When Bad Theories Happen to Good Scientists - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304388004577531270272951132.html

<comment><USER2> It's important to get a perspective on "theory" and "model" in science, if only because it's pivotal to understanding Kuhn's work and how he reconciled it with the more-famous account due to Popper that science works by _falsification_ rather than confirmation.

The point is that a good theory, like quantum mechanics or Newtonian mechanics or atomic theory or heliocentrism, is Turing-complete -- at least for its domain. These are _explanatory frameworks_ which offer a systematic perspective on setting up _models_ of physical phenomena. Kuhn wants to say, "Yes, scientists test and throw away, like Popper says. But usually, they test and throw away at the level of this model. They don't usually throw away the theory, they just say, 'oh, this effect is non-negligible and should be included in a more detailed model.'"

Because a theory can compute anything which any other theory (in the same problem domain) can compute, there is _no experiment_ which distinguishes the two theories. A good example is geocentrism versus heliocentrism: Newtonian mechanics _fully allows_ you to transform to a coordinate system which places the Earth at the center of the universe with the Sun orbiting around it, by adding centrifugal and Coriolis forces. That's perfectly well allowed! You can accurately model all of the things which heliocentrism models with the Earth at the center of the solar system.

How do we choose between these? Kuhn's answers are murky, having to do with "aesthetic criteria", and I prefer an account due to Imre Lakatos. This is a _feedback theory_ , but since one prototypical example of a feedback theory is evolution by natural selection, you might think of it instead as _theory evolution_ or so.

What happens is, grad students are lazy and want to publish interesting results, so they select whichever theory makes it easiest for them to publish something unexpected. The Standard Model of Particle Physics is ad-hoc as all hell, and it turns out that we _know_ that it's wrong, and it has oodles of parameters that could be tweaked to better conform with any experiment we wanted, including ways to tweak it so that there is a Higgs particle or ways to tweak it so that there is not a Higgs particle. It more or less violates all of Kuhn's aesthetic criteria. Why does anybody suffer such a thing to live? Because we can do insanely powerful calculations of real things with it, and those calculations come out correct to very high accuracy without too- complicated modelling.

</comment><comment><USER3> Thomas Kuhn, the famous philosopher and historian of science (and physicist by training), wrote all about this back in 1962 when he published _The Structure of Scientific Revolutions_. This book brought us the term "paradigm shift", which he argued typically only happened when older scientists retired, leaving younger scientists to pursue avenues of research that disagreed with the entrenched orthodoxy, without the threat of being denied tenure.

I.e., science as never been the direct route from hypothesis to proven theory that they teach us in high school.

<comment><USER4> Remember when relativity didn't need a generation of physicists to die before it was accepted? How about quantum mechanics?

The big problem I have with Kuhn's idea of paradigm-shift-by-mass-retirement is that there are a bunch of examples in the past century of _really big_ upsets in a number of fields that were accepted without dramatic wailing and gnashing of teeth. They just don't get mentioned so much when the idea of paradigm shift comes up -- classic confirmation bias.

(If you want to see big changes in action today, look at molecular biology. Now _there_ is a lively field! It's kind of disconcerting how often they have to update their textbooks, especially at higher levels.)

<comment><USER3> I'm not sure that it would be correct to interpret Kuhn as stating that paradigm shifts only occur upon death. His point was rather than science _often_ doesn't proceed in the orderly way that we've typically been led to believe. _Often_ does not preclude _sometimes_ , or even _frequently_.

I don't know much about molecular biology (other than currently working on RNA Interference now for a living), but sometimes, I imagine, that there is just too much solid data for a shift, that the orthodoxists don't need to die to see the light. Or maybe these putative shifts don't really involve shifting your entire mindset, which was required for things like the shift from classical mechanics to quantum mechanics, or the shift from behavioral psychology to cognitive psychology. Kuhn's model of paradigm shift only applies if the _paradigm_ has to change--not if there's just a lot of churning of the facts.

The shift from behaviorism to cognitivism was one that occurred relatively recently in the history of science, and it certainly involved dramatic wailing and the gnashing of teeth. In fact, there are still behaviorist holdouts.

