The Tyranny of Structurelessness (1970) - <AUTHOR> http://www.bopsecrets.org/CF/structurelessness.htm <comment><USER2> I always want to paste the same excerpt from War and Peace when this comes up:

"When Boris entered the room, Prince Andrey was listening to an old general, wearing his decorations, who was reporting something to Prince Andrey, with an expression of soldierly servility on his purple face. "Alright. Please wait!" he said to the general, speaking in Russian with the French accent which he used when he spoke with contempt. The moment he noticed Boris he stopped listening to the general who trotted imploringly after him and begged to be heard, while Prince Andrey turned to Boris with a cheerful smile and a nod of the head. Boris now clearly understood—what he had already guessed—that side by side with the system of discipline and subordination which were laid down in the Army Regulations, there existed a different and more real system—the system which compelled a tightly laced general with a purple face to wait respectfully for his turn while a mere captain like Prince Andrey chatted with a mere second lieutenant like Boris. Boris decided at once that he would be guided not by the official system but by this other unwritten system."

<comment><USER3> I haven't read War and Peace, so I don't know the context of this excerpt. Despite that, I'd like to suggest that if you _have_ a formal structure in an organisation, then you're still able to use it to do something about the informal structures that you don't like (assuming you can recognise them). If you've explicitly eschewed any kind of formal structure, then changing it becomes very difficult [1].

In this example, Boris could have decided that he would try and support the _formal_ structures and wrest control (over time) from the _informal_ leaders (perhaps by playing both sides for a while).

[1] Edit: The reverse is also true. You can adapt a formal structure by the use of informal power. This is more often talked about (c.f. every 'influence' book ever written), so I didn't think to mention it.

<comment><USER4> I think the thing is that the formal and informal structures need to be somewhat in alignment. A lot of countries have the form of institutions, but not the deep-rooted culture.

In theory the British Parliament could collectively lose its marbles and transform the UK into a totalitarian state in the space of a few weeks. In practice it's very unlikely to happen. The informal and formal are closely aligned in the political culture.

In theory Russia has the separation of powers and independent media. In practice, it doesn't. The informal and formal are misaligned, which in some ways is worse than never having the formal stuff in the first place.

<comment><USER5> Actually, during the Cold War there were fairly detailed plans the, if executed, _would_ have turned the UK into a totalitarian state pretty quickly - Duncan Campbell exposed these in his excellent series "Secret Society" \- and particularly the episode "In Time Of Crisis: Government Emergency Powers"

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_Campbell_%28journalist%2...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_Campbell_%28journalist%29)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XBdCwWeYzo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XBdCwWeYzo)

The fact that these plans existed during the Cold War is not really a surprise (although the severity of the planned measures is quite alarming - no wonder they tried to keep them secret).

What I do wonder about is what state these plans are in now and under what circumstances they could be used.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> It's important to be mindful that the successful examples of flat / bossless organisations often discussed on HN are _massively profitable_.

What's missing from this picture? Statistics and case studies of flat/bossless organisations where money is very tight.

There is severe survivor bias at play. Massive profitability allows you to get away with just about anything.

People think that the market rewards virtue or merit; that profit is the reward for this or that method, strategy or culture. Not really. Market systems are agnostic to how a company is run. If you stumble on a gold mine, the market doesn't reward you because you flog your miners. It likewise doesn't reward you because you pamper your miners. _It rewards you for having gold_.

For every Valve and Github, there is a Microsoft or an Oracle.

<comment><USER6> >There is severe survivor bias at play. Massive profitability allows you to get away with just about anything.

I think you could extend this observation even further. Technology start-up culture has a habit of sh*ting on well established knowledge as being useless because founders of start-ups often lack these knowledge yet still manage to succeed. An example of this is the general disdain for business know-how in the form of say an MBA.

They fail to realize that the reason they're succeeding is not because traditional business know-how is useless but rather because innovation grants you advantages that often allows you to succeed without business know-how. However this advantage disappears once everyone catches up to the innovation then business acumen reasserts itself. We are currently in a golden age of innovation, but that won't last forever.

The metaphor I like to use is: It is like someone using a machine-gun and hitting every target then concludes that marksman skills are useless while ignoring the fact that they are only hitting their target because they are using a machine-gun.

<comment><USER7> I think you could extend this observation even further. Business culture has a habit of sh*ting on new knowledge as being useless because businessmen often lack these knowledge yet still manage to succeed. An example of this is the general disdain for innovative approaches.

They fail to realize that the reason they're succeeding is not because traditional business know-how is useful but rather because crony capitalism allows you to succeed without innovation. However this advantage disappears once a market disrupter appears. We are currently in a golden age of innovation, but that won't last forever.

<comment><USER6> There is definitely a case to be made about old stodgy incumbents getting in the way of innovation. But my point isn't really about innovation disrupting the old but rather people throwing out the baby with the bath water when it comes to the relevance of business know-how.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This was an excellent read. I feel like it's coming from the trenches from someone who's had much experience creating structureless groups....

tldr: the conclusion/action points are:

Principles of Democratic Structuring

1) Delegation of specific authority to specific individuals for specific tasks by democratic procedures.

2) Requiring all those to whom authority has been delegated to be responsible to those who selected them.

3) Distribution of authority among as many people as is reasonably possible.

4) Rotation of tasks among individuals.

5) Allocation of tasks along rational criteria.

6) Diffusion of information to everyone as frequently as possible.

7) Equal access to resources needed by the group.

<comment><USER9> Thanks for this comment. I think too often this essay is interpreted as an argument for hierarchical control, when that is not what it seems to me to be arguing for, or how it would have been interpreted in the context it was written -- where a commitment to egalitarian and democratic organization was a baseline assumption.

The thing is, egalitarian organization is hard, and the contribution of this valuable essay is to point put that simply abolishing structure does't get you there -- and to specifically point out how it can still lead to hierarchy and authoritarianism.

But that hierarchy and authoritarianism are still identified as the _problem_ \--requiring solutions other than structurelessness-- not the solution to some other problem!

which leaves me curious what is being suggested as the applicability to github. I wonder if those at github actually see it as an org committed to democracy or egalitarianism. to me, despite an unusually flat org chart, its still a company with certain people in charge and certain equity owners, dedicated to efficiency and profit for it's owners.

<comment><AUTHOR> The problem isn't hierarchy or authoritarianism (though the latter is a symptom of it), but the distribution of power in any organization (or society), regardless of its goals. The point is simple: shying away from a clear power structure results only in an unfair and unmanageable distribution of power. Companies like GitHub, that believe in "self-organizations" would often fall into this trap once they grow large enough. Julie Ann Horvath's story at GitHub demonstrates how events unfold when the power structure isn't explicit.

<comment><USER10> I agree that's true, but I think that's more or less the problem this essay is tackling also (which I guess is why it ended up here). There is a pretty long history of anti-authoritarian political movements running into the problem that the _first_ step of abolishing formal titles and declaring that your group has a flat hierarchy with collective leadership is... not enough to remove the actual existence of authority. If anything it can sometimes be worse because now there is a boss but it's not explicit, and you have to be "in the know" to even know who calls the shots. While at least with a President or CEO or Supreme Leader the actual boss is labeled, and everyone has fair notice of who he/she is. So the problem is what to do about that: abandon the flat-hierarchy idea, or try to push it further into a really-flat- in-practice organization?

<comment><USER11> > So the problem is what to do about that: abandon the flat-hierarchy idea, or > try to push it further into a really-flat-in-practice organization?

Given that "really flat in practice" only works for societies like ants, I would tend to argue in most cases for the former, if only because it's more in keeping with what's actually going to happen anyways.

Even at places like Valve, the whole idea isn't to be flat, as much as it's to allow for the "best" sub-teams to arise naturally instead of management forming broken org. structures. But when you use annealing to form your teams you don't just form teams, you form all sorts of other unintended (and possibly harmful) cliques as well. And once you get above Dunbar's Number or thereabouts it becomes impossible to keep pointed in the right direction.

<comment><USER9> That's definitely not the argument Freeman was making in the OP though, right?

She ends with some suggestions for how to structure an organization to be _actually_ non-hiearchical and with equal sharing of power, instead of assuming structureless will get you there.

