Why Google has so much cash on its balance sheet - <AUTHOR> http://www.people.hbs.edu/ffoley/Cash.pdf

<comment><USER2> I really wish we could just simplify the corporate tax code down to: x% of revenue - total salary payed to US(1) citizens. I figure the citizens are paying taxes on their salaries and it would encourage local hiring. Flat rate tax on revenue solves all this shell wackiness. Actually makes shells kinda nasty since you wouldn't be able to deduct salary.

If the government still wants to encourage / discourage behavior then do grants / fines instead. Stop using the tax system for political purposes.

1) substitute your country of taxation here

<comment><USER3> I'm all for simplification, but I think your plan would have some unintended consequences. It's essentially a subsidy of vertical integration.

This would make it hard for any b2b company. you can hire an accountant in house, as an employee (deductible, under your plan) or you can pay an external firm (say, a firm next door. small business accounting is usually done locally.) to do your taxes (not deductible under your plan, even though the accountant salaries are deductible to the accounting firm, the accounting firm fees you paid would not be deductible for you.)

This would make it doubly hard for those of us who spend most of their revenue on non-salary expenses and who are primarily b2b businesses. The thing is, I pay more for power/rackspace/bandwidth than I pay for salary, and that disparity will only increase as I scale up. For me, it'd be a double whammy, as not only would I get taxed on what I pay for power, (so I'd have to raise my rates) but my customers would have to pay those higher rates out of post- tax money.

This would probably be incentive enough to move my corporation abroad or shut down... I mean, a bunch of my customers are already outside the country, and while it wouldn't help my US customers pay me out of pre-tax dollars, it would mean that I could lower my rates by 35%.

Really, I think only taxing profits is great for growing companies. Right now, I live in California, an area with ridiculous taxes. but you know what? I don't really care, because I only have to pay taxes on profit, so worrying about my taxes being high is one of those "good problems to have" that I really only have to worry about once I start making a lot of money.

<comment><USER4> If we just changed % of profit in his plan, wouldn't that solve it?

<comment><USER2> profits are way too easy to hide - see Monster Cable and Toyota America (license fee to mother company = low profits)

<comment><USER5> Another example of revenue hiding is Hollywood movies - <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting>

<comment><USER4> Well, yes and no. That's why there are accounting standards like the FASB that the government makes companies use to pay taxes.

In fact, almost all large corporations keep one set of books using their internal accounting standards and another set of books using the federally- mandated standard in order to pay taxes.

Hollywood revenue hiding was done using their particularly-unfair internal accounting rules. However, those same companies then did, in fact, recognize that revenue correctly using the FASB when they had to pay takes to the IRS.

As long as all taxes have to be paid using a standard accounting system, there really isn't any way to hide profits except to ship them off to another country, like in this example.

<comment><USER5> How does an accounting standard like the FASB prevent cheating?

My understanding of the most egregious creative accounting tricks was via shell/dummy corporations. Even if each of those corporations individually follows an accounting standard, the graft comes via many companies acting in concert. It would take someone investigating from the outside to matching all the involved companies together before the ploy was exposed.

(If Hollywood revenue hiding never got that advanced, then I blame Hollywood movies, and their fictional depictions of accounting practices.) (I'm _not_ an accountant and this is out of curiosity.)

<comment><USER3> now, I'm not an accountant either, but the whole idea behind the accounting standards is to prevent cheating, right? so if you can get around that by using a shell corporation, the accounting standard is broken.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> tl;dr:

Multinational corporations hold cash in foreign subsidiaries to avoid paying taxes on profits, and would get taxed on those profits if they bring them back into the U.S. (repatriate the profits).

This study shows the following:

\- Firms that face higher repatriation tax burdens hold higher levels of cash, hold this cash abroad, and hold this cash in affiliates that trigger high tax costs when repatriating earnings.

\- Estimates indicate that a one standard deviation increase in the tax burden from repatriating foreign income is associated with a 7.9% increase in the ratio of cash to net assets.

</comment><comment><USER6> its

</comment><comment><USER7> See also: [http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/57f8d7e0-daf4-11df-a5bb-00144feabd...](http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/57f8d7e0-daf4-11df-a5bb-00144feabdc0.html)

<comment><USER8> As the article mentions briefly at the end, we already went through this once. Now, five years later, multi-nationals are back at the trough again.

Last time, it was sold as a "one time" deal. Of course, nothing was done to address the underlying systemic conditions.

I also wonder, a bit, what effect all that lowly taxed cash had on the broader economy. It sure didn't seem to go into any worthwhile domestic investments. (I'm being a bit flippant in this last comment, I concede.)</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Would you find an accounting service for individuals valuable - <AUTHOR> Hi,
I am building an open source accounting tool here - https://github.com/alexjv89/cashflowy as a solution to my accounting needs as a professional software consultant.
Recently I have been listening to productize podcast by @briancasel and I am definitely influenced by it. I figured that Cashflowy as a product will take some time to get to a polished state. While it does, I can offer Cashflowy as a service where I augment what the product is not good at, by me doing it manually for you.
If you are a Consultant/freelancer/small business owner, I would like to offer my services to do all your cashflow accounting for you.
My idea is that the more volume of work that I do for others, the more I figure out how the product should look like. And over a period of time, everything that I find myself repeating I can add it to the product so that eventually I eliminate myself.
Can you take a look at the proposal and let me if it valuable enough for you?
Here is a more detailed write up - https://docs.google.com/document/d/18I0C19u6TnhY5qKoEblvHNlA425u2gu3p8Fup00hDJ4/edit#heading=h.hhbvhqnponw0 . <comment><USER2> Interesting work. I currently utilize Bench ([https://bench.co](https://bench.co)) for my outsourced bookkeeping needs in my solo consulting practice. I'm quite happy with them, but if you're not aware of them it might give you an idea of what you're competing with when it comes to potential users like me. Good luck!</comment>


Feeling like a fraud while doing startups - <AUTHOR> http://joel.is/post/37111202497/feeling-like-a-fraud-while-doing-startups <comment><USER2> Impostor/fraud syndrome is quite common amongst quite a few founders I know. I personally believe it's just a cognitive deficiency one has to overcome. As long as it doesn't get in your way, it's OK.

Truth of the matter is, you're not entirely responsible for all of your successes. Time, space, opportunity and many other factors far beyond our control are always necessary.

However, lack of success does not mean you have nothing valuable to contribute. Most "successful" entrepreneurs often attribute their success to "Luck" & hard work. the hard work part is something you can definitely speak to regardless of how the luck part went for you.

Reference: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impostor_syndrome>

</comment><comment><USER3> I am no psychologist, but this sounds very much like impostor syndrome, which is by no means the exclusive domain of the startup world. When I was in grad school, the school offered seminars and workshops on it. I never went, but I'm not sure what a seminar is supposed to do for someone who has difficulty recognizing their accomplishments.

<comment><USER4> According to my wife (PhD), impostor syndrome is a huge issue for new woman scholars - especially those in traditionally male-dominated fields. I think part of it is the lack of female role models in those fields. When all of your committee, and all of the scholars you reference, are male, I think you get an implicit signal that you shouldn't be where you are - despite having successfully completed your doctorate.

<comment><USER5> there is an awesome TED talk by Amy Cuddy that touches on this subject (in addition to how to combat it) [http://www.ted.com/talks/amy_cuddy_your_body_language_shapes...](http://www.ted.com/talks/amy_cuddy_your_body_language_shapes_who_you_are.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I 100% feel like this. I work in the enterprise space and it's amazing how many people have never heard of a MVP. When I tell them that their mobile version of their on-premise software needs to follow a lean approach they usually respond with "so you mean like how we used to build software?!?" When I go through this drill, their eyes light up like I've just told them that the new messiah is coming tomorrow. It's really powerful stuff and while I don't have a single massive success under my belt (but hopefully on my way), I do truly believe it's the way to go, and if it's not, I'll die trying to figure out the right way to get companies to support disruptive technology.

I've personally had many failures in my past, which I've only recently been happy to be very public with people about. My greatest personal success has been the realization that those failures are by far my greatest accomplishments.

<comment><USER7> Interesting i'm in a very similar boat to you. Although with me; i think i need to reconcile with the fact that the failures are accomplishments. I still need to get to that point - Do you have any advice for me?

<comment><USER6> What specific challenges do you have?

<comment><USER7> Any chance we can take this discussion "offline" so to speak? Do you mind if I email you at your gmail address?

<comment><USER6> Absolutely...address is in my profile.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I had this same crisis in 2006 after realizing that I've never created a business that generates any significant cash. I figured out I have no right to mentor, do talks, etc of which I was doing plenty. So I completely withdrew and have spent the last 6 years trying to earn the right to mentor again. I'm about there, so will be reengaging starting next year.

Avoid mentors who fall into the following list: Made money off stock options in a non exec role. Made money through talent acquisition exit. VC/Investor experience only. Old money.

First prize is that you get an angel investor who has built profitable businesses. There is no better mentor than someone like this with a vested interest in your success. They are very, very rare and don't like to talk much.

</comment><comment><USER9> In the pick up community, this is called keyboard jockeying ... basically the blind leading the blind. I think this is extremely prevalent in the start-up world except people don't get called out as often as they should. Just look at half the guys who claim to be experts at lean. For most of them, their biggest success has been their ability to brand themselves as experts at lean.

So while we begin with agreement that at times you feel like a fraud, I think in many cases we _are_ being 'fraudulent' by offering untested, unproven advice. The best guys I know, especially ones who _have_ been successful, say 'I don't know' to a lot of questions. Meanwhile, the armchair experts with a thin history always seem to know the answer.