Re relativity and quantum mechanics, these would be two of Kuhn's prime examples, so I'm not sure what you are saying with respect to them. Einstein didn't win a Nobel Prize for Relativity, because it still wasn't accepted well enough even all those decades later, when he did win his Nobel prize.

<comment><USER5> A current dramatic shift in biology (with wailing and the teeth and everything) is the fight between the people who favor group selection vs. the people who think group selection is bollocks and kin selection is to be preferred.

This has been going on for the last 50 years, with kin selectionists "winning", but E. O. Wilson recently published a book defending group- selection which Richard Dawkins ripped apart, so right now the fight has come back.

Check out this article: [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sloan- wilson/richard-daw...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sloan- wilson/richard-dawkins-edward-o-_b_1588510.html)

I think we don't see any major paradigm shifts in molecular biology (or my field, bioinformatics) because these aren't "declarative" per se, but rather "explorative" - meaning that there are no big theoretical frameworks like evolutionary biology has, but rather tiny steps of fiddling around in the dark and _then_ using theory to explain what was found.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Interesting referenced paper: [http://www.journalofvision.org/content/11/12/2.full.pdf#page...](http://www.journalofvision.org/content/11/12/2.full.pdf#page=1&view=FitH)

The effect it calls into question was promoted by several articles that made it to the front page around here recently. For instance, <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4121859>

</comment><comment><USER7> "There's a myth out there that has gained the status of a cliché: that scientists love proving themselves wrong, that the first thing they do after constructing a hypothesis is to try to falsify it."

This sounds horribly wrong to me. Isn't it the "myth" that the scientific community is self-correcting, not individuals?

[edited for grammar]

<comment><USER8> I agree...I thought the common wisdom is that scientists like proving _each other_ wrong. In my experience that is not a myth.

<comment><USER9> And not even that is necessarily true. I'm a physicist, and I would be wary of trying to prove any commonly accepted theory wrong - even if all my data points that way. Contrary to popular belief, getting data that is _too_ non- mainstream and trying to defend it is often academic suicide in science. While science is one of the most rational fields to be working in, this is still a sad but true fact about the human condition.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Luckily, the fact that individual scientists are subject to the confirmation bias does not greatly affect the workings of science as a whole... for as soon as an interesting theory is developed by some scientist, hordes of _other scientists_ will try to prove it false. For whatever reason...

<comment><USER11> Where are the hordes of other scientists trying to prove Darwinism false?

<comment><USER12> _Where are the hordes of other scientists trying to prove Darwinism false?_

I hope they are reading the prior literature on the science of evolution, for example as assembled in the "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent,"

<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/>

so that they understand what "Darwinism" is today after 150 years of scientists checking facts and refining the understanding of the origin of species. Alas, there are still spectacular examples of people who purport to be scientists who disagree with Darwin

[http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/07/21/creationist- fu...](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/07/21/creationist-fud-refuted/)

who totally misunderstand what Darwin meant and what evidence has turned up in more recent generations to refine our understanding of evolution.

<comment><USER11> I hope they are reading the critiques, but as your comment proves, scientists trying to prove Darwinism false are just people purporting to be scientists.

[https://www.google.com/search?q=29%2B+Evidences+for+Macroevo...](https://www.google.com/search?q=29%2B+Evidences+for+Macroevolution)

e.g., A Critique of Douglas Theobald's "29 Evidences For Macroevolution" <http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Somewhat related comment: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." - Max Planck

</comment><comment><USER14> Ridley has a hidden agenda here - he's a global warming denier and he emphasizes confirmation bias to explain how all the climate scientists got it wrong (unlike him).

Look at for example [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Ridley#Views_on_climate_ch...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Ridley#Views_on_climate_change) "I see confirmation bias everywhere in the climate debate"

The cliche he derides that "scientists love proving themselves wrong" is a cliche of the climate debate to argue that the whole field of climate science is unlikely to be rotten (personally I think the point is more that scientists love proving their colleagues wrong).

