't tied to your employment, then there wouldn't be an issue in the first place because companies couldn't weasel their way out of paying for it by calling employees "contractors".

<comment> t-writescode This. 100% this. The real thing we should be championing isn't forcing companies like Uber to pay for healthcare because health care is so important.

If healthcare is so important, which it is, our taxes should be paying for it, yes, even (edit: for) the people that don't have work.

<comment><USER9> Until that safety net exists, it's important that people are provided with health insurance by whatever means are necessary and available. Right now, the system is set up such that health insurance is provided though employers.

Champion the safety net, but also recognize that people need healthcare _right now_.

<comment><USER10> There is nothing stopping California from increasing corporate taxes and providing health care to everyone in the state.

Why go through the Rube Golberg solution?

<comment><USER11> As byzantine as it is, it's more comfortable and familiar than adopting a new unknown system.

<comment><USER10> So let's pass more laws that make it more difficult for freelancers, independent truck drivers, etc to earn money as they wish.

Jason Snell for instance was the editor in chief of MacWorld. He was laid off and decided to go full time with his blog, podcasts, etc.

He also wanted to do freelance writing. Now, it's harder for him to do freelancing because of California laws.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Many comments are treating these results as unforeseeable consequences. But the law pretty obviously banned most contracting.

You can read the conditions here. Unless the worker meets _all_ of them, they are an employee.

Part A is a pretty normal contractor condition. But Part B bans _all_ subcontracting within an industry.

Part C seems to ban people from becoming new contractors if they weren't one already. How would you get established in a trade? Part C says you're an employee if you're not already so established.

————

Effective January 1, 2020, hiring entities are required to classify workers as employees unless they meet all conditions of the ABC test:

1\. The person is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact. 2\. The person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business. 3\. The person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed.

[https://edd.ca.gov/Payroll_Taxes/ab-5.htm](https://edd.ca.gov/Payroll_Taxes/ab-5.htm)

<comment><USER13> > But Part B bans all subcontracting within an industry.

I don't see the problem here. It's not obvious to me that subcontracting should ever have been legal in the first place -- the majority of the time, I've generally only seen subcontracting used to do something immoral, unethical, or irresponsible.

> Part C seems to ban people from becoming new contractors if they weren't one > already.

Is that what it actually does? Reading it, does not seem to communicate that. It seems to be saying, "if you are a contractor, you have to actually be a contractor, and not just filling out contractor-like legal paperwork because your employer forced you to"

Uber and Lyft drivers are not actual businesses, they are employees of Uber and Lyft, picking up piecework employment, and Uber and Lyft are abusing a legal loophole to not pay them fairly. But if you run "Acme Transportation LLC" and own a vehicle that you use as your own Limo Shuttle service, you would fulfill Part C, even if it's your first day of business.

Uber and Lyft want everyone to pretend those two groups of people are the exact same. But they aren't the same, and I've not heard any good reason why the rest of us should pretend likewise.

<comment><USER14> What about the person who drives for both Uber and Lyft?

My brother does that, and tells me most drivers he knows do the same.

Should they be employees?

And if so, can I work for Google and Apple at the same time as an employee?

<comment><USER13> I'd argue yes, they should definitely still be employees.

When a person flips burgers for both McDonalds and Burger King, they're still clearly an employee with two different jobs at two companies, and not some sort of "independent food consultant". If you work as a cashier at both Shell and Speedway, you are today an employee with two different jobs at two different companies, and not some kind of "independent petroleum cashier contractor". Having two jobs at different companies happens all the time in the US today for low/middle-class folks, and has for many many decades now -- these folks are generally all still considered W2 employees.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I find a lot of the lines that come out of ride-sharing companies just absurd:

> A Lyft spokeswoman said: "If the legislature had done its job and made > policy that actually protected drivers, the ballot initiative wouldn't have > been necessary."

This reads like "if you twisted our arm in a way we would have preferred (in approximately 0 preferred ways), then we wouldn't be pulling out our political spin machine against you to continue exploiting drivers."

Comedians and yoga studios should not be caught in this crossfire at all, but it's clear that these ride-sharing companies are acting in extremely bad will, and the system lets them get away with it.

<comment><USER16> I don't know how you reach that conclusion without pre-existing bias against the ride-sharing companies.

The legislature is absolutely to blame for comedians and yoga studios getting caught in the crossfire. They are the ones that passed the regulation.

<comment><USER17> The pre existing bias borne out of the morally challenged Uber executives who have time and time again broken laws by outright ignoring labor laws in many places on the world?

Yeah I wonder why...

<comment><USER16> the why does not matter as much as acknowledging that you may be drawing faulty conclusions based on a bias.

<comment><USER18> You seem to be implying the bias is unreasonable, by claiming the conclusions it leads to are faulty. I think that framing is uncharitable at best. What you call bias, might be better described as contextual understanding, or awareness of other highly relevant information. Given the wealth of (prominent on HN) discourse around "ride-sharing companies acting in bad faith", there's little reason to immediately frame this argument in terms of "pre-existing bias" that must be exorcised before rational discourse can begin.

Of course, reasonable people can disagree with the accusations of bad faith, but for a knowledgeable person to claim it as "bias" instead of "reasoned opinion" is extremely uncharitable, verging on sophistry.

<comment><USER16> No, whether the bias is reasonable or unreasonable does not really matter. How one reaches a certain conclusion is what matters.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This law hurts freelancers so much especially those that want to be freelancers. If you decide you want to go down the route of LLC in California then you have to pay the yearly $800 dollar tax.

To be honest I wonder if there should be three designations for modern employment: full time, contractor and gig worker.

<comment><USER20> Woah, you have to pay $800/yr to keep an LLC in California? What for?

<comment><USER21> Various fillings you need to do. While different states have different requirements and fees . It will not cost zero anywhere .

While it looks high, if the biz cannot afford the $800 fees annually then perhaps LLC is the not the structure for it ?

LLC come with many requirements for corporate governance and accounting this typically means you need accountants and lawyers and they cost lot more than $800 .

<comment><USER22> It has nothing to do with filings. It costs the state next to nothing. It's a very-slightly-disguised franchise tax, on top of their actual franchise tax if you make any money.

There are 9 states with no annual LLC fees. And almost all of the rest are $50 or under.

LLCs have almost no requirements for corporate governance. That's why they're attractive.

<comment><USER21> Compared to public company LLC have less requirements yes. Howver you still need a board and resolutions and you have submit your LLC annual returns have seperate bank accounts at the minimum. None of that is required for a sole proprietor.

> costs the state next to nothing

How are you concluding this ?

Cost to the state is just not storing few bits somewhere . Even just applications they have to build maintain those bits will cost the state a lot of money.

The non tech part of the government which needs your data. every bank , credit worthiness, every other biz which needs to work with you, every dept that needs to regulate what you do , every small biz schemes you would like to benefit from. Healthcare, employee taxes, courts etc ....

All of these reference your corporate entity "ID" the government needs to maintain and service them. Heck even apple will ask your DUNS number when you register non personal developer account.

It may or may not cost $800, but it certainly isnt next to nothing. other states maybe absorbing the costs and are trying to attract new biz, doesn't mean that california has to be cheap too.

Like I said there are other entity structures which are cheaper and designed for businesses that cannot afford 800 dollars a year in filing fee.

<comment><USER23> > Howver you still need a board and resolutions and you have submit your LLC > annual returns have seperate bank accounts at the minimum.

LLCs do not need to have boards. If you're going to operate a simple single member LLC for example, there is typically no great reason to have a board.

