Gavin Newsom: 56% of California will be infected with coronavirus in 8 weeks - <AUTHOR> https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2020/03/19/gavin-newsom-56-percent-of-californians-projected-to-be-infected-with-coronavirus-in-8-week-period/ <comment><USER2> Assuming this is true and mortality rate of 2%, that means 510,000 Californians will die.

<comment><USER3> Average mortality according to recent analysis is 0.125%

[https://www.cebm.net/global-covid-19-case-fatality- rates/](https://www.cebm.net/global-covid-19-case-fatality-rates/)

Which is in consistent with the data from a cruise ship where all people could be tested.

Which means 30k deaths not 500k. Still a lot I think.

Also pretty close to flu, which makes me distrustful of this mortality rate, seeing how different it looks in Italy now compared to seasonal flu.

<comment><USER4> Italy has been seeing overflowing hospitals in recent previous years as well during peak influenza season. So that doesn't by itself imply something truly unusual.

I wish I could find the source for this (it was a medical paper) but I've read a lot of web pages lately and not bookmarked them all systematically.

Yesterday I pointed out that dramatic news of war-like conditions in hospitals, running out of beds, erecting tents to hold extra patients and warnings of imminent collapse have happened in the recent past in ... California:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22632440](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22632440)

If you look you can instantly find news stories that sound exactly like those coming out of Italy at the moment, but from recent years in flu season, for almost any country.

It's fair to say that hospitals running out of beds or putting people in corridors, tents, hastily converted rooms isn't unusual. Perhaps we should ask why there isn't enough peak capacity in western health systems to handle just a bad flu season, let alone something like this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Ad free-ish at the Sac Bee:

[https://www.sacbee.com/news/coronavirus/article241349341.htm...](https://www.sacbee.com/news/coronavirus/article241349341.html)

If 56% of CA is infected in 2 months then we aren't being told something about this virus.

<comment><USER6> Newsom's CA estimate is _roughly_ the same percentage as the nationwide estimates by the CDC: "Between 160 million and 214 million people in the United States could be infected over the course of the epidemic" ([https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/13/us/coronavirus-deaths- est...](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/13/us/coronavirus-deaths- estimate.html))

<comment><USER5> I don't know where you live, but where I live they have issued a shelter in place order and my understanding is that this is widespread.

If 56% of the state gets the virus under a shelter in place order, either we all already have it or the virus is so virulent that even limited runs for essentials is extremely risky.

<comment><USER7> Newsom's statement qualified that the calculations did not take shelter-in- place into account.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Can someone submit an article on this topic from a news source that doesn't completely cover up the story with ads, popovers when you have ad blocking turned on, etc? This website plus Mercury news do the same bullshit.

<comment><USER9> Perhaps here [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22632739](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22632739)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> WOULD be infected if people kept partying. With containment measures and medicine in the pipeline this scenario can be prevented as other countries show.

</comment><comment><USER11> Isn't it predictable that incidence of infection will be proportional to population density? If so, isn 't the Northeast megalopolis most at risk?

</comment><comment><USER12> subscription panes free link [https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/california- coronaviru...](https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/california-coronavirus- numbers-newsom-trump-15144169.php)

</comment><comment><USER13> We (the public) are being misled about either the virulency, the morbidity rate, or both, with regards to SARS-CoV-2. The real numbers simply do not match the models.

</comment><comment><USER14> This is completely unacceptable. If this happens tens of thousands will be dying on the streets and in hospital parking lots. Meanwhile other areas are able to suppress the virus, collectively buying ourselves time to develop therapeutics and vaccines. Major Asian countries are succeeding.</comment>


Monetizing Facebook Games: 'You're A Frickin' Media Company' - <AUTHOR> http://www.industrygamers.com/news/monetizing-facebook-games-youre-a-frickin-media-company/

<comment><USER2> Wrong. Social games are not regular media. What is a media company? Media companies deal in information - it could be the news, analysis, up-to-the- second stock information or celebrity photographs. Media companies battle comodotization and charge through ads or subscriptions of some sort. Game (traditional) companies are like studios. You build something (you think) people want, market it and boom, you make money. Once someone buys your box/downloads your game on Steam, you're only concerned with how long they play (i.e. amount of fun they have) in the context of the sequel. As with movies and music, there are indie surprises (exceptions which prove the rule).

Social games companies (and many of the apps) only gets paid when people actually play their games (I'm simplifying this, because a lot of other factors add in, e.g. geography. But it's more of less true.). This is why they measure revenue by DAU (daily active users). You can bring this engagement around by analytics, behavioral science (social compulsion) or by making a damn good game, any which way you want. But you're in the business of making consumable experience which leave the user wanting more eventually. So social games have more in common with the drug trade than media companies/traditional games.</comment>


MP3 Blogs and wget - <AUTHOR> http://www.veen.com/jeff/archives/000573.html <comment><USER2> Rant on mp3 blogs and free streaming music...

What's funny is when projectplaylist.com was actually accessible, it was basically an HTTP version of Napster for music blogs. They made it seem like they were playing MP3s found on other sites, but they really aggregate all of the files in a large storage cache sorted by seemingly-random numbers. They then obfuscate the URLs by "encrypting" them with a single RC4 key which was embedded in their flash player. The end result was a search engine for finding and downloading any music you could possibly want right from their high-speed repository.

I don't think they ever re-implemented this but they did change the HTTP interface every so often, and now the main pages are down most of the time. Myspace had a similar functionality (with XML to serve the location of the files, so no nasty html grepping needed) but when they released their music- centric site they finally got wise and added a more dynamic system of authorizing and re-authorizing each piece of music being played while it's playing. This actually is neat because it allows you to gather stats on which songs are being played for how long and who's really interested. It wasn't worth it to me to extend my script to support this more complicated functionality but I don't see why it couldn't be reverse engineered with a little time.

So anyway, any of these streaming music sites are basically playing a dangerous game with their content. When you hand someone content for free, anonymously and via the internet, you're just asking for someone to make a script to download it where they don't need to watch your ads. RTMPE is not a solution because we've had rtmpe reverse engineered for what seems like years now. It seems like the only thing that makes content providers interested in this at all is when someone makes a snazzy GUI which does all the work for you and simply downloads songs.

All this could be handled by simply requiring authentication & authorizing song plays N at a time. Then you don't really need copy protection since the user simply doesn't have the capacity to download more than one or two songs at a time, which (if implemented correctly) can make it damn hard for anyone to exploit your service.

</comment><comment><USER3> Hah, this is so old!

I remember finding this article back when I was researching music blogs before starting the Hype Machine (<http://hypem.com>) in 2005.

Awesome!

</comment><comment><USER4> "But how to keep up?"

Hype Machine! (<http://hypem.com>)

<comment><USER5> hype machine is incredible. +1

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is so old school, I love it. The first comment was left on 7 July 2004. I think a crawler like this made sense in 2004, now you are liable to fill your hard drives with a lot of nothing in 24 hours. Something like the hype machine does this in a little more intelligent manner, they at least are applying some form of reputation too the where the mp3s came from.

</comment><comment><USER7> I read this and thought.. wow! I gotta give this a try!

Then I noticed I left the second to last comment on that post. 5. Years. Ago.. :)

</comment><comment><USER8> don't do this - it severely undermines the effort and creativity the blogger(s) wrapped around these mp3s

fwiw, this is 100% personal opinion

<comment><USER9> It's still an interesting look at using wget and how powerful it is.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> great combination of wget parameters!</comment>


Sugary soda drinks linked to cell aging - <AUTHOR> http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/283994.php <comment><USER2> So sugary soda drinks are as bad as smoking, when are we gonna have warning labels printed in them?</comment>


The Consumerization of Edtech - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2015/12/12/skipping-copper-the-consumerization-of-edtech/?ncid=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29 <comment><USER2> Well, my family spends a lot on educational technology. Two years ago we bought a violin, and this year, a cello.

My exposure to educational software goes back to the early 1980s, when I had a summer internship at an educational computing facility. They had a "lab" with copies of educational software for teachers to try out. Most of it was crap: Mostly glorified flash cards, arithmetic quizzes, and crude hypertext books.

Today, my kids are in 8th and 10th grade, and they use educational software that is provided online. How far have we progressed? It is still crap: Glorified flash cards, arithmetic quizzes, and crude hypertext books. The UI's are more sophisticated and there is a larger quantity of content, but I haven't really seen any new ideas since 30 years ago, for instance that would qualify as "inventions" to someone like Alan Kay.

In my view a problem is that the mechanics of developing software is onerous enough that it's too cumbersome to create very much variety or interesting interaction. More ominous today is that the software is sold by the same companies that peddle the school curricula and standardized tests. And the amount of time that our kids spend wading through that crap is exactly why they don't have time to do things like learn programming.

Still, we have plenty of educational software, but it will be hard for us to spend 3% of our income on it, because it's all free: Scratch, Python, Arduino, etc.

/rant

<comment><USER3> I had a great session with my 12yo getting an animated ball bouncing around a box, programming it in javascript using the canvas api [ ~120 lines ]. He got collision detection working with some help.

I have tried myself, with very limited success, to make some engaging and educational software. I see a lot of edu software as mind-candy - strong on visuals/action but weak on concepts.. but I admit I haven't found the right mix myself.