What have we learned from trying these things and similar in the 30 years since she wrote the essay? On what basis, what sort of research or experience, do you conclude with certainty that 'really flat' (do you mean egalitarian, democratic, non-hieararchical, non-authoritarian in general?) organizations are only possible for 'societies' (do you mean 'species'?) 'like ants'?

Of course, she wasn't talking about _businesses_ at all. "Even at places like Valve" have no real interest in an egalitarian sharing of power, they have an interest in _efficiency_ and _profit_ , and whatever organizational structure can give them that best. An entirely different context than Freeman was interested in, Freeman was interested in building a radical social movement, and was concerned about an equal democratic sharing of power and privilege -- and what sorts of devices or structures can give them that the best. Which may or may not be accomplished via 'really flat' organization, that's part of the discussion.

<comment><USER11> > On what basis, what sort of research or experience, do you conclude with > certainty that 'really flat' (do you mean egalitarian, democratic, non- > hieararchical, non-authoritarian in general?) organizations are only > possible for 'societies' (do you mean 'species'?) 'like ants'?

I mean "societies", as if you look into how their colonies work it is very much a collective society.

But the thing that underpins its operation is the fact that it _is_ structured on flat classes. Workers do work. Soldiers defend the colony. Queens lay eggs, and it is understood that in the normal scheme of business that workers will never be queens and queens will not be on the front lines fighting the nearby Nation of Termitistan. But except for the queen the soldiers and workers are all almost completely interchangeable within their class.

Humans, needless to say, are _not_ completely interchangeable. Maximizing the overall contribution from each individual for a collective goal requires different org. structures, especially given the high need for communications and information exchange.

Many groups try to solve this by designing the org. structure first and then finding the "right people" to fill the right positions in that org. structure. That style has seen successes and failures.

Others try to start with the "right people" and then evolve the right org. structure. But this reacts more to the needs of the group than to the abilities of the people, and doesn't scale to boot.

Then you have groups like Valve that try to enforce a flat org. structure and you end up instead evolving informal org. structures as before (since being flat implies being interchangeable). Is that really better? Is it more equal when you end up being in the wrong clique at the Valve cafeteria?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The blue background and lack of Safari Reader option made this difficult for me to read. The version on the author's own site is much better designed: [http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm](http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm)

<comment><USER13> I use this bookmarklet for websites like this (if there is no other version available):

[http://readable.tastefulwords.com/](http://readable.tastefulwords.com/)

Also great for preparing websites for printing too, when that is required.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> In case some context is necessary, this excellent article was pointed out to me by scott_s as part of the discussion of the stuff going on at GitHub.

<comment><USER14> Thanks for posting this article. I've seen it linked several times in recent years; probably even here on HN. However, it's still relevant. Again.

<comment><USER3> It's been posted as an item before but I don't think it hung around long. It's definitely been referred to (and linked) in many threads where the idea of 'no-management' or flat structures crops up. e.g threads on Valve.

The irony is that it puts into words what many people have already experienced (in some sense) via high-school. Although it's long, I tend to point people at this story if they're having an anti-management rant with me during a discussion.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> _Contrary to what we would like to believe, there is no such thing as a "structureless" group._

Even anonymous developed small groups within vying for power as inner cabals. Also structureless groups are still subject to evaporative cooling, if not more so.

This has profound implications for things like open source projects, language communities, and startup communities.

<comment><USER16> what do you mean by "evaporative cooling"?

<comment><USER17> The most high-value people in a group are the first to leave as the group grows and the average value of the group decreases, accelerating the decline of the average value of the group. To prevent this you need structures in place to retain value for the highest-value people, e.g., strict policing on who gets to join the group or the ability to form groups-within-groups.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Original source (on the author's web site) is here: [http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm](http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm)

</comment><comment><USER19> Isn't it incredibly obvious that hierarchical structures, even when they start o get a hint of tyranny, offer _more freedom to the individual_ than "structureless" ones?! (my definition of "freedom" here is "freedom to do my thing however I want to do it, whether the majority agree or nor, whether I'm right or not").

In a "structureless"/"not explicitly structured" social system you have to always keep your senses sharp and always be observant about the hidden power structure that always changes. This takes a _huuuge_ amount of mental energy, at least for me, and I can put this energy to _waaaay_ better uses. In a functional "structured system", even if for short periods of time the wrong people get in charge, you can at least not spend _50% of your energy_ in tasks related to the perpetual reorganization of the power structure and the silent but continuous fights for power, and actually have time and energy for _solving the problems_ (and no, the problem is never "who's in charge?", nobody gives a fuck "who's in charge"!) Yeah, you may have to do the problem solving while lying "yes sir, I'll do it like this" to the bosses, and then go on and do things "your way" in reality, but it's waaaaay less stressful then either:

\- being in/around a perpetual silent power-fight

\- not knowing who _really_ is in charge (this is what I find the most stressful, because if you know who _really_ is in charge you can solve any serious problem by jumping over your superiors and talking to someone more enlightened higher up the food chain)

"Non-micromanaging 'cold' hierarchies" (by 'cold' I mean both "relatively rigid", like not in a continuous reorganization and power fight, and non- empathic to even semi-autistical, like being relatively unperturbed by temporary emotions) and "benevolent tyrants" are to me the best models for helping the "makers" function at 100%. And "the makers" are the ones actually solving the problems and keeping the profit flow.

</comment><comment><USER20> The moment you have two primates and a banana, you're going to get politics.

<comment><USER15> If the two primates are bonobos, the usual result is sex.

<comment><USER21> Which is still politics.

<comment><USER15> Indeed. Didn't one noble in the 30 years war switch sides at what amounts to the prompting of his girlfriend?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Am I over-inferring from one piece of info, or does this writing represent an entire branch of early feminism which lost the struggle for the heart of the movement and was driven out by worse ideas?

<comment><USER23> I suspect you're over-inferring, and it's hard to tell what you mean by "heart" and "worse".

Reading the oft-cited anarchist response might provide some context (though it was written in 2005): [http://libcom.org/library/tyranny-of-tyranny-cathy- levine](http://libcom.org/library/tyranny-of-tyranny-cathy-levine)

Nearly every time the Tyranny of Structurelessness is posted to some activist's facebook wall these days, a link to the Tyranny of Tyranny is in the first few comments. Then the discussion devolves into rehashed bickering, though never about the actual content of the pieces.

<comment><USER24> This (Tyranny of Structurelessness) pamphlet was one of many diverse pamphlets on a board in an anarcho-communist activist/literature space where I used to volunteer. I'm more than surprised to see it posted here and it pleases me to see that there is a critique (Tyranny of tyranny).

Has there ever been a pole about the political leanings of HN or would it be impossible to enumerate the categories?

       [] anarchist
       [] socialist
       [] republican
       [] monarchist
       [] libertarian
       [] free market capitalist taxes are theft ayn rand is my god
       [] conservative
       [] democrat
       [] i really couldn't tell you old boy

<comment><AUTHOR> Such a poll would go against the site rules, and for good reason, but I sometimes conduct hidden polls by posting "libertarian" and "socialist" (I'm putting those in quotes because these terms have different meanings in the US than elsewhere) comments (using different accounts) on political threads and counting the upvotes. It might be surprising (but only for a split second) that the vast majority of HN users are progressive (in America: socialist/democrat), while free market believers/libertarians are a minority. It is by no means scientific, and possibly quite anecdotal, but also not surprising, that the free-market libertarians are among the younger members of this site (usually early twenties, judging by the information posted on user pages of "libertarian posters").

This is not surprising because HN is a community of mostly well educated people, which here, like elsewhere, is composed of left-leaning individuals. However, it is also true that the number of libertarians here, while still a relatively small minority, is larger than found in other communities of well educated people.

<comment><USER25> Have you also taken into account that most Americans that consider themselves democrat/liberal/progressive would be considered well to the right in most other countries represented on HN?

The American contingent really skews the numbers if you let people identify themselves.

You get a much clearer picture if you look at discussions around concrete issues, like government and regulation.

<comment><USER26> I'm not sure about that, I'm from the UK and most of my exposure to US culture comes from the internet or the media but I get the impression that there are simply more extremes of opinion in the US than there are here.

Your liberals are more progressive and your conservatives are more conservative, at least towards the fringes.