There's a endnote identifying the article as "The first of three columns on the topic of confirmation bias" so I wonder if he'll do a big reveal of AGW- denial or if he's just trying to sow subtle seeds of doubt in the background.

</comment><comment><USER15> The article conflates "science" and "scientists". Science can test hypotheses, even if individual scientists fall in love with their own theories.

The article itself gives a concrete example-- the work showing Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is a "fluke" was done by a different research team.

A more interesting question than "Do scientists suffer from confirmation bias?" might be "Are scientists more prone to confirmation bias than other professionals?" Or "In the long run of history, do the conclusions of science get overturned more often than the conclusions of other fields?"

<comment><USER16> >Science can test hypotheses, even if individual scientists fall in love with their own theories.

The scientific process is incredibly useful, but I grow tired of the near religious reverence for the nebulous "Science."

Science isn't monolithic. It isn't an object, it can't _do_ anything. Science is merely a process practiced by people. Science is the scientists.

Science has hierarchies like any other human institution that can wrongly prevent the spread of dissenting ideas. All it takes is enough people in the right places to keep a bad idea firmly entrenched for years. As research becomes more and more specialized we may become even more vulnerable to small entrenched groups with incorrect conclusions.

Many of the incorrect theories overturned through the years, where done so, not because the scientists who make up "Science" changed there mind after seeing contradictory evidence, but because they died off.

<comment><USER17> Your comment seems to start off by agreeing with the parent but then diverges when you say:

> Science is the scientists.

> Science has hierarchies...

No, scientists have human flaws which lead to biases, hierarchies, etc. Science, as a method for discovering the truth about our world, works very well in the big scheme of things and the reverence for it is _absolutely_ well deserved.

Whether it's true or not that older scientists sometimes have to die off before new scientists following more fruitful paths can have proper attention is a human concern; the fact is that the scientific method is ultimately very successful and the parent is quite correct in observing that the only issue here is conflating science and scientists with unfair expectations.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I don't think I remember hearing that scientist love proving themselves wrong, because they obviously don't. No one likes that. Scientists love proving other scientists wrong, which is really what this article is about. Some scientists were wrong, maybe because of confirmation bias, and other scientists without the same confirmation bias proved them wrong.

</comment><comment><USER19> When bad articles happen to interesting subjects. Thanks wsj.

<comment><USER20> Your comment doesn't have much depth; would you care to explain why you think the article is bad?</comment></comment>


How antibiotics changed the way America eats - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21729544-new-book-about-rise-cheap-chicken-how-use-antibiotics-poultry-farming <comment><USER2> Actual title: "How the use of antibiotics _in poultry farming_ changed the way America eats"</comment>


Monetary Policies for Crypto Tokens - <AUTHOR> http://continuations.com/post/161700099130/monetary-policy-for-crypto-tokens <comment><USER3> Yup, intrinsically worthless tokens engineered to have better than market risk adjusted, liquidity adjusted real returns compared to real productive investment will always be unstable and fluctuate wildly as they get more popular. This is a direct result of physical limits of production. As people hoard worthless tokens, their price increases and people hoard them even more instead of investing in real businesses with real production capacity. Eventually production capacity drops which means there is less things to buy with all the tokens. Stockpiled tokens chasing few goods means prices will rise (tokens will lose value) potentially suddenly as people try to get rid of them all at the same time before they're completely worthless. The cycle then repeats. When savings or financial promises are insufficiently tied to future production or to accumulation of real goods, it's always a ponzi scheme.

<comment> 52-6F-62 I really don't follow the rampant hate for the idea and technology of crypto on HN.

Sure it's diluted and abused (eg: Dogecoin, Pepecash), but so is the grand United States of America (where the majority of trolls seem to fester). Like any money, the worship of it breeds all kinds of terrible, but it can support good works as well.

If it's a technology with promise, as it appears to be, why reject it?

To go a little further, you seem to have the whole idea framed incorrectly. There are base techs, and tokens exists on the networks of those base techs. If a base tech is a currency, then tokens are shares in a business that operates on the respective networks. Through the crypto "realm" these are tradable with the currency of principalities and nations via exchanges. There isn't such a great separation in operation or ideology from what most people consider "real" economics.