My own efforts :

* animated sine demo [[http://treeblurb.com/dev_math/sin_canv03.html](http://treeblurb.com/dev_math/sin_canv03.html)]

* DoctorX multiplication thing [ [http://treeblurb.com/doctorx/calc.html](http://treeblurb.com/doctorx/calc.html) ]

* [http://gridmaths.com](http://gridmaths.com)

backgrounder / articles - [https://quantblog.wordpress.com/tag/math/](https://quantblog.wordpress.com/tag/math/)

One package I really love the potential of is [http://GeoGebra.org](http://GeoGebra.org) \- I'm trying to get the school interested in these kinds of things to augment their 1-student-1-tablet policy.

<comment><USER2> Thanks. That was a lot of fun, and hats off to your nice programs!

Something that I think is a problem with math, is that lots of us have ideas about math, but if it's not "school math," then they look at you like some kind of freak. And I think this is actually more prevalent among parents than teachers, but the demands of parents (including the demands of college entrance exams) do have a lot of impact.</comment></comment></comment>


I [Finally] created my website - <AUTHOR> https://veekthoven.com/blog/how-i-finally-created-my-personal-website <comment><AUTHOR> While building this website, I struggled with making decisions about what tools to use. In this article, I share the tools I used and my rationale for using them. Hopefully, I am going to save someone the agony of making the same decision.</comment>


Snowden's Favorite Cloud Service Now Has a Group Chat App - <AUTHOR> https://motherboard.vice.com/read/snowdens-favorite-cloud-service-now-has-a-group-chat-app <comment><USER2> I always cringe when I come across this type of Snowden branding. Can't put my finger on the reason.

<comment><USER3> From my perspective, it's like branding something with names like Stalin, Dahmer or Ames. I really wish more people would maturely reflect on Snowden's misunderstanding; pride; failure to avail himself of legal means to correct his misunderstanding; and ultimate treason. He has caused extraordinarily grave damage to his nation's security and — since that nation is the sole guarantor of global security — to the security of mankind. From my perspective, he should be despised at worst, pitied at best.

<comment><USER4> I'd love to hear more about his misunderstanding, please continue.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm starting to look through the code right now. A scroll through their open source page indicates they're using libsodium, which is a good sign that they avoided most of the foot-cannons alluded to on this page: [https://gist.github.com/tqbf/be58d2d39690c3b366ad](https://gist.github.com/tqbf/be58d2d39690c3b366ad)

<comment><USER6> The SpiderOak folks seem to know what they're doing. But if you don't trust them, here's a completely open secure communications tool:

[https://github.com/Spark-Innovations/SC4](https://github.com/Spark- Innovations/SC4)

It's based on TweetNaCl, libsodium's smaller sibling. It can run standalone, i.e. no server required.

No group chat yet, but that's a relatively straightforward extension. I have two-party chat working in private beta. (Chat does require a server, though.)

<comment><USER5> > The SpiderOak folks seem to know what they're doing.

I'm inclined to agree with that assessment.

> But if you don't trust them

Trust, but verify.

IIRC they were discussing hiring a friend of mine (whose knowledge in software security is something I respect greatly).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Is Semaphor focused on group chat (Slack) or are there plans to support private communications (text, audio, video) like Wire? Unlike Signal, Wire allows registration with only an email address (via [http://app.wire.com](http://app.wire.com)) and does not force you to upload your contacts to their server.

Article: [http://arstechnica.com/business/2016/03/go-ahead-make- some-f...](http://arstechnica.com/business/2016/03/go-ahead-make-some-free- end-to-end-encrypted-video-calls-on-wire/)

Security: [https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2756350-Wire- Securit...](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2756350-Wire-Security- Whitepaper.html)

Code: [https://github.com/wireapp/wire](https://github.com/wireapp/wire)

<comment><USER8> How's the UX of wire?

I'm dying for an app that eventually does three things:

1\. Secure. A few of them exist

2\. UX. I love Telegram, shame it doesn't fit item #1

3\. Temporary. I actually really love Snapchat's ephemeral images and/or messaging. Telegram does a good job at this with auto destructing messages.. but it saves images on the system[1], and i don't trust it removing from the cloud in a timely manner. And of course, Telegram fails #1.. making temporary communication all the more troublesome.

[1]: This may be limited to certain systems, such as Android. But yea, don't save an image of an important document in a "secret" chat on Android.. it saves it to your filesystem.

<comment><USER9> 1\. End-to-end using Proteus which is inspired by Axolotl (now Signal). Whitepaper available (wire.com/privacy), independent security review underway). Right now only crypto/comms part open source but there will be more news in this.

2\. It's similar. Visually distinct the UX is close enough to what people are used to from other IM apps, I would say.

3\. Not. We've experimented with this internally but so far have not decided to release ephemeral aspect to public. Not enough demand. As someone else commented - you can delete content from your devices (syned across if you're logged in from more than one), but content will remain on other people's devices.

<comment><USER7> Are decrypted messages/assets stored in plaintext in the local device cache, or subject to local device backups? Can the local device cache be manually flushed, made subject to OS-level data protection policy, or eliminated entirely?

<comment><USER9> -Messages stored locally use the device encryption/OS-level protection

-Not included in backups

-Can be deleted either manually (per message/per chat) or altogether by uninstalling

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Source code: [https://spideroak.com/solutions/semaphor/source](https://spideroak.com/solutions/semaphor/source)

</comment><comment><USER11> Good luck to them.

After helping make a slack-style client-side encrypted productivity app ([https://balboa.io](https://balboa.io)) that has been on life-support for the last 2 months, I have a lot of respect for people that attempt to make this space more secure.

It's not easy.

A few lessons learned that may be useful to others:

1\. Most businesses and consumers are ok with their data being available to companies like Slack and Google because they trust these companies. They feel that regardless of reality, their data is safer with Google or Slack because those companies have a lot more to lose if they fail.

2\. The SME space for productivity apps is pretty much the same as the consumer space. You're going to be competing with Google. SMEs are actually really cheap and scrappy: they don't spend money on non-bottom line affecting stuff. If you want to sell security to them, it has to be essentially free

3\. Reputation is more important than (or at least AS important as) your technical chops. You're asking people to trust you. You can show that you are competent by demonstrating a mastery of the technology, but that may not be enough to show that you are also trustworthy.

</comment><comment><USER12> SpiderOak describes this as "Collaboration and messaging for teams." It seems like it's for (for-profit) business teams and not for personal "teams" or groups or non-profits/social groups. I guess the pricing model mentioned in the article is to get businesses that use Slack or Hipchat or other system.

I don't like SpiderOak's pricing models in general because of how it seems to oversell and upsell services. For personal teams/groups, there are free services like Telegram (awesome user experience that keeps improving at a fast pace but poorer homegrown crypto with normal messages stored in plaintext on the servers) and Signal (great crypto but awful user experience, slow and buggy app and slow and unreliable message delivery).

<comment><USER13> Thanks for taking a look and for your feedback! Do you have any recommendations for us for alternative pricing?

One of the things we tried to accommodate is that teams can be paid for by the individual members instead of one entity having to foot the whole bill. This was one of the common complaints we saw about Slack, where large communities enjoy using it but had no way to pay for better service.

You can use Semaphor for free just like Slack, with limited historical content retention.

Also, for what it's worth, I use Signal daily for personal messaging, and my own experience with it has been great. We think of Semaphor and the team/business context as as having pretty different requirements (and therefore somewhat different underlying crypto structures) than individual messaging. The biggest differences are about message retention and what happens when you want to invite a new member to an established conversation.

<comment><USER12> Sorry, when I wrote my comment, I could not find any information from your website about the pricing of Semaphor and what the tiers provide (it just says "plans starting from $6"). The article didn't really explain the plans and what they provide either.

It seems like the personal plan pricing is high, considering that "personal" use as such may not be high volume or high storage in general for such an application. But that's just a thought without any information, and as such, not useful. It may be easier to judge it after knowing what it provides in every tier.

My comment on pricing was based on the pricing model you have for the backup service, which is highly nonlinear with a very high jump between tiers to push people to buy into a larger one. The plans at 30GB and 1TB remind me of Dreamhost and oversold plans (not that it's wrong business wise, but it doesn't seem fair from the customer's point of view).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Downloadable here: [https://spideroak.com/opendownload](https://spideroak.com/opendownload)

<comment><USER8> Bummer, they say Android, but the download isn't available.

<comment><USER13> Sorry! Ironically (since we're using Google's Golang) Android has been the hardest platform for us to finish. We've got Mac, iOS, Linux, and Windows now, and are running Android internally but it's not release ready yet. Should have it within a few weeks. It is likely to require a newish Android version though. Thanks for taking a look!</comment></comment></comment>


Arctic Has Entered 'Unprecedented State' That Threatens Global Climate Stability - <AUTHOR> https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/04/08/researchers-warn-arctic-has-entered-unprecedented-state-threatens-global-climate <comment><USER2> We're going to be too late. This doesn't mean stop trying, but it does mean accept it and begin exploring climate engineering and carbon capture. When I say the latter, I literally mean remove the stuff out of the atmosphere and some progress has been made. For the former: [https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/as-planet-warms- scientists...](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/as-planet-warms-scientists- explore-far-out-ways-to-reduce-atmospheric-co2)

</comment><comment><USER3> So looking at the graphs in the video it seems that 2016-2017 saw very significant jumps. Is there significant reason to think that wasn't a random phenomenon? AFAIK, contributers to climate change didn't also jump up (ie, we don't have 20% more emissions). If so, what's the thing that the science is suggesting is the cause?

<comment><USER4> What's non-intuitive about climate science is that the climate is a non-linear system.