</comment><comment><USER10> If you feel like a fraud doing a start up, imagine how it feels making flash games for a living

</comment><comment><USER11> It's a general problem when you're pursuing social mobility, particularly when you're in an area where there isn't a single well-defined path to success (computing or startups as opposed to medicine or MBA)

It takes many forms, from working with people who've got more faith in me than I do, to working on stuff that sounds like science fiction and dealing with a lot of skepticism until you release the right product to convince people it's fact, not fiction.

</comment><comment><USER12> This December, I will be speaking to some students that want to pursue a career in tech.

How I have catered to this feeling is this: I told the organizer I would not speak about being a success since I am not yet successful. So I will be speaking about what I know, which is about bringing products to life.

Even then, I still do not feel so comfortable doing it.

<comment><USER13> In any failure or lack of success, it is not the individual who is a failure. It was the event / activity or effort that failed or did not succeed. Similarly the success can be attributed to timing, luck, team, as well as hard work. I feel people to often impose a failed effort on themselves. In my opinion, the real failure is failing to try. Success is when you get up and start again with the pieces you like.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> A couple comments have suggested this is Imposter Syndrome and it might be a little of that, but additionally it's the opposite. Imposter Syndrome is about feeling like your successes are not your own. This article is about not feeling like your successes are significant enough. Imposter syndrome is about your successes being bigger than you are worthy of accepting responsibility for. This article is about your responsibilities being bigger than you're experienced for.

That understood, I think a lot of this problem stems from our fascination with survivor bias -- only those companies that have big successes. We think big successful exits are where we should concentrate our learning and if we aren't one of those big exits then the experience we have isn't significant enough to help others.

It's like the Don't read TechCrunch article also on the front page right now. Those blogs and even here, we spend a lot of time talking about the exceptional startups. Those with exits (Zynga, GroupOn, Instagram) or those scrappy little dogs fighting the man (AirBnB, Uber), or fighting the 600 LB gorilla (DDG) -- you know, the ones PG would consider "trying to be successful."

The reality is, the vast majority of startups out there are building businesses slowly. They've been at it for 5 or 10 years already and you've never heard of them. Some of those will be acquired or get investment next year and you'll think they are overnight successes. All those thousands, maybe tens of thousands of startups who have made it 5 years are already successes. They are run by individuals who have escaped the machine, the rat race, the enslavement to the corporatocracy! YEAH!

I say that's a success. I say that takes risk. I say that takes understanding the world and what it values and being able to add enough value to support at least yourself, maybe your family, and even some other families.

Every entrepreneur I know with success talks about how they did it all themselves in the beginning. Don't hire until you can't do it all yourself anymore. Wake up, work, go to sleep. Not these tiny population of stories where you get 10 million dollars and then hire someone to do tiny little things that don't really need to be done anyway. I can't imagine paying someone full time to manage a Twitter stream but there are entire companies built around enabling entire teams to work together on a twitter stream! Wow.

That kind of stuff seems like a big waste of time and money to a lot of "real" entrepreneurs. A lot of "real" entrepreneurs don't even know what Twitter is. Or even use the web at all. We could all stand to learn a thing or two from them and none of that knowledge is at TechCrunch. We could also stand to share a lot of the knowledge we have gained never having achieved the success we are constantly reminded the startup world appreciates even though our successes are amazingly awesome when compared to those outside the startup world.

<comment><USER15> About the 'real' entrepreneurs who don't know what Twitter is, I often see small companies who could save or make a lot of money if they had one full- time programmer or engineer. The cost is usually too high for them, or it is unlikely they would find someone passionate enough about their business to do everything that could be done without well defined directions.

An advantage every engineer or programmer has is that if he/she starts any business, he/she could also play that role. I think it is a huge advantage, and it is a big reason why I like to be a part of non-engineering endeavors.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I felt the same during my Masters. I was gulping down papers and books on stuff very new to me and churning out papers at a crazy rate. I was overwhelmed.

When every paper came back with very high grades I actually questioned one of my professors about those grades. I literally said "I feel like I'm faking that I actually know what I'm talking about". She was amused.

Looking back at it: I was working an awful lot, loved the subject, and have a way with words (at least in my native Spanish). So the output was good, what else would I expect?

<comment><USER17> >"I feel like I'm faking that I actually know what I'm talking about".

I have a theory that pretty much everyone feels like this and the only reason anything gets done is because people are trying to stop other people from finding out that they think this about themselves.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I don't understand what's so hard about qualifying one's advice. I've given people advice more than a few times in the past, but I usually stress that I may have just gotten lucky, it might not be applicable to their present situation, whatever I've achieved was also thanks to others, etc. As long as I'm open with people about that, I feel very comfortable offering my opinion.

If I passed myself off as an infallible guru, _then_ I'd be a fraud, but there's absolutely no need for me (or anyone else) to do so.

</comment><comment><USER19> After reading this article I realized that I have the Impostor/fraud syndrome. My co founder on the other hand doesn't suffer from it and attend events, tech meetups and is often invited to speak about startup experience and stuff. I feel very uncomfortable giving advice as our startup is not successful yet.

</comment><comment><USER20> This seems more like feeling like a fraud while talking about doing start ups before yours take off. This is also the reason I generally avoid going to classes and events for entrepreneurs. I don't really want advice from someone who hasn't done this and been successful.

</comment><comment><USER21> I think that a useful skill for anyone is to be able to listen to someone's opinion on something and gain information or knowledge from it, without agreeing with what the person is saying or even taking a position on it at all.

This skill that surprisingly many people lack in any capacity.

</comment><comment><USER22> Better to make money you don't think you deserve than to stay poor because deep-down you don't feel worthy.

Chances are, if you're fresh out of college, you know more about current demand and technologies than the seasoned executives out there.

</comment><comment><USER23> I wonder if we should draw motivation from our feelings and use them as goads, instead of trying to make them go away.

Maybe there is a way to not merely harvest our insecurity, but use it as motivation?

I always thought there was a dark side to the Force.

</comment><comment><USER24> Sometimes I too think it is OK to feel like a fraud, because I am actively expanding my comfort zone.

Sometimes I think that I am a fraud who is just reasonably good at rationalizations.

Mostly the latter.</comment>


Edward Snowden and Gen Y: a sign of leaks to come? - <AUTHOR> http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2013/08/snowden-leaks-the-real-take-ho.html <comment><USER2> Assange's seldom mentioned manifesto[1] talks about the goal of making secrecy impossible by making the secret systems either completely disconnected from the real world, or so liable to leaking that they are no longer secret.

It's difficult imagining that goal being completely achieved, but it is interesting how closely the Snowden story matched Assange's thoughts.

Note that Assange's writing is pretty.. umm.. _dense_. It is worth reading the commentary at [2] at the same time.

This analysis is excellent:

 _[Assange] decides, instead, that the most effective way to attack this kind of organization would be to make "leaks" a fundamental part of the conspiracy's information environment.... the idea is that increasing the porousness of the conspiracy's information system will impede its functioning, that the conspiracy will turn against itself in self-defense, clamping down on its own information flows in ways that will then impede its own cognitive function. You destroy the conspiracy, in other words, by making it so paranoid of itself that it can no longer conspire_

[1] [http://cryptome.org/0002/ja- conspiracies.pdf](http://cryptome.org/0002/ja-conspiracies.pdf)

[2] [http://zunguzungu.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/julian-assange- an...](http://zunguzungu.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/julian-assange-and-the- computer-conspiracy-%E2%80%9Cto-destroy-this-invisible-government%E2%80%9D/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Yup.

I note that Assange, aged 42, is a Gen-Xer.

(I left him out of the essay because (a) mentioning his name would invite derailing discussion of other personality-related issues, and (b) his being an X-er would obscure the key message in the closing paragraphs.)

<comment><USER3> First, I'm a big fan... but:

I'm struggling with why you don't open arms embrace the Gen-X / Gen Y's actual attitude towards a government that can grab any of them and shame them into compliance is the moral voting decision.

There is an actual synthesis available, the state collects all kinds of data, but it cannot be used against its citizens.

Using any that data to help solve ANY domestic crime becomes the greater crime - it is traitorous for any public employee to do so. We have a long legal history or fruit of the poisoned tree, Gen X / Gen Y can simply ensure PRISM and its ilk - we save and extend that, and harshly punish a few civil servants.

Lesson taught.

Its similar to the militarization of the police. Why not expect and cheer Gen Y / Gen X to say out loud, "we don't care if more cops die because they have only a vest"?

Why not expect and cheer, the total destruction of the bureaucracy your work pillories?

Why valorize the near criminal firm behavior the 40 year s and a watch created?

I'm Gen X and I'm totally comfy with the idea of a state that has to rebuild itself around 1M Snowdens ready to heroically crush state malfeasance for $, fame, or patriotism.

It dawns on me you aren't a fan of Nassim Taleb.

I prefer my sci-fi writers to be dedicated libertarians. So maybe, if you aren't, don't publicize it.

<comment><AUTHOR> _I prefer my sci-fi writers to be dedicated libertarians. So maybe, if you aren 't, don't publicize it._

Then you prefer to get your ideology and news pre-digested, do you?

(I reckon it's always a mistake to restrict your reading so that it conforms to your own worldview.)

I'm not a libertarian. Libertarianism is a specifically American ideology that can be pigeon-holed best as right-anarchism. I'm not American: I'm a leftist with a strong attachment to social contracts, civil liberties, and freedom. If it causes you to stop buying my books because it doesn't gel with your preconception of what I ought to be, that's fine by me. But you _don 't_ get to tell me not to talk about it.

<comment><USER4> I've been tempted to try to coin the term "paleolibertarian": the original meaning of the word was much more left-leaning. [http://youtu.be/RxPUvQZ3rc](http://youtu.be/RxPUvQZ3rc)

I think there is an oppurtunity for a coalition between the far left and the far right over civil liberties, if only we can "agree to disagree" on economic theories until the rule of law under the Constitution has been restored. (There's even a good brand hook built-in: the Green Tea Party.)