The remaining problems seem to me to be limited to the technical, and there has rarely been a situation where people cannot overcome the technical.

Tell the UN, and the thousands of Syrian refugees being fed because of Ethereum that the technology is a ponzi scheme and ultimately worthless: [https://www.wired.de/collection/tech/blockchain- fluechtlinge...](https://www.wired.de/collection/tech/blockchain-fluechtlinge- gefluechtete-camp-azraq-jodanien-wfp-iris-scan)

edit (another link): [https://www.wfp.org/news/news-release/wfp-introduces- innovat...](https://www.wfp.org/news/news-release/wfp-introduces-innovative- iris-scan-technology-provide-food-assistance-syrian-refu)

<comment><USER3> If the crypto currency community was serious about its technology, it would engineer it with a proper monetary policy as the original article suggests, one where the coins gradually and predictably lose value with time. They could have fixed this problem a long time ago. Could bitcoin's popularity stand on its own with just its net benefits as a transaction medium after the allure of ponzi investment has been removed? Right now it's mostly just the digital equivalent of gold but with even less intrinsic fallback value.

<comment> 52-6F-62 I appreciate your response, it helped me understand your prior point a little better.

You seem to be making a pretty large assumption, I have to contest. You're assuming that the end goal is for cryptocurrency to posture as a classical token of exchange of value. This has been put forward before, and continues to be put forward. With Bitcoin alone, I understand that its a valid assumption. Looking at Ethereum I see something different.

It's possible to use ETH as an exchange of value, but that is not the sole limit of its use. It, by the nature of smart contracts, seems to run counter to the basis of classical business: trust. Using the system to validate contracts prevents the inherent need for trust amongst parties because the system will handle the terms regardless of whether or not you care to abide by the terms. In these cases, a programmer will take on a bit of a pseudo- attorney role, having each side reliant on the aptitude of their programmer to be able to determine if the terms will be carried out as described by the originator of the contract. "Will it do what they say it will?" If so, carry on. The other side can represent every inscrutable characteristic in a person, but if the contract is laid out properly you can safely do business with them.

What I described can surely be the basis for a new variety of scandal, but that is the next bridge to cross.

I'm not an economist, but I don't see the need for monetary policy of it isn't supposed to just be money.

I'd like to hear any further thoughts you have, given the alternative context I provided.

I'd also like to recommend having a quick look at the Enterprise Ethereum Alliance. It boasts a large range of members, with some of the founding members including giants of tech as it is: Intel & Microsoft. A few large financial players have also joined up: JP Morgan, ING, Credit Suisse, BNY Mellon. I can't speak for the motivations of any of these organizations, but they see enough value to have launched an organization to spur development on and of the technology.

[https://entethalliance.org/about/](https://entethalliance.org/about/) [https://entethalliance.org/members/](https://entethalliance.org/members/)

edit: Also just came across this in the news, for yet another approach [http://www.reuters.com/article/us-thomsonreuters- blockchain-...](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-thomsonreuters-blockchain- idUSKBN1950RZ)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> What is that NPV that thay are talking about? When I look at [http://www.investopedia.com..](http://www.investopedia.com..). (or [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_present_value](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_present_value) ) I see following formula: NPV = sum { C/(1+r)^t } - C0 - where C is future cash inflow and r is discount rate. If r goes to 0 NPV = sum (C) - C0 - <USER2> is far from infinity.

</comment><comment> TD-Linux >To date all major tokens have either a fixed amount of tokens right away or eventually (e.g., BTC) or a rate of inflation that asymptotically goes to zero (e.g., ETH).

These are both incorrect. BTC has inflation that asymptotically goes to zero. ETH has undefined inflation (the current codebase has constant inflation, but has a "difficulty bomb" that is supposed to force a hard fork that will presumably change the inflation).

EDIT: I think I read the OP incorrectly, I think what they meant was that while the rate of coin issuance in ETH is fixed, the inflation as a % goes to zero, and that due to quantization BTC issuance actually hits zero.