You may have heard of the "Butterfly Effect". It comes from ideas set out by MIT Meteorologist Edward Lorenz. In his seminal paper "Deterministic non- periodic flow" (1963), he set out a model of atmospheric convection and showed that temperature and fluid motion interact very non-linearly as one feedbacks into the other. This means a small change in one, can have little impact in the other. But doing another small change in one can cause a feedback loop which creates a huge effect in the other. In his words, "one flap of a seagull's wings would be enough to alter the course of the weather forever".

The scary conclusion this leads to is that the climate doesn't always change gradually. After decades of gradual change from temperature increases, it can hit a tipping point where a feedback loop occurs leading to very rapid change, very suddenly.

And unfortunately we don't know exactly where this will occur. Many climate scientists believe we're already there.

<comment><USER5> An example... Soil releases more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as temperatures rise, creating a self-intensifying loop.

<comment><USER6> Or... Melting Arctic/Siberian sea ice may release methane into the air, a greenhouse has several times more potent than carbon dioxide.

[https://insideclimatenews.org/news/18072017/arctic- permafros...](https://insideclimatenews.org/news/18072017/arctic-permafrost- melting-methane-emissions-geologic-sources-study)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Ironically Articles like this immediate allievate everyday anxieties for me because it immediately puts into perspective how small the things I sometimes worry about really are.

</comment><comment><USER8> The whole northern hemisphere is already experiencing things like extended winters/delayed spring, unusually wet and dry seasons, more intense summers and winters, more frequent and stronger typhoons etc.

It's here, it's happening. It's going to start driving up prices of fruits and vegetables, and impact other economic activity very, very soon.

It's not "if" but "how much" it's going to effect us

</comment><comment><USER9> People need a radical threat to act, otherwise it's slowly boiling a frog in a pot. Radical threats don't exist for humans, they exist for the subjects of human desire for power and control. Until this changes, people will never get any of this.

<comment><USER10> The "slowly boiling frog" is a good metaphor for failing to perceive a threat when change is gradual enough, but according to Wikipedia it is not real:

> Modern scientific sources report that the alleged phenomenon is not real. In > 1995, Professor Douglas Melton, of the Harvard University Biology > department, said, "If you put a frog in boiling water, it won't jump out. It > will die. If you put it in cold water, it will jump before it gets hot—they > don't sit still for you." Dr. George R. Zug, curator of reptiles and > amphibians at the National Museum of Natural History, also rejected the > suggestion, saying that "If a frog had a means of getting out, it certainly > would get out. [1]

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

<comment><USER11> People need a radical threat to act, otherwise it's like a human in a slowly warming atmosphere?

<comment><USER12> Do you work at Posnet in Agoura Hills? If so, I'd like to submit a resume. (email@example.com if I am allowed to post email addresses on the board)

<comment><USER11> Sorry no, my name is unrelated and is just part of my last name + net.

<comment><USER12> Thank you for getting back. They have a software shop I drive by every day and I wasn't sure the best way to get in touch with them.

Hope all is good on your side.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I think at this point, the question is not whether there will be serious disruption, but how badly it will hit and where the prime spots will be to live. Anywhere North with access to fresh water is looking pretty good right about now. I'd imagine anywhere currently hot and arid will be more so, but it's hard to predict.

<comment><USER14> It's probably more complex than that, with more geopolitical factors involved. Right now, for example, Russia's political economy is limited by access to year-round deep water ports. China's relationship to Tibet is shaped by the fact that Tibet is basically China's watershed. The bread basket of the United States is just a bunch of fertile soil, blown off the Rockies, that happens to have landed underneath fantastic weather for corn, or wheat, or what have you. When any of those change, we're all going to become much more intimately familiar with the phrase "balance of power."

It's not going to be a case of moving near fresh water. It's going to be a case of getting tolerable living conditions subject to the political apparatuses and distribution networks that develop in response to the power structures that develop as the planet changes underneath the map and the map changes underneath our feet.

Good luck!

<comment><USER15> > It's going to be a case of getting tolerable living conditions subject to > the political apparatuses and distribution networks that develop in response > to the power structures that develop as the planet changes underneath the > map and the map changes underneath our feet.

I've never seen anyone describe Mad Max so aptly!

<comment><USER16> Arguably Syria was/is Mad Max. It's a lot uglier than the movie, but the movie had standards of decency to fulfill...</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Memories of Stasi color Germans' view of U.S. surveillance programs - <AUTHOR> http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/06/26/195045/memories-of-stasi-color-germans.html <comment><USER2> The EU, which Germany is a major part of, passed the Data Retention Directive [0] in 2006.

That directive required every state in the EU to pass laws that all their citizens telecommunications metadata would be stored for at least 6 months, and often more, up to 2 years.

As I understand it, this means all 'metadata' is required to be stored, including the source and destination for every phonecall and text message, including cell location for cellphones, and information mapping IPs to users for web+email (and perhaps also the source and destination of every e-mail; but I'm not certain about that?). I believe that the data is stored by service providers, and only passed to law enforcement in the context of a particular investigation _in theory_ (in the Irish implementation, a court order is not required to access an individual's records; a request from a high ranking law enforcement officer or tax official is enough). But its all collected and stored.

Maybe that's a sufficiently big difference that warrants the EU retention laws not being mentioned in this article? But it seems to me that they should still be part of this narrative.

There have been challenges to the EU directive, and countries dragging their heels about implementing it. But, by and large, it is an established part of EU law.

I don't know a lot about this area, but I feel that an understanding of existing European data retention laws seems to be missing from the coverage of the European reaction to the US data collection issues.

[0] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Retention_Directive](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Retention_Directive)

<comment><USER3> In Germany, the data retention law was ruled unconstitutional by the German Constitutional Court on March 2, 2010. Data retention was allowed _in general_ by the court, but only with significant restrictions. The German government failed to pass a new law which fulfills both the EU data retention directive and the court's restrictions. The EU Commission therefore is currently sueing Germany to implement the EU data retention directive. If the EU Commission prevails, Germany will have to pay 315.036,54 Euro per day as a penalty fee until a proper law is enacted.

<comment><USER4> That's really interesting. We (people in the UK) have long been complaining that our Government stringently applies every single EU directive and human rights law but other countries just seem to ignore them (rightfully so IMO, sometimes logic should prevail). I know it's probably not strictly true, but it's things like this which may eventually lead to the disbanding of the EU and such integration of the law.

<comment><USER5> But the UK opted out of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and is not even part of Schengen.

I personally, as a German, am much less forgiving towards the UK than towards the US for what has been revealed. The UK is a EU member, which is so much more than just an ally. It is now clear that the UK spies on all continental Europeans, gives that data to the US, and at the same time tries to opt out of the EU cooperation on police and criminal justice. No matter how you turn it, this cannot be interpreted as anything else than a "spit in your face" gesture towards the rest or Europe. We now get the uneasy feeling that the current and past governments of the UK more or less hate us.

<comment><USER6> I think that's a bit harsh. The UK went into Europe based on the ideals of the common market, what came after isn't what anybody signed up for, so there's a constant mistrust of the overarching nature of the EU bureaucracy from the population at large, which the politicians who want votes reflect (and obviously stir up too).

I think this clip from the classic comedy 'Yes, Minister' sums up Europe.

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVrN- gkzVYI](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVrN-gkzVYI)

The UK doesn't _hate_ the rest of Europe, but clearly each nation will play its hand for its own political reasons.

<comment><USER5> You bring up an interesting point. I very often read that the UK joined for the single market but then afterwards the EU started taking away national sovereignty.

I don't quite understand how this view of things is possible.

From the very start, when the Coal and Steel Community was created in 1952, loss of national sovereignty was, to a certain degree, built into the system. The primary goal of European cooperation was to take away the ability of European nations to go to war with one another. Also remember the "de fact solidarity" that Robert Schuman spoke of in his famous declaration in 1950: With all the horrors of WW2 fresh in mind, nobody could expect the people of Europe to show solidarity for another, so the framework of Europe must be set up to generate a "de facto solidarity". The whole system should be set up in such a way that the people of Europe cannot _not_ show solidarity.

We learned this in school and it seems to be generally accepted by the general populace, at least in the "old" continental Western Europe. If you ask older Germans or French about European integration, they will talk about avoiding war, not about the single market.

The only possible explanation I can come up with for the sentiment that the EU was "all about the single market" is that UK voters were horribly misled by their press and politicians at the time of EU accession. Is this plausible?

On a side note: I admit that what I wrote about hating Europe was harsh, but we (i.e., me and many others I've spoken to) do feel genuinely betrayed.

<comment><USER6> The problem is we're an ex-Imperialist island nation. That breeds a certain psyche of superiority and xenophobia that I think is very hard for us to shake off en-masse. I think there's a sense with the British that we brought 'civilisation' to a huge portion of the world, why do we need anybody else telling us what to do?

Even as children we're constantly fed war movies about the plucky Brits fighting against the evil Germans, so therefore most Brits hate Germans, and we've been at odds with the French forever. There are many English terms/phrases which are derogatory about the French. French kiss, French letter, French disease etc.

This is a very useful tool for the politician who wants to stir up a hornets nest of outrage or just shore up some votes by looking 'anti-Europe'. And it works.

Even myself -- someone who has friends in many European countries (Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, Serbia, Romania, Spain, Italy, Croatia, Austria, Slovakia - just quickly off the top of my head!) -- get caught up in it.

It's pure xenophobia, and it's frankly disgusting. We don't have the English channel and the North Sea around us, we have a moat.