I think it would be much easier to find a consensus of opinion in the UK on most topics than it would be in the US.

It might be true that the political status quo (on many issues) in the US is further to the right than it is here, but that might be because progressives feel that they have to vote for the party that most closely represents their views and has a chance of being elected (presumably democrat) rather than a party that they necessarily agree with.

<comment><USER27> I think the UK is somewhat a special case among the Western European nations in this context as well. From a Finnish/Nordic perspective it seems that the US Democrats, on average, seem only a bit to the left of what would here be regarded as "center"; in some cases even to the right.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Wow. The section "Political Impotence" describes the experience of working in a well-functioning "structureless organization", and it sounds a lot like the descriptions of early-stage startups. (Chunks omitted with ellipses for brevity; go check out the whole thing!)

"While working in this kind of group is a very heady experience, it is also rare and very hard to replicate. There are almost inevitably four conditions found in such a group:

1\. It is task oriented. Its function is very narrow and very specific, like putting on a conference or putting out a newspaper. It is the task that basically structures the group...

2\. It is relatively small and homogeneous. Homogeneity is necessary to ensure that participants have a "common language" or interaction. ...too great a diversity among members of a task-oriented group means only that they continually misunderstand each other... If everyone knows everyone else well enough to understand the nuances, these can be accommodated. Usually, they only lead to confusion and endless hours spent straightening out conflicts no one ever thought would arise.

3\. There is a high degree of communication... This is only possible if the group is small and people practically live together for the most crucial phases of the task....Successful groups can be as large as 10 or 15, but only when they are in fact composed of several smaller subgroups which perform specific parts of the task, and whose members overlap with each other so that knowledge of what the different subgroups are doing can be passed around easily.

4\. There is a low degree of skill specialization. Not everyone has to be able to do everything, but everything must be able to be done by more than one person..."

</comment><comment><USER29> This was written by a state communist, so you can imagine what "structure" she advocated, and the anarchists immediately replied with The Tyranny of Tyranny

[http://www.libcom.org/library/tyranny-of-tyranny-cathy- levin...](http://www.libcom.org/library/tyranny-of-tyranny-cathy-levine)

<comment><AUTHOR> Except history, in Silicon Valley ([http://blogs.hbr.org/2014/01/how-silicon- valley-became-the-m...](http://blogs.hbr.org/2014/01/how-silicon-valley- became-the-man/)) as elsewhere, is unequivocally on Jo Freeman's side. No actual revolution (as opposed to imagined ones) ever managed to remain structureless, and those that aspired to be the most structureless quickly became as oppressive as the most tyrannical ones.

<comment><USER30> For additional context; what/which revolution(s) are you thinking about that aspired to be the most structureless but became as oppressive as the most tyrannical ones?

<comment><AUTHOR> Pretty much all the communist ones; the French; counterculture (see the linked article as well as Adam Curtis's documentaries)

<comment><USER31> Communists never aspired to be structureless, definitely not in the short term. Even utopia they promised in long term had element of forced conformity with system aka oppression. Path towards that utopia was supposed to go through strong party discipline and obeisance. That is how communist party survived oppression in Russia.

It was not supposed to be "free" or "structureless" in any current meaning of the word.

I now much less about French revolution, but what I know suggests it was very complicated event. Describing it as simple attempt to move towards structureless society is simplifying it too much.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Flat/no-bosses, untrue. Clash between the founder and employee, who's out the door?

</comment><comment><USER2> If anyone's having trouble reading... [https://www.readability.com/articles/vot5qmk3](https://www.readability.com/articles/vot5qmk3)

<comment><USER33> That just redirects me to the original site.

The "zap colors" bookmarklet is helpful here: [https://www.squarefree.com/bookmarklets/zap.html](https://www.squarefree.com/bookmarklets/zap.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> "Contrary to what we would like to believe, there is no such thing as a "structureless" group. Any group of people of whatever nature that comes together for any length of time for any purpose will inevitably structure itself in some fashion. "

This assertion is not quite true.

When I think of "structure", I am thinking of deliberate, conscious, and rational attempts to create a sort of rigid ... structure. What he is describing is better termed as "dynamic".

I make this distinction because I've typically found (as a man), men tends to think and work with structures more often than with the dynamics... the natural ebb and flow of a group without a "structure".

When you start thinking about accomplishing a goal (whether a man or a woman) as a group, you start talking about structure, or "process" or any number of those words. That's when you use a particular part of the consciousness to _drive_ and coordinate efforts. So when you start trying to look at what the group can _do_ , accomplish, or its utility, you naturally start looking at structure, and perhaps even imposing structure.

Dynamics, or flow will happen regardless of whether we consciously attempt to structure the group or not. When you're not aiming for a particular goal, you can simply just _be_ with the group, to feel and experience the way the group comes together and disperses. There is great wisdom in this, something that has been obscured because it doesn't produce anything that can be easily quantified.

I know programmers have talked about "flow" or "zone", about teams that have "gelled". These are all related to the wisdom of being, rather than that of doing. "Flow state", or "zone" is that sweet spot where your effort becomes effortless because you've relaxed into the flow while ... flowing to the goal. Flow states are one of the experiences we can have with consciousness, and you get there by first relaxing and getting more in touch with being ... and dropping some of your fixation on structure.

In truth, you see this play between structure and dynamic, between effort and flow. It's just that, most of us are so fixated on the doing and the structure, we are no longer aware of the natural dynamic. This is something I've noticed many (not all) women naturally understand this, and generally, men are pretty clueless about. When men typically encounter this, men will argue about it until we are blue in the face; usually, the women will agree, thus reinforcing this fixation. Women's liberation, in my opinion, is less about liberating women, and more about whacking men with a clue-by-four.

<comment><USER3> The author's premise is that when people interact, 'structures' always form (it's in the same section you quoted from). It's same way that one could argue that 'politics' is always present, when two or more people must work together.

You can't really claim her assertion isn't true simply by using your own definition of the term.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> It's so much easier to capture an organization when you can simply buy it.

</comment><comment><USER36> Right, so if the women's liberation movement hadn't made flat orgs so fashionable, then maybe Github would still be a nice place for all kinds to work, and we wouldn't have this whole class of pseudo-sexist problems.

Am I reading this right?

</comment><comment><USER37> And this is why I prefer 4chan to reddit. By eliminating individual identities (except on a few niche boards, almost nobody posts in any identifiable way) from a group, you are left with no way to form personal cliques.

You can identify people by their actions, sure. Like "that person who draws those video-games comics" or "that person who knows a lot about kernel development and posts help in the programming threads" (this is a hypothetical person, I haven't met one like that on 4chan yet) &c. But you don't have a name on those usually and even if they do use one, those people only use it to post that content, rather than in general. You don't know if the person is male, female, or a raptor butterfly from Venus.

The threads are also flat and you cannot upvote posts. This prevents the upvote-echo-chamber effect you can see on reddit. If you wish to drown out another opinion, you have to actually post more than the other anon, you can't just call your friends on IRC and have them upvote via puppet accounts or whatnot. And there is an enforced minimum time between posts, which is greatly increased if you attempt to post the same thing twice in a row. Every dissenting opinion is given equal opportunity for being heard (as long as it's not about posting gore pics out of sheer asshattery - that shit gets you banned).

This does sound very unstructured and some kinds of groups do arise, but they're centered around shared interests and not identities. It's kind of strange putting it like that, but 4chan is probably one of the sites on the internet where it's hardest to hurt a specific person. You can post hurtful remarks about some other person's post or opinions, but without an identity to attach to that person, you can't go on to hurt them in other threads. Or even in the same thread in many cases. Now, there are people on certain boards that voice general opinions that will hurt you and make you angry. I suggest posting right back at them.

4chan's design won't work in all cases, though. For instance, StackOverflow and friends work perfectly with the reddit model. But the point of SO is to get the best possible answer to a question. The point of 4chan is to enable fair discussion (also pictures of cats and porn, as long as it's not porn with cats).

It's a shame 4chan is the only well-known site on the internet using that model. I'd love to see different platforms experiment with fully anonymous posting and no upvote system.

P.S. I'm not moot

<comment><USER38> >And this is why I prefer 4chan to reddit. By eliminating individual identities (except on a few niche boards, almost nobody posts in any identifiable way) from a group, you are left with no way to form personal cliques.