[https://info.legalzoom.com/article/does-llc-have-board- direc...](https://info.legalzoom.com/article/does-llc-have-board-directors)

[https://smallbusiness.chron.com/singlemember-llc-need- board-...](https://smallbusiness.chron.com/singlemember-llc-need-board- directors-55403.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> It seems to me that although the law was claimed to be a win for all workers (at least in its intention, and pitch to the public), its _effect_ is to favor certain workers over others.

And what I see is that "old-line" workers in industries already familiar with / set up to have employees are the main beneficiaries. Newer industries that have not yet figured out how to cost-efficiently have employees are the losers. Hotel cleaning staff versus part-time rideshare drivers. It seems to be about protecting "old" labor versus new labor, within the truth of labor in general being more unstable recently.

I don't think I like this approach. Particularly more so because I don't see why in principle some specific contractors got callouts as exceptions, but not others [1]:

\-- insurance agent

\-- physician and surgeon, dentist, podiatrist, psychologist, or veterinarian

\-- lawyer, architect, engineer, private investigator, or accountant

\-- securities broker-dealer or investment adviser

(^ clearly these contractors have been exploited long enough and need assistance (/s) )

\-- direct sales salesperson

\-- commercial fisherman working on an American vessel

(^ if there was a group of workers working in more dangerous and low paying and uncertain conditions, you would think they would be included)

\-- those providing professional services, such as: marketing, HR, travel agents, graphic design, grant writer, fine artist

(^ Grant writer??)

\-- accountant, payment processor, photographer, freelance journalist, writer, real estate agent, repossession agent

Why do all these industries get a pass? What about the dozens of jobs that didn't make the list? And I can clearly imagine that with these definitions locked in stone, it favors old over new that has no such title.

I take this as evidence that this is a heavy exercise in picking and choosing _which_ workers.

[1] [https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB5)

</comment><comment><USER24> They clearly tried to have this spear-regulate the ride-sharing guys without hitting anyone else but the policy is totally an "adding epicycles" style approach which is why they had to add more epicycles to exempt all those myriad occupations rather randomly.

<comment><USER25> > They clearly tried to have this spear-regulate the ride-sharing guys without > hitting anyone else

No, they didn't. It's true that a big point of AB5 was to _limit_ the reach of the rule from the California Supreme Court decision in _Dynamex_ which it codified by also adding a bunch of exceptions, but it was very (explicitly) not intended to be limited to ride-sharing; codifying _Dynamex_ with additional exceptions instead of legislatively reversing it was because the legislature felt that classifying vulnerable workers as contractors was leading to abuses in an expanding range of fields, not just ride-sharing (or even just app-based gig-work.)

<comment><USER26> AB5 extended the applicability of the ABC test from wage orders to the full labor code and unemployment insurance code.

<comment><USER25> > AB5 extended the applicability of the ABC test from wage orders to the full > labor code and unemployment insurance code.

That's true. A big point was limiting it's reach as to working arrangements. Another was to harmonize the employee vs. contractor distinction indifferent areas of employment law, since it's really inconvenient for business if it's _different_ for each of those areas.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> [https://archive.is/e8tAx](https://archive.is/e8tAx)

</comment><comment><USER28> It's also risking a lucrative software contract I have now working remotely in DC. I was very lucky to find it after being unemployed for quite a while. Apparently California would rather see me homeless than gainfully employed in exactly the way they'd like.

I can only cross my fingers and hope the referendum in November changes things.

Not sure if the article mentions it but it also put live musicians out of work as well, until they added an exception. Where is the software industry on this?

<comment><USER29> > Apparently California would rather see me homeless than gainfully employed > in exactly the way they'd like.

Does that thought surprise you? I thought California making a nominally well intentioned but horribly enacted policy and then creating all sorts of loopholes for the things the _THEY_ like was the state's SOP.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> The law of unintended consequences will always beat human made rules and regulations.

Quote from Wikipedia: > More recently, the law of unintended consequences has come to be used as an adage or idiomatic warning that an intervention in a complex system tends to create unanticipated and often undesirable outcomes.

<comment><USER12> What you saw is true, but this law isn't that. The plain language of the law banned most contractors. You can find some stuff in my comment history where I talked about this months before it was enacted.

California's behaviour is More equivalent to wanting to kill a fly on someone using a hammer. I wouldn't call it a typical unintended consequences situation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Independent of whether the law is a good idea generally speaking, there's a pretty simple patch the legislature could make that keeps the intent alive. Just exempt the first N contractors a business hires. Let's say, a thousand. Most businesses won't hire 1000+ comedians, musicians, etc. But the massive network effect of 1000s of drivers on a platform is core to how a gig app like Uber works.

</comment><comment><USER32> Uhm, wasn't it fixed a week ago? Comedians (and others) can work independently again...

[https://timesofsandiego.com/politics/2020/09/05/governor- sig...](https://timesofsandiego.com/politics/2020/09/05/governor-signs-law- exempting-more-occupations-from-controversial-assembly-bill-5/)

<comment><USER33> It isn't clear that stuffing lots of people into comedy clubs is the best thing for us to do right now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> California barely has any foot left to shoot.

<comment><USER35> Yet, they keep finding ways to shoot. Glad I got out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> How do comedians fall in the ABC test? they can work multiple clubs, venues are not exclusively doing a single thing, and the venue doesn't control the jokes they tell.

Musicians are quite similar as far as I can tell.

</comment><comment><USER37> > If forced to reclassify their drivers as employees, the companies say their > businesses—already unprofitable—would be completely upended.

Now this is comedy. "Not only are we unprofitable while abusing cheap labour, we need extra state protection to preserve this state!" I'm for getting rid of companies in that state. (Although uber could easily run more lean instead) Maybe the lack of transport would force commuting improvements in other ways.

<comment><USER38> What state protection is Uber asking for in this case?

<comment><USER39> Protection from this judicial decision: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamex_Operations_West,_Inc._...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamex_Operations_West,_Inc._v._Superior_Court)

The AB5 is meant to codify it in the law.

> The Court then reached the principle holding of the case, interpreting the > "suffer or permit" standard in the wage order context. The Court held that > the hiring entity bears the burden of "establish[ing] that a worker is an > independent contractor" and thus, "not intended to be included within the > wage order's coverage."[46] The Court went on hold that in order for the > entity to meet this burden, it must establish each of three factors, in what > is called the "ABC test":

> (A) that the worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring > entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the > contract for the performance of the work and in fact; and (B) that the > worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity's > business; and (C) that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently > established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work > performed.[47]

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Companies will simply leave California.

</comment><comment><USER41> I bet they're not laughing now.

</comment><comment><USER42> Government always fails to think in second order consequences, let alone third-order consequences.

<comment><USER43> So true. I cannot fathom how governments don't think about how corporations, which are rational actors with clear goals, will respond to regulations. This Uber thing is simple and boils down to only one question: can Uber operate in an npv positive fashion with drivers on w2s? If yes, they will, if no, they'll leave.

<comment><USER21> Politicians are no different, they also act rationally .

Who donates most to their election campaigns , what policies will get them more votes pretty much drives every decision.

Voters do not necessarily vote for what is actually beneficial to them. They vote for what they _think_ is beneficial.A fact exploited by republicans so well to reduce taxes on the rich and still get popular support since atleast Regan.

There is also the trianny of the majority in any democrarcy while a lot worse in direct it also exists in representative versions.

California with all ballot propositions has more direct flavour than other states. Interests of the minority are hard to proctect.

Ultimately it boils down to education and media. Democrarcy depends on these two pillars heavily.

While the role of media is discussed often, the role of education is not talked about enough. More educated the average voter is , it is harder to make them vote against their interest.

There was a reason only landed gentry voted in Rome, while such restrictions is not the right solution, the concerns on the ability to vote after being well informed is still valid

You can easily draw a strong correlation between states( and countries) which are not people friendly (low tax/ lax labour , environment regulations) to their education level.