<comment><USER2> To quote Charlie:

 _I 'm not American_

All this talk of "the Constitution" as though it is some kind of 100% correct holy document handed down from on high to our superior ancestors is pretty irrelevant in the rest of the world.

<comment><USER5> And countries with a constitution often change or reboot it. Not all countries with a constitution view it as some holy sacred document that doesn't need replacing. Ireland reset its constitution a few times, France is on like it's "Fifth Republic" by now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Employee-employer loyalty in situations like these is often substituted or at least augmented by patriotism, the moral obligation to serve some conceptual ideal that is presumably exhibited by the motherland.

Such motivations, especially when entrenched early in life can be quite powerful. I think there is some truth to the fact that Gen X/Y members will be harder to keep buttoned up when given secret clearances but it won't be quite as hard as it would be without the patriotic angle.

What the probable response will be against these leaks is a change in hiring practices (less reliance on subcontractors) and more thorough vetting procedures.

Rather than, what we'd all like to see (huge assumption on my part there): a more transparent and surgical use of these capabilities with _much_ better oversight in place.

<comment><USER7> I think that patriotism is a very powerful motivation in the actions of potential whistleblowers.

Previous generations had the Nazis and then the Soviets as the 'enemy' and they were tangible opponents. Potential whistleblowers might have been able to convince themselves that they were acting for the greater good, and kept themselves quiet.

The new 'enemy' are the terrorists, and they are neither particularly tangible or visible. It is not so easy to convince yourself you are acting for the greater good in these circumstances.

In actuality, the reverse happens. Snowden's patriotism convinced him that the actions of the NSA could not be justified as 'greater goods', and so he became a whistleblower.

<comment><USER8> Isn't the saying, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign _and domestic_?

By rights the Marines should have been kicking the NSA's doors in.

<comment><USER9> Why would the Marines do that though? The NSA is the ones telling them whose doors to kick down in Iraq and Afghanistan, as opposed to the normal 2006 routine of getting blown up every convoy by an IED.

<comment><USER6> Funny they couldn't tell them Iraq did not have WMD when it mattered.

<comment><USER9> I seem to recall that's exactly what the Intelligence Community _did_ tell the Prez, was that the public claims were all out of proportion to what the intel community knew, or even has hints at knowing. But of course Saddam threatened his Poppy and off we went...

But just think of the bright side, if we accept as true the claims of those using the Arab Spring erupting from Manning's diplomatic cable leaks, that it's all worth it if we get more democracies in the end, then I suppose all's well that ends well.

Mind, I don't personally agree with that but apparently I've been the idiot here the whole time. :)

<comment><USER6> The 'Arab Spring' is called a bit early in my opinion, chances are that it will be an Autumn.

Kicking the first stone of an avalanche downhill is easy but there is no way of knowing when the stones will stop rolling and if the new configuration is a favourable one and what the damage incurred along the way is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> While there is some truth to this article about the change in work culture, there is a fundamental piece which isn't being addressed that makes me think the government will be able to prevent leaks quickly.

Each successive post war generation has become increasingly complacent about government abuses of power.

When the Snowden scandal came out, it felt like only 1 in 5 Gen-X/Gen-Yers even seemed to care. Most of the people I talk to say things like the following:

"Well if you're not doing anything wrong, why do you care that they are monitoring us?"

"Of course they are monitoring everything, they have to do that since 9/11."

"Are you actually surprised they can read your Gmail and Facebook messages?"

<comment><USER11> Without revealing my specific generation. . .and agreeing that these are common responses. . .the first response makes me want to scream, the second simply rubs me the wrong way.. .and I admit that the third is pretty close to my initial reaction. As someone said humorously/saracastically. . .NCIS has been one of the top-rated shows for about 10 years. Did you really think that everything McGee does is fiction?

<comment><USER12> I don't believe anyone well versed in technology was really surprised.

I didn't want to believe it initially as the proof seemed questionable at first, but when it did become obvious that PRISM was real, I was less surprised and more saddened.

<comment><USER10> Well I wasn't surprised that there were technical reasons they could do it, but I was surprised at the number of companies that were found to be complacent in the monitoring. It ran deeper than I ever expected.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Yes.

People in these position are selected for patriotism and devotion to their country. That cuts both ways. If they manage to convince them that government=country than whatever they are told they will listen and go to any lengths to execute orders. Some realize what is going on but saying anything would at best result in revocation of security clearance and loss of job, at worst imprisonment. BUT the other side is, some people don't think country=government. The see country=Constitution, country=citizens and so on. A different ideal. A very very tiny proportion of those people will have balls to come out and expose lies and shameful things hidden under the carpet at the cost of heavy possible repercussions.

I am waiting and hoping for more Snowdens to show up.

</comment><comment><USER14> To the side of the discussion at hand: I don't think anyone except 'Gen Xers' call 'Gen Yers' as 'Gen Y'. That's not something we do. Ever.

<comment><USER15> I'm in the Gen Y bucket and I refer to people born in the mid to late 1980s until the mid 1990s as Gen Y. I'm not sure if this range is appropriate or the standard.

I've made the distinction between Gen Y and the Millennial as "people who remember a time before computers were so ubiquitous" vs "people who have always lived entrenched in technology".

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> The article makes sweeping generalizations about Gen X/Y based on just two annecdotes (Snowden, Manning).

The author is eager to blame deregulation for the rise in leaks. But last I checked, people still leaked documents before the 1970s.

Nice story. Simple, and reassuring. But complete BS.

<comment><USER17> In agreement with you on this one. Exceptions to the rule don't make it the norm. In fact, people like Snowden and Manning are making it more difficult for Gen Y's to work in environments such as theirs because they are viewed cautiously by the people in power (Boomers).

<comment><USER16> I believe you made the same mistake as the article: Making sweeping generalizations about people of a certain age group without empirical evidence.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> How well is this working in China? Is there the same generational effect there as there is claimed to be in this essay in NATO countries? In particular, do the intelligence services in China seem to be dead-end career paths for ambitious young people there? Who is providing leaks from those?

(I ask, as a speaker of Chinese, because I like to reality-check statements about invariant social trends cross-culturally.)

</comment><comment><USER19> I would give credit to the internet to making issues more readily available from a wide range of sources. Perhaps all generations now will get a full understanding of how invasive government is in their lives and just how far it has drifted from its intent.

It would be a great disservice to focus just on intelligence agencies, all agencies of the government with their access to vast amounts of data should be subject to extra scrutiny. Not only does the NSA and FBI combined with the FISA courts pose a threat to the privacy if not freedom of Americans and others, the IRS has elements within it that show a disregard for expression of free speech. Combined with a Congress looking for more avenues to circumvent the Bill of Rights and Administrations who selectively apply the law and everyone is threatened.

So perhaps with so much information at hand people will finally realize that big government may be too big to protect freedom.

</comment><comment><USER20> Yup you can rest assured that if any of my future employers ever engages in such behavior, I won't rest easy and I hope today's young generation won't either.

</comment><comment><USER21> When I was reading about the loyalty bit discussed here, It made me think of these lyrics which kind of describes the break in the social contract between a large government and its citizens (I mention this because it seems to be the attitude of more and more of the young men I grew up with, maybe because of media like this…):

' _Feel my pain, going insane, I'm ashamed. Cause I ain't got shit but an EBT card from a fiend. That owe me and it's in her daughter name. How the fuck is they pose to eat? How the fuck am I pose to eat? Got a nigga in the streets, no health care, Tryna slang weed just to put shoes on his feet. So fuck you, you don't give a fuck about me. Can't get a job if they drug test me. Got a nigga stressed depressed. Got a feeling in his chest. And the world's stripped of happiness_ "

And maybe more interestingly enough, the song is entitled "Terrorist Threats"

Watch the imagery in the video and listen to the lyrics: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_71q5lVEjc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_71q5lVEjc)

Surprised hayden didn't mention them in his remarks…

</comment><comment><USER22> This article seems to moan the destruction of a _job for life_ culture where employees value _loyalty to their employer_ over their own free will.

I think most on this forum _celebrate_ that change instead, as the alternative seems like slavery.

<comment><USER23> No. Is describes the unintended consequences of it. That's not moaning or complaining, its pointing something out.

<comment><USER22> No. It claims these "consequences" are in some way negative, which is what I meant by "moan". In my view, every consequence mentioned is a good thing. It's a good thing people are not loyal to their employers. It's a good thing people want to change jobs regularly.

<comment><USER24> Do they want to or do they have to? People having the freedom to change jobs is a good thing. People being forced to change jobs against their will is a bad thing. Which factor is more prevalent today?

<comment><USER22> People being used to having a "job for life", and society approving of this is a bad thing.

<comment><USER24> Well today we have a society that approves of "jobs for life" _and_ no jobs for life. The US has an employment-to-population ratio of 66%. Sounds like the worst of both worlds to me.

<comment><USER22> What % of that ratio is intentionally "unemployed"? I am. That statistic is similar to the commonly quoted % of US residents w/out health insurance, which ignores that a good deal of these people (again, like myself) choose to forgo this due to careful cost/benefit analysis.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Leaking is also the future of investigative journalism. Investigative journalism already relies heavily on leaking, but I'm talking about "user- generated" leaking or Leaking 2.0 (as in Web 2.0).

Even if the print media dies, and it's harder to do investigative journalism at the national level, and even more so at the local level, leaking by normal people will take its place.

There's one caveat, though. We also need a system where it's easy to do it anonymously, so you don't face the repercussions from the powerful, and/or we need stronger laws to protect leaking of wrong behavior (whether "legal" or not).