I've never experienced this on reddit. Yes usernames are attached to every post, but it's functionally anonymous. No one knows or cares who anyone else is. With rare exceptions.

>The threads are also flat and you cannot upvote posts. This prevents the upvote-echo-chamber effect you can see on reddit.

You can sort reddit by "new" and it's _awful_. Likewise HN uses basically the same system and manages a much higher quality of discussion.

<comment><USER37> That's because HN is still pretty young. 4chan used to be "better" (note: actual better may vary) 8 years ago, when it was still basically a monoculture of like-minded individuals.

Reddit is awful when you sort by new because you can't see who people are replying to. 4chan solves that problem nicely, I think, with its post id and post id quoting feature. It's common to even quote a part of the post you're replying to, if it's a longer post.

<comment><USER38> What do you mean you can't see who people are replying to on reddit? Replies are organized and indented quite nicely. As far as I can tell, 4chan just uses a cryptic number, and the replies can be anywhere in the thread.

<comment><USER37> I mean posts aren't numbered and the id of the post(s) that are being replied to aren't visible in the post itself.

4chan's "cryptic number" system is pretty much perfect. You click on the number and it expands inline to the comment itself. All the posts that replied to a given post are also added to the header of that post and clicking on those numbers inline-expands the comments. The best part is you can reply to several comments at once with just one comment - the thread isn't a tree, it's a directed acyclic graph. If three people give you roughly the same reply you can reply to all three posts at once. I find this a very good feature for discussions, where very often there are several micro-threads going on on a single sub-topic inside a thread, it allows to keep everything neatly organised and you can reference people to other posts easily just by number. It used to be more cubersome before the current built-in javascript extension, when posts didn't expand and you couldn't see replies to a post tacked as references on the post itself, but today it's really really good.

I urge you to try a more tame board, say /g/ (technology), and see for yourself how things work now. It's usually best around after 6-7 PM USA time (any coast), when the people who don't live to shitpost get home from work.

Edit: to be pedantically correct (the even better kind of correct), you can make a post that quotes a future post and with really good statistical modelling and some luck, you can arrange to post in the same thread with that exact number, forming a full cycle - a post that quotes a future post that quotes the first post. This was much easier early on. I think the highest achievement was one person who managed to pull it off across several different boards while roleplaying a time-traveler.

<comment><USER38> I wasn't aware of those features, that would significantly improve what I thought of it. However having to click to see replies seems less than ideal. Reddit and HN just organize them properly to begin with. It also gets rid of voting, which I believe to be the most important feature.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Structurelessness is a bad idea. It's taking some good concepts (open allocation, self-direction) too far. It means that management is lazy and absent rather than aware, principled, and effective. Open allocation still requires management to keep it open.

Closed allocation is worse and basically terrible, because there's an inherent conflict of interest between people and project management. Advocating for 10 people, _and_ having to make those 10 people deliver on a specific executive mandate, has a person serving two masters. It might be that the best thing for a person is to change projects, but that conflicts with the manager's need to manage up and won't happen.

You still need people who can protect the good (sheepdogs). Always. I don't care how flat an organization is, there has got to be someone who, if harassment occurs or someone is impeding others' work, says "Not fucking acceptable". The problem is that it's really hard to give someone that power and not have it be abused.

</comment><comment><USER40> MY EYESSSSSS

<comment><USER41> View->Page Style->No Style (in Firefox) turns it into a rather readable and certainly responsive page.

Less is more. Ain't HTML great?</comment></comment>


YC Clone In Seattle - <AUTHOR> http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/356131_founders24.html <comment><USER2> Why is everyone who invests small amounts of seed funding a "YC clone"? The implication is that the people they fund are "YC rejects" (YC people have explicitly claimed that on this site).

It seems tantamount to wishing to constrain the number of seed-funded startups to the ones 4 people (PG & co.) can advise at once.

Are more startups a good thing, or not? If it is, don't deride newcomers by referring to them as a clone of what already exists.

<comment><USER3> I completely agree. Seed financing is inherently unscalable. Investment partners need to spend a lot of time per investment and that severely limits their output.

Just like Sequoia are not a 'clone' of Kleiner Perkins, the same is to be said for competition: because both are unscalable businesses they can successfully co-exist and it certainly isn't a winner take all market. Indeed, the market is crying out for more firms, but the contraint is skilled early stage investors.

Also, Andy and Chris (who this article is about) both rock.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Yaw, attacking the same market/problem, but decidedly NOT a clone.

I _really_ like the co-op twist.

I think shared office space, however, is a LOUSY idea. Adding to my list of things to blog about!

<comment><USER5> It depends on what they mean by "shared office".

If they share a secretary and some meeting rooms it can work well.

If 20 companies are in the same cubicle farm, not so much.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I don't think it's correct to call this a YC clone, but it's cool to see more startup-investment-related activity coming out of Seattle - there's a lot of great talent and ideas there.

</comment><comment><USER7> > Five percent of the equity in each company will be distributed in a pool to > be shared by other Founders Co-op firms.

Smart way to encourage people to help each other.

<comment><USER6> I dunno how I feel about that - it depends on the size of the pool (# of companies). Could get distracting in the long run.

<comment><USER7> There's an economic principal on how specialization can increase output for the same amount of work. Otherwise, clearly some failed startups can tell that they're doomed before they finally give up and this might give them something more valuable to do?

Will be interesting to see this strategy tested.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> They share office space, own stakes in the other's companies. It sounds like an incubator, no? These solutions are appearing all over the place. Are incubators now a good idea? (YC is NOT included in that category)

<comment><USER9> The major difference this time around is that the incubators are going for much smaller dollar amounts: they're doing YC magnitude investments. I'm not sure if it'll end up being a profitable experiment or not, but I understand why people are trying.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Don't YC companies also work together or at least use each other's products? Co-oping sounds great, but only when it actually benefits users.

</comment><comment><USER11> i like this idea, sounds like a great way to build a community

</comment><comment><USER12> calling it a clone is misleading. exciting since personally i'd like to see some more VC action in the Pacific NW</comment>


Tracking the real US coronavirus testing numbers with open source - <AUTHOR> https://www.zdnet.com/article/tracking-the-real-us-coronavirus-testing-numbers-with-open-source/ <comment><AUTHOR> The real numbers: As of the afternoon of March 19, there have been 103,945 total COVID-19 tests reported. Of those, 11,723 people were infected, 89,197 were not infected, 3,025 are still awaiting results, and 160 have died. So, much for "millions" of tests.</comment>


Riders on the Storm - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/20/opinion/20brooks.html?ref=opinion

<comment><USER2> I love the imagery of this article. I recall one of the attractions of the 90's Web was the unpredictable nature of every link - since the bulk of interesting pages were personal and semi-autobiographial, it was a voyeuristic trip into the lives of random people.

For me, it got less easy to do that when the Web shifted towards larger, consolidated sites with more community behind them. The insane rants and confessionals of the old homepages were overwhelmed in a sea of vague, repetitive one-line comments, heavily edited Wikipedia pages, and advertisements for various products I don't really need. It became comforting and familiar to go to an aggregator of some kind and see "random" new links that were usually, in fact, overly predictable and based on a trend or meme.

Occasionally, I still make an effort to go out and find something genuinely new. It's hard to know where to start, but I usually succeed with a little effort, so I know the old Web is still there.</comment>


Ask HN: In HN threads is it possible to prevent long URLs from being truncated? - <AUTHOR> Forgive me if this is very trivial as I'm not very 'web-dev-literate'...
I like to save HN comments for personal reference and usually just cherry-pick and manually highlight+copy them into my personal notes.
Comments with long URLs will end up being displayed and subsequently copied as:
http://example.com/some-very-long-url-that-ge...
Was wondering if there's a simple way (custom css/js?) to force these long URLs from not being truncated in order to make manual copying easier. <comment><USER2> How about right-click and choose Copy Link Address?

<comment><AUTHOR> Right, but I'd prefer not to have to do that if a comment cites multiple links that I want to queue for later.</comment></comment>


Metalinguistic Abstractions in Ruby - <AUTHOR> http://github.com/raganwald/homoiconic/blob/master/2009-10-08/metalinguistic.md#readme

<comment><USER2> Reg, thanks very much for this. I haven't read the whole thing (I have to get some work done first), but serious consideration of what is or isn't a DSL is always welcome.

