Which airlines ban the use of Knee Defenders during flight? - <AUTHOR> http://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/35765/which-airlines-ban-the-use-of-knee-defenders-during-flight <comment><USER3> I can't believe so many people see reclining as rude, it's the design of the seats. If the person in front of you reclines, recline your own seat.

This product is like covering up your neighbors reading light because it bothers you. It's not yours to turn on/off. Lack of space is part of air travel, if you can't fit your laptop on a tray that is reclined then pay for first class or get a smaller laptop.

<comment><USER4> By reclining your seat all the way back you're forcing the person behind you to recline his seat all the way back, which in turn forces the person behind the person behind you to recline his seat an so on, it's just not a very mindful thing to do because you're actively forcing your preferences on everyone else. I feel like reclining more than halfway through is only fair if there's nobody sitting behind you or if that person had already reclined his seat.

I don't think these are strict rules or anything, you are certainly entitled to do whatever you wish, it's really just a question of politeness.

<comment><USER5> _Airlines_ enforced their preferences on everybody else when they decided - <USER2> the cost of some very expensive additional weight - that seats can and should be able to recline. If they didn't intend for customers to recline the seats it's perfectly possible to install or modify seats to make reclining impossible (some do) or to instruct people not to recline seats at certain times it might be inappropriate (all do). They also designed seats so it wasn't wholly impossible to sit behind a reclined seat (or indeed climb out of the seat) without reclining. So the people forcing their preferences are the ones insisting they have the right to restrict the inclination of the seat in front.

Sure, out of politeness I might refrain from using the intended functionality of the seat if you ask nicely (same goes for switching off the light or redirecting the airflow nozzle, and I might choose to delay my toilet break to avoid disturbing your sleep). My sense of politeness tends to go out the window when people start suggesting its selfish or impolite for me _not_ to coordinate my cabin controls to their liking.

<comment><USER4> Yes I mostly agree with that, even though I don't normally recline my seat if someone behind me used a Knee Defender I'd definitely complain about it, just out of spite as it's also not a very polite thing to do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I really love reclining. As a tall guy, it makes long flights significantly better. Albeit I usually fly in economy on budget airlines so can't usually recline far, but I'm still appreciative of what I get. It saddens me that people want to disrupt others and disable functionality that the seat/plane was engineered to have. Although I always recline very slowly to be least shocking to the person behind me and obviously not during meal time etc.

<comment><USER7> As a tall guy, I find that my knees are at most a couple of inches from the seat in front. When the person in front of me reclines and their chair hits my knees, it's clear that I'll be uncomfortable for the entire remainder of the flight. I don't recline; I judge people who do it in front of me as selfish, and I don't want to be hypocritical.

<comment><USER8> "tall guy" is a qualitative statement, not quantitative.

I'm 6'4". My knees always touch the seat in front of me - reclining helps me angle my legs a bit more so I have a few more positions for my legs, particularly on 8+ hour flights, which I often take. It also helps my back hurt less, and often means a significant difference (>1 hour more) in the amount of sleep I get on a flight.

I'm not sure why using the seat as it's meant (particularly in response to someone else using the seat in the same way in front of you) is perceived as selfish.

Granted, I often purchase Economy Comfort/Plus/Premier seats on redeye flights of more than 6 hours, but sometimes it's not an option.

<comment><USER9> I'm 6'4" as well, and it really sucks that I should have to pay just to fit my legs in the seat, let alone be comfortable...

<comment><USER10> Come on, you have to buy longer jeans, and extra-long-sleeved shirts, and probably bigger shoes. They all cost more. And given society's worshipping of tall people, it can't really suck. Not buying it; no sympathy from me.

<comment><USER9> I'm not sure if you're joking or not, or what kind of shops you frequent, but I never had to pay any extra because my jeans were longer...

<comment><USER10> If you can find them at all. Not on the discount rack for sure. I end up having to buy them wherever I can find them, often at a ridiculous price.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Once I almost got my laptop crushed because the person sitting in front of me reclined their seat and it caught the laptop's screen (it was standing on the tray). If only I had this "knee defender" it wouldn't have been a problem. I mean, how is that guy supposed to know they shouldn't recline at this very moment? If they can't recline because of knee defender, they will ask me and I'll be able to save my laptop from danger.

<comment><USER12> Maybe you should just accept that using a laptop in economy is crazy to begin with. Read a book, use a tablet, enjoy the crappy in-flight, talk to your neighbour, or have snooze instead.

<comment><USER13> I may be showing my age here, but I remember when flying wasn't something to be dreaded. The few inches we've lost have really made a difference. Twenty years ago, you could read or use a laptop in coach and first-class was a frill for rich people.

In 2015, aside from the people with upgrades, most people in first-class don't want to be there (i.e. they're not there because they're wealthy, but because their disabilities or age make coach literally impossible) and most actual rich people fly private because even first class isn't great.

I find that the only thing that I can do on planes, these days, is take a pill, make sure I get 2 armrests (I'm 6' and 195 pounds) and nod off-- and I don't sleep very well. If we had 300 mph trains at competitive prices like Europe and Japan have, I'd rather take those.

<comment><USER12> 20 years ago very few people had laptops. In fact, say 20-25 years ago, flying at all was a luxury (at least for most of us in Europe). I don't dispute that legroom has become stingy as air traffic has increased, but I think it's unfortunate to use ye olden days to set expectations for today. 'Economy' implies getting people from A to B as economically as possible.

An inch of extra legroom means fewer seats on the plane, and even if I had to pay 5% ($40-50) more, then it's too much. Some of the 'premium economy' options aren't that expensive anyhow. I flew Virgin Atlantic in April and only paid something like $60 for a bit of extra room (and as a bonus, because few people do, had an empty seat next to me).

Another thing with regard to your age, and I mean no disrespect, is that I believe ones tolerance for certain kinds of discomfort tend to decrease with age.

<comment><USER13> _Another thing with regard to your age, and I mean no disrespect, is that I believe ones tolerance for certain kinds of discomfort tend to decrease with age._

I'm not that old (31). I just happen to remember a time when air travel wasn't horrible.

Older people are actually far more tolerant of discomfort. They just suffer more bodily pain when conditions aren't right.

5% being $40-50 means an airfare of $800 to $1000. If domestic flights cost that much, then we should consider airlines forgone for domestic travel and elect officials who'll make competent train service (not necessarily government run, but with infrastructural improvements and revisions of right- of-way laws that enable passenger rail competition) a #1 priority. As for international flights, the reason you see four-digit fares is the very high taxes on those, and the monopolies that airports have, and various other weird factors involving pilot unions and seniority tiers. NYC-HKG really should only cost about $850.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Some companies even advertise that your seat will recline more if you pay some extra for it.

Take a look: [https://www.voegol.com.br/pt-br/servicos/assento-mais- confor...](https://www.voegol.com.br/pt-br/servicos/assento-mais-confor..).

So, yes, reclining your seat is included in what you pay, you can even pay more to recline more your seat, and low-cost companies are known for having non-reclining seats ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low- cost_carrier](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-cost_carrier)).

</comment><comment><USER15> Some European charter airlines (i.e. airlines that move people for package holidays) now have fixed "slimline" seats that can't recline and are _incredibly_ uncomfortable.

We flew back from Turkey last year on a brand new Airbus with slimline seats and it was purgatory. I really hope this trend doesn't catch on with regular airlines.

<comment><USER16> I flew hundreds of times in EU, between different countries and using different airlines,and I have never ever been on a plane with reclining seats. It's mostly Airbuses A319/320 and Boeings 737-300 that I flew in, and none of them had adjustable seats.

<comment><USER15> I don't generally recline seats as although I'm 6'1" I've got relatively short legs... but those seats were an abomination and seemed to be fixed with the backs at an very steep angle.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I travel from time to time in Europe, and some airlines don't allow passengers to recline their seats (even though the seats are not fixed).

</comment><comment><USER18> So this device is basically a rude substitute for "hey would you mind not reclining so far? The seat is hitting my knees."?

</comment><comment><USER19> This thread is incredible.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3dYS7PcAG4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3dYS7PcAG4)

</comment><comment><USER20> Unfortunately the selected answer is meaningless. Quoting mine, which is below and has a higher score <grumble grumble>:

 _Such a list [of airlines] would not be meaningful. All airlines have wide rules to prohibit "tampering" with seats, with Knee Defenders or otherwise; you can improvise one with a well-sized bottle, after all. Those that point out the Knee Defender as banned are only making it explicit that this specific device is not allowed._

 _More to the point, if the passenger unable to recline complains, the flight attendants will insist that you stop using it._

<comment><USER21> Your answer is not an answer and should have been a comment instead.

Rejecting the premise of the question is very frustrating and causes some people to not bother with SE. At least leave a comment asking if they'd consider different types of answer, but otherwise just ignore the question.

<comment><USER20> So if somebody asks on SE "How many minutes should I microwave my baby to dry them after a bath?", you would not consider "Don't" an acceptable answer?

<comment><USER21> Can you not see the difference between the two questions? There's no point continuing this discussion if you can't.

<comment><USER20> Suppose the question was "Which airlines ban whacking reclining passengers on the head with rubber chickens?", and I answered "Well, they don't specifically ban assaults with rubber chickens, but any airline's T&C will have something banning violence against other passengers".

Is my answer still off-topic? And how does this differ from what's essentially the same Q & A re: Knee Defenders? At the end of the day, the issue is that _you can 't tamper aircraft_, not that you're doing it with a Knee Defender specifically.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Knee defenders are essential to me because I have long legs. But more importantly it protects my laptop. I've had an incident where the person in front of me suddenly reclined whilst I had my laptop on my tray table. The screen got stuck on the lever to lock the tray table and cracked under the pressure.