</comment><comment><USER26> I normally hate articles that try to frame culture neatly into generations when its frequently very chaotic in reality.

But despite depending on x/y for labeling the overall cultural change, covered in this article, away from jobs for life is very real.

Most likely starting with our grandparents and more recently accelerating along with increases in university educations (not needing to be dependent career wise).

</comment><comment><USER27> I don't think this has anything to do with Gen Y or whatever you want to call non-old people. Every generation begins with a desire to change what the previous generation did. Some of us don't lose that desire, many do as life's responsibility requires less desire to force change. Branding this as something new is what every generation thinks it is.

</comment><comment><USER28> I was hoping more people would leak/whistle blow, so I created [http://valleyanon.com/](http://valleyanon.com/) which gives anonymous features to bloggers.

Unfortunately, it is now riddled with spam. all the spam on the internet.

<comment><USER6> The following might not help:

\- insanely long response time/application error

\- not on a secure server

\- hidden registration, so no way to check who backs this (it could be a honeypot).

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> i'd always hoped gen y were smart enough to not need to be told the obvious via leaks.

i applaud snowden for his courage, but the aftermath is completely the wrong thing to have happened. its a fantastic distraction from the /really/ important issues which otherwise might have gotten some more attention... :/

</comment><comment><USER30> Generation identities? What a 'divide and conquer' tangent to the issues.

</comment><comment><USER31> I refuse to focus on the man. He is not the story, what he told us is the story.

<comment><USER24> Which is why you should probably read this article, and not just the title.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Brilliantly written - thank, you.

</comment><comment><USER33> I'm not even going to bother reading this article. What the hell does "Gen Y" have to do with anything? Have there been big whistleblowers in the past? Yes, of course, some of them extremely big. The Pentagon Papers being an excellent example.

Indeed, here's a list of major whistleblowers in relatively recent history (20th century): [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_whistleblowers](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_whistleblowers)

Keeping in mind the bias of any historical list toward the present, I don't see any evidence in this list which indicates "Generation Y" is somehow different in its ability or tendency toward whistleblowing.

<comment><USER6> > What the hell does "Gen Y" have to do with anything?

and

> I'm not even going to bother reading this article.

Are a little silly in the same comment, since exactly that question is answered in the article at some length.</comment></comment>


Boeing admits sensor malfunctions on 737 MAX caused 346 deaths - <AUTHOR> https://news.sky.com/story/boeing-admits-sensor-malfunctioned-on-crash-planes-11684724 <comment><AUTHOR> The bit that really grinds with me:

> From the days immediately following the Lion Air accident, we've had teams > of our top engineers and technical experts [...] to finalize and implement a > software update to ensure accidents like [...] never happen again [...] > we're taking the time to get the software update right

This implies that they knew, from the days immediately following the Lion Air accident (the first one in October that killed 189 human beings), that a software update was needed, the gravity of the situation and what was at risk. They didn't feel the need to say "ground the planes" or apply some kind of hotfix so that the deaths couldn't happen again.</comment>


Relativistic Quantum Chemistry - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_quantum_chemistry <comment><USER2> It is a very interesting topic indeed. I plan to work on it after I finish my PhD thesis.

I believe that it's literally one of the most overlooked parts of modern physics. We literally don't know how to correctly and accurately calculate heavy atoms and molecules and include both special relativity AND electron correlation (and preferably also QED). Somehow most of the physicists left that problem behind and focused on nuclear and high energy physics.

I'm my opinion solving it, contrarily to focusing on abstract mathematical theories that are verifiable in energies beyond what humanity will be capable of in next 100 years or so, is truly one of the most challenging, yet verifiable problems of XXI century physics.

</comment><comment><USER3> This submission was probably inspired by a recent post[1] on Derek Lowe's blog. It's an interesting read if you like this subject. Mercury has a much lower melting point because of relativistic effects.

Edit: I see it was resubmitted.

[1][https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2019/10/11/co...](https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2019/10/11/copernicium- is-a-strange-element-indeed)

<comment><USER4> What is it with mercury and relativity?

<comment><USER2> Mercury is the only metal liquid in the room temperature. It behaves that way thanks to the relativistic effects i.e. things that happen when electrons move close to the speed of light.

Mercury's place in periodic table is such that these effects are taken to the extreme due to its electron configuration.

Here is nice popular article with references that explain more: [https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/relativity-behind- mercur...](https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/relativity-behind-mercurys- liquidity/6297.article)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> How it is done: [https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.1906206](https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.1906206)</comment>


Debian 7.0 named - <AUTHOR> http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Debian-7-0-named-1072569.html

<comment><USER2> Someone could add one word to this title and render the article superfluous.

</comment><comment><USER3> _Debian release names are taken from characters in the Toy Story movie series._

Wow, okay, that never struck me!

(Debian 7 will be called "Wheezy", in case there are folks who don't want to click thru to read a single word..)

<comment><USER4> I love the fact the unstable branch is called Sid :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> The actor who voiced Wheezy, Joe Ranft, died in a car accident in 2005. Cars and Corpse Bride were both dedicated to him.

</comment><comment><USER6> _Finally_. Can't tell you how long I've been waiting for the Wheezy release.

<comment><USER7> Agreed! He's been sitting there.all penguiny for years!

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> The first thing that came to mind when I read Wheezy was "The Jeffersons", and wondered if it was a "moving on up" reference. (Upon Googling I see that Louise's nickname was actually spelled "Weezie".)

</comment><comment><USER9> The first thing that comes to mind when I hear Wheezy has to be Wheezy F. Baby, aka <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lil_Wayne>

</comment><comment><USER10> The question is, 'Will this name still make sense in ten years when it is released?'

Joking! Don't flame. All hail Wheezy!</comment>


Ask HN: What types of companies and industries tend to hire recent (CS) grads? - <AUTHOR> It's no secret that companies are cautious when hiring software engineers - the usual wisdom being that a bad hire can cause a lot of harm. Being a recent grad exacerbates this problem, being unproven relative to most other candidates.
That being said, I've noticed that there seems to be classes of people & companies who are a bit more apt to take that kind of risk. It's hard to pin them down though. In your experience, what are these classes? What drives companies to consider recent grads?
Or am I wrong - finding patterns in the noise - and that's basically unknowable?
Most job listings don't mention if they aren't considering new grads (even if the listing doesn't exclude them). For that reason, I'm trying to figure out which companies (and even which industries) are more likely to hire recent grads in order to better target my job search. Hopefully this info can help others in my position as well.
Thanks for looking. <comment><USER2> The larger and older the company, the lower the risk for every employee. Every employee adds to (new productivity)/(new risk + existing stability), that small amount turns out to be a lot when you go from one to two employees but not a lot when you go from 100 to 101 employees.

I've been very impressed with the way that Microsoft, Dell, Intel are willing to take the time to onboard new employees. (Although some prefer interning them first)

You can also look into research / government support. Government organizations or government contractors are usually not as competitive financially, although more competitive on most other dimensions. "No one gets rich at JPL" was a phrase often joked about by people that had spent 20+ years in that sort of work. Many of the younger people at GrammaTech & Galois were hired right out of college. They're stability comes from a different business model.

</comment><comment><USER3> No one hires new grads out of the goodness of their own heart. This is a tactical decision to drive value to the business. I've seen this manifest in two classes of company:

1\. Underfunded companies who hire the young and ambitious because they're cheaper. This may be a tiny startup where you'll have an opportunity to learn a lot from the school of hard knocks, work crazy hours, and then vow to never do that again. Or this could be an older non-tech company that doesn't really value engineers and you'll stagnate.

2\. Larger mature companies who can't hire enough Seniors. Big Tech needs a steady stream of new blood as their most talented engineers slowly leave to pursue other exciting opportunities. They are simply incapable of hiring replacements at the necessary scale, so instead they build a pipeline of new developers in the hopes that some percentage of them will level up in their skills and stick around for a while. With appropriate mentorship, it's sometime easier to grow a new Senior than to hire one.

</comment><comment><USER4> For what it's worth I've never heard of a company or industry that actively avoids new grads. If anything, many companies seem to _prefer_ new grads because they're cheap, don't have families taking up their time, and can usually pick up whatever technology they need to on the job.

The hard part is developing skills later in your career that a new grad _can 't_ just pick up, so that you continue to be worth your salary.

That said, sub-industries do vary in terms of how easy their work is to just "pick up" for anyone with a generic CS background, versus ones that require more experience. Some rough categories in rough order:

Basic CRUD apps (most startups, mobile, web)

Enterprise

Systems

Embedded

<comment><USER5> A lot of places I've worked tend to avoid new grads as there hasn't really been capacity to train them in such a way that wouldn't mean a loss of productivity for the team for a month or two.

edit: these places have been small/medium sized private companies

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I don't feel there's more risk with grads. Because they typically don't work on the riskiest projects anyway from the start anyway.

Typically, companies that are more or less stable in their hiring needs, tend to be more open for grads, as they are more sure it will pay off in the long run.</comment>


Could be Microsoft's most important product in 2020. If it works - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnet.com/features/this-could-be-microsofts-most-important-product-in-2020-if-it-works/ <comment><USER2> The product is called ElectionGuard. URL for blog post from Microsoft:

[https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the- issues/2019/05/06/protect...](https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the- issues/2019/05/06/protecting-democratic-elections-through-secure-verifiable- voting/)

</comment><comment><USER3> If the process involves putting paper into a box, and that paper is the actual legal ballot, not what you've entered into the computer, then why involve a computer at all? It seems like doing that just expands the attack surface for no reason.

Just vote using the paper.