However.

There is always the argument for a greater say from the people of Europe. It certainly seems there is a huge bureaucracy with very little public oversight. And it seems incredibly inflexible. The _impression_ many have is that they can't vote the bureaucrats out, and there's very little to stop them haemorrhaging money/rights/power.

In an era where we have the technology to bring democratic decision making closer to the individual, the EU definitely seems to be moving in the opposite direction.

(Then again, this could just be the years of 'conditioning' that make me think this!)

</waffle>

<comment><USER7> > we have a moat

I think this is a large part of why GB has a different relationship with Europe. In other European countries you can just jump in a car and drive almost anywhere else in Europe. For many people they can be in a couple of different countries in under an hour. Compare this to Gavin to book a flight or a ferry crossing, with the time and cost involved, and it's not too surprising that we're not as neighbourly as the other members of the EU.

<comment><USER8> Which blows my mind, since I live in Texas where you can drive 10 hours in the same direction on the same road at freeway speeds, and still be an hour or two from reaching another state.

<comment><USER7> For whatever reason people have a very different relationship with travelling in their own car and via some other form of transport. The perceived cost of a trip seems to drop for a lot of people, both with regards to price and time. Perhaps less so in the millennial generation but in the preceeding generation there is a very strong association between owning a car and personal freedom.

<comment><USER8> Probably because owning a car means you can go anywhere your wallet ($ for gas) and time will allow you to go. Anywhere, any time, with very little hassle. Taxis come close to this, but only in and for (geographically) small areas/trips. Bicycles also come close. Other forms of transit are limited in terms of endpoints (*ports for planes/ferries, stations for trains/subways, stops for buses), time (dependent on the schedule), and may cost more.

Owning a car often gives you a lot of options you don't have without it.

Unless you live in NYC/similar.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> A choice quote:

Even Schmidt, 73, who headed one of the more infamous departments in the infamous Stasi, called himself appalled. The dark side to gathering such a broad, seemingly untargeted, amount of information is obvious, he said.

"It is the height of naivete to think that once collected this information won't be used," he said. "This is the nature of secret government organizations. The only way to protect the people's privacy is not to allow the government to collect their information in the first place."

</comment><comment><USER10> "The Lives of Others" (Das Leben der Anderen) is an excellent German film that dramatically shows the intrusiveness of the Stasi (secret police) into daily life in the former East Germany.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lives_of_Others](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lives_of_Others)

In the film you can see some of the techniques used by Wolfgang Schmidt and his colleagues.

<comment><USER11> Ironically enough, the lead actor (Ulrich Mühe[1]) had _really_ been under Stasi surveillance; a surveillance to which his then wife allegedly collaborated.

[1][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulrich_M%C3%BChe](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulrich_M%C3%BChe)

<comment><USER12> this is the most destructive aspect of surveilance state - it is not that the state, ie. its proper officers and facilities, are doing - after all one can reasonably expect them to do all sort of nefarious things one can imagine and thus one is considered reasonably warned, it is about anybody (even friends and family) can happen to be a secret informant and collaborator. In case of USA the secretly imposed gag orders is a big step toward it.

<comment><USER13> I signed up for Google Plus reluctantly, mostly just to use hangouts as Skype doesn't work on the ARM Chromebook.

I don't use Facebook and I host my own email, mostly because I'd like to keep my social graph private.

However, Google knows everyone I'd have added on Plus already - and offers to add them for me. How? They've all uploaded their address books, and they all use gmail.

80-90%+ of my social graph is already known to them, just because my friends have already given them the data. My lack of participation in Google Plus is insufficient.

<comment><USER14> It is the same with smart phones. Even if you don't install any apps or link any of your profiles (fb, g+, etc) all it takes is for one person you know to upload their address book to "find their friends" and suddenly there is linked: your phone #, email, fb (your picture included), g+, all in one spot, all without your permission or knowledge.

Even if you try and secure your data and privacy, unless everyone you know does the same thing it is pointless.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> It's interesting that the only defense the USG can muster in this debacle is their insistence that there are policies in place to prevent abuse.

Policies change when governments change, so every time there are US senate elections[1] or US presidential elections[2] then it'll be a chance that we irrevocably move further down the dark road of totalitarianism.

If there's anything to do to remedy this situation, it's talk to your congressional representative. Gerrymandering may have made that a pointless task, but it's just the first step towards freedom.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2014)

[2] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_elec...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016)

<comment><USER16> The "we have policies" defense is complete horse manure for the reason you stated and also because if those policies are secret, as is the case with regards to wholesale surveillance state policies, there is no way to verify they're being followed or hold anyone accountable for violating those policies.

Additionally even when governments don't change the policies have an uncanny habit of not being followed whenever it's convenient to ignore them. That has happened time and time again.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Assuming this level of unconstitutional surveillance continues, what can we do?

Here are some of my ideas: Send encrypted emails, to communicate long distances. Use the internet way less. Use cell phones only to arrange real life meetups. Hang out & talk to people in real life. Never have a meaningful discussion "over the air".

<comment> mark-r Since much of the information is used to find out who you hang out with, your strategy doesn't help as much as you think. Guilt by association, you know.

<comment><USER18> "Much of the information"? Given that the metadata (a.k.a. "CDR" or Call Data Record) is getting hoovered up in all this, about the only thing such a mass of data can be used for is guilt by association. The telco's don't match up CDR with a captured audio stream, so that's done by the NSA (or whoever). They're not going to be able to do that matching, or the semantic analysis of what's said, very often. Therefore, the ONLY thing the metadata can do is determine guilt by association.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I think the phrase you're looking for is "Historical literacy informs Germans' view of U.S. surveillance programs".

<comment><USER20> The Stasi has been around in some form or another until about 1990. A lot of us really have "been there".

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> "In our case, we thought we were being paranoid until we saw what they'd gathered and realized we'd been naive..."

<comment><USER22> My father, a man of 75 years old in the last couple of months had been mentioning that all our calls were being recorded. I dismissed him as just paranoid. After all, I'm the software developer, I'm the techie in our house. I know best, I would tell myself. Now I feel quite stupid. How could I have been so naive in believing that our government would never do this. This is the land of the free after all right? I've learned to never trust our government. At least that is a good thing that came out of this.

edit: The funny thing is that right now he is having a small problem with somebody because they had a verbal agreement over the phone about how much a repair would cost. Both their memories seem to remember different things. It is only a couple hundred dollars but my father said that if were in the order of $50,000 or more he would get a lawyer so that the conversation he had with the man could be retrieved to prove my father was right. I told him that that would never happen because, mmm..., because the government would not want to give it to anybody else. At that point I remembered that I had already been wrong once so I could easily be wrong again.

<comment><USER23> One of the best things you could do as a country is stop with the 'land of the free' parareligion. You're not particularly freer than your contemporaries. In some things you are, in others you're not. You have a great level of freedom, but due to the parareligion, there is a sentiment (obviously not shared by all) that _other countries_ must somehow 'not be free'. It creates a distorted sense of self.

<comment><USER24> USA is demonstrably less free than anywhere else if you define free merely as "not being in prison".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> In my experience over the last few weeks, younger Germans (my age, 30 years & younger) are blissfully ignorant ("I don't have anything to hide" \- sounds familiar ?) to the impact of the government spying on its citizen.

24 years are a long time & that part of history is not as well-ingrained in the collective memory as the Holocaust. :-(

<comment><USER26> Its always struck me as odd that Germans seem to be so hot on privacy but seem fine with having mandatory ID cards and with the police being able to demand you show it.

<comment><USER27> As far as I'm aware (correct me if I'm wrong), there is an ID card or a functional equivalent thereof in most if not all countries, as the ability to verify someone's identity is pretty much a requirement for a modern society. Whether it's an actual "ID card" or a passport, birth certificate, driver's license, social security number, whatever doesn't really matter IMO.

As for having to reveal/prove my identity to the police: I could do without that, but I consider it mostly a non-issue. In practice it happens rarely, and if it does the police officers tend to be pretty friendly and reasonable. Case in point, one of the two or three times this has happend to me in my life, my ID was invalid as it had expired several months before. They were basically like "Well you better get a new one soon, m'kay?" and then sent me on my way. YMMV of course.

The big difference though between the ID card thing and privacy violations by spying is that the spying happens behind people's backs, and they may never know how broadly their rights are violated until one day the gathered information is used against them. There can be no effective oversight and that's why it must not be allowed to happen in the first place.

If on the other hand the police started abusing their authority – acting like dicks, grabbing people en masse to check their IDs on every street corner, it would be immediately obvious to everyone and could presumably be corrected (by vote, protest, civil disobedience, etc).

<comment><USER26> Yes but in the UK having a passport is not required. And a short while ago on on here some one living in Germany commented that it was funny how it was the Non Ethnic Germans that got stopped a lot more.

<comment><USER27> > [...] it was the Non Ethnic Germans that got stopped a lot more.

That's probably true to some extent. I imagine though that the situation is similar in other countries, and the problem is racism in itself. It's sad, but it has nothing to with the ID requirement.

Just look at the US; they may not require an ID, but it sure does not seem to stop their police from physically abusing anyone who looks at them the wrong way. Or in rare cases, literally beating up or even murdering someone just because they're black/mexican/whatever.

(Disclaimer: I've never been to the US. American pop culture may have distorted my view on the American police. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> "Memories of Stasi color Germans' view of U.S. surveillance programs"

Might as well have written: "Memories of segregation and lynching color African American's view of modern day bigots".