<comment><USER23> I usually just talk to the person in front of me to inform them that I'll use a laptop. Maybe I'm lucky but it's usually pretty easy to work it out. I had never heard of Knee Defenders before today. I think it's fairly rude to just install them.

<comment><USER24> Other people find it rude to recline.

I mean, I had people stop reclining because they couldn't move their seat. They look back and see me smiling because my knees block it.

Disclaimer: I'm from Europe, we usually fly in very small planes where there's literally no way to have space unless paying 2-3x the price for business class.

<comment><USER25> Same here :) I can handle 2 hours more less with no space (easy Jet for example), but anything more and my knees start to hurt.

I also think its incredible rude to recline, especially forcefully, like some people have done to me.

I think that these egomaniac people are the same that get to the end of an escalator and stop to see where they should go, or exiting a train and doing the same thing blocking the exit / entrance to anyone else.

<comment><USER26> I think you are projecting "egomaniac" on people who are likely ignorant of the problems they are causing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> This entire thread reads like:

"it's such a bummer that other people are so inconsiderate that it has to come to this."

<comment><USER19> Agreed. Makes me think of this Louis CK bit: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3dYS7PcAG4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3dYS7PcAG4)</comment></comment>


Top Tech Startups By Valuation - <AUTHOR> http://www.alphalogia.com/startup-finance.html

<comment><USER2> What is their criteria for a startup? Just non-public, or some other combination of things?

<comment><AUTHOR> Non-public; public valuation source.

(I just threw it together. I'll update it as things change.)</comment></comment>


BIG-i could be the first great home robot - <AUTHOR> http://www.gadgette.com/2016/04/26/big-i-could-be-the-first-great-home-robot/ <comment><USER2> Looks interesting, but will it eat furniture? (ref: "Not the Robots")</comment>


Copy and Paste Trick iPhone & iPod Touch - <AUTHOR> http://www.technobuzz.net/copy-and-paste-trick-iphone-ipod-touch/ Most of the iphone and iPod Touch User coamplain about lack of copy and paste Feature. Today, however, copy and paste between Safari and Mail is really coming to the iPhone, courtesy of two nifty JavaScript bookmarks from Pastebud. To start copying and pasting, you only have to bookmark two JavaScript files. You can do this either in the iPhone's browser, or the browser whose bookmarks you sync to the iPhone. The final step is to delete the first few characters of the bookmark, as it isn't possible to bookmark an actual script on the iPhone. <comment><USER2> Here's the real link: <http://pastebud.com/></comment>


Scott Adams explains CDOs - <AUTHOR> http://www.dilbert.com/fast/2008-12-13/ <comment><USER2> Explanation fail. This works perfectly well so long as you know how diseased the cows are, and the odds of any one cow dying are independent from the next. It's called math.

The actual _problem_ with CDOs is that the cows were all more diseased than the historical track record suggested (because _after_ they started putting together CDOs, a flawed incentive structure created a new motive to buy _sicker_ cows) and that the probability of one cow dying wasn't independent of the next cow dying.

<comment><USER3> Make that into a funny comic. I only learn from things spoken in a rectangular bubble.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Even this doesn't capture all of the problem.

As I understand it[1], there were people that made their living by taking the BBB tranches based on sick cows and re-securitizing them (dividing them into yet more tranches, some of which would be upgraded _again_ ). The more you did this, the closer you could get to having _all_ of the original subprime loans be AAA rated.

For an example, say you had 100 subprime loans. You divide them up into tranches, and the top 86 become AAA, and the other 14 become something else. Then you combine this left-over 14 with the left-overs from other funds, and end up with, say, 100 of these lower rated securities. You then divide this set of 100 up into yet more tranches, 86 of which become AAA and the remaining 14 become something lower. Combine this 14 with left-overs from yet other funds, repeat many times, and eventually you can get nearly everything to be highly rated.

There are claims that some groups of sick cows had dozens of levels of securities built up upon them, allowing ridiculously unsafe stuff to eventually become AAA.

[1] Described here: [http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/national- news/portfoli...](http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/national- news/portfolio/2008/11/11/The-End-of-Wall-Streets-Boom#page6)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> "What are the odds of them _all_ dying?"

"You'll get the last one standing!"

</comment><comment><USER5> Though the real problem was that the sick cows were signed off as fighting fit.

<comment><USER6> Not all of them where signed off as fighting fit. The assumption was that less than 10% would fail so you could break the risk out so someone who want's zero risk and is willing to only make 4% is safe as long as 80% of them live. The math would have been fine if each morgage was independent but because the economy as a whole tanked the default rate went way up and people who where not willing to take much risk still got a beating.

<comment><USER7> _The math would have been fine if each morgage was independent but because the economy as a whole tanked the default rate went way up and people who where not willing to take much risk still got a beating._

Close, but I'm going to disagree with you on one detail. The subprime debacle began in the spring of 2007, and really began to spiral out of control on July 26 with various calamities in the CDO markets. By August 6-10 (the week of quant turmoil) it was starting to have an effect on equity markets-- which were strong at the time, and didn't start taking a real beating until Jan. 2008.

The economy was strong in 2007, with 4.9% (annualized) growth in Q3. Subprime didn't blow up because the economy tanked, because the mess began during a great economy, and turned it into a bad one. Of course, the tanking of the economy has made the credit situation even worse and will lead to even more defaults.

The default rate goes up during a bad economy, and everyone knew that this risk was there, and that a cyclical recession would occur sooner or later. What caused the rate to be "unexpectedly" high was the prevalence of speculation. In a bad economy with falling house prices, a resident homeowner is still going to make his best efforts to avoid the embarrassment and hassle of foreclosure, even if he has negative equity. Negative equity is irrelevant if he's going to live there for 10 years. On the other hand, a greedy and unscrupulous speculator has no reason not to default.

<comment><USER6> To clarify people that where taking the high risk stuff got hit early when the economy was doing "well" but for the most part the "AAA" stuff could withstand a fair amount of foreclosures with little impact. The crap nobody wanted was really high risk so banks kept it which is one of the reasons why Lemon Brothers failed. Granted there was also a fair amount of crap rated like gold, but late 2007 to now we have been in a recession which kept feeding off of more and more people getting bitten as an ever increasing number of mortgages failed while nobody wanted to buy the property's.

Let's say a bank loans 300k on a house that was worth 200k but got inflated to 300k in a bubble fine somebody takes a 100k hit when it fails but they are only down 33%. However, if nobody is going to buy it for six months and by then it's only worth 150k and the spiral continues.

I also think the economy was fubar as early as 2005 with the fed using low interest rates to make everyone pretend that the economy was fine this was really helped by CDO's and people taking out risky mortgages. Then there was a little bump in interest rates which finally set this ball rolling but it was obviously going to happen at some point. Basically, when any little thing is going to upset the house of cards there is already a problem even if it looks ok.

PS: When the economy tanks it's a lot harder to prop up stupid companies so we are seeing a lot of things that where on their death beds for a while all fail but in the long term this is a good thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Ben Graham would buy sick cows for the price of dead cows any day.

</comment><comment><USER9> Ah, but are they _spherical_ cows?</comment>


Gmail contacts temporarily unavailable - <AUTHOR> http://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&ctx=mail&answer=106432

<comment><AUTHOR> for all or just for me?

<comment><USER2> Just for you.</comment></comment>


Wherein we're currently not doing deliveries, because Uber sucks - <AUTHOR> https://www.dnalounge.com/backstage/log/2017/06/14.html <comment><USER2> Looks like they don't like hackernews either, they are redirecting it to [http://imgur.com/32R3qLv](http://imgur.com/32R3qLv) now. If you open it up separately you can get to the article.

<comment> et-al (That's because it's owned by jwz, who's known to redirect links from HN.)

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> From the article:

"Uber just sprung on us that they are no longer offering the service of "deliveries". Now they offer the service of "integrated orders and deliveries". And only that.

That's right: if you want Uber to deliver your food, you also have to let them have your online ordering business.

And they gave us a luxurious six week deadline on this.

So Uber managed to get a monopoly in one industry -- restaurant food delivery -- and is leveraging that monopoly to eliminate the competition in a completely different industry -- online food ordering."</comment>


John Gruber: BlackBerry vs. iPhone - <AUTHOR> http://daringfireball.net/2008/05/blackberry_vs_iphone <comment><USER2> Yes, sorry no. This article, while well researched, is an ultimate fail.

I have both an iphone and a blackberry and there is no way in hell that an iphone can match the blackberry for what the blackberry is good for: email and communication.

I can and do type emails one handed, while I'm typing those emails it's not uncommon for me to receive instant messages (AIM/Blackberry/GTalk), recieve twits, etc. I can even type one handed without looking.

Maybe 2.0 will change this, but I doubt it. Blackberry will win for a long while. Furthermore, the stranglehold on the enterprise sector is going to be hard to crack because IT hates change that has no appreciable benefit.

<comment><USER3> I completely disagree. The blackberry doesn't even have a competent browser. No ajax support. For me also the keyboard is just unusable compared to the iphone. Pretty small screen also.

Blackberry does seem to have quite a hold in corporates etc, but in terms of usability the clear winner for me is the iPhone.

Also the email client on the iPhone is pretty awesome.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > _"In broad terms, BlackBerrys are optimized first for email; the iPhone for > the web. What's more important, an email client or a web browser? For most > people, and perhaps even most current BlackBerry users, the answer is > clearly the web."_

That's so wrong I don't even know how to tackle it.