<comment><USER43> Great point thanks for articulating.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> > Why would I pay an uneducated, inexperienced person to sweep floors $20 per > hour? I'll do it myself first.

Because you don't want to do it or you don't have the time.

If I could pay someone 1 cent per hour to wipe my ass crack I would do it, is it a problem that I must instead wipe my own ass crack?

The answer is literally there in your post, these jobs aren't worth having. Imagine posting this yelling "think of the people who will no longer be able to wipe others' ass cracks!".

Ok....

<comment><USER45> > these jobs aren't worth having

Are you making that decision for yourself, or for others? Offer the job, and see if there's takers. If there aren't, then you'll actually know that the job isn't worth having.

<comment><USER44> I guess slavery is worth having since someone, somewhere, "chose" to do it...

Wait, what's that!?!? Are you saying it's acceptable for society to make decisions for those who don't have the leverage to protect themselves?!?! WHAT?!?!? Say it aint so Mr Magoo, say it aint so...

Cause I hurd if you ever make a decision for another human being you're immoral, making all parents immoral. That's just how this shit wurks my brutha!

<comment><USER45> > I guess slavery is worth having since someone, somewhere, "chose" to do > it...

Are you suggesting that "someone, somewhere" chose to do something that intentionally made them worse off than they were before?

<comment><USER44> I'd like to buy "what is stockholm's syndrome for 500 alex!".

[https://www.britannica.com/science/Stockholm- syndrome](https://www.britannica.com/science/Stockholm-syndrome)

The better question. Are you implying this doesn't exist and therefore the woman in question is guilty?

I mean, not that this has anything to do with the overarching point, but.... you're so wrong that you're wrong even when you're wrong.

enter: BUT I'M GOING TO DEFINE FREEWILL SO IT DOESN'T INCLUDE STOCKHOLME SYNDROME...

yeah ok.... That certainly makes you ... biased.

<comment><USER45> You seem incoherent. Apparently you're implying I have stockholm syndrome, which is at best an _ad homenim_. Then you mention some woman I've never heard of, and conclude by asserting that I'm super duper wrong...which isn't particularly informative, useful or even appropriate in a discussion.

To top it off, your grammar is atrocious.

EDIT: I'll ask my question again, with better wording, just for good measure. Are you suggesting that when people look for work, they accept jobs that leave them worse off than they were before?

<comment><USER46> " _Don 't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead._"

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> FYI: when the $600 mandatory filing for 1099-MISC's is reduced to $0, a similar effect will hammer the small business and freelance market nationwide since a lot of clients limit the total number of vendors they will do paperwork for.

There have been proposals to do so, but none have advanced yet.

One milestone is 250 1099-MISC filings, which triggers electronic filing.

The unexpected consequence of law and rule changes like these are to create massive monopolies, with no small business market, becoming more European- like.

[https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/307779](https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/307779)

[https://sovos.com/blog/2019/02/12/irs-forms-1099-misc- vs-109...](https://sovos.com/blog/2019/02/12/irs-forms-1099-misc- vs-1099-k-states-close-tax-reporting-gap/)

</comment><comment><USER44> > Safety standards could be addressed by insurability, and this is really a > very separate concept from wage.

Sorry, but no. And I'm going to judge you for having that opinion.

The idea that it's acceptable for a human being to lose their sight (or legs or arms or ...) and suffer the quality of life problems that result from it as long as they're covered by insurance is horrendous and I judge you for it.

I don't even care if you come back and tell me you've changed your mind based upon this post. The fact that you needed your mind changed makes you a monster.

<comment><USER48> You literally misunderstand fundamentally what I wrote. Unsafe workplaces would not be able to get insurance, therefore wouldn't exist, hence very safe workplaces.

Again, my example is UL ratings of building materials.

Your response is over the top, and I am quite worried about you talking to me this way, it feels like a threat.

<comment><USER49> >You literally misunderstand fundamentally what I wrote. Unsafe workplaces would not be able to get insurance, therefore wouldn't exist, hence very safe workplaces.

That is just not true. I think it's convenient how everyone forgets the kinds of calculations US corporations make: breaking the law/killing people/not having insurance is cheaper and more profitable than the alternative. Remember the Ford Pinto? Ok, that was probably too long ago. How about Firestone?

Firestone: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firestone_and_Ford_tire_contro...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firestone_and_Ford_tire_controversy)

<comment><USER48> Well, that's a good point. But what if the government merely said 'without insurance, you can't operate.'

This would be a modest intervention, but would allow a market of insurers to determine what is safe, so as to reduce cruft.

Maybe it's flawed, but it works for UL rating and building materials ... no UL certification no insurance, therefore no materials are sold without the certification, even though it is technically legal to sell them. This results in a private market for, say, awesome cherry wood coffee table tops that aren't regulated, but Sheetrock and structural steel clearly is.

Maybe it wouldn't work, I'm just saying OSHA and state regulations aren't the only conceivable way to imagine workplace safety being enforced.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> I can't read the article (paywall), but I can say that two of my friends who drove for Uber don't anymore, and they say it's because it's too hard to make money.

I'd like every job to have a living wage.

<comment><USER51> And I want a drinking fountain that shoots out Johnny Walker blue...

<comment><USER52> Why does a living wage for anyone that wants to work seem like a selfish pipedream to you?

<comment><USER53> Is that a rhetorical question or can't you really see that not every occupation can earn a living wage?

<comment><USER52> Why should some occupations not be eligible for a living wage? There is a demand for cab drivers, why should they spend 40-50 hours a week meeting that demand and then be denied a living wage? As long as we need someone to do that job, we should compensate them for putting in the effort.

<comment><USER53> >Why should some occupations not be eligible for a living wage?

Because they do not create enough economic value to earn that?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> My first thought when reading this article was "I wonder how much Uber paid for this?"

</comment><comment> 33MHz-i486 Youtube should be forced to pay people minimum wage for their videos

Etsy should be forced to pay minimum wage to their makers

<comment><USER55> I think in that situation, YouTube would take adshare to 0%. YouTube then is just a place to upload videos and make them public. No expectation of turning a profit. For a premium fee you pay YouTube, you could get some of that adshare, and now they're a paid service.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> The immense second- and third- order consequences of legislation are why I oppose term limits.

Legislation should be crafted by experienced experts.

<comment> 33MHz-i486 ok but make them retire at 65. before mental decline really kicks in

<comment><USER57> Please cite evidence showing how this is actually a problem. Thanks.

<comment><USER58> google: age statistics of dementia

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> The CA law was to get Uber drivers into the Teamsters. Anything else was collateral damage.</comment>


In the Universe of Printers, One Worth Talking About - <AUTHOR> http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/25/in-the-universe-of-printers-one-worth-talking-about/ <comment><USER2> The idea that laser printers are a different world from the inkjet ripoffs is a myth from a time where they cost $1k+ and were thus targeted to professional users exclusively.

The toner in this $150 printer will come less than half full and a replacement is $78. The ratio alone tells you whats going on here.

<comment><USER3> Generic toner cartridges are cheap and work well. Printer manufacturers don't yet seem to be using the DRM tricks that they've used to prevent the refilling of inkjet cartridges.

Inkjets regularly waste ink to unblock the nozzles, so if you print only occasionally you may only get a handful of pages from an ink cartridge.

Cheap laser printers are a far better deal than inkjets.

<comment><USER4> You can also buy toner by the bottle and refill your cartridge a few times before needing to replace it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The Wirecutter[1] is a site that lists the best technology to buy. Like this article, it answers the question, "What is the best ____?". I wonder how the Hewlett-Packard Pro P1606dn competes with the Brother HL-2270DW[2].