I mean the "color" part tries to make it as something strange (or even bad, some kind of "distortion") is happening, when it's the most natural thing in the world: actual historical experience with the issue, makes German's more informed on what it can result to and more sensitive to how bad it is.

I'm always amazed to what BS spin columnists put on their stories. And not always innocently.

<comment><USER29> But this guy was a colonel in the Stasi.

If a similar interview with someone who did participate in lynchings were conducted, I don't think your second title would be all that far off. But racial bigotry isn't the hot issue right now. I think it's helpful to draw parallels to the past - and a title like that might help encourage people to actually _read_.

<comment><USER30> > _But racial bigotry isn 't the hot issue right now._

It seems to be in a limited extent, though not for news items that are relevant on HN.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31>
        Dagmar Hovestaedt is the spokeswoman for the German
        Stasi Records Agency, which showed 88,000 people last
        year what the Stasi had gathered on them. She said the
        U.S. should consider doing the same.

The Stasi Records Agency is known in Germany as "Gauck Behörde"[1], because for ten years its head was the anti-communist civil rights activist Joachim Gauck.

Gauck is now President of Germany and when Barack Obama was in Berlin they met and according to the schedule talked for one hour.

I was curious which topics they discussed, but unfortunately it was not covered in the press.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Commissioner_for_the_St...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Commissioner_for_the_Stasi_Archive)

</comment><comment><USER32> The US is in need for a full operating system upgrade. Like going from Mac OS 9 to OS X. Not a .1 upgrade. Obama delivered a Microsoft-style upgrade. You were promised 'hope' and 'change'. What you got is a worse version of Microsoft Windows with lots of spyware and a built-in 'security' system.

<comment><USER33> We need to re-write the damn kernel

<comment><USER34> Not really. The US Constitution is fine. What we need is compliance on the part of the government.

<comment><USER32> It's broken. You need a rewrite.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Clarification: Merkel said "Das Internet ist für uns alle Neuland", not "the Internet is new to all of us.".

Now Neuland does not just mean "new", but "new land". Similar as America or Africa was new land after 1500. So it means, the internet is ripe to conquer it.

Merkel herself was a former Stasi member, known as IM-Erika (Informal Member Erika). Germany is currently tapping more phones, then DDR ever had. We do not have a PRISM scandal, but a law called Vorratsdatenspeicherung.

<comment><USER32> What you write is misleading.

Merkel was not a Stasi member and she was not known as 'IM Erika'. There are some rumors, but that's it mostly.

The law 'Vorratsdatenspeicherung' is ruled unconstitutional by the 'Verfassungsgericht'.

That the Internet is 'Neuland' is trivially true. I have been using the Internet since the mid 80s. But what we currently have is completely different, of a different quality and unprecedented.

<comment><USER36> [http://www.imagebanana.com/view/r8cwnbcl/satire_01_april_201...](http://www.imagebanana.com/view/r8cwnbcl/satire_01_april_2012_mail3.jpg)

plz call it conspiracy, but mr.gauck was the one holding his thunbs on their secret files,...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> My favorite stasi joke: After the wall came down all the former stasi agents got jobs as taxi drivers - you get in the cab, tell the driver your name, and they already knew the address to take you home.

</comment><comment><USER38> This story always disturbed me about the Stasi: [http://theresagameinthat.blogspot.de/2011/06/stasi-scent- lib...](http://theresagameinthat.blogspot.de/2011/06/stasi-scent-library.html)

</comment><comment><USER39> My son just asked why the English are so bad "spying on Europeans". I reassured him by saying that most western governments are almost cetainly corrupt (inc dear old Australia). And he who controls the databases controls the politicians, police, lawyers, judges ... You get the idea. And even better, just because you've got nothing to hide, it's easy for these databases to be changed by someone in the know. These systems are extremely dangerous, and should not be underestimated.

</comment><comment><USER40> Good! I'm glad some people still remember history. Sadly, it looks like we're going to be doomed to repeat it rather we remember it or not.

</comment><comment><USER5> What I find suspiciously absent from the relevations so far is the DNA angle. If the STASI had had todays technology, they would have tapped all phones, stored all data, and collected DNA samples wherever they can. Assuming that all spy agencies think more or less alike on the issue of data gathering, why haven't we heard of the NSA collecting DNA samples?

<comment><USER41> The US government's acquisition of people's biometric information, including DNA, has already been outed by WikiLeaks in their release of the Embassy cables a few years ago. Did you see this story? [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables- documents/...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables- documents/202678)

The text of the original cable: [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy- cables-documents/...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables- documents/202678)

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Not surprising. DHS hired an old Stasi hand and an old KGB hand as advisors under Dubya:

[http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Jan05/Whitney0121.htm](http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Jan05/Whitney0121.htm)

<comment><USER43> Bullshit. Even your own source acknowledges that they can't confirm these reports.

<comment><USER42> Thank you. Sorry for posting bad info. It's a good reminder to doublecheck what I think I know.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Let's keep some perspective. The fear of the Stasi wasn't just 'are they tapping our phones?' If it was, they wouldn't have been so feared - just be careful on the phones. It was having a network of informants, such that you couldn't trust anyone, anywhere, that really caused the oppressive atmosphere. Americans are not living under the fear that if they mention something anti- government to a neighbour, they have a realistic chance of being carted off in the night.

</comment><comment><USER44> love the framing in the title.

 _knowledge of death and disease colours doctors ' views on healthy living_

</comment><comment><USER45> "Access to the Brandenburg Gate, the backdrop for his speech, was severely limited"

The irony is palpable.

</comment><comment><USER46> Germans are referring to the States as Stasi 2.0.

The new and improved updated version of tyranny.</comment>


Quickest way to $30,000 profit after taxes? - <AUTHOR> I'm a programmer employed full time. I need to find a way to earn 30,000 dollars or so after taxes to pay for some health related debt I incurred last year. What kind of site or online activity would you start in your free time to make that kind of money? <comment><USER2> I've got into ticket scalping lately. It's not legal in many states but it is completely legal in my state as long as you do it online and conduct business using your real name. Check your local laws.

It is really, really easy. All you do is check <http://ticketstumbler.com/blog/> for upcoming sales and refresh ticketmaster at 10AM when they're on sale. I don't use a script, though a simple one to get you direct to the CAPTCHA would save 2 seconds which definitely makes a difference in quality of seats.

Some intuition about what will be instant sellouts is needed. This is the best one going on soon: a legendary performer known for rarely touring and he is playing tiny venues. [http://www.ticketmaster.com/Leonard-Cohen- tickets/artist/733...](http://www.ticketmaster.com/Leonard-Cohen- tickets/artist/733217?tm_link=tm_homeA_k1)

Don't buy seats at the back of large amphitheaters unless it is for Phish.

It's easiest to sell on Stubhub but using Craiglist can add 8-10% to your margins. It's annoying to have to email/call back and forth with the people though.

<comment><USER3> Wow, that's genius! Let me make sure I have you straight (I've never heard of this before)...

You check the TicketStumbler blog for hot pre-sale tickets. You buy them for face value when they go on sale (10AM?) hoping they'll get sold out. Then, you flip them on StubHub/Craigslist after they're sold out? What if the show doesn't get sold out?

Also, did I understand you correctly in that TicketMaster gives the best tickets to the first people who buy them, and you might get bad seats buying at 10AM? How can you tell if the seats are good enough?

Thanks for the info :)

<comment><USER2> Yeah, you got it. It's not just presales, there isn't a big difference between buying in a presale and a regular sale. Presale just gives you two shots at it.

The tickets are first come first served so whoever completes the CAPTCHA fastest gets the best tickets. However, some will always be released when people don't actually complete the transaction. So you can keep trying again and again for 15 minutes or so. Whatever you do, do not try to buy different tickets at the same time on the same computer. You cannot buy tickets for two cities at once, you will lose all your tickets. You need a VPN or your cell phone internet if you want to start playing that game.

The best way to decide on a show is to look at the listings on Stubhub for a show by that artist that is already on sale. Assume that to sell a ticket you need to beat the lowest price on Stubhub. This isn't always possible and that's where your intuition comes into play. If you're in doubt about whether or not to purchase, feel free to email me and ask. For now, Leonard Cohen is a really good one to start with. The presale passwords are easy to find on google. Phish will also be announcing more shows soon and they are just about the hottest ticket this summer.

In a small theater, any seat is good enough. In a pavillion, only the front sections or the front of the rear sections are ok. The back of the rear sections in pavilions are a trap. Lawn tickets usually don't have very good margins. In an arena, anything that isn't behind the stage is usually ok. This is because in a pavilion the rear seats are usually the same price as the front seats, but in an arena the upper seats are significantly cheaper.

I haven't had a show yet where I have lost money, but I make my picks carefully. 200% profit isn't very common though. 50% profit is probably a realistic average. I may end up getting rid of Billy Joel/Elton John tickets soon at just a little over cost.

<comment><USER4> Why would anyone want to do this? It is completely zero sum. You aren't creating any wealth, even if you are making money.

<comment><USER5> You are essentially performing arbitrage.

For the person who has a little more money, but not enough patience or planning to login to the ticket website at 10am, actors like the commenter are creating wealth for this person.

<comment><USER6> But if the ticket scalper hadn't been scraping the ticket website at 10am in the first place, the ticket would still be on sale.

(Okay, it likely would've gone to someone else who got there after 10 but before the customer. But now you're cheating that person out of the ticket they otherwise would've had. Still zero-sum.)