Much of what I see aren't DSLs; they are more domain-specific dialects or, really, APIs.

The trouble is that people have different critical judgment when they view something as an API or as a DSL, with the notion of a DSL allowing less well- considered APIs to slip though.

"This discussion is extracted from a forthcoming talk--"The Revised, Revised Ruby.rewrite(Ruby)" or "R5"--to be be delivered at Stack Overflow Dev Days."

Will this be recorded?

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't know whether the talks will be recorded. It's being organized by Carsonified:

<http://stackoverflow.carsonified.com/events/toronto/>

I get the last spot, the one everyone skips to get an early start on their BEveERages.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I like your _abstractioneering_ section about slides (though not the title). Makes absolute sense: if your program is intended to communicate something to somebody, think of it in terms of something else you use for communication. I find I have to wait til I'd written a fair bit of a project before I can divide it up into modules _correctly_ \--- you need to understand a problem really well before know what the sections need to be. I guess in "giving a presentation" that you already understand the project and have finished it is implicit.

But maybe your metaphor will help even in the process. I'll try it. :-)

<comment><AUTHOR> When developing a presentation I often re-organize it as I understand it better and get a fix on how I want to communicate the subject. Would software be any different?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> You spend a lot of time talking about semantics and levels of abstraction, but there's no mention at all of syntax. I find it difficult to consider something a "language" when the syntactic rules are completely decoupled from the abstractions that it describes.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hello again! Thanks for anticipating the next post that is currently in draft form. I am extremely interested in what I call "meta-syntactic programming" and everybody else calls "Macros circa 1969."

<http://github.com/raganwald/rewrite_rails#readme></comment></comment>


IntelliJ IDEA 14 released - <AUTHOR> https://www.jetbrains.com/idea/whatsnew

<comment><USER2> My last upgrade only cost $99, didn't know the upgrade to new versions was this much.

<comment><USER3> Personal license upgrade is still $99. You must be looking at Commercial license which is (and was) way more expensive.

<comment><USER2> Doh, its too early.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Bitcoin business unexpectedly taking off, help! - <AUTHOR> I launched a service to buy gift cards for bitcoin earlier this week (cardforcoin.com) and it's doing far better than I expected. Like, in a scary way.
I have a full-time job, and was hoping to carve out a small bit of passive income, not launch a full-blown startup.
I could really use some advice from anyone else who's run a bitcoin business, dealt with an unexpected success, or could get me in touch with a lawyer interested in the BTC world who might start pro-bono.
PS - Earlier discussion - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7144067
PPS - I want to leave the link for context, but if you'd actually like to use the service, please wait a bit / until the weekend.
EDIT - I'm not accepting cards until this gets on the road to straightened out, for obvious reasons. If anyone has any particular further insights please drop me an email. <comment><USER2> I would strongly consider not running a money transmitter as a side business. If you do not understand that you are running a money transmitter, I will be happy to elaborate.

I would also mention, on the assumption you're not aware of it, that you are offering fairly effective money laundering for credit card thieves at below- market rates for that service, and you can expect heavy dedicated adversarial interest. I rather expect you are receiving it already and are as-yet unaware of it. Feel free to ask for more elaboration if you do not understand the mechanics of how this works, or why it will quickly dominate the pool of people willing to receive $50 in consideration for $100 of Starbucks cards.

<comment><USER3> How is he a money transmitter? His business is buying a product (Starbucks gift cards) and paying for them with Bitcoin. By your definition, a used car dealership that buys cars from the public and pays for them with cash is also a money transmitter.

<comment><USER4> Starbucks gift cards are relatively anonymous, can store varying amounts of money without being suspicious and are easily transferred and sold. They are a fantastic vector for transfering dirty cash

<comment><USER5> Anyway why worry? If bitcoin is anonymous, just host in 3rd world and work through ToR.

<comment><USER6> Yeah because the "third world" has better legal protection than the USA....

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Advice: Shut it down before you get raided and shut down and your "side business" becomes "going to court and defending yourself."

What you clearly didn't realize is that long before BitCoin was popular, gift cards were one of the ways criminals laundered money. There are even discussions about which gift cards can be sold for the least discount. Gift cards can be sold for cash, so you are in effect, operating a bitcoin exchange.

<comment><USER8> From the New York Times (1):

"In March, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, part of the Treasury Department, issued guidelines (2) telling businesses involved in the exchange of digital currencies that they needed to register as money services businesses and comply with a variety of rules to prevent money laundering. New York's Department of Financial services began an inquiry in August to determine guidelines for digital currency businesses, issuing nearly two dozen subpoenas (3) to start-ups, investors and others involved in the emerging field."

1\. [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/31/technology/bitcoin- pursues...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/31/technology/bitcoin-pursues-the- mainstream.html?_r=0)

2\. [http://www.fincen.gov/news_room/nr/pdf/20130318.pdf](http://www.fincen.gov/news_room/nr/pdf/20130318.pdf)

3\. [http://www.dfs.ny.gov/about/press2013/memo1308121.pdf](http://www.dfs.ny.gov/about/press2013/memo1308121.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> WARNING - get legal advice now. You'll likely come under the umbrella of money transmission business laws meaning that you need to register with your state and the federal government (assuming you're in the USA).

<comment><USER10> I think _this_ should be step #1.

Even if everything is in fact kosher, approving/solidifying any money-related operations would be a great idea (especially with Bitcoin's increasing relevance and scrutiny).

<comment><USER11> Step NOW. Put up a maintenance window and figure out if it is even reasonable to continue. The risk seems outrageously high.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> How automated is it? Any parts that could be automated that aren't? That would be step 1 I think.

Secondly, don't panic!

Thirdly, consider if I sell you my Starbucks card balance and I was evil, could I some how phone Starbucks up and say my card was lost/stolen? What happens in this instance? It's the biggest risk you need to look at from what I can see at first glance. Perhaps test this.

Fourthly, is there a difference between a gift card and reward card? Coincidentally we just bought a reward card today for our startup (we drink lots of coffee). It looks like it has a similar number format as a gift card, and the Starbucks FAQ says they can refund a balance from the moment it's reported as stolen/lost: [http://www.starbucks.co.uk/customer- service/faqs/card](http://www.starbucks.co.uk/customer-service/faqs/card)

Fifthly, become aquainted with the law. Gift cards in the UK at least are considered as "Like cash" as far as I am aware. This means you could be setting yourself up for a bit of legal trouble down the line if you are considered a transmitter or money or such. As other posters point out, the reason for your early success could be because you are being used as a money laundering service without you being aware of the fact.

And a question, what exactly are you doing with all these cards? Selling them on somehow? Or keeping them?

If this is too much risk/pressure for you, and you feel out your comfort zone, consider selling it as is for BTC. I'm sure you'll find a buyer for a good sum. If you like risk, want to make some money then good luck! Let the adventure begin. Although it sounds like as soon as you get any volume and Starbucks catches wind you'd be pretty easy to shut down. That's one of the better outcomes for you as well I think, the legal risks sound significant. If it was mine, I'd look for a quick sale and pass the risk on.

<comment><USER13> > could I some how phone Starbucks up and say my card was lost/stolen? What > happens in this instance? It's the biggest risk you need to look at from > what I can see at first glance. Perhaps test this.

I lost my Starbucks card and somebody used it. I had auto topup, so they kept using it :) After I reported it, Starbucks replied two days later, cancelled it and transferred the remaining balance. Still I lost about £15 from the auto topup.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm _not_ accepting registered cards, which changes the fraud vectors quite a bit. No auto-reload, etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I just pinged you on Twitter, @jdshutt. I know a lawyer who specializes in tax law and is very interested in cryptocurrencies. If you want to get in touch with her, you can reach me at email@example.com and I'll send her e-mail.

I'm on board with everyone saying that you need to talk to a lawyer sooner rather than later, and should work with someone who knows the area.

<comment><USER15> Tax law isn't very relevant here; the primary areas of concern are federal money transmission laws and criminal state and federal anti-laundering laws.

<comment><USER16> > the primary areas of concern are federal money transmission laws and > criminal state and federal anti-laundering laws.