[1]: [http://thewirecutter.com/](http://thewirecutter.com/)

[2]: [http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/brother-hl-2270dw-best- lase...](http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/brother-hl-2270dw-best-laser- printer/)

<comment><USER6> The HL-2270 was the first printer I had ever felt I needed to evangelize for. It was so good, so cheap, and had just the right features. Printed quick, toner lasted forever, toner was surprisingly cheap ($40 for 4k pages), auto duplex, wireless. Set up and forget about it until you need it.

<comment><USER7> I've bought the (cheaper? uglier?) cousin of the 2270, the HL-2170W. It's a _fantastic_ printer with a 'good enough' web UI for configuration. Works for months without grief.

Have an upvote for brother love.

Edit: Curiosity got the best of me. The 2270 is the new version of the 2170. Adding automatic duplex, dual simultaneous networking, faster printing, and... that's about it. Not quite worth the upgrade, but when mine dies it's good to know there will be a replacement available.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> A few years ago, I bought a LaserJet 4200 used via EBay for < $200. Huge, probably sucks down a bit too much power in standby mode, and sort-of noisy. However, IT JUST WORKS. Because this series still is in offices all over (and a source of toner revenue for HP?), driver updates still seem frequent.

For those considering the printer mentioned in the article but need wireless connectivity, consider a cheapie dd-wrt router configured as a client. I use this set-up for my kids' computer in our kitchen, and it's been no problem.

</comment><comment><USER9> I have a HP printer in the same series as this one and I can verify that it is rock solid in build-quality, reliability, and in producing fast clean black prints.

If you don't print often, or rarely print in color I would strongly recommend a laser printer (and just go to a print shop for the color prints). They are just so much more reliable. [http://ask.metafilter.com/78830/Inkjet-or-laser- printer-for-...](http://ask.metafilter.com/78830/Inkjet-or-laser-printer-for- reliability-with-really-minimal-use)

<comment><USER10> I love FedEx/Kinko's printer drivers for color work. Laminate, bind, etc., and have it delivered or pick it up a few blocks away. It's a good half step between "low-fi" and "trade show presentation".

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> So I'm not sure why this is HN material, but as I have recently co-founded a company (www.sessionbox.com), and just purchased a new printer because of it, I'll pipe up.

When you start a company, there's a ton of paper involved:

\- corporate paperwork, including founding documents, stock agreements, advisor forms, etc.

\- business contracts: lawyers (corporate, IP, etc), recruiters, office space, etc.

\- and most recently, your first big expense report once the seed money lands and you want to pay yourself back.

My old consumer cheapo printer died just when I was trying to get the offer letter out to our (soon-to-be) first employee. The printer just locked up, with all the led's blinking, and I kept power-cycling, to no avail.

While reviewing printers, I decided that the new one needed a "scan to email" feature. Be warned, however, that some cheap printers have a feature that they call "scan to email", but what they mean is: if you hook up our printer via usb to your pc, we'll open outlook for you and attach your scan to it. frak that, man.

What 'scan to email' should really mean is: I walk to the (wirelessly connected) printer/scanner; I put something in the doc feeder; I then use a little display to either a) punch in someone's email address or b) look up frequent email addresses. And then I hit a button, and it scans them, and the printer mails it to them. (As in, it speaks smtp.)

So I ended up with the HP 8600 Plus. The "plus" is important - the plain 8600 does not have scan to email. It's been fine so far, though my bar is probably low.

</comment><comment><USER12> Hopefully HP has cleaned up their act when it comes to ultra-fine particles[1] ... (or was that paper debunked)?

I own a (now 10 years old) HP LaserJet 2100dn, and when I print something out, I can smell it. Maybe it's time to upgrade.

[1] [http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es063049z?journalCode=es...](http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es063049z?journalCode=esthag)

<comment><USER13> The paper still stands. There has been quite a bit of research activity in this area.

Anecdotally: my lab recently got a Brother laser printer. There was an odour after printing so we tried the experiment (using the same air quality equipment). Sure enough, we saw huge UFP peaks.

Recent developments: UFP emissions from 3D printers [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231013...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231013005086)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> The main reason I bought a colour laser printer is the ink (toner) doesn't congeal if you don't use the printer for a few months.

</comment><comment><USER15> No display - don't buy it.

Any network printer without some sort of display royally sucks. You cannot easily diagnose communication errors with a couple blinking lights.

Much easier to troubleshoot a complex device if it can actually tell you something. Sometimes trying to coax it to communicate using button gymnastics doesn't work.

Other than that, yeah, HP laserjets are pretty rad.

<comment><USER16> I disagree. Much like my very complex home routers, this printer has an awesome Web UI. Unlike my routers, you can hold the button down and it prints a complete status report, including the IP config.

<comment><USER15> All I can say is sometimes the printer may not provide enough information via status pages. Had it happen to me where one was was in a bad state and didn't play well with others.

Models that you can configure via on-printer displays are way faster to setup and easier to deal with technicalities in the long run.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I had a number of ink jets and the ink cartridges literally dried out before I could print many pages, mostly due to the infrequency of my printing. I finally switched over to black and white laser and won't look back. Toner seems to last MUCH longer.

<comment><USER18> My hp inkjet has empty cartridges after 14 print jobs of a page or two since the last refill. The firmware on this one is so crappy that it's turned me off of hp printers for good. (And I've had them since the deskwriter era).

Lasers, on the other hand. Cheap and effective. I've got a Brother that's normally $80 at NewEgg/Amazon. The toner lasts 20% longer than advertised, it's fast, and it's never asked me to accept an EULA. I'd buy another one, but I don't expect to need another laser till well after this is discontinued.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Color laser printers are surprisingly cheap.

The don't make photo-quality prints, but it's good enough for casual pictures (posters, flyer, etc).

</comment><comment><USER20> I've had this exact printer for 2 years and rave about it, recommending it to everyone.

I was tired of years of clogged inkjets and not doing much actual color printing.

</comment><comment><USER21> Why is this HN material? It looks like thinly-veiled product placement advertising.

</comment><comment><USER22> Not for me: doesn't have wifi, scanner/copier, and color printing.

<comment><USER23> The difference between this and what you're looking for is akin to the difference between a mini-van and a pickup truck.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> The article fails to mention that the replacement toner cartridge costs $80. [1]

HP claims their toner cartridge yields 2100 pages or about four cents a page.

[1] [http://www.shopping.hp.com/en_US/home- office/-/products/Ink_...](http://www.shopping.hp.com/en_US/home- office/-/products/Ink_Toner_Paper/HP-Toner/CE278A?HP-78A-Black-Original- LaserJet-Toner-Cartridge)

<comment><USER25> _The article fails to mention that the replacement toner cartridge costs $80. [1] HP claims their toner cartridge yields 2100 pages or about four cents a page._

From the article:

"You get about 2,000 pages from each $78 cartridge, which isn't bad."</comment></comment>


Google works out a fascinating way for AI to isolate voices in a crowd - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/04/google-works-out-a-fascinating-slightly-scary-way-for-ai-to-isolate-voices-in-a-crowd/ <comment><USER2> > Google says the visual component here is key, as the tech watches for when a > person's mouth is moving to better identify which voices to focus on at a > given point and to create more accurate individual speech tracks for the > length of a video

</comment><comment><USER3> The seems like a good way to get training data for audio only.</comment>


Zynga May Be Valued at $1 Billion Feeding Off Facebook Craze - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aK27lRYbSPqU&pos=13 <comment><USER2> "That could make San Francisco-based Zynga the third-largest U.S. video-game publisher by market capitalization, bigger than Take-Two Interactive Software Inc., the maker of crime-game franchise Grand Theft Auto."