<comment><USER4> the computer is used to verify the vote after it has been counted</comment></comment>


Go's range clause - <AUTHOR> http://www.funcmain.com/for_range

<comment><AUTHOR> I wrote this after finding a bug in some of my code. Basically, I was iterating over a slice of inputs, processing each one. On occasion this processing would reveal new inputs to test, so I appended them to the slice.

        for i := range input {
            if newValue := test(input); newValue != nil {
                input = append(input, newValue)
            }
        }

Of course, this doesn't work, and I figured out (and appreciated) why by reading Go's spec.

Hopefully this brief guide will be of use to someone.

<comment><USER2> First off, good write up, I'm sure others will find it useful.

To your specific issue, I thought it was good programming etiquette to never modify an object you're iterating over, regardless of how the language handles such a thing. Were my instructors too strict? Is this a common idiom in other environments?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you.

"modify an object" means "change the number of elements", since you obviously want to be able to manipulate the individual elements of a container as you iterate over them. The object here is the container, not the elements themselves.

I can't comment on other languages, but I'd say that guideline is a little too strict for Go.

The classic implementation of Breadth First Search involves iterating over a queue as you fill it.

"don't modify the RHS while in a range clause" would be a more suitable guideline for Go. Note that it's subtley different from "iterating over" \- indeed, the answer to my bug was to iterate without using the range clause:

        for i := 0; i < len(input); i++{
            if newValue := test(input); newValue != nil {
                input = append(input, newValue)
            }
        }

I now appreciate the difference between this and the range clause - the length is evaluated every iteration this way. The range clause evaluates it once, at the beginning - rule (1).

<comment><USER3> After thinking a bit about your examples it makes me appreciate the keyword: the range clause's strictness guarantees iterating only on a certain `range` (self-duh) hence why it's not just called `iterate`.

I found myself making simple mistakes by assuming that range reading on a synchronous channel would cause the goroutine that is sending to the channel to become active. Instead, I wanted to use a for-select statements or a buffered channel because a length guarantee couldn't be made (or so I assume).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Another gotcha with for loops: scoping is a little weird.

        	xs := []int{1,2,3}
    	for _, x := range xs {
    		go func() {
    			fmt.Println(x)
    		}()
    	}

That prints `3 3 3` not `1 2 3`. You can fix it like this:

            for i := range xs {
    		x := xs[i]
    		go func() {
    			fmt.Println(x)
    		}()
    	}

Which seems like it ought to be the default behavior.

<comment><USER5> This seems to me to be the same class of error as those that aren't so much a go thing as a very comma gotcha for closures; you're placing x in the scope of the for loop and passing it into a series of anonymous functions, so it gets closed over and referenced as a common variable between each of those functions; thus before each goroutine has a chance to run the loop has completed and x == 3. You'll find this behaviour in any language with closures.

In the second example you're allocating a new local variable on each iteration, so each individual value gets closed over separately. That's probably not what you'd want usually, hence that not being default behaviour.

<comment><USER4> Right. I'm just saying I think the scope ought to be different. The 'x' in the loop should be a new variable each time because its not really 'a common variable between each of those functions'.

In the

        for i := 0; i < 10; i++ {}

case it's definitely more clear that i should be the same thing between iterations. (So you can tinker with i inside the loop) It just seems like they could've done something different for the 'range' for loop.

Javascript is plagued with this same problem (though its even worse because it doesn't even follow { } blocks)

<comment><USER5> After I wrote my reply I played around with some C# and found to my surprise that foreach _does_ in fact provide a new variable to be captured on each iteration, so clearly this is a design decision that varies between languages.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I dislike the fact that the value in range over a slice is a copy, rather than an alias, to the slice value.

It seems to me to be strictly less useful than the alternative (aliasing).

And I also don't really buy the argument that "it is a normal assignment and so has to copy", since:

        i, v := range s

_isn 't_ a normal assignment. It has special rules to do with looping. Having the additional rule that v aliases to the entry seems to me to be a full win (too late to change now I guess).

<comment><AUTHOR> This catches people out, and is something that some people on the Go team have expressed regret over - unfortunately it is too late to change due to backwards compatibility promises.

[http://youtu.be/p9VUCp98ay4?t=22m18s](http://youtu.be/p9VUCp98ay4?t=22m18s)

[http://golang.org/doc/go1compat.html](http://golang.org/doc/go1compat.html)

<comment><USER7> The Go Team regrets defining the scope of the range variables as the for statement. I am not aware of any regrets regarding the alias issue.

The range variable scope is the one big gotcha that's missing from the article. See [http://golang.org/doc/faq#closures_and_goroutines](http://golang.org/doc/faq#closures_and_goroutines) for one discussion of the issue.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Does go have a generic iterator interface? When I looked through the docs range seemed the closest, but all the examples seemed tied to array or an array of the keys of a dictionary.

For example Python has a iterator protocol and language support, and Java has Iterator/Iterable with language support.

</comment><comment><USER9> Strangely, the thing I miss most is

        for i in range(100):

except with 100 being, normally, not a constant.

<comment><USER4> really? what's wrong with:

        for i := 0; i < 100; i++ { }

a little more going on... but not much.

<comment><USER9> The first one is eight tokens, of which at least three are necessary: 100, for, and i; let's say four. The second one is 13 tokens. That means it has more than twice as much noise to distract you from the signal, and to get right when you write the code. As a result, variations like these require more attention to notice when you're reading the code:

        for i = 0; i < 100; i++ { }
        for i := 1; i < 100; i++ { }
        for i := 0; j < 100; i++ { }
        for i := 0; i <= 100; i++ { }
        for i := 0; i++; i < 100 { }

The first has no counterpart in Python (where the 8-token version comes from) since Python _always_ has that bug. The others are:

        for i in range(1, 100):
        i=0; while j < 100: i += 1; ...
        for i in range(101):
        raise TypeError

In short, every bit of _extraneous_ information you put into your code distracts you from the _relevant_ information, and that extraneous information is _something else you can get wrong_. Golang does a lot better at this than C does, but it could do better still.

In some cases, where Golang is noisier than Python or Ruby, it's because the extra redundancy is there to catch errors or encourage you to handle failures properly. This is not one of those cases.</comment></comment></comment>


Call to action: Deceptive marketing of Safari 4 - <AUTHOR> http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=267815

<comment><USER2> Apple always had an arrogant marketing. It's part of their DNA. Especially when they merely catch up with their competitors they claim to be the first, the fastest and the best.

This make sometimes difficult to understand when they truly innovate.

(The Powermac G4 at 400Mhz was supposed to be a "super computer")

Anyways as long as Webkit is gaining users, it will also benefit to Firefox and Opera (and vice-versa).

<comment><USER3> The magic of Apple, of course, is that on many occasions they catch up, but they integrate their features so neatly that using their product you _do_ feel like they've done something for the very first time. I've found myself getting thrilled about features Apple adds that I've had on other systems for a while, because they very often get them _just right_ in ways that other operating systems and companies don't.

Dashboard and Spaces, for instance, both excited me a lot when I first got to use them, and in Space's case when they first got announced. I'd been using Ubuntu at the time, and I had both widgets and multiple desktops, but it was different. With the Apple system, it feels right visually and in effect. The way widgets spin around when you use them, the small thing like the clock turning into a calendar when you click it, in Dashboard. With Spaces, the way your windows visually flew around, and the way you could zoom out and see the little cubbies.

I'll get flack for saying it, but it just happened with Safari 4 and tabs. For the first time, they _make sense_ where they are. I run Safari with minimal chrome, and now the tabs ARE the window bar. And that _makes sense!_ These tabs are effectively multiple windows stacked into a single space. It suddenly fits perfectly how they're displayed. Safari 4 has problems with the specifics of how the tabs go, but for the first time it makes sense where they appear visually.

That's why I love Apple's marketing: because it's so excitingly arrogant. No matter what they've got, they talk about it like it's magic and new, and I love that in commercials. No people going "Oh! This is so exciting to me!". They just take it for granted that you'd better like what they're talking about. It's more fun to see commercials like that. (I _adore_ the iPhone app ads, with the "Things have changed forever" slogan, for that particular reason.)

<comment><USER4> I agree, but howerver spaces is the one exception, it's totally useless compared to a really working virtual desktop like gnome, kde, or even better wmii. I could never get over the fact that spaces magically throws you around between desktops when klicking on program icons, and is totally opinionated on on which spaces to start program windows.

<comment><USER3> It uses a different philosophy than the other space managers. It's all about trying to emulate physical space. I like that a lot: I don't use enough windows in a day for it to be necessary, but that's the philosophical concept that makes the most sense to me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I read the article. Most of the claims are not outrageous. In one place, Apple marketing says "the first _popular_ browser to support..." which, in marketing terms, is meant to rule out Opera. So the claim is technically accurate, slightly misleading, but nothing out of the ordinary for marketing.

Where I think the article is misguided, is that you don't fight marketing with engineering. I mean you can try, but then your only receptive audience are computer geeks.

Of the general population using Safari, IE, and so on, how many care about the exact date, time and seconds when a feature was announced or released by Opera? That's my point. I'm a big fan of being perfectly accurate, but I'm smart enough to know that it's not enough to win in the real world.

Which goes back to one of my favorite topics: if only open source had decent marketing...

<comment><USER6> Seems like an issue of business ethics. It is internally inconsistent to endorse a company because they claim to have green products and green policies, but at the same time are known to throw hyperboles left and right. "But it's standard marketing..." is applying conveniently different strictness to different statements from the same company.

The hypocrisy runs deep, everywhere, but many customers are either unaware of it, or pretend it doesn't exist. Marketing is marketing, but it is very dangerous when many people have broken BS filters, and worse, willfully so. I for one appreciate this kind of obsessive nitpicking when available.

The entire problem here, and the one you point out about OSS, rests on education :-) More educators please!