Shouldn't that be "federal and state" in both cases, not just the anti- laundering case?

<comment><USER15> Yes, but too late to edit it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Taking the service offline was a good move. You can request an administrative ruling from FinCEN. It would be prudent to meet with an attorney first and have the attorney draft and send the letter (it may receive a quicker response on attorney letterhead).

As a side note attorneys can not contact you, they can send you advertisements or return your calls but they can not directly contact you, you must contact an attorney. Therefore any attorney who contacts you as a result of this post should immediately raise a red flag in you mind.

In the meantime here is FinCEN's guidance on virtual currencies: [http://fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001....](http://fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001.html)

And FinCEN's final rule on prepaid access(aka gift cards): [http://www.fincen.gov/news_room/nr/html/20110726b.html](http://www.fincen.gov/news_room/nr/html/20110726b.html)

<comment><USER18> > As a side note attorneys can not contact you, they can send you > advertisements or return your calls but they can not directly contact you,

As someone who does not have much idea about laws, why can't an attorney contact him?

<comment><USER17> Well the answer as to why is because the Model Rules of Professional Conduct prohibit said conduct. Specifically Rule 7.3, Direct Contact with Prospective Clients, reads as follows:

(a) A lawyer shall not by in‑person, live telephone or real-time electronic contact solicit professional employment when a significant motive for the lawyer's doing so is the lawyer's pecuniary gain, unless the person contacted:

(1) is a lawyer; or

(2) has a family, close personal, or prior professional relationship with the lawyer.

Now you may be curious about the justification of the rule...ever hear of the term _ambulance chaser_? It is a nasty term for attorneys who preyed on prospective clients in very vulnerable states who otherwise would not be able to make a voluntary and informed decision. The rule is meant to protect the public and profession from said behavior.

<comment><USER18> Thanks specially for the justification.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> My guess is it's exploding because people are desperate for untraceable ways to convert cash into bitcoins. Most likely other services like this have popped up but then shut down for fraud related legal issues, or people are scared to start them.

</comment><comment><USER20> Yes, money laundering is profitable, but I wouldn't call it safe; I'd shut it down fast before you get yourself into real trouble.

</comment><comment><USER21> I think part of your success comes from having created the ability to, de facto, buy Bitcoins via credit card. Any credit card (e.g., stolen ones). That's also your biggest legal challenge. That's what should scare you. But if you can sort out those details and regulations with a good lawyer, you shouldn't be afraid of success and taking projects as far as they'll go.

<comment><AUTHOR> One of the steps to de-risk the cards will be a waiting period- new cards won't be accepted unless they've been activated X days/months. That should seriously lower the chance of stolen cards getting through.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> If it were me, I'd back slowly away from this particular sleeping dog. You're playing both ends against the middle here. Fraudsters on one side and what can only be described as a vengeful, willfully belligerent government on the other. Both have infinite resources compared to you and a strong desire to do you harm.

</comment><comment><USER23> ITT: People who do want to start full-blown startups, and are more than happy to replicate your idea. If your moonlight project is seeing significant traction, imagine what could be done with full-time commitment and funding.

I think it's in the nature of an entrepreneur to always be hunting for promising new ventures. And that's not a bad thing. Just a heads up.

<comment><USER24> If thats true, then the people in this thread would make excellent partners. Give them some equity and let them your headaches.

ps. I'd be interested: www.aakilfernandes.com

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> The reason you're successful is because no one rational will compete in this space because of the legal liability. I've seen that many times, segments which are profitable until you realize the legal quagmire you've wandered into and appreciate very well why no one else is doing it.

</comment><comment><USER26> I'm shocked that on a programmers/hackers forum people would tell a guy not to start a business because there's "probable" illegality. This kind of thing is the basis of all FUD.

There's obviously enormous gray area regarding btc's legality. Get your advice from an professional lawyer.

</comment><comment><USER27> What scares you? If you outline your worries, you can problably get better answers addressing them.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't know, these are pretty good answers. My concerns: the law, fraud, and finding a balance between this and my full-time job, in that order. Overarching theme- how to make this work while minimizing my personal risk.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> WRT lawyer: go talk to orrick. They will get you properly incorporated and will give you a ton worth of upfront legal help and won't require payment until you raise capital if that's needed.

If you crash and burn, they charge you nothing.

</comment><comment><USER29> How scary is it? I guess the selling point of your idea is actually "anonymous".

Some holders bought bitcoins at $0.1/BTC, now they are spending coins like having a 99% off.

Well, if $0.1/BTC looks too dramatic, fine, let's say they bought at $200/BTC, still, 70% (which was paid off by newcomers if you think about it).

What I'm saying is the prosperity is based on how much profit your users will get, like Groupon (in the early days when they were providing huge discounts). While newcomers now are buying coins at high, how long do you think the prosperity could last?

Not sure if i'm thinking it right. Just wanted to point out.

</comment><comment><USER30> How are you handling fraud?

<comment><AUTHOR> Hand-verification right now before payout, though I'm locking it down further now.

<comment><USER31> Perhaps there's an api you can use to do the heavy lifting like [http://dev.maxmind.com/minfraud/](http://dev.maxmind.com/minfraud/) or [http://www.subuno.com/developers.html](http://www.subuno.com/developers.html)

<comment><USER32> This is a _really hard_ problem that will not be easily offloaded to someone else.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I'm curious about the mechanics of this. What stops someone from giving their number for BitCoin, then using the card anyways?

After you sell/trade your card, how do others use it to buy coffee?

</comment><comment><USER34> This is a cool concept, A lot of people let you trade bitcoin for cards, but the opposite is really useful too! I'd love this business in dollars.

</comment><comment><USER35> Take a deep breath. It just means you have a good idea. Develop a system to streamline everything and enjoy the profits.

</comment><comment><USER36> I would recommend speaking with an accountant or financial adviser before the lawyer first - you'll still need the lawyer, but if it's really blowing up, you'll need some advice regarding taxable status of all this newfound digital income.

Congratulations on your success, no matter what direction you decide to go with it!

<comment><USER37> I think he'll need more help regarding the legality of running a non-licensed money transmitter which is ideally suited for money laundering credit from stolen identities...

<comment><USER36> Upon reflection and more comments read, yes, I think you're quite right.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> That's a pretty damn neat idea. I've neither run a bitcoin business nor am I a lawyer.

Just thought I'd comment and congratulate you on your idea, if you end up needing tech or systems advice I'm sure I or someone else here can answer.

</comment><comment><USER39> I really would be more careful with this site if I were you. You need to get pictures of the receipt or something, because if not you are just going to get alot of carded giftcards which will just have the money revoked shortly.

</comment><comment><USER40> There appear to be a lot of people knowledgeable on money transmitters here so maybe someone can shine some light on this: How are app stores/online marketplaces/AirBnb/Kickstarter not also money transmitters?

</comment><comment><USER41> How are you getting your bitcoin? Are you mining, or buying it at retail (coinbase, etc)?

You are providing a channel for money laundering, so you will likely come under scrutiny if this gets popular.

<comment><AUTHOR> Retail.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> my advice to you is either decide to pursue this full time, eyes wide open with regard to the risks, both legal and financial...

or shut it down and return all the money.

you can't half-ass this kind of thing.

</comment><comment><USER43> Wow, as soon as I read that article about this I KNEW it was going to explode. Even at that low rate of exchange. Great idea, but stay away from the shady ones.

</comment><comment><USER44> On the top - does anyone know a good reliable place where you can get Starbucks Gift cards - for Bitcoin?

</comment><comment><USER45> Shoot me an email... I may be able to help here <aosmith-at-gmail>.

</comment><comment><USER46> Aren't most gift cards "non-transferable"?

<comment><USER47> Most gift cards can be used in person for purchases without any sort of ID -- which means that they can be effectively "transferred" to anyone. In fact, that's rather the point. They're called "gift" cards because you're expected to transfer ("give") them to someone else!

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> Incorporate in Switzerland, I can help. tyfour at gmx.ch

</comment><comment><USER49> You can find a lawyer to work for equity on EquityLancer

<comment><USER50> I won't want to belittle anyone, but payment processing law is really complicated. I doubt you'll find someone with experience willing to take equity.