Awful. A company that uses sleazy monetization tactics (until someone called them out on it) and blatantly ripoffs games from competitors will be worth more than one of the most innovative game developers.

Mobwars > GTA?

I guess the valuation though reflects the business fundamentals of social vs console gaming.

<comment><USER3> yes, costs much less to acquire a social gamer than consolers, but revenue per customer is higher on the console side.

i wonder how zynga's revenue is going to be hit when they stop running scammy ads... and if this IPO would even occur.

<comment><USER4> They have stopped. According to Zynga, offers consist of only 10% of their revenue.

<comment><USER5> According to Lehman, just before the crash, their CDS exposure was '...limited.'

At debut Novembre Zynga's revenue from offers was ~33%. With each interview since Arrington broke news on the scam, that percentage has gone down. All 'according to Zynga.'

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I hope someone standardizes things that go on inside social networks. Should we consider the money made from selling deceptive ads as a legal? Or is it even a proper revenue model? (For eg. certain ads say user will get points if he takes a 2 min IQ test, and in the end the user signs up for the service unintentionally, and ends up paying a monthly bill before he notices the charge and cancels it.)

And I may be wrong, but what intellectual capital does a company like this have? Anyone who buys it, is just buying the user base. And what about the future of the company? What would be the revenue 5 years later? How does a quantitative analyst factor this while calculating the worth of the company?

<comment><USER7> I feel it important to clarify a few things: Zynga has already stopped running offers (scammy ads), they're too big to buy, and they don't own their userbase (yet).

<comment><USER8> There's now a Farmville.com, so that seems like a move to slowly separate away from being completely dependent on Facebook.</comment></comment></comment>


Windows NTFS Tricks Collection - <AUTHOR> https://sec-consult.com/en/blog/2018/06/pentesters-windows-ntfs-tricks-collection/ <comment><USER2> > Another interesting fact is that ADS names can contain symbols which are > normally forbidden for filenames like " or *

OK, this is going to _completely_ mess up all of my (and most likely everyone else's) shell scripts. I always assume these characters cannot legally occur on Windows anywhere in the path...

_________________________________________

And wow, this is quite clever and also quite difficult to foresee:

> The best security vulnerability to explain directory junctions is in my > opinion AVGater, where the attacker places a file in folder x. Then he marks > the file as a virus and the installed AntiVirus solution will move it into > the quarantine. After that the attacker removes the folder x and replaces it > with a directory junction named "x" which points to C:\windows\System32\\. > If the attacker now clicks on the "restore" button the AntiVirus solution > will copy the file to the x folder which now points to system32 with SYSTEM > privileges (which directly leads to EoP).

<comment><USER3> For that second one: That sounds like a vulnerability in virus scanners even without junctions, although junctions make it enormously easier to exploit:

* Create a directory in a location you have permission to, but you think a higher-privilege user will create it later.

* Create and quarantine a file in it.

* Delete the directory.

* When the higher privilege user creates the directory, you can restore your file into it.

The fix is for virus scanners to operate at user permission level when restoring the file.

<comment><USER4> Ok, let me ask: why? What is the absolute worst case scenario here? That a user in your organization gains admin privileges on their workstation?

Nearly every org I've ever worked at already gave their users admin privileges because trying to do their job without it caused far more friction than any imaginary gains from locking them down. So they might screw up their OS, big deal, that's what imaging is for.

It's not like ransomware needs admin privileges to ruin your day anyway. In fact, local admin does absolutely nothing for it since it will still only have permissions to the same network resources that the user does, and of course their local documents.

There are some kiosk-style single-application appliance use cases out there where it makes sense to lock things down just to make sure the user isn't browsing reddit all day or something, but by their nature those are at low risk of being infected and you care even less about them than a workstation if they are.

I honestly can't think of a realistic scenario in which this isn't a complete non-issue.

<comment><USER5> > Nearly every org I've ever worked at already gave their users admin > privileges

I assume you've never worked at a large retail or investment bank, or similar organisation, then? Admin privileges are _never_ granted to ordinary users; to install new programs or perform administrative tasks requires a call to the helpdesk, and there is usually some form of remote management service running to handle updates and so on.

<comment><USER4> Ok, but why? What does that actually accomplish?

<comment><USER6> Just a few ideas off the top of my head:

An attacker that gains SYSTEM permissions on a machine can dump the SAM database, which may contain credentials for domain or enterprise administrators. This is very bad.

A user with administrator permissions can modify their DNS settings to avoid DNS-level filtering to block known malware domains. This can be bad.

A malicious or ignorant user can disable or remove antivirus protection. This can be bad.

A user can accidentally make a computer nonfunctional by, for example, deleting system files, perhaps because it was suggested (sarcastically) on a help forum ("LOL delete system32"). This is bad.

I'm far from a security expert, but from a sysadmin perspective, every user having local admin privs is an absolute nightmare.

<comment><USER4> > An attacker that gains SYSTEM permissions on a machine can dump the SAM > database, which may contain credentials for domain or enterprise > administrators. This is very bad.

True enough, but unlikely to be a significant risk. If you are concerned about it then it is much easier to have a separate AD account that only has local administrator on normal (non-admin) workstations and use that.

> A user with administrator permissions can modify their DNS settings to avoid > DNS-level filtering to block known malware domains. This can be bad.

It is trivial to block or even reroute DNS queries to unapproved servers at the firewall. At least until DNS over HTTPS ruins that and simultaneously renders your point moot.

> A malicious or ignorant user can disable or remove antivirus protection. > This can be bad.

I disagree. Anti-virus software has negative value and always causes significantly more trouble than it is worth. Case in point, the very issue we're talking about.

> A user can accidentally make a computer nonfunctional by, for example, > deleting system files, perhaps because it was suggested (sarcastically) on a > help forum ("LOL delete system32"). This is bad.

This is a minor inconvenience at best, that's what imaging is for.

> I'm far from a security expert, but from a sysadmin perspective, every user > having local admin privs is an absolute nightmare.

If it were a nightmare, I'd have expected to see more issues arise from it throughout my career, but I've yet to see even one instance where a user having local admin has caused any significant trouble.

<comment><USER6> > True enough, but unlikely to be a significant risk. If you are concerned > about it then it is much easier to have a separate AD account that only has > local administrator on normal (non-admin) workstations and use that.

I strongly disagree. If an attacker gains access to a system as an admin user, that is a much larger problem than a non-admin user. Designing an environment as you suggested helps compartmentalize that, but it doesn't help the fact that a SAM database from one of those machines can potentially spell an almost company-wide compromise. Such a strategy gives far too much opportunity for lateral movement in case of a single compromised machine.

> It is trivial to block or even reroute DNS queries to unapproved servers at > the firewall.

That's a good point.

>I disagree. Anti-virus software has negative value and always causes significantly more trouble than it is worth. Case in point, the very issue we're talking about.

Regardless of your feelings on antivirus (I'm ambivalent myself), I don't quite see how a potential abuse of an antivirus software, which can lead to EoP, is justification for allowing all users in an enterprise to have full local admin privileges. You're cutting out the step where an attacker has to exploit an EoP vulnerability.

> This is a minor inconvenience at best, that's what imaging is for.

True, but if I can avoid the trouble by limiting user privileges, why not?

> If it were a nightmare, I'd have expected to see more issues arise from it > throughout my career, but I've yet to see even one instance where a user > having local admin has caused any significant trouble.

It's possible it may never be a problem in $arbitraryEnvironment, but that doesn't make it good security practices. I can imagine that in smaller environments, it may even be somewhat manageable.

There will probably be circumstances that create a need for local admin access as you described, but I don't think it should be the modus operandi.