<comment><USER3> I'm going to go out on a limb and disagree with you entirely. Marketing is not about displaying facts. I'd love it to be about being brutally honest with your product, but if that's how it was then there would be no need for marketing. Instead, marketing is about conveying what you want to convey quickly and without crap. Apple's point is, "Here are our new things. They're really cool." Anything outside of that you've got to implicitly understand is there just for spectacle, and in Apple's case I forgive them entirely, because they're so good at making commercials and ads.

Know what kind of marketing I _hate_? The sort where you put smiling faces all over and add peripheral features and say "We're a community of happy people," or "We give you an experience", or that use things like ridiculous swooshes and gradients to look nice. Know who does that? Opera Opera Opera. They show smiling users, and their site's all about swooshes and gradients.

And it pisses me off more that Opera is so arrogant about being the first, because _guess who they're blatantly stealing from?_ Apple! Their front page's Latest News aesthetic is ripped directly from Apple's front page. Their layout for browser features on their browser page? That's new: it used to be columns until Apple started their "3-column new features" method of advertising. Their "three snappy words for a product" is taken from Apple. Their font is Myriad Pro, for fuck's sake. Only they don't rip _right_ from Apple, because Apple's schtick is "We show you our product and make that product beautiful enough to market itself", and Opera can't do that. (Maybe now that Hicks is on Opera's team, they can start - I'd love that, since I prefer Opera and their marketing to the browser and marketing of Mozilla - remember that "promotes openness" checkbox on the Firefox vs. Safari page? I do.)

As I said in another comment, at least Apple is honest about their marketing. Their marketing is very blatantly so, and they keep it a point to maintain some integrity: all they talk about are their features. Opera doesn't do that. Most companies don't. As a result, Apple's ads come across every time as refreshing and new, and they don't try to convince you with features that aren't really there. I'm fine with that.

<comment><USER7> To be cynical, all marketing is untrue. If it was true then they wouldn't have to tell you otherwise.

Try listening to advertising and considering how plausible the _exact opposite_ of what they say is. You'll be surprised.

<comment><USER3> Not untrue so much as inconsequential. Dave Barry wrote about this pretty famously: if Coke and Pepsi advertise how much better they taste, it's because they taste the same. If a shampoo company markets its special herb, that herb means nothing.

Apple's one of those rare companies that doesn't necessarily do that, because very often they've got something worth getting. I love their commercials where it's just a song and their product lying there, like the Macbook Air and the iMac commercials, because those are the ads where they _don't_ have much to say, so they focus on the sheer beauty of their products. When they _do_ have something big, the ads are incredible. I still love watching the old iPod ads. Incredible clips.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Opera,

How about you stop whining about how Apple advertises and just produce a superior product?

<comment><USER9> Probably a harsher tone than you needed to take but I do agree. It often seems like Opera's marketing strategy is to scream "me too!" every time one of the more popular browsers does something.

Bottom line: Even though they're right about Apple being a little misleading the sour grapes/call to arms strategy makes me less inclined to try Opera not more.

If they really felt the need to do something they should have taken it with good humor and then turned it into a marketing pitch by extolling their products virtues.

<comment><USER10> Take a look at Opera's history[1]. Screaming "me too" is like Internet Explorer (and Safari) adding tabs and touting it as a feature. There is no "me too" in first. And either way, users are NOT working for Opera ASA. You think Apple's OFFICIAL false claims are just fine and a few Opera users who don't like these false claims make you want to try Opera less?

[1] <http://www.opera.com/docs/history/>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I've got a soft spot for Opera, but while they're getting whipped at Javascript speed and the UI is, er, characterful, I'm not sure I care who came first with Auto-Click.

Also, I don't know if the guys in thread noticed that drlaunch's "rebuttals" all mostly support Apple's claims. Does he not know that Webkit was extracted out of, and in certain contexts is wholly synoymous with, Safari?

</comment><comment><USER12> Meh, some of these are true... especially Acid 3. (Depends on whether you consider safari == webkit and if you count Chrome.)

Afaik, Opera still hasn't released a public version of their browser that passes Acid 3 fully (including speed). Although I know Opera 10 does.

<comment> andrewl-hn That whole situation with ACID 3 is very unclear to me. That 'smooth animation' requirement makes thing so complected. For example I can run Safari 4 beta on a very slow machine and technically it won;t pass the test. Or I could find a very fast computer and run Opera 10 alpha to pass it. So...

I would just list a chain of events. But I will say explicitly about browsers & rendering engines and scoring 100/100 & 'fully pass'

Last spring:

1\. Opera announced that they have scored 100/100 on some internal build.

2\. They released a build on labs.opera.com

3\. WebKit team found an error in one of the tests and it was changed. Opera's build score went down to 99/100

4\. WebKit released a public build

During the summer:

5\. WebKit released the first build to 'fully pass' the test (100/100 + smooth animation).

Last December:

6\. Opera released 10 alpha - technically it is the first publicly available preview release of the Browser to score 100/100 (as opposed to a rendering engine)

This February:

7\. Apple released Safari 4 beta - technically it is the first publicly available preview release of the Browser to fully pass ACID 3 (100/100 + smooth animation)

As I see both companies can advertise their achievement:

Opera 10 alpha - the first browser to score 100/100 on ACID 3

Safari 4 beta - the first browser to fully pass ACID 3

The thing is that both claims are True! :)

But that doesn't mean that other Apple or Opera claims are legitimate. As for browser popularity it depends from country to country especially in Opera case. There are even countries where Opera is the most popular browser.

<comment><USER12> > There are even countries where Opera is the most popular browser.

I'm having a hard time believing this. Any stats?

> For example I can run Safari 4 beta on a very slow machine and technically > it won;t pass the test.

Hixie, who's pretty much the guy behind the whole test-suite and the authority on Acid 3, said that the reference machine is MacBook Pro. So, no, you couldn't run it on a slow machine and say it doesn't pass, because that's not the machine it has to pass on. :)

<comment> andrewl-hn > I'm having a hard time believing this. Any stats?

Belarus (or Byelorussia) <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belarus> Stats: [http://www.liveinternet.ru/stat/ru/browsers.html?slice=by;pe...](http://www.liveinternet.ru/stat/ru/browsers.html?slice=by;period=month)

Ukraine <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine> Stats: [http://www.liveinternet.ru/stat/ru/browsers.html?slice=ukr;p...](http://www.liveinternet.ru/stat/ru/browsers.html?slice=ukr;period=month)

Opera is more popular than Firefox in Russia [http://www.liveinternet.ru/stat/ru/browsers.html?slice=ru;pe...](http://www.liveinternet.ru/stat/ru/browsers.html?slice=ru;period=month)

It's interesting that Russian Google users prefer Firefox, though [http://www.liveinternet.ru/stat/ru/browsers.html?slice=Googl...](http://www.liveinternet.ru/stat/ru/browsers.html?slice=Google;period=month)

As a bottom line: worldwide market share doesn't mean anything. Even if you don't support some browser with a 0.1% share then you stop supporting millions of people and leave them upset.

But you shouldn't think about smaller browsers. Pick a good tools like jQuery (which replaced all browser sniffing code with feature detection) and provide a fallback (like GMail basic or Y!Mail Classic) and you should be fine :)

And don't leave IE 8 f*cked up: never use 'if IE' conditional comments. Check for a specific versions instead like 'if lte IE 7'. Give them a chance.

> the reference machine is MacBook Pro

Didn't know that, sorry. As I said I seems just too complicated to me :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Speaking of Safari, it really annoys me that the Apple software updater always wants to "update" my Safari install (even thou Safari is not installed.)

Am I the only one who finds this incredibly irritating?

<comment><USER14> I find that annoying as well but 99% of OSX users probably keep it installed so its probably not a top priority at Apple.

<comment><USER15> Yeah, but probably 1% of Windows Quicktime and Windows iTunes users do.

<comment><USER3> Apple is a pain in the ass if you don't play by their rules. Using Quicktime on Windows is painful, and iTunes isn't much better. It's their one major falling-out as a company, though I can forgive them as long as I'm not using Windows at the moment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'm a bit confused: what form of "action," exactly, would Opera like us to take here?

That sounded snarky and sarcastic, but I'm really not sure what a public debunking of ad copy is supposed to do? Rockports don't actually "make me feel like walking," there are quite a few "other white meats" besides pork, and Apple is advertising their own products.

What, exactly, is supposed to happen next here?

<comment><USER17> The action is to document the lies that Apple is spreading.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fearphage/sandbox/Deceptiv...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fearphage/sandbox/Deceptive_Safari_4_marketing)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Depends if you allow safari==webkit.

<comment><USER17> Why would you allow the rendering engine to be used interchangeably with the browser?

Even if you allow for this bending of the facts, it would mean CHROME was first in a lot of things (Acid3 for instance) and not Safari. They are both based on the webkit engine.

<comment><USER19> Because WebKit releases nightlies titled "WebKit.app" that people can download and run as a standalone app.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Call to action? They are overreacting to some commonly used marketing techniques.

The fastest computer ever. The safest web browser ever. The greenest car ever.

We've heard it before, we'll hear it again in the future.

</comment><comment><USER21> It's better to take it in the spirit of challenge rather than waste god knows how many man-hours tirelessly documenting "The Great Feature Train Robbery" or whatever somebody titled the Digg submission.</comment>


A french freelancer's nightmare - <AUTHOR> https://plus.google.com/u/0/116975024782869852103/posts/Ay1KyGARs4B

<comment><USER2> It kind of sounds like this guy took an agreed upon amount of money to do a project and then kept trying to charge more and more for it while only sort of working on it, and then just bailing and never delivering the final product.