You can be sure that if Apple is thinking like this, the item on my hip will be a blackberry for a very, very long time.</comment>


Show HN: CSSRooster – A Bot that Writes CSS Classes for HTML with Deep Learning - <AUTHOR> https://huu.la/ai/cssrooster <comment><USER2> Interesting project. But how is it going to be useful though?

<comment><AUTHOR> Good question! To be frankly, not much use for a normal development flow (maybe you can use it as a check to see how much compliant is your code with the 'standard'), but it's going to be used by Huula's editor to better identify different elements on a web page, the reason why this is useful there is because Huula editor has all the symantic and visual properties of every element and it can use this information to generate the same class names for similar elements.

<comment><USER3> I could see this being useful for all sorts of generated-code projects with some tweaking (naming variables, labelling sections in reverse engineering) - do you have any plans to release it?

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey, really thank you for your interest! Since this project will be part of Huula which I'm trying to build a business upon, it will not be released for now (will do when I fail tho, so stay tuned! ;D)

But, here's an example that's similar to CSSRooster's model [https://github.com/fchollet/keras/blob/master/examples/imdb_...](https://github.com/fchollet/keras/blob/master/examples/imdb_lstm.py), for the part that's different (mostly data preprocessing), you need to write your own according to your data anyway. Do let me know if you have any questions.

<comment><USER3> understandable, and best of luck with the business! Have you seen the AI design work that [https://thegrid.io/](https://thegrid.io/) are doing? It's interesting to watch the automation of design starting to come up as I'm working in a closely-related market myself. I'll be keeping an eye on your work for sure :)

Thanks for the link, I'll take a look at that - I don't know much wrt/ AI beyond basic ANN and genetic algorithm logic, but it's worth at least a few weekends!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your kind words! Yes, thegrid guys are really good at advertising, they had a very successful kickstarter campaign, but they failed to deliver an actual product. See this: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10140724](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10140724)

Huula focuses more on the technology and we really want to build something that's intelligent and amazing. CSSRooster is just our first step, there are certainly a lot of technical challenges to be solved, but I believe we'll have something soon, stay tuned.

<comment><USER3> huh, I hadn't heard about that. One less competitor though, right?

I'll definitely keep my eyes peeled for updates!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks!</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


How do you put a price tag on a video game when it's the first of its kind? - <AUTHOR> http://qz.com/524323/how-do-you-put-a-price-on-a-video-game-when-its-the-first-of-its-kind/ <comment><USER2> Is the ratio price/hours of gameplay really relevant here? A long and boring game for cheap is not more interesting than a short but amazing experience for a higher price.

</comment><comment><USER3> Ask players what they think it's worth?

Otherwise, being first of it's kind may increase barriers to value perception. Aggressive pricing may get people in, and if that is successful, perhaps a new genre is started.

Net gain, and worth the pricing investment.

Pricing high may marginalize the value perception, limit growth, and someone else may still see the genre potential, come in with another title and aggressive pricing.

I'm inclined to go with aggressive pricing as an investment into a new genre and play the longer game on overall revenue.</comment>


Show HN: Drive Password – Password Manager Based on Google Drive - <AUTHOR> https://drivepassword.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> We just launched Drive Password. Secret manager that will allow you to encrypt and store all your sensitive data in your Google Drive.

Would you be more confident knowing that your sensitive information is encrypted and stored within your reach instead of our server?</comment>


Economics of Information Technology - <AUTHOR> http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/~hal/Papers/mattioli/mattioli.html

<comment><USER2> Varian (who is or was Google's chief economist) is also the author of a very good book, written in the late 1990s, that covers many of the same topics:

Shapiro, Carl and Varian, Hal. Information Rules: A Strategic to the Network Economy. Harvard Business School Press, 1998.

The book is a classic, and is actually at the top of the reading list in a current MIT course also called "The Economics of Information":

[http://ebusiness.mit.edu/erik/567%202009%20syllabus-2009-11-...](http://ebusiness.mit.edu/erik/567%202009%20syllabus-2009-11-14.pdf)

There is a class blog here:

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

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> PDF and html versions available from:

From [http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~hal/people/hal/papers.ht...](http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~hal/people/hal/papers.html)

<comment><USER3> Unfortunately, I get a 404 on that link (I use hnDroid, this may or may not be relevant).

Thank you.

<comment><USER4> Replace "ht..." with "html" in your mobile browser. It's a bug in that reader app.

EDIT: The bug is also in the Hacker News Reader android app.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This strikes me as odd (from section 5.4):

> "Acquisti and Varian [2001] examine a simple model with two types of > consumers: high-value and low-value, in which a monopolist can commit to a > price plan. They find that although a monopolistic seller is able to make > offers conditional on previous purchase history, it is never profitable for > it to do so, which is consistent with the earlier analysis of intertemporal > price discrimination by Stokey [1979] and Salant [1989]."

Isn't this what OS companies do? They charge less for upgrades? According to this paper, this would "never be profitable".

Am I misunderstanding this?

EDIT: added section number for reference and context

<comment><USER6> The paper refers to whether a monopolist should set different prices to the two types of customers (high value or low). They find that the answer is no. The part that is confusing you (I think), is in the next paragraph, where the paper then finds that if the monopolist however offers an enhanced service based on purchasing history, it does become optimal to set two different prices. Also by "never profitable", they don't mean that the monopolist won't make any profit, it's just that they won't be able to increase profit.

<comment><USER5> Gotcha. I didn't realize he meant growth.

Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> His page at <http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~hal/> says he's retired from Cal and now at Google.

I've bookmarked his page of academic papers. Unsurprisingly, since his getting affiliated with Google about 8 years ago, he's written on economics of Search: [http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~hal/people/hal/papers.ht...](http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~hal/people/hal/papers.html) and on the Google Library Project.

Sure wish he (or someone) would be funded to do an update of this (2000 pub date) study. I wonder what additional variables might need to be factored in by now.

</comment><comment><USER8> A lot of research has been done since; the most interesting has to be on "multi-sided platforms". I'm working on including diffusion on complex network in there too.

I am actually teaching that class to Masters in CS & Management, and trying to have proper presentations ready in video format — but I spend too much time on HN for it to be ready yet.

</comment><comment><USER3> Great find, thanks.</comment>


Obama Will Headline DNC Fundraiser Hosted By Sam Altman And Marissa Mayer - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/20/president-obama-will-headline-dnc-fundraiser-hosted-by-ycs-sam-altman-and-yahoos-marissa-mayer/

<comment><USER2> I was under the impression that yahoo was against the Obama administration's surveillance policies. It seems I have been misled.

</comment><comment> o0-0o I feel sorry for Marissa Mayer and Sam Altman.

<comment><USER3> Why? They are 1%ers now.</comment></comment>


Implement your own source transformation AD with Julia - <AUTHOR> http://blog.rogerluo.me/2019/07/27/yassad/ <comment><USER2> We have so many AD implementations in Julia now that we actually have infrastructure that separates out the definition of primitive derivate rules from the actual AD mechanism itself, so the rules can be shared amongst all of them. Of course it would be better if there was just one AD to rule them all, but there are tradeoffs in the design space that make that hard. I think having all these different implementations has actually helped crystalize what the design space actually is, what choices need to be made and what the interesting classes of applications are. I think that'll help with the next generation of these tools (disclaimer I just started working on one of those next generation tools yesterday ;) ).

<comment><USER3> Thanks for this. Glad to see the Julia community is going strong. At Zebrium we use Julia at the core of our log structuring engine, and talk to it over gRPC. Keep it up!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Differentiating through control flow has never made sense to me. What does it mean to differentiate the following function: "f(x) = x > 0 ? x : -x"? If you plot this function you get a sharp corner at 0 which means it's not differentiable there because the limit from the left is -1 and the limit from the right is 1. Since 1 =/= -1 the derivative does not exist at 0.

So how are AD libraries claiming to differentiate such functions? Is there an implicit assumption that the user knows the derivative does not make sense at 0?

Edit: I just tried this and it gives the wrong answer without any hint that it's incorrect:

"""

julia> f

f (generic function with 1 method)

julia> f(0), f'(0)

(0, -1)

julia> f'(1), f'(-1)

(1, -1)

"""

<comment><USER5> The kinks correspond to a set of measure zero, which you will likely never hit during execution, so one can safely ignore the problem as not physically relevant. One way to think of the problem is that the cost function we're differentiating is approximate/fake, and whatever it needs to be (at some special neighborhoods) to give us derivatives we consider sensible (in large regions).

After all, there's nothing so special about the ReLU... It would be very very weird/unstable if our algorithms worked for ReLU, but not the link-smoothed version of ReLU.

<comment><USER6> Hmm... I'm not sure I agree.

All optimal points (for, say, optimizing a linear function) will lie on the extremal points of the feasible domain, many of which will be points where the constraint functions are not differentiable. In all cases you can turn nonlinear objective function optimization (say over f) into linear objective function optimization by adding a constraint f(x) ≤ t and moving t to the objective.

Now, I will agree that smooth optimization algorithms will work _ok_ , but try optimizing abs(x) with GD; you'll find that the best possible error you can achieve (other than by sheer luck) will be ~O(L) where L is your stepsize.

<comment><USER5> Yes, but we're going to be restricted to O(L) final accuracy no matter what, for gradient descent (we could choose second order optimizations, etc, but that's an orthogonal point — we're happy to get within an epsilon ball of the answer).