<comment><USER4> > I strongly disagree. If an attacker gains access to a system as an admin > user, that is a much larger problem than a non-admin user.

Not really. There's quite a lot you can do as a non-admin user too you know. You can probe anything on the internal network that machine has access to and act as a relay for the attacker, for instance. Since the user does work for the company, they probably already have access to a lot of things the organization would rather not give out. Local admin gives you a few more options, but the difference isn't really worth special attention in my book.

> True, but if I can avoid the trouble by limiting user privileges, why not?

Because you're also causing a lot of friction for the users. Users do work too you know, in aggregate hopefully a lot more than sysadmins. Every barrier you put between them and their work is a cost, and my argument is that the cost of locking everyone out of local admin pretty much always outweighs the benefits.

> I don't quite see how a potential abuse of an antivirus software, which can > lead to EoP, is justification for allowing all users in an enterprise to > have full local admin privileges.

It isn't, it's justification for disregarding "could disable the virus scanner" as a valid reason for denying local admin to the user.

"Good security practice" is often, in my experience, either a lot of academic crap that completely ignores the concept of risk analysis, or what someone who's trying to sell you something recommends. Every barrier you put between people and their ability to do work for the company is a cost that you have to justify against the cost of a compromise _and_ the probability of said compromise actually occurring.

Depending on your environment, that level of cost may be worth it, but I think that's true for a much smaller segment than a lot of people who argue the point. I suspect this is because my paycheck depends on keeping the business running smoothly, not selling security consulting services.

<comment><USER6> > Not really. There's quite a lot you can do as a non-admin user too you know.

Yeah, of course. Otherwise ransomware would be much less prevalent than it is today. That said, there's quite a bit an admin user can do that a normal one cannot. I suppose we just disagree on how important the distinction is.

> Local admin gives you a few more options, but the difference isn't really > worth special attention in my book.

And that's fine, but surely you can see why plenty of organizations feel that it is, right?

> Because you're also causing a lot of friction for the users...Every barrier > you put between them and their work is a cost, and my argument is that the > cost of locking everyone out of local admin pretty much always outweighs the > benefits.

Well I can only speak to my experiences, but given the technical knowledge of 90% users on systems I support...it is definitely worth the cost.

> It isn't, it's justification for disregarding "could disable the virus > scanner" as a valid reason for denying local admin to the user.

Touché. That said, in environments with antivirus requirements, for whatever reason, a user being able to remove such a program is a problem.

> "Good security practice" is often, in my experience, either a lot of > academic crap that completely ignores the concept of risk analysis, or what > someone who's trying to sell you something recommends.

The same could be said RE: antivirus. In many situations, protecting a user from running dangerous applications (e.g. a trojan delivered by a social engineering attack) is likely more important than a hypothetical escalation of privilege by a user who calls helpdesk every time their password expires.

> Depending on your environment, that level of cost may be worth it, but I > think that's true for a much smaller segment than a lot of people who argue > the point. I suspect this is because my paycheck depends on keeping the > business running smoothly, not selling security consulting services.

Hey, it sounds like we're in the same business! :) I agree, different environments = different requirements. But that doesn't make for good headlines, either.

<comment><USER4> > Well I can only speak to my experiences, but given the technical knowledge > of 90% users on systems I support...it is definitely worth the cost.

Is this meant to mean they have high or low technical knowledge? Because we support some users with a decidedly low understanding of... well, everything really, and it hasn't been a problem. They still give help desk a lot of grief, but it's because they don't know that windows can be minimized and things like that. Accidentally installing malicious applications or other reasons you'd think of restricting them really just doesn't come up.

<comment><USER6> Well, there are two groups that worry me: those that don't know Windows can be minimized, and those who believe they're much better at using computers than they actually are. And honestly, the second group worries me more.

That group doesn't represent the majority of users by any means, of course.

<comment><USER4> Yeah, that makes sense. If I had to deal with a lot of that then workstation restrictions would probably be a lot more appealing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> how about using the original website of the researcher who identified all of this and not just a cheap copy?

[https://www.sec-consult.com/en/blog/2018/06/pentesters- windo...](https://www.sec-consult.com/en/blog/2018/06/pentesters-windows-ntfs- tricks-collection/)

</comment><comment><USER8> When I used Windows, I remember you couldn't create folders named "con", for compatibility reasons.

It kind of sucked because it means "with" in Italian, and I often could have organized files within "with"/"without"subfolders.

<comment><USER9> That's just one of the many reserved file/device names in Windows!

"Do not use the following reserved names for the name of a file: CON, PRN, AUX, NUL, COM1, COM2, COM3, COM4, COM5, COM6, COM7, COM8, COM9, LPT1, LPT2, LPT3, LPT4, LPT5, LPT6, LPT7, LPT8, and LPT9." [0]

[0] [https://msdn.microsoft.com/en- us/library/windows/desktop/aa3...](https://msdn.microsoft.com/en- us/library/windows/desktop/aa365247\(v=vs.85\).aspx)

<comment><USER10> Note, they are not just reserved names, they are reserved names _with any extension_.

So when a Unix user checks in a file named "aux.c" to your project, it will cause problems for Windows users.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Site is down, [http://web.archive.org/web/20180613213214/https://movaxbx.ru...](http://web.archive.org/web/20180613213214/https://movaxbx.ru/2018/06/13/windows- ntfs-tricks-collection/) should be an archive but I can't check from my current location

<comment><USER12> [https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:4L1CWH...](https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:4L1CWH8fqqQJ:https://movaxbx.ru/2018/06/13/windows- ntfs-tricks-collection/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ie) seems OK

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Are ADS used for anything useful anywhere? It is kinda interesting how long MS has been carrying that feature around, especially as it is not really highly advertised feature; is it really even supported? ADS does constantly pop up in these sorts of (semi-)malicious contexts, simply dropping them seems like sensible thing.

<comment><USER2> The current uses in Windows I'm aware of (not including external programs) are:

\- :$I30, :$Bad, $Info, $SDH, and a number of others, internally used to name the stream that stores the children of directories. But the stream names seem pretty unnecessary to me; they aren't exposed to external code so they could well be different files and it wouldn't affect any user.

\- :Zone.Identifier, for denoting whether a file is from an untrusted origin (so you can get that annoying pop-up every time you run a downloaded file)

\- :WofCompressedData, for the newer transparent file compression mechanism (older ones were different)

\- :Win32App_1, used for I'm-not-sure-what

\- :encryptable, used along with Thumbs.db, also for I'm-not-sure-what

\- I think there was one more regarding extended properties or something, but I can't think of it right now.

Aside from breaking :WofCompressedData I don't think anyone outside Microsoft would shed any tears if it was removed.

<comment><USER11> How are the current placeholders for OneDrive implemented?

<comment><USER14> Doesn't look like it's via ADS -- synced items on my desktop have only the single stream.

Except for one item I just created to test that has a stream called "magic".

<comment><USER11> Seems like it's done via a filesystem filter driver - calls to open files from OneDrive-unaware applications block until the file is downloaded.

<comment><USER2> That's a different problem though, right? I thought you were asking where OneDrive stores the information necessary to know where the file is located on your cloud storage, and it would make sense for that to be in a stream.

<comment><USER15> Yes, but the stream will remain if copied to another NTFS volume. That may cause issues.

<comment><USER2> What kinds of issues?

<comment><USER15> If you copy indirectly from OneDrive folder to another OneDrive folder, the file may not sync due to the ADS indicating that the data is already uploaded.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Last time I checked you could create a directory with a name "like:this" from Linux or something, and Windows would display it but not allow you to access it in any way.