It's not like making simple LLC membership agreements and employment contracts. This stuff is complex federal regulations.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> Are you planning on drinking a lot of coffee?

<comment><USER52> I feel dumb, but I'm wondering this too. How does he convert the Starbucks cards to anything not coffee - or not take a loss converting them to cash?

<comment><USER53> Well you can buy cookies, muffins and such with it too so maybe he's using it to feed himself.

But yeah I'm not seeing what the OP's benefit is unless coffee = same as cash for OP.

<comment><USER54> There are a variety of websites that will give you at least some cash for your cards (useful if you have accumulated cards that you otherwise won't use).</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Robinhood gets almost half its revenue selling orders to high-frequency traders - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-15/robinhood-gets-almost-half-its-revenue-in-controversial-bargain-with-high-speed-traders <comment><USER2> Dupe: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18223972](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18223972)

<comment><USER3> Dupe: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17956740](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17956740)

<comment><AUTHOR> My bad. Sorry.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Robinhood locked me out of my own account because I was "traveling too long"; demanded I show them proof of US residence (my verified Chase Bank account and US passport aren't good enough). I'm not surprised their hurting the little guy.

<comment><USER2> I don't see the relationship...? Those documents prove US citizenship, not US residence; seems reasonable to ask, especially if it's a legal requirement, which I wouldn't be surprised (it's not like they benefit from losing non- resident customers).</comment></comment>


The Nexus One Was Google's Dream. The Carriers Were Freddy Krueger. - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2010/09/10/google-nexus-one/

<comment><USER2> I'm pretty sure that $99 dollar google subsidized idea was never real. I remember when people first heard of it it lead back to some wishful thinking on a forum where someone just made it up. It got pretty big because everyone was excited about what it could mean for unlocked phones in the United States, but it never had any real backing or truth to it.

</comment><comment><USER3> Speaking of freedom, I'd rather pay the full price of a phone than have it subsidized by privacy invasion.</comment>


Ask HN: Who Regrets Choosing Rust? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> For my use-case, I don't regret choosing Rust for my project but I know that these guys already do:

[0] [http://way-cooler.org/blog/2019/04/29/rewriting-way- cooler-i...](http://way-cooler.org/blog/2019/04/29/rewriting-way-cooler- in-c.html)

[1] [https://blogs.dust3d.org/2019/03/13/why-i-rewrote-the- mesh-g...](https://blogs.dust3d.org/2019/03/13/why-i-rewrote-the-mesh- generator-of-dust3d-from-rust-to-cplusplus/)

[2] [https://drewdevault.com/2019/03/25/Rust-is-not-a-good-C- repl...](https://drewdevault.com/2019/03/25/Rust-is-not-a-good-C- replacement.html)

<comment><USER3> Another interesting link related to this: [https://wiki.alopex.li/WritingAWaylandCompositorInRust](https://wiki.alopex.li/WritingAWaylandCompositorInRust)</comment></comment>


Moot 1.0 launches with embeddable forums and commenting without iframes - <AUTHOR> http://moot.it/?hackernews <comment><USER2> Interesting to see the creator of 4chan working on a more conventional forum platform...

<comment><USER3> Mr. Poole has no relation to this.

<comment><USER2> Then that makes your choice of name very interesting, because the conventional meaning of 'moot' is 'irrelevant' (unless you're British).

Something seems fishy here.

<comment><USER4> Irregardless. :P

(Not that I don't agree with you.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> For 3rd party widgets, I actually prefer iframe for security. The same domain policy makes it more difficult for xss in the iframe to compromise the parent page. For HTML5 sandbox iframes, the security boundaries are even more strict and tunable.

There are some disadvantages to current iframes that Moot addresses like the lack of CSS cascading from parent page to iframe. The seamless iframe spec addresses this issue, but it's not widely adopted yet.

<comment><AUTHOR> Moot uses IFRAME for the authentication since that's the on that needs security.

<comment><USER5> An example attack iframes would make more difficult is XSS in the comment fields, e.g. an attacker bypasses sanitization and injects js into a page. With a sandbox iframe, the comments section could be restricted from compromising the top level page, e.g. stealing cookies, redirecting, etc.

<comment><AUTHOR> You mean someone could put JS into the comment box and inject it into the page somehow?

<comment><USER5> Correct. If the 3rd party js properly sanitizes user input, this xss attack is moot. However, browsers love to eval stuff (<http://html5sec.org/>), and sandbox iframes provide good defense in depth. Secure programs like qmail have been using separate, sandboxed processes forever, but this secure design model has only recently been possible in the browser thanks to iframes and postMessage ([http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~devdatta/papers/LeastPrivileges....](http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~devdatta/papers/LeastPrivileges.pdf)).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This looks seriously interesting. It could be everything I've wanted Disqus to be - and their service has only really gotten worse over time.

Don't know about the forum aspect, but the comments design is great. I hope you can enforce whether it is linear or threaded from an admin point of view.

<comment><USER3> Yes, you pick whether your comments are linear or threaded and you can mix and match (use threaded in some places, and linear in other places). It's configured simply by how you embed it.

<comment><USER4> I was wondering, with the JS and all, how are the forums from an accessibility perspective?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Wow, seems to cover a lot of use cases. I wonder how it compares to discourse.org

What confuses me a little is the part in the manifesto, where they basically claim, Moot will reduce trolling and memes and make conversation more meaningful. I think that any technical platform can be compromised, no matter how sophisticated. Sure, you can reduce trolling by voting etc., but how is technology supposed to help if the users themselves are not providing enough meaningful content?

<comment><USER7> Discourse founder here. I tried their demo forum but it currently isn't responding. Probably too much load from HN although their home page claims they can handle 1k posts per second (trollface).

From a cursory point of view, it seems to have more in common with Disqus than Discourse. It's embeddable, doesn't allow rich posts or markdown or our support for embedding videos, github, wikipedia, amazon, etc.

It's also closed source, although it is free and they claim they'll never insert ads.

I have no idea about their support for the other challenges we've faced such as infinite scrolling that is compatible with the back button.

I am skeptical of redis as their only data store. We use redis too in Discourse but this would demand that all forum content can fit in memory at once, and there is a chance if a server crashes you'd lose so. Not to mention querying it is much more difficult especially when filtering.

Either way, we're glad to have the competition!

<comment><AUTHOR> Nice!! I can clearly see from your tone that we're now competitors :)

As you can see, we specifically _don't_ allow images, rich text editing or videos. We want to focus on content and the discussion. Our minimal design emphasizes this.

We also think that infinite scrolling is bad UI design. We had it on our early versions but took it away. Much clearer without - you should try too! But of course, the more we differ the less we compete with each other.

<comment><USER7> Nothing personal, just as makers of forum software, anyone else who makes some is a competitor by definition, even if we are both free products.

I'm happy to have many others in the forum space as it legitimizes our cause and pushes everything forward. Our main goal is to modernize forum software and so is yours, so we're fighting the same battle here.

Also there's no way we're backing down on infinite scrolling :)

<comment><USER3> Totally agreed. We were excited when you guys launched for the same reasons. Further validates the space! There simply needs to be more options, and it's great that there are people getting interested and creating products in this area.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This appears amazing and promising. I'd really like to witness the rising of a proper competitor for Disqus.

<comment><USER9> And of course Moot also offers forums, which Disqus does not.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> By "You will have full access to your data at all times (*)" - do you mean for the user or for the site that embedds a forum or maybe both? Do you plan for data export for both user and site ?

<comment><AUTHOR> Data export is coming for the site. For user.. yea, good idea, we can do it but it's not on our roadmap yet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Problems with log-in, and when I manage to log in, my posts get canned due to server problems.

Any scoop on the problem? Is it traffic or something in the code?

<comment><AUTHOR> We're not seeing anything unusual on the server side. Can you post your issue here:

<http://moot.it/issues/>

Please describe what steps you did to get the error.

THANK YOU!

<comment><USER4> I would, but the reports bug out, when I try to send them. :P

<comment><USER3> I suspect it's a websocket upgrade issue that you must be having.

Please email firstname.lastname@example.com if you can with details! This is the first public availability for moot so it's not too unexpected to have a few bumps.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Will you offer the ability to backup comments / forums in the future?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes. Data export is coming. The first blog entry says it:

<http://moot.it/blog/release/beta.html>

<comment><USER11> Thanks. I am going to try it out.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is awesome. How are you able to offer it for free?