<comment><USER6> > Yes, but we're going to be restricted to O(L) final accuracy no matter what

This is not, in general, true for smooth functions so long as L is small enough (you can reach arbitrary accuracy with GD if L is smaller than ~ the reciprocal of the Lipchitz constant of a differentiable objective function but it need not be arbitrarily small).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Some more related info on different algorithmic differentiation approaches in Julia: [https://github.com/MikeInnes/diff- zoo](https://github.com/MikeInnes/diff-zoo)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you so much for sharing this great repo! I have noticed that the source transformation notebook is not finished yet. How is it now?

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> This article is way over my head right now. But I bookmarked it. Differentiable programming and probabilistic programming are among the things that motivated me to learn the language (still a beginner), aside from just brushing up and sharpening my math skills in a practical manner.

About that... One thing that I didn't expect but should have been obvious is that introductory content is often geared towards scientists/mathematicians rather than engineers, which makes sense given that this is the target audience.

They often explain the programming side and not the mathematical/scientific side. Which is fine, because they present the right vocabulary for me to explore from different sources.

This article seems to be very much engineering focused but there is a ton of vocabulary I'm not used to yet. I assume the reader is expected to have a solid understanding of the paradigm and at least a high level understanding of Zygote.

<comment><USER2> You are correct. Our technical documentation is mostly aimed at working scientists who want to start using these techniques in their work. That does sometimes lead to funny cases where a document assumes you know what a smooth manifold is but will explain try/catch blocks. We've started trying to put together more introductory-focused material at [https://juliaacademy.com/](https://juliaacademy.com/). We don't currently have anything particularly AD focused (outside of the general ML courses), but I think that's a topic that's high on the interest list.

<comment><USER8> Thank you for pointing out this fantastic resource.

> mostly aimed at working scientists

My primary goals are to learn what (primarily) data-scientists do. In the sense of: How do they think and approach problems, what are the limitations and the prerequisites etc. (And as I said to improve my math skills.)

I think there is merit in engineers learning these things (within reasonable scope) because at some point there needs to be a system that provides and transforms data into a format that scientists/analysts can work with. And in the other hand there are things that engineers can implement and learn to improve their systems. I'm excited about both and curious about how far I can get.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> bit of a detour, but being able to do things like this is a big part of what lisp programmers are getting at when they bring up the advantages of 'syntax as data' \- being able to perform complete high-level runtime program introspection, transformation, and code generation - good to see these kinds of techniques are available in other good languages that might appeal to the less parenthetically-inclined, not that that is the only benefit of julia

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Disclaimer: I'm not the author. Just interested in the article and want to share this awesome post.</comment>


On the scalability of Linus - <AUTHOR> http://lwn.net/Articles/393694/

<comment><USER2> The problem is that ARM is a licensable architecture, so there are lots of minor variations in sub-architectures.

The companies maintaining these have no motivation to consider the problem of maintaining /all/ of these, they're happy to basically copy/paste some other code until their CPU work.

Linus is saying that that's not going to work anymore, that they're going to have to come up with a way to consolidate their codebases.

<comment><USER3> That's probably the right solution, but it's a hard problem. NetBSD is probably the kernel that goes to the most effort to make clean, modular, orthogonal abstractions across hardware families and components, but it took them a lot of design effort up front, and continual policing of the abstraction boundaries and debugging of weird variants to make things actually work that way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I don't think it's any coincidence at all that the most successful open source effort ever is the same one where there is the greatest force of personality in charge, who insists on maintaining top-down control. I'm not convinced that lateral organization between developers can ever work very well.

<comment><USER5> Besides your hyperbole "most successful" I point to FreeBSD for a quite successful open source project which is not controlled top-down by one person. Apache httpd (or other apache projects) also come to mind.

<comment><AUTHOR> While I think FreeBSD has created a great piece of software I don't think you can say that they are as successful as Linux.

<comment><USER6> While the FreeBSD people didn't have their momentum to market themselves in a way Linux community had, they still manage to produce better system.

The other thing is that most people, even who consider themselves OS hackers, don't need such sophisticated and cohesive system. Or they don't have an opportunity to really dive in to see the difference.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> People use Linus' kernel version because of his track record. Don't like it? Fork it.

The day Linus starts failing miserably is the day another mainline will emerge, and everyone will switch to that. Nothing here to worry about.

<comment><USER8> There might be comparable forks to Linux out there right now. Does anyone switch? No. Linux is the windows of Unices. You can't dethrone it just by coming up with a better fork.

<comment><USER9> There's a difference between being slightly better than something that's still satisfactory, and being good in comparison to something that's no longer satisfactory. Look at X11: everyone used XFree86, even though forks were possible— _until_ they decided to go in a direction people didn't like. Then people started using X.Org pretty damned fast.

<comment><USER8> While I agree with what you are saying, your analogy is not completely accurate. Switching GUI is nowhere near switching the kernel in terms of risk and the hassle that might come with the change. The main reasons for inertia are the linux servers and the development stack that's built on top of linux servers. Most deployed Linuces have neither X.Org nor XFree86 installed on them.

<comment><USER10> The kernel is already evolving constantly, and a major version upgrade has to be thoroughly tested before rolling it out on a production system. A fork won't be that different - if Linus switches the license tomorrow, most kernel devs will just move to the forked codebase.

<comment><USER2> A license change is a bad example. Nobody can switch the license for Linux. It has always been GPLv2-only, you'd need the approval of all contributors to the kernel to switch.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Of course there is also a limit in our time about how much the kernel community can grow.

That limit probably increases somewhat asymptotically to the human population. The actual kernel community size will probably increase slower, though. I think that increase is lower than the increase of how development in IT will simplify things.

I.e., if my assumption stays true, there wont be any problem.

</comment><comment><USER12> Like Windows, Facebook, and others; it is the platform that makes Linux scalable. With that being, we'd like to create a platform for other developers to collaborate and develop their own.</comment>


Traceroute in 15 lines of code using Scapy - <AUTHOR> http://jvns.ca/blog/2013/10/31/day-20-scapy-and-traceroute/

<comment><USER2> I've just started using scapy recently. The syntax is a little inconsistent, but it's really powerful. It defines a domain-specific language (DSL) that piggybacks on python syntax. You can make a traceroute-like object in one line:

      pkt = IP(dst=target, ttl=(4,25),id=RandShort())/TCP(flags=0x2)

This single pkt object describes 22 IP packets, each with a TTL from 4 to 24 inclusive. Each IP packet encapsulates a TCP packet with the SYN flag set.

[http://www.secdev.org/projects/scapy/doc/usage.html#tcp- trac...](http://www.secdev.org/projects/scapy/doc/usage.html#tcp-traceroute)

</comment><comment><USER3> Pretty nifty. One of the things traceroute also does is to deal with broken routers that don't send the proper replies, as well as a number of other edge cases, but this is a cool toy and will probably work in most average cases.

see also:

[http://cluepon.net/ras/traceroute.pdf](http://cluepon.net/ras/traceroute.pdf) and [http://blog.cachefly.com/2012/02/15/understanding- traceroute...](http://blog.cachefly.com/2012/02/15/understanding-traceroute/)</comment>


Google Drive for Google Apps for Business is Down - <AUTHOR>

Google Drive for Google Apps for Business is Down - several of my clients are noting Internal Server Error 500 when trying to access Google Drive this morning. Google Drive (non-Google Apps for Business) seems to be working. <comment><AUTHOR> Confirmed Mail and Drive are down: [http://www.google.com/appsstatus#hl=en&v=issue&ts=13...](http://www.google.com/appsstatus#hl=en&v=issue&ts=1366257599000&iid=f1583d7e731ba748b2c0ff847868a813)

[http://www.google.com/appsstatus#hl=en&v=issue&ts=13...](http://www.google.com/appsstatus#hl=en&v=issue&ts=1366257599000&iid=369723584758ad9cdfd010ac44c8272e)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> So far the Apps Status Dashboard only shows an outage for the Admin control panel. <http://www.google.com/appsstatus#hl=en>

Things seem to be cascading. Unable now to access gmail, calendar and drive.</comment>


The Subconscious CEO Illness No One Is Talking About - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@mgallizzi/the-subconscious-ceo-illness-no-one-is-talking-about-46e15ad270b

<comment><USER2> Thank you Mike for taking the time to share this. I appreciate the seconds you spent!</comment>


9 People You Meet at Y Combinator (and what you can learn from them) - <AUTHOR> http://foundread.com/2008/04/22/9-people-you-meet-at-y-combinator-and-what-you-can-learn-from-them/ <comment><USER2> Wow, this was terrible. First off, he meant "9 Stereotypes I put people into at Startup School." Second, he didn't include anything that you can learn from them. If he was too good for the event, he shouldn't have gone. Space was at a premium and someone else could have benefitted from being there in his place.

</comment><comment><USER3> Ugh. I wish somebody would come up with some sensible criticism because I don't like being in the position of dismissing it all.

Edit: removed grumpy pre-coffee stuff.

</comment><comment><USER4> Geez, I was at the same event and didn't meet any of these people.

Maybe I have no powers of observation whatsoever. OTOH, maybe OP should spend more time noticing what's important than what's meaningless.

Honestly, this was one of the best lineups of speakers ever. In any forum. For free. If OP prefers to cruise the rest of us, maybe he should just hit the bar scene and give up his seat to someone who couldn't get in and really cared.

Spooged?

<comment><USER5> Haha, well you met me and I am definitely number seven.

But I am ok with being number seven at the moment. I'm in no hurry to be some '1337 1n51d3r' like this Larry Chiang guy. I mean, he spends so much time stereotyping other people he doesn't even have time for grammar, or, you know, forming a readable English sentence.

But numbered lists work as blog posts. Give the guy a break: he was just using a formulaic way to say nothing... memorably. I'm sure he had to hurry up and publish so he could go sign his term sheet from Sequoia.