I'm not sure what he did deliver but it sounds more like he owes the company all the money he has been paid so far since he didn't deliver the product. I mean really the nightmare of this all sounds like it is on the side of his employer. He really didn't include enough details though about the original arrangement.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a bit harsh. Granted I bailed at the end because of exhaustion and I didn't reach the expected goals. And sure the company did some gestures over those 7 months that were in my favor. I totally understand the decision to withheld the money of the hours of work done those past couple of months since the project is not delivered (I would probably do the same myself). But you got to agree those hours of work deserves at least some credit.

<comment><USER2> It really depends what the initial agreement was. Were you a regular employee or was there an initial contract that you would complete X project for Y dollars by some deadline Z.

If it was the second one then IMO you really owe them back the initial deposit they gave you depending on what kind of final work you delivered to them. Honestly handing codebases from one developer to another is less than ideal and makes projects more expensive than they should be. Also I'm sure it was way past the expected deadline of the client.

If you delivered nothing in the end then it was really more like they hired a con artist that stole their money, again if you were under the kind of contract I stated above.

If you were a normal employee then you just didn't do a great job due to all the stuff you mentioned.

Either way I don't know why you would publicize a situation like this. It doesn't matter what way you look at it, this whole story doesn't make you sound like a developer that people would want to hire.

<comment><USER2> For some reason I can't reply to you directly...

If you left good deliverables for them in the end then that is better.

But like I said, I don't think it is a great idea to publicize this situation because it doesn't exactly make you look good, and the internet's memory is forever.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> "Back then I was in a pretty scarce situation so I decided to go for the first job I got offered since I needed money."

I've found that pretty much every decision I've come to regret has been made in times when I've been in bad financial situations, and I made the decision primarily based on money reasons.

A couple jobs I've taken turned out to be really bad choices, but I took them because I needed something _right then_. In one case, the company itself was not good (really dysfunctional team/operations inside) and I didn't feel bad about quitting - the other case, I did feel bad about quitting so soon after starting. The people were nice, but I realized I'd made a bad decision and had to get out.

Having a strong financial base to draw on when you 'go freelance' either due to choice or you get laid off(!) can not be overstated. I used to be relieved if I had a few weeks of living expenses in the bank, and look back now and wonder how I ever survived with that mentality. (Obviously I did!).

shameless plug - <http://indieconf.com> \- the conference for web freelancers - has an open call for speakers. Some of the sessions we've had in the past have focused on freelancer financials and legal issues like the issues raised in the OP post.

tl;dr - It's _really_ hard to make wise/good decisions from a position of financial insecurity. Well... it's hard enough to make wise/good decisions anyway - doing so from a position of insecurity multiplies that difficulty.

EDIT - misread this - the OP hadn't "gone freelance" - had just taken the first job offer that came along. So... not entirely a related plug above, but... the CFP is still open :)

<comment><USER4> It was a freelance work, _"the company decided to stop paying me until the project would be completed due to the multiple delays"_. The post is fairly well balanced by the way, he totally agrees that issues were on both side.

The biggest mistake he made was: _"I hadn't took holidays for 2 years at the time"_. This is really really sad. Normally in France you have at least 5 weeks of vacations a year, but you need to _earn_ them for the next year. So, if you change job each year, you get the vacations paid as money but no free time. It looks like he did just that.

I am really sorry for him, freelancing is hipped all over the place but it is hard to do it well and nearly impossible without good money in the bank to support the bad months.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I can't read this without signing into google. While I know a lot of people would think that's not a big deal, it really irks me having to sign in just to read a blog post, or whatever.

I wish this site had a rule that content behind a login- or pay-wall wasn't allowed.

<comment><USER4> At the time of my previous comment, 3h ago, it was freely available (I always access Google in incognito mode).

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> My personal burnouts always ended up with visits to ER, so I kind of got lucky there.

Why lucky, you say? Because I had legitimate sick leave for those, and good luck finding and employer who will recognize, empathize and treat your burnout as a regular illness. It usually just spirals out of control until it kills everything around it.

</comment><comment><USER7> Having done a bit a of freelancing, to me it just sound that at some point in that project you should just have cut your loss and move out of it.

Being a freelancer you get 2 big advantages, you can choose when you take holidays, and you can choose what project you want to work on (it seems to me you failed at taking advantages of either one). Maybe you should have been more direct and say I'm going to take a week off and your project will wait.

What you describe look to me as a typical inexperienced freelancer (don't take it the wrong way, we are all inexperienced when we start) agreeing on deadlines that can't be done, without a good team, and without taking the steps to get a better communication around this company, (your were the lead if I am not mistaken).

You have a lot to think about, a lot to learn from it, try to think at each point of failure and what you would have do different!

But I will agree with the some of the guys here, since this post clearly put you in a bad light, I would not have post it, I would personally remove it.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> As some of you recommended I removed the post but thanks anyway for your advices/replies/comments.

</comment><comment><USER8> FWIW, when you want to quit a job in France and you agreed with your company (the hard part;) ), you can leave and get unemployment benefits.

That said, burnout + having to look for a place in Paris without steady employment, it must have been hard.

</comment><comment><USER9> Is the link broken? 3.05pm GMT

</comment><comment><USER10> Looks like he removed the post.</comment>


Rick Falkvinge says copyright laws are ridiculous - <AUTHOR> http://www.itworld.com/software/238387/rick-falkvinge-says-copyright-laws-are-ridiculous

<comment><USER2> Is the author trying to imply that the copyright laws are _not_ ridiculous? The perpetual 20 year extensions are not ridiculous?

Most of the copyright laws are already so ridiculous that people aren't even aware they would work a certain way, because it doesn't make sense to them (referring to the many youtube videos here that are posted with the message that the videos aren't owned by them).

I'm not sure yet if copyright needs to be abolished. I do think they are fighting a pointless battle on the Internet, because sharing and copying are fundamental features of the Internet. If you want to remove them, you will break the Internet (if removing them is even possible). Do we really want to break the Internet to protect copyright?

But I also think some of the current copyright legislation is ridiculous, and needs to be overhauled, rethought, and adapted for the Internet age. And by adapted I don't mean the Internet becoming adapted to copyright law. I mean the copyright laws becoming adapted to the Internet.</comment>


I can read 780 wpm, and I read most of HN this way - <AUTHOR> http://spritzinc.com/ <comment><USER2> I installed it in Chrome, and the "Loading Spritz" balloon just stays there. Trying to use it in another tab just gives a balloon with a frowny face. What am I doing wrong?

<comment><USER2> UPDATE: Spritzlet loaded OK on another computer; will research what went wrong on the other.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> The webpage you linked is parked.

<comment><AUTHOR> [http://spritzinc.com/](http://spritzinc.com/)

really?

<comment><USER3> Thanks. In the mobile app, if you click "learn more" on the post preview, it takes you to "spritzit.com" instead.

<comment><AUTHOR> oops, yeah, that is totally a parked domain. WTF?</comment></comment></comment></comment>


How CISPA would affect you  - <AUTHOR> http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57422693-281/how-cispa-would-affect-you-faq/

<comment><USER2> "In 1969, Nixon met with the heads of the NSA, CIA and FBI and authorized an intercept program. Nixon later withdrew the formal authorization, but informally, police and intelligence agencies kept adding names to the watch list. At its peak, 600 American citizens appeared on the list, including singer Joan Baez, pediatrician Benjamin Spock, actress Jane Fonda and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr."

I find it hard to believe that Nixon's intercept program targeted MLK, Jr., considering that King was assassinated in 1968 and Nixon wasn't president until 1969.</comment>


The woman who accidentally ticked: 'I am a terrorist' - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-45678517 <comment><USER2> First rule of fight club, don't talk about fight club.</comment>


Fake news 'as a service' booming among cybercrooks - <AUTHOR> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/11/17/fake_news_as_a_service/ <comment><USER2> I gave a talk at Denver startup week last year about the underlying profit incentives tied to fake news and how industry reforms in the way media companies do business could not only benefit the advertisers but also stop Fake news. At the end of the talk I had 3 people ask how they could make fake news to promote their startups. That this has turned into a booming industry surprises me 0%, though it is depressing.

<comment><USER3> My thought experiment for considering the moral limits of capitalism: If producing Soylent Green were legal and profitable, would there be actors willing to produce and sell it?

If you answer no, see: Philip Morris, Lockheed, Beretta, etc.

<comment><USER4> Coca-Cola will likely kill more people than guns and organized crime, honestly. But I see your point.

There is a lot of evidence that organized crime is a substitute for opportunities in legitimate society, so that example is perhaps not applicable. The opioid crisis caused by US pharma may be a bigger and better example.

<comment><USER5> Organized crime is a huge problem. Like just take Mexico. Really poor and that's because of organized crime. If they were richer they could probably save a lot of lives. I think that's a bigger factor than the number of people shot dead.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The fake news phenomenon is something that worries me at a local level: friends and family. I'm constantly bombarded by forwarded messages from them that don't pass a simple cursory review and are 99% fake if you dig further.

I've tried to combat this by researching what's forwarded to me and pointing that out (including how I discovered it was false) but people either don't reply back or get hostile, assuming I'm one of the "others" (because these messages are usually trying to instill people to hate something). I have _never_ received a thank you from anyone for this and nobody ever apologized back, and I try to be extra polite when pointing these errors.

I've left various chat groups and feel my energy is depleted to continue on this fight. It amazes me that people default to a "believe in everything that comes from WhatsApp/FB/Instagram" mentality versus distrusting the Internet completely (which would be more sensible if coupled with a minimum amount of research on what's shared with you).

<comment><USER7> I feel most people who trust social media for news are super-late Internet adopters who don't quite understand how any of this stuff works. I know some older (but not old, really) people who use Facebook without understanding the boundary between Facebook and the rest of the web. They just see text on the screen and make arbitrary assumptions on where it's coming from.

This is the price society is paying for making social media "accessible" through phone apps and such.