Have they fixed this? (Just pure curiosity)

<comment><USER17> Interestingly, when you create a file name from the WSL shell using reserved Windows characters, those characters will get mapped to unicode codepoints from the private use area when viewed in Windows. So for example a colon (\u003A) will show up in Windows as \uF03A.

This means you can create a filename in Windows using the character \uF03A, and that character will show up in the WSL shell as a colon. You can even do the same thing with "regular" characters, e.g. using \uF061 instead of "a", and produce a filename that appears to be ASCII in the WSL shell, but is not actually accessible.

<comment><USER18> Mac OS X maps filenames between slash `/` and colon `:` to match with UFS, the colon used to be the path separator on old MacOS, which HFS+ inherited.

Try it:

        $ touch foo:bar
        $ open .
        # Look at the filename in Finder.
        # Try it the other way around by saving a file
        # with / in TextEdit, then ls in Terminal.

[0]: [https://stackoverflow.com/questions/13298434/colon- appears-a...](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/13298434/colon-appears-as- forward-slash-when-creating-file-name#13298479)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> If you created some directories to test, you can delete them with bash (whatever git installs works). It does create nested directories, so you need to do:

        rmdir .../.../
        rmdir .../

<comment><USER20> Speaking of, my favorite stupid Windows trick I discovered, was before long file support, you could get nested folders too long for Windows to handle due to some cool bugs and couldn't delete them with rmdir.

But I discovered I could robocopy sync a blank folder over them, and it was more than happy to oblige. robocopy is seemingly a more robust deletion tool than rmdir.

<comment><USER21> rd might work when prefixing the path explicitly with \\\?\; robocopy likely already uses that syntax internally to deal with long paths.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Another fun thing you can do with NTFS transactions: process doppelgänging; see [https://hshrzd.wordpress.com/2017/12/18/process- doppelgangin...](https://hshrzd.wordpress.com/2017/12/18/process- doppelganging-a-new-way-to-impersonate-a-process/)

</comment><comment><USER23> Similar to the ... (Trick 3) here is some fun with ALT+0160:

[https://msfn.org/board/topic/131103-win_nt~bt-can-be- omitted...](https://msfn.org/board/topic/131103-win_nt~bt-can-be- omitted/?do=findComment&comment=842843)

</comment><comment><USER24> I wrote a shell extension some time ago to make playing with ADS easier : [http://www.benf.org/other/alternatestreamoverlay/index.html](http://www.benf.org/other/alternatestreamoverlay/index.html)

</comment><comment><USER25> wonder if the "...\\...\" trick can be used to overflow the counter of files to delete and execute arbitrary data as the system user.

</comment><comment><USER26> The original blog can be found here: [https://sec- consult.com/en/blog/2018/06/pentesters-windows-n...](https://sec- consult.com/en/blog/2018/06/pentesters-windows-ntfs-tricks-collection/)

The author of the above blog copy & pasted the full article, explicitly removed the author names and references to the original source. That's pretty disappointing.

<comment><USER27> Wow. It appears that movaxbx.ru copied multiple of my blog posts as well[1][2][3][4].

I wonder how hard it would be to take legal action (in particular to stop them from doing this altogether, as opposed to just taking down a single article). The site appears to be hosted in Russia[5]. From a quick glance over the Wikipedia page[6], it seems to me that Russian copyright law is quite similar to copyright law in most developed countries.

[1]: [https://movaxbx.**/2018/06/05/f-secure-anti-virus-remote- cod...](https://movaxbx.**/2018/06/05/f-secure-anti-virus-remote-code- execution-via-solid-rar-unpacking/)

[2]: [https://movaxbx.**/2018/05/04/7-zip-from-uninitialized- memor...](https://movaxbx.**/2018/05/04/7-zip-from-uninitialized-memory-to- remote-code-execution/)

[3]: [https://movaxbx.**/2018/05/04/7-zip-multiple-memory- corrupti...](https://movaxbx.**/2018/05/04/7-zip-multiple-memory-corruptions- via-rar-and-zip/)

[4]: [https://movaxbx.**/2018/05/04/bitdefender-heap-buffer- overfl...](https://movaxbx.**/2018/05/04/bitdefender-heap-buffer-overflow- via-7z-lzma/)

[5]: [http://ip-api.com/#movaxbx.ru](http://ip-api.com/#movaxbx.ru)

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Those tricks look like exploits to me. O, russian domain xD

<comment><USER12> Assuming bad intentions from nationality is kind of racist. I get the tricks (and the examples given) seem to be usable maliciously, but we need to know the threats so we can protect against them.

<comment><USER29> That's not what 'racist' means.

<comment><USER30> It's within some dictionary definitions of racist; but xenophobia is barely better. Most people don't have control over their nationality.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Should higher education stop being treated like a business? - <AUTHOR> And more like public funded services? <comment> tony-allan It's not that black or white.

Should a country publicly fund higher education for its best and brightest? Of course. It might be direct funding or government sponsored long-term loans repaid from future earnings after an income threshold is reached, or even something else.

What about students from other countries or degrees such as MBA's? Probably not.

In the second case, university income from full fee paying students shouldn't be instead of other government funding as this can have other perverse effects such as forcing growth and degree's that do not help further the aims of higher education.

</comment><comment><USER2> It is not a business, nor is it a charity - it is a racket!!

</comment><comment><USER3> As an European, this question doesn't even deserved to be asked, of course it should. Not just higher education, but at all level. More educated population is always better for any country, so education should be accessible for anyone and not hidden behind paywalls. Education and Healthcare should be where most of the tax money goes.</comment>


Windows Azure Storage – 4 Trillion Objects and Counting - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.msdn.com/b/windowsazure/archive/2012/07/18/windows-azure-storage-4-trillion-objects-and-counting.aspx <comment><USER2> Something about this number is just mind boggling if correct. I mean AWS S3 as of April was announcing 905 Billion, but 4 TRILLION?</comment>


Short History of LED Lighting - <AUTHOR> https://www.stet.build/ia/031 <comment><USER2> Okay, that was useless.

Summary: LED Lighting is now called Solid State Lighting (SSL) and improving lighting efficiency is no longer and issue. So other ways to differentiate are being sought.

While that could be a good launch paragraph into an interesting article, that is where it stops.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, the fact that LED bulbs can change color and be connected to networks and sensors means they can exhibit behaviour. I thought TFA was going to discuss automation or integration.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> What blows me away is that you can now get a watch which is _constantly illuminated by LEDs_ and they're claiming "up to 3+ years" of battery life.

[https://parweber.com/pages/introducing- endurolume](https://parweber.com/pages/introducing-endurolume)

LEDs are slick.

<comment><USER5> Shouldnt be "history of led" should be future lol

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> They talk a lot about the blue LED, but don't mention one reason that it's important.

What's important is white LEDS, probably the most used color. There isn't really a white LED. They are either three LEDS (R/G/B), or a blue led with some phosphor coating.

<comment><USER7> So true. I'd love a miracle material that doesn't require a phosphor coating to get full spectrum lighting. Maybe some meta-material will come out in the next decade...

Meanwhile, these guys keep popping up when I search for LED spectrograms. They seem to have good phosphor coatings for their LEDs. It's certainly one of the better spectrograms I've seen for an LED lightbulb. [https://www.waveformlighting.com/full-spectrum-led- lighting](https://www.waveformlighting.com/full-spectrum-led-lighting)

<comment><USER8> One answer is to stack 3 LEDs on the die, each tuned to the center wavelength of human photo-receptors. Existing RGB LEDs emulating "white" suffer from shadowing effects where shadows have a color based on the parallax between the red, green, and blue elements in the light bulb. This is no longer an issue if you co-locate the emitters.

<comment><USER9> This works for direct illumination (eg an LCD screen) but fails for reflected light (eg a light).