<comment><USER4> You can't be number 7 - I saw you eating pizza.

I think you just came up with number 10 - the 1337 1n51d3r.

I'm really kinda surprised by the whining that came out of SUS; there wasn't much, but if it's > 0, something's wrong.

It's like getting a gift and then complaining about it. Come to think of it, that's exactly what it is.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The article doesn't contain about what you can learn from them. I don't know if I like the name calling.

</comment><comment><USER7> I missed the group of Ohioans. Bummer.</comment>


My master plan for revolutionizing the future of publishing - <AUTHOR> http://www.marco.org/2012/12/12/the-magazine-future-of-publishing

<comment><USER4> Well, if there would be enough general interest in "The Magazine"'s format, such that a service Marco sold would cause a flood of app-store clones, then whether Marco sells one or not, such a clone _will_ inevitably be created and allow the flood of those clones. That would simply be a realization of basic market forces and not something Marco can control.

However, the bigger issue is that Marco thinks that the editorial _format_ is (one of) the key distinguishers between publications:

>>A publication's app should be designed and built with purpose and consideration. The Magazine works because I based decisions not on what everyone else was doing, but on what would be best for this magazine. Every publication has its own unique needs, audience, economics, and style, so their apps should reflect that.

I don't think this is significant. The value of a publication is its _content_ , primarily, and the creation and selection thereof. Yes, I do think that a general app store creation service should exist for publications, or even several. Should every publication be burdened with re-inventing the wheel for basic webb/app infrastructure? Looking at the web front-end of The Magazine, I see a basic hierarchy of Issue > Article List > Article Preview, which may not be perfect for _every_ publication, but perhaps close enough? Presumably, the app functionality is also close enough to what a large number of publications would need in terms of UX. Wordpress isn't the perfectly ideal format either for every website with articles but the millions of installations out there still saves the industry a significant amount of time and money.

</comment><comment><USER5> How much of the 'future of publishing' discussions do you think are driven purely by ardent desire not to lose the status quo? I mean, it seems to me that looking at it objectively, the future is very self-evident. What product did publishers provide? Among other things, their business model was completely built upon distribution being a valuable service and the entire industry being impossible without it. This made them rich. Now, distribution is a worthless service. In fact, the way in which they provided distribution for so many years, they are actually actively destroying value by having to adhere to all of the arcane, unnecessary geographic limitations that made distribution possible a decade or so ago.

Now, they will either morph and stop even charging for distribution (since any 12 year old with an Internet connection could beat their ass at the task) and radically shink their business (from billions to thousands) as they have lost their golden goose, or they close their doors. They can still make money providing a few services like aggregation (when distribution is essentially free, aggregation becomes a valuable service... not as valuable as distribution used to be, but not worthless either). They can provide promotional services to their writers (who are now the bosses, while the publishers are starving service providers) and things like that too.

If they're really smart, they will realize that the future is consumers getting their journalism from, gasp, journalists directly since distribution is now basically free. How can they profit from that? Well, finding journalists, managing logistics for journalists, etc could be valuable services. There is no question, they have to face the fact that there will no longer be The Fifth Estate and they will no longer be international power brokers, they won't even be reasonably wealthy businessmen. They're going to be working from home and shuffling bits unless they're willing to get on a plane and go where the danger is and become a journalist themselves. I understand from their perspective this is a scary prospect, the same for anyone who feels that the status quo gives them safety and predictability. And I can't help but think that a lot of these talks are based on that fear...

<comment><USER6> _> Now, distribution is a worthless service._

Worthless? Distribution is about more than just shuffling bits from point A to point B. For one, it requires an building an audience.

<comment><USER7> I think a better way of saying it is that distribution is a commodity. It is easy and painless to distribute newspaper-style information these days compared to 100 years ago. Not to say there aren't ways to make money - <USER2> at Newsstand for example.

<comment><USER8> The distribution market is very unevenly commodified. Hence, Apple is able to take a 30% cut of _The Magazine_ 's gross, in return for distributing it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Master plan for REVOLUTION: make an application that is double-paywalled.

* You have to pay for the content (The Magazine). * You have to buy an expensive Apple product to access it.

</comment><comment><USER10> There already _are_ things that aim to be "the WordPress of Newsstand"; see:

<http://theperiodical.co/>

[http://www.mobilechameleon.com/toolkits-to-develop- magazine-...](http://www.mobilechameleon.com/toolkits-to-develop-magazine- apps-and-book-apps.html)

</comment><comment><USER11> _"There's no master plan. I wanted Instapaper to exist, so I made it. Five years later, I wanted The Magazine to exist, so I made that._

 _I don't know how to save journalism, but I'm also not qualified to. I'm not a journalist and I don't know much about that industry."_

This is essentially what every successful founder thinks before they end up starting a billion dollar company...

I'm not saying that Marco is going to flip this industry, but his general attitude is consistent with people like Zuck or Drew Houston.

<comment><USER12> I think Macro is making a huge error in deciding not to license out the Magazine code to others. He has shown the way, and I'd like to see him lead forward.

If he licensed it to a smart political editor of the Obviously Correct persuasion who would commission stories for me to read, I'd subscribe.

He's right that a gazillion clones is a Bad Thing. He should instead license it to serious editors only, and have a family of The Magazines each with a different focus. In order to enforce quality, he should only provide annual licenses to a few serious editors at a time, and then discontinue them if he feels the customers are getting a bad deal. He should start small: one magazine at first, then add on fast as he can while maintaining quality.

In other words, the path to Quality for this type of thing is for him to retain control (and a bit of profit) rather than his current path of unintentionally encouraging others to clone his app badly.

<comment><USER13> What he seems to be saying is that it's all in the editorial decisions he's made, and the quality of writing and other content in "The Magazine". If this is really the case, he should totally license out the code, or release it open source. He's saying that what differentiates "The Magazine" is not the app, but the publication. If this is the case, then there is no problem with letting other people use his platform to do what they will.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The problem with digital magazine apps is they are pushing an analog business model into a connected world.

Publishing! = Magazines. What is publishing? It used to be we print with a period of Y on paper type X, be that daily newsprint (newspapers), monthly super calendered paper (magazines), every few years on acid free paper (hardcover), and weekly super calendered Kraft paper (comics).

With digital the lines between the different publishing families are simply erased. Content can be put out at any point in time, and on any format. Further, complete works don't have to be published all, serialized content is back after having been almost dead for decades.

What publishing needs is a business model that helps them sell content of all sorts of length that comes out at all sorts of time. Magazines have always been content buckets, where the taste and choices of the editor in chief and the publications self determined constraints determined if you wanted to buy that bucket.

The magazine in the connected world is going to have the problem of most topics they pick to have someone write about will be outdone by many other places on the net and available for free. Take a blog like footnoted.com, they're doing deep dive financial journalism better than the Wall Street journal.

The future of "The Magazine" is BoingBoing.net, they deliver a bucket of curate content filtered through the tastes and choice of their editors. They make income off ads, referral links, and sponsored posts for $5k a pop.

</comment><comment><USER15> I think people looking at the Newsstand or apps for publishing are missing the point. It's not about formats or delivery mechanism. It's more of a fundamental business problem.

I knew magazine apps were doomed when there was talk about how beautiful the ads would be in them. How they could faithfully reproduce the fantastic advertising in the print editions of the magazines.

Media was able to charge both a subscription fee to the consumer and an advertising fee because they had high barriers to entry and a captive audience. People fundamentally don't want ads in their media, but media companies have made so much money for so long charging on both ends that they forgot why they were able to do so - there was a high barrier to entry.

Now that technology has made the barriers to publishing $1,000 or less, there is a shift in business model. Either the media should be free and ad supported, or paid with no ads. There just isn't the same market for something that does both anymore. Their answer thus far seems to have been "just add more ads" or "put up a paywall in front of the ad-laden content".

Also, with fewer barriers to entry, there will be fewer big content companies, and a lot of smaller ones. The economics don't make sense yet for a big media company that is Newsstand only yet, but there will probably be a lot of smaller, scrappier publishers like The Magazine that pop up.

Again, it's not about The Magazine having some formula right, or its publishing platform being so amazing. It's that the business model and economics of publishing have changed and The Magazine is a lot closer to that reality than traditional publishing companies. One could make the same argument about Redbox and Netflix compared to Blockbuster and Hollywood Video.

<comment><USER16> > I think people looking at the Newsstand or apps for publishing are missing > the point. It's not about formats or delivery mechanism. It's more of a > fundamental business problem.

If you have never read it, I highly recommend Clay Shirky's classic essay: "Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable". It may make you think more about the economics of publishing and forced change.

"It makes increasingly less sense even to talk about a publishing industry, because the core problem publishing solves — the incredible difficulty, complexity, and expense of making something available to the public — has stopped being a problem...

The old difficulties and costs of printing forced everyone doing it into a similar set of organizational models; it was this similarity that made us regard Daily Racing Form and L'Osservatore Romano as being in the same business. That the relationship between advertisers, publishers, and journalists has been ratified by a century of cultural practice doesn't make it any less accidental..."

[http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2009/03/newspapers-and- thinking...](http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2009/03/newspapers-and-thinking-the- unthinkable/)

<comment><USER17> Well the barriers of entry in respect to publishing my be lower today. But in terms of generating interesting content, they may be as high as ever.

For example, it just costs a ton of money to have really good people in every part of the world - not only to get the "news" or the pictures, but to reflect, to comment, to understand the relevant, cultural contexts - and to be able to communicate this in terms of intended target audience.