<comment><USER7> Insert Inigo Montoya quote here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Porn, drugs, or gambling. ;-)

Joking aside, I think the easiest way to make $30k after taxes is to drastically cut your living expenses and save $30k. To make $30K after taxes, you'd have to make close to $50K before taxes (I assume you have a decent programmer's salary already, and this'll put you in a high bracket). There aren't many ways to make $50K in a hurry without a long ramp-up period. If you could, everyone would quit their day job and make their freelance business their real one.

<comment><USER8> Good news, you can deduct medical expenses over 7.5% of your income.

<http://www.bankrate.com/brm/itax/tips/20010323a.asp>

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Well first things first you need to realize that the $30,000 price tag takes into account the fact that they think they are charging insurance. If the hospital realizes you are actually paying this yourself, the price will come down.

Second of all you need to realize that there is absolutely no reason for you to pay that amount in a lump sum. Do you think your average person has $30K on hand to pay? Work out a payment plan with the hospital so that you can pay it off a small amount at a time.

Third you need to realize that there is pretty much no way to make $30K after taxes "quickly" as a sidejob. So you need to think long term for the solution.

<comment><USER10> What vaskel said.

You may have more leverage than you think. I'm pretty sure in my state (Kansas) your credit rating _cannot_ be dinged for late payment on a medical bill. Used to be the case anyway. It would be handy to know if that was true for you too.

When my father got sick there was a flood of bills. I just sent every creditor $20 a month. I figured they would be happy to get anything since so many people pay nothing. I never made any formal payment plans or arrangments. This worked fine.

Another thing you might do is challenge large bills. I challenged a big bill with several charges, don't remember why, but they ended up adjusting it down _more_ than what I asked for, on _different_ charges than the ones I was objecting to. They could not explain this, just "that's what the reviewers came back with". Give them the opportunity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> If you can't afford to pay back $30k for health care don't forget to try to negotiate with the hospital/doctors. You should be able to get a large discount on that amount if you agree to actually pay it back (instead of never paying a dime, which is what they're used to).

<comment><USER12> Just ask them one simple question: "Is that the best you can do?"

[http://www.popswallet.com/2009/02/is-that-the-best-you- can-d...](http://www.popswallet.com/2009/02/is-that-the-best-you-can-do/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Just take on a conventional second job to make the money. If you reduce your living expenses at the same time, that will make your earning requirements for the second job lower.

Aside from inventing an innovative idea or finding an existing business idea that is good but not yet being done, that's the only sure way to make the kind of profit you're needing.

I'm sorry you're in such a position and can only hope that you are now cured of the medical ailments that got you into this position in the first place.

<comment><USER14> Sorry for downmodding you - I blame microscopic arrows and lack of undo.

Your advice is some of the best in this thread. Entrepreneurship is about taking on risk, which is exactly the opposite of predictable money.

Perhaps a second "conventional job" isn't what's called for, but consulting definitely is. The important part is to get paid _now_ rather than hoping to strike it rich through sweat equity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> _"I need to find a way to earn 30,000 dollars or so after taxes..."_

Learn objective-C and create an iphone app that is novel but incredibly simple. Should be based on a humorous topic (e.g. iFart, Sound Grenade) That should be able to bring in 30k in a day. If you don't have a mac to hack on, turn your pc into a hackintosh.

Write me back with the results. Good luck :)

<comment><USER16> I find this to be the best suggestion thus far. iPhone apps are making more and more money each day. I believe the percentage is 70/30 nowadays. So If you sell 15,000 copies of your game at a price of $2.99 a piece you will bring in 70% or $31,395 which will be pretty close to bringing you to your goal (still have to pay taxes.)

<comment><USER11> I think the problem is that there actually is a lot of lead time on this. I think a lot of the explosive apps you see were people that started early and had a lot of failures before they finally got a win. Still a bit of a gold rush going on, but it is a gold rush. Most people strike out.

<comment><USER17> I've been making iPhone apps for about 7 months now. My third app was approved less than 2 days ago. Here is a brief summary of my experience:

First app \- a 0.99 cents novelty app \- 1 month dev time \- 3 months wait for approval \- sold about 1500 copies to date \- received about $300 from Apple (more on the way) \- sales are down to about 10 copies / day

Second App \- simple, innovative 0.99 cents game that wasn't polished \- 1.5 months dev time \- 2 days wait for approval \- sold about 150 copies in the first few days \- received small amount of money from Apple \- sales immediately dropped to < 1 copy / day after the first week \- app removed from store 3 weeks after release

Third app \- super-simple free noise making app a la sound grenade, ifart etc \- 5 hours dev time \- 1 week wait for approval \- 250 downloads the first day (today is the second day) \- no money yet... an ad-supported version is awaiting approval into app store

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> If there were some fast way to make $30k, everyone would already be doing it.

<comment><USER19> No.

If there was some way that was EASY to earn $30k, everyone would be doing it.

Just like if there was some way that was EASY to lose 30 lbs, everyone would be doing it.

In fact, there are drop-dead simple ways to earn $30k and to lose 30 lbs.

Take on a second job.

Tons of first generation immigrants work 60 and 70 hour weeks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> No easy route that is legal. if you are innovative, you can find unique business idea - but the sole goal should not be to make money quick, since those endeavors typically don't embody the passion to be successful in the business. See: _The Entrepreneur's Manual: Business Start-Ups, Spin-Offs, and Innovative Management_ by Richard M. White. Though it is out of print, you might find it used on abebooks.com

</comment><comment><USER21> Borrow $3,000,000, loan it, collect loan with interest, pay back loan. Result ~$30,000.

Easier said than done. It is, after all, what got us into this mess.

</comment><comment><USER22> Get a second job? You'll start making money the first week, guaranteed!

</comment><comment><USER4> Bankruptcy is by far the fastest way for this special case where you are using the profit to eliminate a debt. Warning: won't work for student loans from the government.

</comment><comment><USER23> I am in the process of doing this right now but I can't tell you my secret. I can, however, sell you my secret to making $30,000 for a low price of $500.

</comment><comment><USER24> Record and sell hacker screencasts a la PeepCode.

</comment><comment><USER25> The fastest way to $30,000 profit after taxes is to rob a bank. :-)

<comment><USER14> No, the fastest way to $30,000 profit after taxes is to be the one collecting taxes.</comment></comment>


Brizzly Picnic: "You don't want to hear about a pretend farm." - <AUTHOR> http://brizzly.com/a_picnic_for_every_house

<comment><USER2> Another... social networking site? I don't get it.</comment>


Ask HN: How to inject code within a js so that it cannot be auto detected - <AUTHOR>

I have a piece of code (a) which i would like to inject in an existing piece of code (b). I would not like this injection to be auto detected. It is assumed that (b) is always subject to change
My approach was to create a random var (x) which would have the code (a) split and concatenated in random locations within (b)
For example:
Var x="var code=fu";{random piece of (b)};x+="nction(";{random piece of (b)};x+="){}";{random piece of (b)};eval(x);{random piece of (b)}
1. Would you approach this problem differently? 2. How would you detect for root-level code within (b) - aka random locations outside loops or functions <comment><USER2> Assuming this is JavaScript in a browser, I guess it depends on who you're trying to fool. It sounds like your going for obfuscated or "underhanded" code.

Just messing around, here's something you might try. You might convince someone to paste in a CSS link and an obscure but short snippet of JavaScript. (Okay!) Then:

        <link rel="stylesheet" href="//your.domain/style.css" id="ok"></link>

Serve a stylesheet at your.domain/style.css and serve JavaScript at your.domain/style.css?x. The JS here will fetch that as text and eval it.

<comment><AUTHOR> But this could be auto blocked by blocking style.css.

My assumption is that i am in control of both (a) and (b) so i can mess around with the output of (b) to have all of (a) within itself.

The problem is how to best inject (a) inside (b), without using any 3rd party resources, which could be blocked automatically</comment></comment>


Q for Programmers: Why search for code, when you can sweat and code yourself - <AUTHOR>

Being a programmer myself, I understand the path of how the application is to take, visualize and then write the code.
I got a programmer here who downloads classes from the internet and uses them and never writes the code himself.  What is the psychology behind such an act.  Does he not know programming, or he is just lazy.
I want to understand the reason, why he does not write but uses others classes, please exclude the fact its there and need not have to write the code. <comment><USER2> I got my own theory, when i started programming, i was writing all the code by myself, just to understand all, but when it comes to write n-th time datepicer, or so, i use my old code, or download some new fancy good working code just to save my time, cuz i exactly know how it works. I dont get it bad to do so, as long, as you are good to write all this things by yourself :D But it can be true than in lack of skill someone can just google "awsome stuff doing source code" and use it, is this bad ? Its bad for programmer, who wont learn how to do it, but its $$ for company that save time.

</comment><comment><USER3> There's a difference between taking random code from stackoverflow or blogs and using a tried and trusted library. The latter is good: you're getting code that is well understood and probably with less bugs. The former is generally a sign of a bad developer. Someone who doesn't know what they're doing, so just pastes random bits of code from the internet until it works, without ever understanding why.

<comment><AUTHOR> Radical: There is policy followed, do not use code from the internet, just write your own code. Forgetting the above, I just want to know the psychology part, on why would someone keep taking libraries from the internet, after being repeatedly said not to do so

<comment><USER4> You never said anything about said programmer being told not to do it.

Don't mess about - ask what you really want.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Do you want the work to get done? What's the fastest way?