This video from Technology Connections helps explain [https://youtu.be/uYbdx4I7STg](https://youtu.be/uYbdx4I7STg)

<comment><USER10> Technology Connections is the bomb. I think I've watched all of his videos at this point, highly recommend his channel.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> What's interesting to me is that LEDs were apparently a Russo-Japanese invention yet the industry is now completely dominated by China. LED lightshows of an evening are a very late naughties China thing, every town has one these days, hell almost every _building_ has one. Makes for interesting skylines, but no doubt terrible for ambient light pollution, insect life, etc.

<comment><USER12> China dominates most electronic industries, few of which were invented there. Interesting that you say LEDs are a Russo-Japanese invention because all colors of LED were first commercialized in the US. The high-brightness blue LED was discovered in the US but commercialized by a Japanese company.

<comment><USER8> When Shuji Nakamura developed the high-brightness blue LED, he was working at Nichia, in Japan. He's now at UCSB.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I installed Lifx bulbs in the main living area of my house. They are controlled by wifi through an ios app that can change the color and intensity of each bulb. I schedule sleep mode at 10.30pm and normal intensity at sunrise.

If I want to override the schedule at night I just turn the wall switch off/on and the bulbs wake up.

I like these wifi LED lights. They are the most reliable aspect of my life.

</comment><comment><USER13> I think that most people vastly underestimate how important lighting is to a living space. I frankly think that a $500K house with great lighting feels like a much bigger, higher-end $1 million house.

Get lots of high-CRI lighting, at daylight and warm white color temperatures, have them automatically shift from blue to red on a daily basis. If you can't do a permanent installation, get those 5-arm floor lamps.

<comment><USER13> Ydz- you replied this comment with a very useful comment that is "dead" either because you were downvoted (impossible) or because the megalomaniacs who run this site consider you persona non grata.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> The Nobel Prize was awarded to them in 2014 fwiw, not 2004.

<comment><USER3> TFA actually says "So significant was this discovery that in 2004, the trio would receive the Nobel price in Physics."</comment></comment>


Ethereum: DAO White Hack Attack - <AUTHOR> https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/4p7mhc/update_on_the_white_hat_attack/ <comment><USER2> They also know the curator of the Dark DAO that performed the initial attack [1]. This could allow recovering nearly 100% of the funds with only a soft fork.

[1] [https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/4p7mhc/update_on_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/4p7mhc/update_on_the_white_hat_attack/d4ip04w)

</comment><comment><USER3> begun the DAO wars has.. LOL</comment>


EC2 Price Reduction (C4, M4, and T2 Instances) - <AUTHOR> https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/ec2-price-reduction-c4-m4-and-t2-instances/ <comment><USER2> Software for bare metal is catching up - you can buy couple of dedicated servers, install something like Kubernetes and will be shaking your head in disbelief how much you over paid for AWS.

<comment><USER3> >you can buy couple of dedicated servers

You can rent them too, like here : [https://www.hetzner.de/us/hosting/](https://www.hetzner.de/us/hosting/) (not affiliated, would like to know of other decent hosts too) - I think this is the best of both worlds (don't need to deal with HW, getting bare mettal perf and reasonable prices)

<comment><USER4> OVH is another decent host at similar prices. They have a larger range of servers and more datacenters, but are slightly more expensive. But they also offer renting older servers at kimsufi (similar to Hetzner's server bidding).

<comment><USER5> 'Friends dont let friends use OVH'. Just google OVH and how horrible they are, every few months they have some gigantic filure - last time I've heard it was taking people money and not delivering servers for MONTHS.

<comment><USER6> 'Friends don't confuse friends with anecdotal evidence'. My anecdotal evidence is that I am a satisfied customer. Great prices, good customer service.

<comment><USER5> That would be anecdotal if it wouldn't happened to me twice. I won't ever use them again, nor recommend them to anyone, unless they're masochists in nature ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Has anyone switched to Google cloud & found it cheaper overall? It seems like there was a lot of interest in Google before but not so much as of late.

<comment><USER8> I'm very happy with them and believe it is cheaper, although it's hard to compare considering the explosion of services on both platforms. I initially chose them because I/O performance on gce was ahead by about factor 10 (may have been workload-specific, may have changed – this was about a year ago, may only apply to the smaller machine types with SSD I tested).

I've also had a much easier time getting started, but my AWS experience may be out of date now. But both the web UI as well as the cli client are excellent.

I also prefer google because of their excellent contributions to OSS, their advocacy for an open internet, their lack of sweatshop-warehouses, and their investments in hard problems. (and I know altruism may not be the motive, but still...)

<comment><USER9>
      their lack of sweatshop-warehouses

You are now hitting below the belt.

<comment><USER8> I admit writing that – if I were at Amazon – I'd spend the rest of the week making sure every future package to "that unfair guy on the internet" gets thrown against the wall an extra four times :)

And, more seriously, I didn't want to imply that Amazon deserves any hate – they're probably a net positive for the world. And Google is no saint. Just that, on balance, I'm still more inclined to be loyal to the latter.

<comment><USER9> To be fair, I'm indifferent which side you take.

[I was perhaps amused to see it mentioned in the first place.]

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> honestly , the new prices starts from December/1 and there's only 5% price drop for US datacenters. 20-25% mostly for Singapore and Frankfurt where the original price was higher on that 20-25%.

</comment><comment><USER11> There are also these guys - Packet: [https://www.packet.net/](https://www.packet.net/) They have a lots of what you need from "cloud", bare metal servers and very competitive prices (even comparing to hetzner)

</comment><comment><USER12> Well, that almost makes up for our price increases over the last few months thanks to the worse GBP/USD exchange rates...

</comment><comment><USER13> Now is the time to check your reservations and account again for how much was saved or lost.

</comment><comment><USER14> Arggg, does not apply to west coast instances (us-west-1 and us-west-2).

<comment><USER15> Asking as an ignorant foreigner: Does anyone know what makes us-west more expensive than us-east? Is it just land or electricity prices or something like that?

<comment><USER16> Our Amazon rep tells us it's all about the cost of electricity.

<comment><USER17> 11c/kWh in bay area, 6c/kWh in Oregon and Nevada. Old data here but salient: [http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2011/10/27/141766341/the-p...](http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2011/10/27/141766341/the- price-of-electricity-in-your-state)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


IPod touch becomes iPhone using Yosion's Apple Peel 520?  - <AUTHOR> http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/28/ipod-touch-turned-into-a-phone-using-yosions-apple-peel-520/

<comment><USER2> One thing about Apple and the iPod Touch that I don't understand is why they don't sell a version with 3G on it like the iPad?

I'd seriously not own my iPhone if they did that. The _only_ reason I switched from a Touch to the iPhone is for internet access everywhere.

I've been wondering this since the Touch originally came out and now that the iPad does exactly that, I hope this is in the cards for the next Touch. That could be seriously disruptive.

<comment><AUTHOR> Would they be able to sell it for so much less than the iPhone that it would be worth their while?

<comment><USER2> Would they or could they?

Unfortunately, you are probably right, if the iPad pricing is any indication.

It's a shame because they could probably do it for a price difference of around 50 bucks if they really wanted too - the price to add 3G is no where near as expensive as Apple charges for it on the iPad (something like a unit cost around 13 bucks versus Apples 130 price diff for the 3G iPad).

But it would be contract free. You know, I'd probably buy it if it were the same price as the iphone.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Any native speakers able to translate from the Yosion web forums ([http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&h...](http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fyosion.net%2Fviewthread.php%3Ftid%3D83%26extra%3Dpage%253D1&sl=zh- CN&tl=en))?

The google version just isn't cutting it.</comment>