This form of journalism (as one example of publishing) is expensive. It was financed by the ads and subscriptions in times of printing on dead wood. And modern publishers try more and more, to outsource this to news-agencies - <USER3> with this outsourcing, everybody got the same dry content.

This is less and less working in print-journalism and it is even less working in digital-publishing.

If twitter - or some regional blog is better in explaining the happenings in, let's say: Egypt, why should I pay my local paper to deliver crap for the dustbin?

And then, it happens more and more, that (at least here in Germany), that the local content is getting worse. So their core-business, reporting and giving context on local things, is done in a bad way.

I am not willing to pay for a product, that treats its customers like crap.

The problem is, that the people (journalists) inside these organisations feel entitled to something, because a, it was done that way all the time, they can remember b, they are protected by the constitution and they really feel, they are doing a job, that is essential in keeping democracy alive (what the imho are really not doing anymore)

So as these people are really quite resilient to change (and to changing their ways), they cannot see the road ahead, they are blinded by their own worldview.

So probably, they have to go down - and I'm not sad to see them go. But I really fear what comes with these gone. Yes there will be some form of (good) journalism to emerge - but the time in between might be quite "interesting", as political players may feel like doing what they want, with the (pseudo-)watchdogs gone.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I really like these unique ways of approaching media / content. I just downloaded the trial of the Magazine and will try it out!

</comment><comment><USER19> Imagine a platform for curating or writing your own intelligent magazine that edits itself autonomously to match the interests of every individual user. Now imagine a publishing network that users social filtering to identify the best articles and publications. Add adaptive web design never achieved before and you get NOOWIT.com (coming soon to change online publishing history).

</comment><comment><USER20> Step 1: make site readable on android

</comment><comment><USER18> Does anyone know if the Magazine has become profitable yet?</comment>


Show HN: 6gunz – spreadsheet / programming language / microservices framework - <AUTHOR> Http://6gu.nz <comment><AUTHOR> Hi all.

6gunz wants to make the spreadsheet model significantly more powerful without making it significantly more complicated -- no jump to "traditional" programming/scripting, just a smooth slope of "one more useful trick" after another.

Made part-time over the last few months, now in open preview. Probably still pretty buggy, and not yet Turing complete. (Solo flounder, looking for confounders etc...)

</comment><comment><USER2> Pretty genius but I would intensively think about how to improve usability (ease of use, complexity) before continuing implementing features.

<comment><AUTHOR> EDIT: Actually, more useful than me suggesting a scattershot bunch of things, it'd probably be more efficient to ask what bits gave you pause, which bits look too complicated or difficult to use.

\---

Yeah, I agree. The lowest-hanging fruit is probably around the formula box at the moment -- it's easy to type a syntactically incorrect formula, it's unforgiving with typos, and there's a lack of discoverability. I think some "programming editor features" like tab-completion, syntax highlighting and automatic insertion of closing quotes/parens will be a good first step there. Clicking on sheet elements to insert terms in formulas will probably help a little too.

With regard to complexity, though, I'm not too sure there's much to be done. I imagine most uses will look a bit simpler than the demo video because a greater fraction of the time will be spent working on the data, but wrt logic I think the complexity may be irreducible. Maybe better support for foreign keys instead of using lookup expressions? If the user can "relate" tables by columns (and an "arity" \-- "one to many" etc) then we might be able to make some formulas simpler with some ORM-esque magic. Then in the example we could write

        trips.from_airport

rather than

        airports[name: trips.from]

though I'm not sure it's a big win.

Maybe we really do need Clippy... Or _some_ kind of formula-writing wizard. Pivot tables...

Gotta find a designer (and/or some users) to keep me honest, I guess.

<comment><USER2> I really don't want to bring you off your roadmap but I'm going to start working on my own startup in November and am planning how it should look like. I even created a spreadsheet with sub sheet functionality already (but canvas - not DOM based) --> but the sub sheets have a different purpose in my application.

Some weeks ago a very smart friend was arguing with me about the necessity of the spreadsheet that is functioning as a "map". What he meant (I didn't have the opportunity to speak to him since), I think, was that there is no reason that the sub sheets cannot be moved around freely in the entire map but instead are placed within another spreadsheet. In your case the objects (to be placed) are: 1. table; 2. Object; 3. Array..

So the question I wanted to bring up before it's too late is: Why can't these 3 object be placed on an empty space instead of a parent spreadsheet?

<comment><AUTHOR> At the moment all sheets in my program literally are objects, though the converse isn't true -- not all objects can be viewed as sheets.

That might change in the future -- I think that being able to nest data arbitrarily is pretty important, and so is being able to visually explore that nested data. Maybe that means having "sheets in sheets in sheets".

My program having a list of top-level sheets is slightly unsatisfying. I guess there could instead be a single top-level object/sheet to contain them, bringing everything "into the data model". I don't know if that extra bit of purity would actually make anyone's life better, though.

I am quite hesitant to let anything "float in free space". I think the grid serves as a useful, lightweight structuring tool, like lines on a piece of paper. It provides a little constraint that rarely gets in your way, and often stops you from getting in your own way. Maybe the user should have the option of placing things in continuous space, but I don't think it's a good default. A good demo could convince me otherwise, though ;-).</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: CryptoTrader.Tax – A Cryptocurrency Tax Calculator - <AUTHOR> https://www.cryptotrader.tax <comment><USER2> This is their _eleventh_ Show HN and the fourth in 8 days.</comment>


United States vs. Forty Barrels and Twenty Kegs of Coca-Cola - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Forty_Barrels_%26_Twenty_Kegs_of_Coca-Cola <comment><USER2> > The government stated that the syrup, when diluted as directed, would result > in a beverage containing 1.21 grains (or 78.4 mg) of caffeine per 8oz > serving

> Coca-Cola then voluntarily reduced the amount of caffeine in its product

That's interesting. 8 fl oz is 236ml, roughly the same size as a regular Red Bull can at 250ml which contains 80mg caffeine.

Caffeine mg per ml -

Monster Energy: 0.34

pre-1912, post-cocaine Coke: 0.33

Red Bull: 0.32

Modern Diet Coke: 0.12

Modern Coke: 0.09

People must have been pretty amped in the early 1900s.</comment>


Chief Keef Hologram Concert Shut Down by Police - why-el http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-chief-keef-hologram-concert-20150725-story.html

<comment><AUTHOR> This is kind of an interesting situation in that telepresence was considered presence by some subset of law enforcement. While I think that angle won't hold up to legal scrutiny, it's interesting to ponder what local laws hold up over long-distance, high-resolution, high-fidelity input connections. If a doctor living in Tokyo breaks an old-timey municipal law against joking with a patient in Blahblah, Iowa while using one of those telepresence broomsticks, could he be held liable?

How does this compare to current wire-related crimes?

<comment><USER2> Maybe a starting point is to consider a hologram to be a "display", like being on television.

<comment><USER3> In this case, it is. All these so-called "holograms" (Tupac etc) are actually just HD projectors and transparent plastic screens. Not that it should be legally different even if it were any sort of "hologram", but it's literally just cinema + marketing.</comment></comment></comment>


SCUMM co-creator digs up game design treasure trove - <AUTHOR> http://gamasutra.com/view/news/268773/SCUMM_cocreator_digs_up_game_design_treasure_trove.php <comment><AUTHOR> Here's a juicy tidbit from the design documents for Star Raider 2: "If a player if desperate and cannot return to Terra for lack of energy or time, he may be able to destroy the Planet Crusher by flying himself into the exhaust port and selfdestructing his ship at the center of the battlestar. This would give the player points for saving the Federation but not for returning alive."</comment>


Abusing the MPC-HC WebUI to steal private pictures - <AUTHOR> http://3vildata.tumblr.com/post/125666311707/abusing-the-mpc-hc-webui-to-steal-private-pictures

<comment><USER2> > The issue can be mitigated by disabling the WebUI when not on a trusted > network (like at home) or behind a NAT device (i.e. not directly reachable > over the Internet).

I wonder, does it listen on ipv6 too? If so people may not even be aware that their computer is reachable.

<comment><USER3> Which ISPs enable native IPv6 but ship a router with a permissive IPv6 firewall?

<comment><USER4> Shaw Communication.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Doesn't this require the target's 13579 to be open? It's not really a port I have open so often

</comment><comment><USER6> > The issue can be mitigated by disabling the WebUI when not on a trusted > network (like at home) or behind a NAT device (i.e. not directly reachable > over the Internet)... but is not really a solution that will scale well > across the user base.

Why? I was under the impression most home users will have a (shitty) wifi router separating the home network from the world. If you can breach this and/or run code on a machine inside the home LAN you are already done. I don't get what's the new threat here.

<comment><USER7> People increasingly use laptops as their primary computer. If they enable this feature to use on their home network, they could easily forget to disable it then they bring the computer with them to a more hostile environment. (But, on the other hand, isn't the Windows Firewall in Vista and newer designed to handle this, by having separate rules for "home", "work" and "public" networks?)</comment></comment>


Remember Bitcoin? Some Investors Might Want to Forget - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/27/technology/bitcoin-cryptocurrency-crash.html <comment><USER2> This is our future. Con jobs on a global scale, completely unregulated and with no repercussions.

The profits of bitcoin didn't come out of thin air. Every dollar someone made was a dollar someone else lost.

</comment><comment><USER3> > Every dollar someone made was a dollar someone else lost. That's true in > general not only in the world of crypto currencies.

<comment><USER4> That is not true (or true in only a very restricted sense that barely ever applies). Positive-sum games do actually exist. See: literally everything around you that wasn't around before people decided to make stuff.