<comment><USER8> I know millenials who fall for fake news just as much as older people do.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Direct link without lead harvesting nonsense: [http://info.digitalshadows.com/rs/457-XEY-671/images/Digital...](http://info.digitalshadows.com/rs/457-XEY-671/images/DigitalShadows- TheBusinessofDisinformationFakeNews.pdf)

This is super lazy, the paper seems like it was produced by a PR drone whose knowledge on the subject was limited to a list of keywords to google.

<comment><USER10> The article itself is pretty lazy too, like it was a paid placement. It mentions "Digital Shadows" nine times.

<comment><USER11> The way theregister.co.uk works is that along with their own writers, anyone can submit articles. They pick whether to publish it it/edit then publish.

Most news sites do this, even the biggest and most respected. But I think they get a larger amount of their content this way, and consequentially some of it can be a bit self-promoty.

<comment><USER9> I'm pretty sure that John Leyden works for The Register. [https://www.theregister.co.uk/Author/John- Leyden](https://www.theregister.co.uk/Author/John-Leyden)

I could be wrong, but that seems exceedingly unlikely given the amount of stories he authors. Very much seems like either he or The Register got paid for this article.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> If you haven't seen Century of the Self[1] I recommend it. It is a documentary about the history, and rise of PR. We are now, perhaps, at the end of the century of the self - as the trustworthiness (and hence value) of broadcast information drops to zero (not that it has yet, but it will). How our current news/media copes, and what replaces it are still unknown.

1: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnPmg0R1M04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnPmg0R1M04)

<comment><USER13> > _How our current news /media copes, and what replaces it are still > unknown..._

You should be more worried about how the current government copes with it. I think fake news _might_ have helped Trump gain power in part, but it's _DEFINITELY_ contributing to Trump losing power. Which illustrates that it's much easier to tear down with fake news than it is to build up.

That doesn't bode at all well for anyone who wants to be a mayor, or president, or senator, or police chief or whatever in the future.

<comment><USER14> 100% agree with you, but I think for a lot of people who voted for Trump it might definitely have been an act of "tearing down" what was perceived as the corrupt establishment politics by these voters.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I have come across cloned news site of mirror.co.uk promoting crypto-currency scams.

They talk about it here: [https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/warning-fake- mirror-we...](https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/warning-fake-mirror- websites-promoted-12427136)

It was from an advert on a legitimate website, but it had redirects/popups that show only on mobile devices.(this seems to affect a lot of even normally very trustworthy websites for some reason)

<comment><USER15> Honestly, some of those fake articles could have legitimately been written by the original Mirror. It's slightly amusing to me how they pretend like they're the beacon of truth and journalism in that article; I'd be completely sympathetic if it was the BBC, but it's not. I'm not saying they deserved this, but I'll be lying if I said I don't feel a small amount of schadenfreude. The Daily Mail, The Sun and The Mirror are so unreliable and clickbaity.

<comment><USER16> Here's someone far more reputable to feel sympathy for, Martin Lewis of Money Saving Expert:

[https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/shopping/fake-martin- lewis...](https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/shopping/fake-martin-lewis-ads/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The term 'fake news' is unhelpful.

Yellow journalism, deliberately confusing and deflecting writing and scams are as old as printing

<comment><USER18> Agree that the term wasn't helpful overall (it unfortunately is politically loaded).

But looking at the original paper (already posted but re-linked here -- [http://info.digitalshadows.com/rs/457-XEY-671/images/Digital...](http://info.digitalshadows.com/rs/457-XEY-671/images/DigitalShadows- TheBusinessofDisinformationFakeNews.pdf)) I guess the author was trying to link a "current news event" with various other disinformation that is more relevant from a business perspective -- black hat SEO strategies, site / brand spoofing, social media spamming, and the like.

I'm not sure how helpful the high-level overview is either :) but from what I can tell the intended audience was non-technical. One that, say, might not even be familiar with any of the above terms in the first place, yet is vaguely familiar with the concept that cyber threats exist, and might be looking at purchasing something from a digital security company (like, um, Digital Shadows) to help this. Businesses absolutely would be concerned about brand protection and preventing any malice (digital or otherwise) that could damage the business.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> The concept of "fake" news is a slippery slope. Anyone that's in the business of gathering and presenting news has a number of vested interests. Sensationalism. Fabrication. Fear mongering. Persuasion. Ingratiation. Language itself is mostly a tool for some shade of lying and/or intimidation, with the occasional fringe use of conveying factual information or for enabling cooperation between peers.

<comment><USER20> Really not sure what kind of people are downvoting these kinds of comments. Anyone care to enlighten?

<comment><USER21> Usually the kind of people who esteem journalists as philosopher-kings, and the organizations who employ them as paragons of perfect, unassailable virtue.

The Fourth Estate is not to be criticized.

<comment><USER22> What kind of conspiracy nonsense is this?

<comment><USER17> 'It's Easier to Fool People Than to Convince Them That They Have Been Fooled'

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Personal news hygiene must be practiced in the same way food hygiene is practiced. You will not eat a free sandwich found on a public toilet floor. You should not consume news sourced from FB, Twitter, etc...

Define your hygienic sources of news and stick to them, accept that you may need to pay for quality. Enforcing this is a personal responsibility.

Oh... and teach the children personal news hygiene.

</comment><comment><USER24> I've been working on some algorithms I think can identify fake news easily and reliably.

The key part is you have to have a massive dataset of historical information.

With Datastreamer (my company) we have about 1PB of news, blogs, and social media from the last 4-5 years.

I'm curious if it would make sense to ship an open/public API that would allow people both to report AND check on whether something is fake news.

Sort of like Hacker News but a browser extension that allows you to flag whether you think something is fake.

<comment><USER7> What could possibly go wrong?

False flagging, FUD based on groupthink and cognitive biases, accidental suppression of newly created websites in favor of older ones. Just to start off a list.

Not everything is solvable through algorithms. Especially if your initial goad is ill-defined. There are about half a dozen completely separate things that are being labeled as "fake news" today, from websites impersonating news agencies and pushing lies, to actual news agencies pushing lies, to viral hoaxes on social media.

Ultimately, whether a news article is fake or not is determined by its relation to reality. You could use context as heuristic to filter out complete garbage, but this is something that's actually being abused by many subcategories of "fake news" to begin with.

People should be able to use their own judgement to spot nonsense, without algorithms telling them what to think. If they can't, the first questions should be "why?" and "why now?", not "how do I make an app to fix it?".

Personally, I think the underlying assumption behind current social media are profoundly broken and can't be fixed just by sprinkling more tech on top of it all. Obvious example: if you release a news-checking app and someone else releases a _fake_ news-checking app, how do you expect your users to choose the right one?

<comment><USER25> > People should be able to use their own judgement to spot nonsense, without > algorithms telling them what to think. If they can't, the first questions > should be "why?" and "why now?", not "how do I make an app to fix it?".

Sort of.

People should also be able to use their own judgement to spot scams.

And yet there are spam filters. Both to detect garbage, and also to hide garbage.

Obviously, the email client that classifies my bank loan documents as "spam" is not going to be popular.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Most of what they would need has existed "as a service" for shady internet marketers, SEO companies, etc, for quite some time. Buying tweets, likes, spammed/spun content/comments, and so on isn't terribly new.

</comment><comment><USER27> ok but what is the quality control like on all these tools to help do you illegal stuff? Better or worse than normal software.

Is there any open source tools to help you do illegal stuff? Because if you can't see the source I think a good illegal tool moneymaking scheme would be to sell the tools to do illegal stuff and then blackmail the people who did illegal stuff for a part of the money. but that might also be dangerous.

<comment><USER28> Almost all of the tools used to do legal stuff can also be used to do illegal stuff. You think scam websites are deep down built on Linux and Apache like everything else?

<comment><USER27> Sure, but the article suggested that there were tools that were written with pulling particular scams as their purpose.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Click baits gonna click bait

</comment><comment><USER20> Targeted smearing and destroying of one's reputation is quite an old endeavour. Works amazingly well online, too. Don't give up Internet anonymity like some governments want you to.

<comment><USER30> I don't think Internet anonymity is a thing though.

Even if you make a fully unrelated identity, smearing that identity is enough to discredit your ability to engage online. Sure, you can make another and another, but starting over with zero online credibility is the same thing as losing all your credibility.

<comment><USER31> One of the components of online anonymity is having different identites for different communities. That way if your expiremental political blog goes horribly wrong it doesn't take your professional life or hobby group with it

<comment><USER30> Well sure, you can treat being online as an advanced form of roleplaying, but then that just limits your ability to really engage in serious discussion, because you're just talking to other roleplayers.

And that's fine for most topics, but when you talk about certain issues, I feel that speaking in an honest manner (and assuming everyone who isn't obviously trolling is doing the same) is the only way to really have a discussion, otherwise it just makes all online discourse totally meaningless.

<comment><USER31> I'm talking more about different pseudonames and siloing personal information rather than full on different identites. I'm as authentic here as I am on my Reddit or professional GitHub accounts, and yet it still will require corporate level shenanigans to find and link them all together</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


News.YC No points display script. - <AUTHOR>

I wanted to disable the display of points on news.yc. So here is a Greasemonkey script to do so, http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/56164 (Partly as a response to post I saw enabling dsiplay of Points of users on comments page as well ) <comment><AUTHOR> Also to show the power of Jquery. Total lines of YC specific code required = 6. (I included JQuery with the script as I was too lazy to do this in raw JS)

<http://dpaste.de/ZsFF/>

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Clickable

<http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/56164></comment>


Show HN: A tool for turning facts into structured data with simple parsers - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/fiatjaf/pf <comment><USER2> Interesting! You could combine it with e.g. Amazon Alexa so you can add such items using your voice (if you know the 'sentence structure' of course).

</comment><comment><USER3> Very nice idea!</comment>