<comment><AUTHOR> Our infrastructure is designed from the ground up to handle the kind of spikes and massive loads that viral and social sites tend to generate. A million init- requests costs us very little. We can cover the expenses with paid products that are introduced later: these paid products allow private posts and custom branding for example.

The features you see on our site now will always be free.

<comment><USER3> crumbling? median api response times are 1.446ms at the moment and basically all our servers are completely idle. Any issues would be new bugs for us to track down!

<comment><USER13> I'm getting a lot of "We're experiencing problems and this post was not saved. Please copy/paste this post somewhere and try posting later. Sorry!"

<comment><USER3> If I could ask a quick favor from you:

Can you create an account and try to post on our sandbox forum: <http://moot.it/demos/forum.html>

We have quite a bit more logging there. The production system is not showing any errors.

If you could do that THANKS! If not, sorry that you are having some issues!</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Twithub, A hacked together Microblog for GitHub profile pages - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/takeshape/twithub <comment><USER2> Creator of TwitHub here. AMA!

Also have an article about cobbling it together here for the curious: [https://www.takeshape.io/articles/introducing- twithub/](https://www.takeshape.io/articles/introducing-twithub/)</comment>


Ask HN: Would you use an API for image/video processing and computer vision tasks? - <AUTHOR>

Hi HN,
We're a team of former Imperial College post-doc researchers who are looking to make some of our state-of-the-art algorithms available via an API. We're not simply sticking OpenCV on the end of a REST API here, but attempting to make the capabilities of a team with 20+ years of computer vision expertise accessible to anyone.
Some of the proprietary functionality we're currently looking to provide includes:
Super Resolution (Video Resolution Upscaling) - Our algorithm extends recent medical imaging research and is able to convert low resolution videos to high resolution ones whilst minimising loss of quality. Our methods can achieve much better results than interpolation based approaches (example: https://www.dropbox.com/s/74duixpek7fxhl4/superResolution.png?dl=0).
Image/Video Depth of Field Adjustment - Our algorithm is able to estimate depth information from and adaptively apply filters to emulate different depth of field - effectively allowing for a clip captured with a smartphone to look like it was shot with a different lens (example: https://www.dropbox.com/s/7qhfgnwl08vtk63/compare.png?dl=0).
We're intending to eventually make as many state-of-the-art computer vision algorithms available as possible and would love your feedback on the kinds of image/video processing tasks that you would want to be able to use.
Would you find this a useful tool? If so, what functionality would be most valuable for you? <comment><USER2> SuperResolution: [https://www.dropbox.com/s/74duixpek7fxhl4/superResolution.pn...](https://www.dropbox.com/s/74duixpek7fxhl4/superResolution.png?dl=0)

DoF Adjustment: [https://www.dropbox.com/s/7qhfgnwl08vtk63/compare.png?dl=0](https://www.dropbox.com/s/7qhfgnwl08vtk63/compare.png?dl=0)

</comment><comment><USER3> It could be a lot easier to get set up for processing streaming video. If you built a service that could take a WebRTC stream and do real-time processing on it, and then allowed developers to plug in their own kernels / processing code, I'd love to use that.

The output would be a combination of video and/or streaming info about the video.

<comment><AUTHOR> we could certainly look at doing real-time processing if there's demand

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Are you looking for paying customers or consumer (free) customers?

<comment><AUTHOR> well we'd need something to keep the servers running!</comment></comment>


Is advertising inherently deceptive? - <AUTHOR> http://cacm.acm.org/blogs/blog-cacm/37925-is-advertising-inherently-deceptive/fulltext <comment><USER2> It is not inherently deceptive. You can take out ads that point out your faults, if you like. (Actually, I've found that publicly discussing my faults works fairly well. Chris and I were talking about printing up shirts saying something like "I HEAR SLICEHOST AND LINODE HAVE EXCELLENT SUPPORT" and 'prgmr.com brand Xen VPS service, we don't assume you are stupid' on the back... but we backed down 'cause we have no idea what the legal ramifications of naming competitors in an advertisement is.)

On the other hand, advertising is usually, if not deceptive, at least not in the consumers best interest. If you click on a product link from google vs clicking on the search result, the cost for the company is quite a bit higher. It could be argued that the advent of good search engines obsoletes advertising.

Why am I still advertising then? I'm trying to have people think "Oh, I've heard of them" - which is a little bit like credibility. Most people think of slicehost as a old company, and prgmr.com as a new one. This tells me that I want more people to know I exist now.

(Granted, I was doing dumb shit like running used hardware until after slicehost was established; you could make a convincing argument that I wasn't worth using until late 2007/early 2008, and slicehost is definitely more established and they won't have the kinds of problems prgmr.com will if one guy gets hit by a bus.)

And yeah, spending the time on advertising is probably not in my customer's best interest; there's lots of things I could be building instead. (and there's no way I'm outsourcing my advertising. Most marketing people and I have very different definitions of the word deceptive. Also, in a very real way, I am prgmr.com. I know what image I want, and you could even argue that I know better how to reach my target market than most marketing people do.)

Now, personally, I think that the most personal advertising is often the worst in this regard. You can bet that if you talk to a salesperson, that person is getting a large chunk of what you are paying. Good salespeople are expensive. It's fairly common for affiliate programs in my industry to give half the expected revenue.

This brings us to the other thing I find irritating about marketing. Variable pricing. I buy the exact same product as the guy next to me, but sometimes what we pay varies as much as 75%. Even if I negotiate to the sellers cost, that negotiation is adding a lot to the cost of the service, both in terms of my time, and in terms of the seller's negotiator's time. But try buying large chunks of bandwidth without negotiation.

I do my best to list all prices on my website. It doesn't make any sense to give a discount to customers who spend more of my time negotiating. they are costing me more, so why should I charge them less? I mean, I'm always happy to get feedback on pricing, especially if some of my prices are out of whack with regard to the market, but my margins would need to be a lot higher (read: I would need to charge you more) if I had to negotiate price with every customer.

</comment><comment><USER3> Considering this:

Under the Federal Trade Commission Act:

        * Advertising must be truthful and non-deceptive;
        * Advertisers must have evidence to back up their claims; and
        * Advertisements cannot be unfair.

(via <http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/business/adv/bus35.shtm>)

Legally it can't be deceptive.

</comment><comment><USER4> What if we look at advertising as a continuum from spam to individual salesmanship? Well, that's one axis, independent of the one he pointed out. So now we have two axes: specificity of audience and deception. I don't think we've seen a lot of automation at the most personal, least deceptive side of the spectra. Sure, there's keyword-targeted ads, but what else can we do in the nearby region?

</comment><comment><USER2> this is, I believe, what will eventually bring google low. so long as the search results are more relevant than the ads, people will choose the search results when they are looking for things. If google starts nerfing search, they will eventually be overtaken by the competition.

</comment><comment><USER5> Advertising is inherently persuasive, but persuasion need not be deceptive.

The Will Rogers quote may be spot on, but even it doesn't evince deception in advertising but, again, merely persuasion. We don't, after all, only buy things we strictly need.

</comment><comment><USER6> I have sometimes bought things I heard of through advertising, and been subsequently pleased with my purchase.

Therefore, no.

</comment><comment><USER7> Uh, no. Is Capitalism inherently deceptive?

<comment><USER8> I think anyone who believes that the system America has in place _is_ capitalism has been deceived, so in a way, yes.

<comment><USER7> Then what would you call it?

<comment><USER8> A mixed economy: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy></comment></comment></comment></comment>


iPad 'newspaper' created by Steve Jobs and Rupert Murdoch - <AUTHOR> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/nov/21/ipad-newspaper-steve-jobs-rupert-murdoch

<comment><USER2> With Rupert constantly rattling his sabre at Google[1], I wonder if this will be were old media finally learn to make money on new media...

I think the days of free mainstream news on the internet are drawing to a close... Save for maybe the government funded BBC and similar.

[1] <http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/24/2751561.htm>

</comment><comment><USER3> To me, the title invokes an image of Steve and Rupert working late into the night on their iPad app... Eating cold pizza and crashing on the couch at 6am...</comment>