Even if we're talking about literal dollars, the Fed can and does print new dollars more or less out of thin air. And this is a really good thing, because we wouldn't be doing very well if we were restricted to the 1792 supply of US dollars.</comment></comment>


Is an Aussie answer to Y Combinator just around the corner? - <AUTHOR> http://www.technation.com.au/2008/06/05/is-an-aussie-answer-to-y-combinator-just-around-the-corner/

<comment><USER2> I'd be curious how much of a Y Combinator model could be replicated down under (Brisbane boy talking here).

I reckon small investments to kick-start tech-based businesses would fly. I also think we have enough of the right people to properly guide those businesses.

I'm not sure where would you have them base themselves? Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne each seem viable; none are Cambridge or the Valley.

And the big question - for how long could you seriously expect to fund multiple quality ideas twice a year? If Big Brother ran out of talent in 3 seasons, I'd be surprised for a tech-start-up-focussed company to still be finding suitable applicants 3-4 years down the track.

<comment><AUTHOR> _"... And the big question - for how long could you seriously expect to fund multiple quality ideas twice a year? If Big Brother ran out of talent in 3 seasons, I'd be surprised for a tech-start-up-focussed company to still be finding suitable applicants 3-4 years down the track. ..."_

I don't know. There's a lot of software, engineering and hackers in the major capitals (Bris, Syd, Mel, Adl, Per) but not many startup "product" companies (sans enterprisy software companies). So it tends to limit the opportunity for people who want to work for Startups who might just think I could do better than this rather than work for consultancies, design and marketing companies or the multi-nationals.

There is no lack of talent and risk takers. There is definitely a lack of Angels, mentors and the other _fuzzy_ bits that provide the stepping stones from taking an idea to Startup to exit ~ <http://benbarren.blogspot.com/2008/05/why-is-it-so.html>

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Wow, just want to say, so great to see other Aussies on here. Anyone else in the Valley?

<comment><USER4> Omnisio (YC startup) is founded by Aussies and based here in the valley.

<comment><USER3> It's funny - 100,000 ex-pat Aussies in California, and I only ever run into people I went to uni with and are now working for Google.

<comment><USER4> There are a few efforts underway to try and build a stronger aussie community in the bay area. Check out www.advance.org and sign up. I'm on the San Francisco committee and specifically thinking about ways to get entrepreneurial-minded Aussies together.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Can only hope so. Australia needs more traction.

<comment><USER6> Indeed.

I'm from Melbourne and all the business here seems to be around finance and consulting.

With some really great universities (RMIT and Melb Uni) and computer science programs, I can see a lot of potential.

<comment><AUTHOR> _"... With some really great universities (RMIT and Melb Uni) and computer science programs, I can see a lot of potential ..."_

The bottleneck in my view is the ultra conservative business environment. It's not for the lack of hackers, entrepreneurs. While Boston may be the sister city of Melbourne the overwhelming message I get is not "be smarter" ~ <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=201373>

<comment><USER7> Agreed. Melbourne is the Australian archetype of the cosmopolitan city, but in terms of startup production on a global scale, I doubt it rates much farther ahead of other Australian capital cities.

I reside in Adelaide and the business environment is barren. I could count on my hand the number of angels who have real insight into the technology sector. We have access to Government grants schemes - COMET for emerging startups and Commercial Ready for SMEs - but they rarely consider ventures without a traditional business model.

There are startups to be found - I'm the programming half of one that's gaining major traction in the education market - and successful businesses have originated from Adelaide (such as News Corporation). On the whole though, Australia currently doesn't have the mentorship, the networking, or the intellectual and financial capital to sustain a vibrant startup community.

Given time, however, I believe the situation can change, with sufficient exposure.

<comment><USER8> I'm also from Adelaide, and I agree it's not likely to be a startup hub anytime soon. I think a large part of the problem is a lack of startup culture - as an example I was involved in a startup company after finishing my undergrad degree, and the founder was absolutely against giving up any control and his idea of giving equity to the first employees was a %0.0001 profit sharing arrangement. He was offered something like $50k to get a prototype together but wouldnt relinquish any equity.

I think the history of News Corp is a little more complicated, the Advertiser was just the first paper Rupert was given control over, hence its importance to him.

<comment><USER7> I can relate to the lack of startup culture, specifically founders who, as you've experienced, refuse to give up any equity in return for committed co- founders. Brash independence is an Australian cultural cornerstone, often to a fault. I've encountered it more often than I care to remember, and been guilty of it just as much.

A lack of resources is a major concern, but it's the lack of co-operation which really holds us back. I hold hope that a couple of successful and generous founders will arise, sell out and establish a YC-like venture to foster the kind of thinking and giving that's needed.

(According to Wikipedia, Sir Keith Murdoch left his son Rupert the Adelaide News, from which he started News Corporation).</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Full Screen Mario - <AUTHOR> http://www.fullscreenmario.com

<comment><USER2> Isn't that game, like, copyrighted or something?

<comment><USER3> Nintendo could force that site to be taken down at just about any time. So long as they're not trying to commercialize it / make money off of it, they stand a modest chance of being left alone (and so long as they don't alter Mario in any unusual way, such that they'd draw the ire of Nintendo).

If it got wildly popular (unlikely), Nintendo would finally do something about it.</comment></comment>


Google not so keen on net neutrality in its own backyard - <AUTHOR> http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20091015/google-att-nuns/

<comment><USER2> This has nothing to do with net neutrality. (The requirement to provide telephone service to rural numbers falls under telephone regulation.)

<comment><USER3> The telephone system is not part of the Internet? News to me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> _Don't be evil, my ass_

I am pretty sure Google is not blocking calls to nuns because it is trying to be evil. Either they are not a regular phone number, or this is a bug. It's beta. There will be bugs.

I really hope AT&T's whining doesn't ruin this for the rest of us. I love Google Voice, and it would be a shame to see regulations kill it off before it is even out of beta. It's a free service. Why should it have to let me call 900 numbers?

<comment><USER5> No, it isn't a bug. Unfortunately, telephone regulations allow some local carriers to get away with some unfriendly charges to the big phone carriers. Google made a choice to block those rural (not 900) numbers because they currently aren't as regulated as a "real" phone company.

I hope that this will change the rules for carrier charges, but I also think Google needs to play by the same rules as everyone else. Blocking rural calls is evil when the rural users have no knowledge of how the system works and are just innocent victims.

<comment><USER6> Many of the rural exchanges are anything but innocent. Many of them work with free conference call and phone-porn companies and then hike their connection rates to absurd levels. They rely on the law to over-charge telecoms. This isn't to say they're all doing it, but there are a lot of them out minting free money from the telecoms.

<comment><USER5> When I was referring to innocent, I was referring to the people being blocked NOT the rural exchanges.

<comment><USER6> ah, I read "rural users" and thought you were referring to the rural exchanges.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Incorrect and misleading headline. I'm all for bringing Google down a peg, but at least read the name of the regulations you think Google is in violation of first.

</comment><comment><USER7> I find this topic fascinating, but that article was unreadable. I stopped about half way through. Tiny type and horrible writing style.

<comment><USER8> <http://lab.arc90.com/experiments/readability/>

Not a fix for the writing style, unfortunately.</comment></comment>


The 1% are getting richer and its not going to stop any time soon - <AUTHOR> https://www.independent.co.uk/money/worlds-richest-are-getting-even-richer-global-wealth-a8297421.html <comment><USER2> If you have tons of money to spare, you can afford to throw money "at the wall" and see what sticks. For every case of losing money, there's probably a lot more that pays off, especially when a billionnaire can afford to have entire staff working to minimize the chance of bad investments. If a great opportunity arises, you can put much more into the pot (most people would have to put their whole life savings in).

Also, any single problem isn't likely to _completely screw you_ , you just pay for it and move on. For many people, they are literally one step from bankruptcy and can't have _anything_ go wrong.

Also, if you can afford even _slightly_ nicer stuff, it is probably better- made and won't require outright replacement. You can afford more insurances to avoid paying the full cost of what you _do_ replace. (Most people will never do this.)

And the rich have way, way more time. They probably aren't figuring out how to juggle two jobs, taking many-hour commutes, etc., all of which gives _even more_ opportunity.

And that's just off the top of my head, there's probably more. You can't even begin to equalize a system with so much advantage built in to one side.

My guess is that it starts by giving people more time. Fix the "need two jobs" problem permanently. Make housing more affordable to minimize travel.

<comment><USER3> > And the rich have way, way more time.

The ones who make the money tend to be workaholics.

> If you have tons of money to spare, you can afford to throw money "at the > wall" and see what sticks.

You can afford it, sure, but you'll lose pots 'o money that way.

> For every case of losing money, there's probably a lot more that pays off, > especially when a billionnaire can afford to have entire staff working to > minimize the chance of bad investments.

If your staff is so great, they'd be making the money themselves. Besides, anyone can hire such staff - that's what mutual funds are.

Any billionaire I've read about made their investment decisions themselves.

> My guess

I recommend reading some biographies of wealthy people and how they got that way. Kennedy, Jobs, Gates, Carnegie, Buffet, Musk, Hearst, Getty, Walton, Bezos, take your pick, etc.

<comment><USER4> > The ones who make the money tend to be workaholics.

Citation needed.

> You can afford it, sure, but you'll lose pots 'o money that way.

Which misses the point, anyone else _CAN 'T_

> Any billionaire I've read about made their investment decisions themselves.