<comment><USER5> ETH's long-term inflation behavior is undefined because the dev team has shown their willingness to alter the consensus rules whenever they deem it necessary.

<comment><USER6> Your inferences about the future actions of the developers whose version of software you assume most users and miners will want to run aren't really like a hard and fast rule.

It's not possible for the rules of any coin to be set in stone, because people can run whatever software they want. The only reason that Vitalik and the Ethereum devs write the software that most Ethereum users run is because that is the software most Ethereum users want to run.

If someone developed a Bitcoin hard fork that most Bitcoin users and miners wanted to run, that would be Bitcoin, whether or not it conformed to any various ideals and philosophies that anyone has about money.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> So the diagnosis is a problem with external risk free rate of return (caused by inflationary monetary policy) and improper risk premium valuations on the token itself, and the cure is an inflationary monetary policy for the token also?

Feels like the exact kind of logic that led to the aversion to the way current central banks operate mentioned by the author early in the piece.

</comment><comment><USER8> A common way to incentivize teams is to give them some of the issued tokens, which you hold in escrow and release gradually over time.</comment>


First U.S. bitcoin ATMs to open soon in Seattle, Austin - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/18/us-bitcoin-robocoin-idUSBREA1H05F20140218 <comment><USER2> Bitcoin ATM, when crypto-currency's reputation has taken a hit. Still thinking?</comment>


When doing a redesign – how long to keep polishing before switching - <AUTHOR> http://www.gibney.de/redesigning_the_music-map

<comment><AUTHOR> Im doing a redesign of a website "in the open". Users can already try it out and vote for doing the switch or not. Right now, 51% vote for the switch. How long would you keep polishing until switching?

</comment><comment><USER2> This is more of a re-skin than a redesign. And neither is terribly better than the other.

Keep working on the product, until you're ready to communicate something new with the design.</comment>


Netflix on Ubuntu Is Here - <AUTHOR> http://www.iheartubuntu.com/2012/11/netflix-on-ubuntu-is-here.html <comment><USER2> It's so great that this is available now. Reading the title I was hoping Netflix had stepped up and made this work, but no. It's frustrating that it needs to work this way, running through wine with multiple patches but at least it works.

</comment><comment><USER3> > _./configure && make && make install_

Don't do that. Particularly don't do that on Ubuntu, this is a pretty sure way to break something. Build a Debian package, it's not that hard. For example, use "checkinstall", it'll build automatically one for you.

<comment><USER4> For the casual Linux user, can you explain why './configure && make && make install' is a bad idea? Thanks.

<comment><USER5> > For the casual Linux user, can you explain why './configure && make && make > install' is a bad idea? Thanks.

It isn't necessarily, given that the Autotools configure installs to /usr/local by default, which is a directory tree explicitly reserved for installation of software outside the package system.

Installing shared libraries _can_ cause problems, but that's rare because shared libraries are versioned in Linux, as opposed to Windows, which greatly reduces the incidence of DLL Hell. In short, a program _might_ find a shared library that isn't the one it wants, but it very likely won't.

Similarly, installing your own executable files might cause problems for scripts. This could be more serious, but, in practice, I've installed a newer version of Perl outside the package system and everything works fine.

 _The biggest hassle of doing things outside the package system is the simple fact you don't have the package managers doing the scutwork for you._ You have to do your own dependency tracking, your own configuration, and your own update management. There is no really easy way to _uninstall_ anything. You quickly come to realize why we have package management in the first place, if you really go nuts with this stuff. ;)

So. The easy advice here is "Wait for the PPA", which the post itself mentions a few times. That will give you a nice little package, albeit not one from the official repos. I do that with VLC and couldn't be happier. But doing this little dance with Wine, building it yourself, is unlikely to cause problems if you follow the instructions.

<comment><USER6> _Installing shared libraries can cause problems, but that's rare because shared libraries are versioned in Linux, as opposed to Windows, which greatly reduces the incidence of DLL Hell. In short, a program might find a shared library that isn't the one it wants, but it very likely won't._

In fairness to Windows (and I never thought I would say that), .DLL files are now versioned via WinSxS (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Side-by- side_assembly>).