If I want a robust, reliable, thoroughly tested library routine, it's better to pull it from somewhere else, provided I know it's been hammered by others. Why waste time writing something that's available? Why not save my time, effort and skill for writing the things that are specific to the job at hand?

<comment><AUTHOR> Not when you have suffered a hack. You could pull a code out from google, it would be safe, but certainly not from anyone.

<comment><USER4> But that's just a question of due diligence. Anyone who pulls random code from unknown sources with no evidence of testing or competence gets what they deserve.

Yes, there are people who seem never to write code, and there are others who seem endlessly to re-invent the wheel to no good purpose.

I guess I just don't understand what you're asking. So I'll give up.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> deadlines?</comment>


Sally Ride, First American Woman In Space, Is Dead - <AUTHOR> http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/07/23/157250870/sally-ride-first-american-woman-in-space-is-dead

<comment><USER2> RIP Sally Ride. She was a personal inspiration as a child because I saw a woman going into space as an indication of the opening up of space to 'normal' people. She was also a scientist and not a military person.

<comment><USER3> > _"I saw a woman going into space as an indication of the opening up of space > to 'normal' people."_

This is one area where the Soviets had us beat:

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

<comment><USER4> Um, no. Valentina was the first woman in space in 1963. However, the Russians didn't fly another woman in space for the next 20 years, not until we flew Sally Ride. We've flown a female astronaut almost every year since, they've flown one. The full count is: US, 45 female astronauts, Russia/SU: 3.

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

To this day the Russians still have a superstition that flying with a woman is bad luck, and many of them refuse to fly with one.

<comment><USER3> thus, "had" us beat rather than "have" us beat.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Sally Ride comes out as a lesbian in her obituary: [http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/first-female-us- astrona...](http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/first-female-us-astronaut- sally-ride-comes-out)</comment>


The Supreme Backdoor Factory - <AUTHOR> https://dfir.it/blog/2019/02/26/the-supreme-backdoor-factory/ <comment><USER2> Fascinating. The author uncovers a huge web of fake accounts across GitHub and SourceForge which are used to push backdoored versions of legitimate software installers. A good reminder to be cautious when downloading "unofficial builds" and to always check checksums for official ones.

There's also a really unexpected connection with sneaker-buying bots, which was a surprise to me. I did not know the lengths to which sneakerheads would go to to procure new shoes. I wonder if these backdoor bots are used just to give someone an extra leg up on online auctions and sales of sneakers...that's some real twisted dedication right there.

<comment><USER3> The after market for "exclusive" sneakers is at a crazy peak right now. You can buy a $250 shoe and flip it for $500-$1000 nearly instantly. So it's not just old school sneakerheads looking for cool shoes - it's big business.

There are whole sub-industries within this bubble, too. People selling sneakerbot code, people selling purchase alert services, people selling access to private dischord groups that alert you to upcoming sales, etc. It's huge.

<comment><USER4> My co-worker and I (he was into sneakers, I was into money) used to have a nice little business arbitraging sneakers. Pretty easy to make 100%-500% returns with a little code and some ebay dedication.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> So what does this mean for the people who have created bots for sneaker sites? I actually used to write code for those sneaker bots and run a slack group (before we all moved to discord), but I've never encountered oddities in the code builds for bots I used. This may be going over my head a bit but does this mean that the builders for the bot installs could contain malicious code?

<comment><USER6> In short, yes - could be. The blog shows at least one case where this has happened in practice.

Semi-unrelated, but why did you end up moving from Slack to Discord, if I may ask?

<comment><USER7> The demographic of people buying the bots are not... very technical. Discord is what they are "used to".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I know I'm late to the party and this is probably the stupidest question in the world but one never knows unless one asks, yeah? How did he/she know the binaries were packed with upx?

<comment><USER9> There's various analysis tools that can identify common packers, and I think you can at least guess UPX by looking at the file contents and seeing the string "UPX" a few times, which it uses as markers for something.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> If you want to find malware with no AV signatures, look at no-name warez of medium popular and niche professional software, and honey-net via unpatched Windows computers on exo-DMZ unfiltered IP addresses. I saw this one sample behavioral analysis of a trojaned well-known firewall product for Mac that tries to download Google Chrome in order to clickbot... no AV signature for it. With the right APT defenses, such as a root priv esc, SIP bypass and process & file cloaking, it would be entirely possible to keep nodes pwned much longer, at the cost of 2-3 sploits... and better use such farm for a big money-maker.

<comment><USER11> > and better use such farm for a big money-maker.

So...like raise goats or something?</comment></comment>


Show HN: Micromort Calculator - <AUTHOR> http://rorystolzenberg.github.io/micromort-calculator/ <comment><AUTHOR> After yesterday's micromort discussion[1], I whipped up a quick app to calculate micromorts & micromorts/day. Written in React, code on GitHub.[2]

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10571077](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10571077)

[2] [https://github.com/RoryStolzenberg/micromort- calculator](https://github.com/RoryStolzenberg/micromort-calculator)</comment>


Goodbye Popcorn Time - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@getpopcornapp/goodbye-popcorn-time-93f890b8c9f4 <comment><USER2> "Piracy is not a people problem. It's a service problem. A problem created by an industry that portrays innovation as a threat to their antique recipe to collect value. It seems to everyone that they just don't care."

I remember hearing when piracy became mainstream (and even a decade later) that:

1) It was only going to help the artists. 2) People that pirate buy, so there would be no loss in revenue.

It really only ended up hurting the indy artist that wanted to eek out a living selling music online, because now that we have generations of kids growing up with free music, they feel they are entitled to it and will not pay for it.

Larger artists were hurt too, but they will still make a pretty good living. It also means that if you are a smaller artist and want to get signed, it's that much harder (again, only hurting the smaller artist).

It's also ironic because the mere fact that so many people are pirating will mean companies will put less money into those works in the future (because they aren't recouping investment costs) meaning less of a chance you will get what you want by pirating (no DRM, released in all areas, etc).

I predicted that it would gut and decimate the industry 15 years ago when Napster came out, and I was right.

</comment><comment><USER3> Very confusing, can a mod add the year to this? (2014)

</comment><comment><USER4> are you kidding? That's like more than year old story. You are confusing everyone by posting the story</comment>


Piketty's new War and Peace-sized book: Expands on Capital in the 21st Century - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/sep/09/thomas-pikettys-new-magnum-opus-published-on-thursday <comment><USER2> "that the voting power of even the largest shareholders should be capped at 10%"

I know a specific high profile company that would really dislike that :D

<comment><USER3> At face value this proposal makes no sense because it means that the total voting rights are less than 100%...</comment></comment>


From beginning to end, the story of a failed parking startup - <AUTHOR> http://chrishoog.com/from-beginning-to-end-the-story-of-a-failed-parking-startup/

<comment><USER2> I heard a rumor once, and I have no idea how true it may be. But the rumor goes something like this: parking lots, beyond being ridiculously lucrative and turn-key businesses, are also fantastic money-laundering or tax-dodging opportunities. And so many of them are owned by shady characters, or shady companies. These types don't necessarily want to deal with things like processing credit cards, or getting into paper trails (although some modern parking lots are using credit card readers, for convenience's sake).

This sounds pretty fanciful, but it doesn't seem _entirely_ implausible.

Occam's Razor says that the garage managers weren't interested because they're doing just fine, and your service wasn't solving a greater problem than the inconvenience of manually dealing with bids would cause. But I wonder if there's another factor at play here. :)

Anyhow, this is a great recap of your approach, and I'm sure it's been a fantastic learning experience for you both. Thanks for writing this, and for sharing it! On another level, it frustrates me to read your story: it seems like you guys had identified a real problem with users ready to try it out, and the other side of the market just didn't have the same degree of need. That sucks.

<comment><USER3> Tax-dodging seems plausible, but money-laundering seems like it would be tricky. The income is very consistent, and the buying a lot from an existing owner would be pricey.

It is much better to buy something like an unprofitable nightclub. It doesn't raise any alarms when a nightclub goes from $300k/year to $1M/year in cash under new ownership. The same can't be said for a parking lot.

Strip clubs are also pretty good. It is really hard to prove that the VIP room gate wasn't $1000/night.

<comment><USER4> > It doesn't raise any alarms when a nightclub goes from $300k/year to > $1M/year in cash under new ownership.

Actually, these things can happen. It's a bit anecdotal (then again, most of the "wisdom" I have to part from running a retail biz is) but no end of business brokers and fellow business owners talk about being cautions regarding taxes and reporting right around a change of ownership. Combined with the fact that people don't report as much as they should in the first place...

At least in California, the BOE and IRS and any other relevant agencies (ABC for alcohol, the banks used for funding, the city giving out business permits, etc.) like to pay special attention to these kinds of businesses. Even if the business is actually doing better, I was told to not deviate from the previous owner's numbers too much unless I have concrete proof of purchasing more than usual from easily traceable sources (so probably not the shady small warehouse store, but Costco Business and Sysco instead). I've seen a friend be audited because she wasn't reporting anywhere near what seemed right for the amount of groceries she was buying, and a former owner of another business because the new owner reported way more in sales for the same amount of business (only because the new owner was stupid enough to try to flip the business looking like it was in better shape in a year).