That's a myth. They have the money to externalize things other people don't so having money means you have more time to spend on yourself and others. Most billionaires you read about that grew up poor are in the vast minority of people who ended up in the top 1%

> I recommend reading some biographies of wealthy people and how they got that > way. Kennedy, Jobs, Gates, Carnegie, Buffet, Musk, Hearst, Getty, Walton, > Bezos, take your pick, etc.

War profiteering, Screwed employees out of their stock, born fairly wealthy which allowed him access to tech others didn't have, Robber Baron, Talented and Lucky, Talented and Lucky, Printed lies, Money from parents, Externalized costs onto US taxpayer, Used investor money to build a company because he came from a banking background.

Most of the people didn't get wealthy because they worked harder, were smarter, etc. They either were in the right place at the right time and their hard work enabled them to take advantage of their luck or they were born into wealth and used that as an advantage. You're also comparing wildly different time periods with different rates of economic mobility.

That's not to say these people were undeserving of their wealth or that they are bad people, but realistically wealth for the vast majority of people is something that they are born into, especially in top 1%.

This point is especially poignant when you realize that the families that are wealthy in parts of the world such as Venice, Italy today are roughly the same families that were wealthy in 600 AD.

Edit: To clarify I think we're all really talking about the top 1% of the developed world. Not just the worth at large as others have noted most of us reading this are probably in the top 1% globally when including undeveloped nations.

<comment><USER3> > Citation needed.

Read biographies of Gates, Jobs, Carnegie, Bezos, Rockefeller, Walton, Buffett, etc. (More than just the wikipedia page.)

> Which misses the point

That isn't the point. The point is that method of increasing wealth (randomly thrashing about) does not work.

> That's a myth.

For which of the ones I mentioned?

> Most billionaires you read about that grew up poor are in the vast minority > of people who ended up in the top 1%

We're talking about middle class to the 1%. All of the ones I mentioned went that route.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Why articles about 1% keep getting illustrated with pictures of top 1% of billionaires? 1% are lawyers, Doctors, Senior Software Eng. etc. If we are talking about US top billionaires are in top 0.0000018%.

<comment><USER6> There's more clicks in "those dirty moneybags are getting richer at our expense!" than in "we're getting richer at the developing world's expense!"

<comment><USER7> Why do you think we're getting richer at their expense? _They 're_ getting richer by trading with us. I mean, it's not impossible to turn a profit from some developing nation, but most of the value in the markets is from developed countries. You can only make so much money off of low-end cheap foreign labor.

<comment><USER5> 40% of US GDP is financial services by being the emitter of world's reserve currency we get very large set of unique economic benefits that precisely let us to "to get richer at their expense"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I wonder how much of the "1%"'s wealth is in stock. My guess is most of it, at least in the United States. If you think that's a problem, and most of this wealth is in the stock market, then that may be a good argument for increasing the tax on capital gains. I don't expect that to happen anytime soon, though.

<comment><USER7> If you really take the 1% (not just those billionaires) then a lot of that is IRAs (which are stocks and bonds) as well as personal real estate. If you have an IRA plus a house worth a million bucks combined, congratulations, you're in the 1%.

By the way, it's nonsense to think that those 1% _control_ that wealth. They'll be lucky to save more than half of it when the next stock market correction is coming in, or when the Fed prints the value of long-term bonds into oblivion. Yeah, maybe they get to vote on some shareholder meeting, or they get to shoot trespassers on their lawn, _that 's_ their level of control.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> How about a secret society dedicated to calculating the _de facto_ richest individual in the world every quarter, then judging them? The "winner" gets to live if they are judged to be a net benefit to humanity, and is assassinated if they are not. Previous winners are periodically re-checked to make sure they haven't fallen off the wagon.

First the monarchs start to disappear, then the corrupt heads of state, and then rich people start spending their money to either escape the judgment, or to improve their public image in case they can't spend their way down to #2.

If you try to tax it away, the rich will just hide their wealth and then buy off the tax inspectors that go looking for it.

<comment><USER7> So, the richest guy in the world can pay off the taxmen, but _not_ the assassins? You're vastly underestimating the IRA.

<comment><USER9> That's why it's _secret_. If you don't know who to pay off, you have to pay off everybody. And if you do that, you're either not going to be richest any more, or you'll get a reprieve for your generosity and philanthropy.

<comment><USER7> fair enough: *guys

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Perhaps an easy way is to stop legal lobbying - and all this stops?

<comment><USER11> Does it? Generally speaking, you make money with money, right? So even if playing "fairly", it would seem the 1% will still get far more rich far faster than anyone else. Lobbying only slows that down some, if at all.

Don't get me wrong, I think Lobbying in its current form is disgusting. Yet, directly I don't blame it for the wealth gap.

I suppose you could argue that lawmakers might have a chance at proposing solutions if not for lobbying, so by taking lobbying away you eventually, somehow, fix the problem. Even with that said, I'm still more curious to talk about possible solutions to the problem directly, rather than hoping to foster an environment where someone else will fix the problem.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is made to sound like something is being taken from the other 99%, but that's probably not true.

First of all, most people down really own anything of value, if anything they owe.

In proportion to practically anything else, stocks have gone up like crazy and those 1% own a lot of it. They also are explicitly and implicitly the creditors of that debt. Stocks going up creates even more debt via the wealth effect.

The _real_ redistribution from the bottom to the top will happen as follows: Stock market crashes, massive defaults on debt and massive dollar devaluation. Lots of IRAs will be _fucked_. Don't be left holding the bag!

</comment><comment><USER12> I have a feeling the wealth distribution in the years prior to WWII was pretty similar to where we are or are headed. I wonder if there were comparable data/studies done back then.

</comment><comment><USER13> These articles never mention how many of the 1% were in the 1% 5 years ago, and how many have left the 1%. Always focusing on the bracket, never the individual.

</comment><comment><USER14> As programmers, we tend to make a lot of money.

If you feel guilty about it, give some to poor people. But please don't pollute Hacker News with articles.

</comment><comment><USER15> The title should be "it's" because it's a contraction of "it is".

But that's exactly how it's written in the headline :(

</comment><comment><USER16> Unless there is some kind of political miracle and the governments of the developed world can devise a wealth tax that works, per Piketty, it won't stop until there is another major world war.

<comment><USER17> It's not going to happen because the majority of the governments are run by the 1 percenters

<comment><USER18> Yes. I find the idea that we can solve this problem by giving more power/money to the .1% and they'll take that power/money and (step two of underpants gnome plan here) and then the .1% won't have so much power/money is kinda silly.

In fact isn't it rather convenient that the solution that everyone proposes to money/power inequality is to give the .1% more money and power?

Weird how that inequality just keeps going up, huh?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Why it is flagged?</comment>


Seasteading: A Practical Guide to Homesteading the High Seas - <AUTHOR> http://seasteading.org/seastead.org/book_beta/full_book_beta.html

<comment><AUTHOR> Also: [http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2008/05/seaste...](http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2008/05/seasteading) (Peter Thiel Makes Down Payment on Libertarian Ocean Colonies)

</comment><comment><USER2> Is there even one person who's currently living this way?

<comment><AUTHOR> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand></comment></comment>


CBS Money Watch / ZDnet hacked and blacklisted by Google - <AUTHOR> http://blog.sucuri.net/2011/04/cbs-money-watch-zdnet-hacked-and-blacklisted-by-google.html

<comment><USER2> A former pioneer in online news, pretty scary.</comment>


'Everybody's entitled to their opinion – but not their own facts' - <AUTHOR> https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-crisis-denial-facebook-global-warming-denier-social-media-a9595546.html <comment><USER2> No fact is theory neutral. What usually happens is that in majority of cases both parties agree to the same theory. When there is a dispute about facts, it is a dispute about how to describe a phenomenon; in other words, it is a dispute between competing theories(competing ways of describing).

<comment><USER3> "Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man."

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Wigner has some friends he might want to talk to.</comment>


Ask HN: Ad networks which allow multiple destination URLs in the ads - <AUTHOR>

Hi everyone, I am still new to the world of ads. I would like to place a banner ad that has multiple links to different destination URLs. Does anybody know of an adnetwork that allows that? <comment><USER2> Use a URL redirector.</comment>


DB2 on Mac to ship before Christmas - <AUTHOR> http://antoniocangiano.com/2008/12/12/db2-on-mac-to-ship-before-christmas/

<comment><USER2> About time, this should have been released several years ago.</comment>


Multiple Vulnerabilities in D-Link DIR-600 and DIR-300  - <AUTHOR> http://www.s3cur1ty.de/m1adv2013-003

<comment><AUTHOR> tldr; If you have a D-Link router you should try if this command produces any output.

      curl --data "cmd=ls" http://<Router-IP>:8080/command.php

(also try Port 80 instead of 8080, the port number can vary)

If it does then your router has a serious vulnerability (exploitable from the internet on some models) and you should look into patching ASAP.</comment>


Man Sues CVS for Telling Wife He Had Viagra Prescription - <AUTHOR> https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/cvs-michael-feinberg-viagra_us_5b155dcee4b02143b7cecbd0 <comment><USER2> _nightmares from HIPAA compliance spring to horrifying life_

There was once a case where a healthcare provider was found liable under HIPAA for discussing reproductive care of an adult woman with another adult who lived with her, failing to anticipate that maybe her father would take a dim light to the information. Covered entities are _allowed_ to discuss treatment and payment with spouses but are supposed to use professional judgment about it.

I'd anticipate that the lawyers look at this one, sigh, and settle. It's a cost-of-doing-business in healthcare.</comment>


How the Edward Snowden story is overwhelming the NSA story - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/03/how-ed-snowden-became-a-bigger-story-than-nsa-spying-in-two-charts/?tid=rssfeed <comment><USER2> It's the intent.</comment>