All that said, it's probably easier to eventually raise a nightclub's "profitability" than it is to do the same for a parking lot.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Funny how this old post resurfaced after my new published last night. This post is two years old. See my new insight on where we went wrong, where I slap myself in the face:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6340820](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6340820)

</comment><comment><USER6> This is 2 years old. Here's a better version: [http://chrishoog.com/the- helloparking-postmortem-a-look-back...](http://chrishoog.com/the-helloparking- postmortem-a-look-back-and-a-new-perspective/)

The last part is spot on, and says what you were probably just about to try to tell him (self-righteously I'd bet!).

<comment><USER5> Thanks for sharing. Somehow, in the wake of my new post my old one resurfaced...

<comment><AUTHOR> Didn't mean to steal a submission. I searched for it and couldn't find it.

<comment><USER5> No worries - I'm honored

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The AirBnB of Parking. The ZipCar of Parking. The Priceline.com of Parking. The Groupon of Parking.

There's your problem. You kept imitating other businesses instead of doing what makes sense for your customers.

<comment><USER5> It took me two years, but I figured that out exactly. This post is two years old. See mine from yesterday where I slap myself in the face: [http://chrishoog.com/the-helloparking-postmortem-a-look- back...](http://chrishoog.com/the-helloparking-postmortem-a-look-back-and-a- new-perspective/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> _Where possible, avoid creating a two-sided market unless there is asubstantial want or need on both ends._

This seems like an over-generalization.

I think the idea was a good one - more plausible than many others, and with an actual revenue model. I suspect that someone with better luck and/or execution will pull it off.

Interesting and insightful story - thanks.

<comment><USER9> There are many startups like this: SpotHero (Chicago), ParkWhiz (NYC). I wonder if they are facing a similar fate, or what is different about them.

<comment><USER10> SpotHero is operating in Boston now, too.

<comment><USER5> It seems all of those that are doing well (SpotHero, ParkWhiz) have strayed from the "rent my spot" model to the Parking yield management model...

<comment><USER11> Yup.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> _Angel investors, especially, know that their money will go farther with a student who can live off cheap rent and Ramen noodles._

Very true point. This seems to be behind YC too. The labor is cheap and the work ethic is high.

<comment><USER13> Ageism: it's awesome!

The More You Know™

<comment><USER12> Perhaps more unfortunate than awesome. But I get the economics. And as someone on the other side... There are those who can afford the sacrifice, and those who prefer to wait until someone else has made that sacrifice. There's room for both.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Thanks a lot for posting this. I'm joining a startup next week as the first round of employees and there are definitely some good lessons in this article and the updated version to keep in mind. Thanks again!!!

</comment><comment><USER15> I know it would probably not be easy[1], but it seems like someone who bought a parking lot then started building the app might get pretty good result.

1) buying costs $ and running is a pain</comment>


IBM has built a digital rat brain that could power tomorrow's smartphones - <AUTHOR> http://qz.com/481164/ibm-has-built-a-digital-rat-brain-that-could-power-tomorrows-smartphones/?utm_source=sft <comment><USER2> > a system has about 48 million digital neurons, which is roughly as many as > found in the brain of a rodent.

The count of neurons alone does not make a (rat) brain. The degree to which they are connected, the higher-level layouts, the fidelity of the neurons and many other things are also necessary.

It's like having the world's smallest bowl filled with soup of short DNA strands worth 3 billion base pairs and saying your bowl is similar to the human genome.

<comment><USER3> The first sentence literally says why it's not just due to count of neurons.

 _In August 2014, IBM announced that it had built a "brain-inspired" computer chip—essentially a computer that was wired like an organic brain, rather than a traditional computer._

That's not to say it is equivalent to a rat-brain, there will obviously be differences in efficiency of components and portions that aren't replicated correctly or just plain done differently, but your analogy is no better than what you accused the article of.

<comment><USER4> ...so the phrase "wired like an organic brain" is enough to brush off any skepticism?

It'd be rather impressive if it actually did a large number of things that rats do, but a testing environment for that is rather hard to arrange. In the absence of a "rat benchmark" you can build anything and say it's wired like a rat's brain.

<comment><USER3> I never said it didn't deserve criticism, just that the criticism is not absolved of the responsibility to make useful, supported arguments as well.

I thought the GP post had a point that could be made, but I think they went about it sloppily, and the analogy used in the criticism was hyperbolic in the opposite direction as the article. The article's title was _mostly_ link-bait, but there were some weak assertions in the article that tried to back it up. The sibling comment at your level by avoid3d actually does a good job of trying to address some specifics problems of the claim, and if something similar to that was at the top level, I would either not bothered to reply, or actually looked into the criticisms by researching the chip if my interest was piqued (and if not beat to it by a useful reply from someone else). That's much more useful for discussion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> How does IBM keep doing cool stuff like this when every impression I have of them is a slow moving, lumbering, IT services monster that's lunging to provide solutions for Big Business?

<comment><USER6> This project is actually an example of how they _are_ slow-moving and lumbering. If they implemented state-of-the-art learning algorithms in silicon it would be amazing and potentially revolutionary and they'd have tons of customers. That would be deep convolutional neural nets. Instead they've gone with spiking neural nets, which have approximately nothing to do with the current state of the art in artificial neural networks.

Furthermore, you might be misled by their PR storm. In fact this chip doesn't implement learning at all. The learning is the important part! This chip is merely an accelerator for running pre-trained neural networks, and because of the spiking architecture those neural networks are doomed to perform poorly.

<comment><USER7> This cool research (just like Watson) seems like a loss-leader for selling consulting services which tailor the tech to very narrow, specific AI purposes. They're all breathlessly announced as though revolutionary, but none seem generalizable. Still, investing in so many small bets increases their exposure to a big win in the long run...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> IMO it would really inspire confidence to see one of these chips beat traditional neural networks at _something_...

Speech recognition, image recognition, tumor detection, whatever. I don't care, but _something_...

Right now it seems like a cheese shop that doesn't actually have any cheese. If this is such a superior super mega fantastic processor, one would think it could at least run AlexNet* or some sort of superior variant, no?

*[http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~fritz/absps/imagenet.pdf](http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~fritz/absps/imagenet.pdf)

<comment><USER9> One reason that these nets are not there yet, is that they are sticking to the 'firing' analogue of natural brains. They are using binary output over time that averages out, a technique that has so far been much slower than neural networks with continuous output.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I found an interesting comment from Yann LeCun about the TrueNorth chip which this seems to use: [https://www.facebook.com/yann.lecun/posts/10152184295832143](https://www.facebook.com/yann.lecun/posts/10152184295832143)

</comment><comment><USER11> Not totally relevant to the article, but:

> _Modha said his team's goal is to build a "brain in a shoebox," with over 10 > billion synapses, consuming less than 1 kilowatt hour of power—the minuscule > amount of power the human brain requires to work._

Can anyone even _guess_ what information they're trying to convey here? On the face of it, it makes no sense - it's like saying the brain consumes 90000 kcal, but over what period? A day? A month? A lifetime?

But I can't even figure what they're _trying_ to say. The human brain consumes about 20W (certainly not 1 kW!), so it would take about two days to use up 1 kWh of energy. I don't think that's what they're going for, but I can't think of any other reading of it that doesn't amount to basically a guess.

<comment><USER9> I imagine they meant kw, and that 20w is close enough to 1kw. (btw, I thought the human brain uses a lot more than 20w, maybe 20w in chemical signals, but a lot more in heat?)

<comment><USER11> The human body is about 100W-120W, which is about 2000-2500 kcal/day. 20W sounds right.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Here is the link to the paper on the programming language: [https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/91714474/Papers/020.IJCN...](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/91714474/Papers/020.IJCNN2013.Corelet.pdf)

<comment><USER12> I have to disagree with the paper's claims that OOP is the ideal language paradigm to be programming in. I worked for years in computational neuroscience, where most tools are OOP based. I left academia after drinking the pure functional programming kool-aid, now my work focuses on getting more mainstream adoption of FP. I hope that with an large enough paradigm shift, we will be able to write software for neuromorphic chips.

My point is that when programming SNNs, the primary concern is not _encapsulation_ but rather it should be _composition_ and _declaration_. In my opinion, most of the computational neuroscience programming field in in imperative dark ages when it comes to actually writing software that can account for biological behavior.

<comment><USER13> This is really interesting to me. I make money with OOP in the commercial arena. But I'm considering getting out and changing careers. Can you summarize WHY FP is superior? In this context is fine. If I'm asking too much, do you have a good paper which explains the necessity of FP to a OOP-head?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> These guys are using similar technology to the Boahen lab's:

[http://web.stanford.edu/group/brainsinsilicon/index.html](http://web.stanford.edu/group/brainsinsilicon/index.html)

In fact, I think some of the alumni now work at IBM, on this very project.</comment>


The Social Physics of Trump's Shock Tactics - <AUTHOR> http://nautil.us/blog/the-social-physics-of-trumps-shock-tactics <comment><USER2> Without the pointless veneer of physics, this phenomenon has been well- discussed under the moniker of "preference cascades".

For instance when you have large majorities in favor of immigration restrictions, preventing illegal immigrants from receiving public benefits, deporting immigrant criminals, etc, in the context of a massive gaslighting campaign to convince them they are an evil racist obsolete minority, it doesn't take that much of a spark to harness their latent preferences and make it clear their power level is greater than anticipated.

[http://www.fairus.org/facts/public- opinion](http://www.fairus.org/facts/public-opinion)

<comment><USER3> I cringe every time I hear the words "resonance" or "optics" used in politics.

OTOH, physics uses the term "laws" to describe absolute and unbreakable phenomena. In real life, laws are considerably more flexible ;)</comment></comment>