<comment><USER7> > In fairness to Windows (and I never thought I would say that), .DLL files > are now versioned via WinSxS

Apparently, that's not working as well as MS hoped, either from a technical or adopting perspective: From the same wikipedia article:

\- However, runtime libraries in Visual C++ 2010 no longer use this technology; instead, they include the version number of a DLL in its file name, which means that different versions of one DLL will technically be completely different DLLs now.

\- a bug in sxs.dll causes heap corruption, leading to application crashes. This issue is not fixed by any XP service packs. Users must manually install a QFE (Quick Fix Engineering).

It should be noted that including the version of the library in the filename has been a simple solution that's been used in Unix since the early '90s, when shared libraries become fashionable. (Oh, Ultrix - how I hated not having shared libraries when I had to use you... Luckily, you're dead now)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Netflix: 'No Change in our plans for Linux'

[http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2012/09/netflix-no-change-in- our-...](http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2012/09/netflix-no-change-in-our-plans- for-linux)

<comment><USER9> That's just Bollocks. And by bollocks I mean: another anti-consumer business deal.

There are NF clients for PC, Android, ChromeOS, Xbox, PS3, Wii, AppleTV, iPhone, and iPad, at least. They're using webkit and HTML5 under the client covers[1,2]. They're a heavily invested open source company and they use and publish tons of source code and open API's for developers [3,4].

Conclusion? They will lose some media deals if they offer a Linux port. Sucks to be us.

1\. [http://radar.oreilly.com/2011/06/netflix-platforms-apps- webk...](http://radar.oreilly.com/2011/06/netflix-platforms-apps-webkit- testing.html)

2\. <http://techblog.netflix.com/search?q=webkit>

3\. <http://techblog.netflix.com/search/label/api>

4\. <https://github.com/Netflix>

<comment><USER10> > They will lose some media deals if they offer a Linux port.

To be honest, no, they won't.

In fact, they'll likely lose some if they _do_. They've been able to sell some media execs on the (false) premise that Silverlight == DRM == security == anti-piracy, so as long as Silverlight's DRM remains unavailable on Linux (ie, until the end of time), they won't offer official support on Linux.

The alternatives for them would be to

a) use Silverlight, but without DRM so that Linux users can use Moonlight.

b) use Flash

c) use some other technology

(A) will never happen because they'll lose all their deals. (B) will never happen for the same reason. (C) will never happen because it would take too much time to roll something from scratch, and even then you have the same problem of DRM.

So, at the end of the day, DRM once again gives users every incentive to pirate rather than pay!

<comment><USER11> Yep[0].

[0] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_unintended_consequences>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This post is an excellent explanation why Linux on desktops is as rare as unicorns.

Imagine average computer user (consumer?), who see such post.

Breaking news! Yada, Yada. And then

./configure && make && sudo make install

From the PR point of view it would be better if such Netflix port was never done, such news would never be written.

Someone potentially interested in installing Ubuntu would come accross such news and I bet this person would never look again at Ubuntu or any other Linux.

<comment><USER13> "Get Firefox and Microsoft Silverlight working in WINE."

IMHO that's the stinky part of it. Saying "Netflix on Ubuntu is Here" is misleading when you're actually using a special version of a compatibility layer* to run the Windows version.

That's far from Netflix supporting Linux.

* that's what the compiling part is about, if you read the post there's a notice about packages being released soon.

EDIT: WINE is not an emulator.

<comment><USER14> I think it's because the person publishing this is excited for being able to finally watch the Netflix they pay a subscription for on their preferred OS.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I thought the idea behind Netflix using Silverlight _(instead of flash, which would presumably allow Netflix to normally work in Linux, like youtube or amazon instant video)_ was that Silverlight had super-duper DRM stuff that did nonsense with TPM.

If it works with WINE, I am guessing the situation is not quite that simple?

<comment><USER16> Netflix didn't use Silverlight because it had extremely good DRM, but because nobody used it nobody had taken the time to reverse engineer it so getting the raw video files out of Netflix would be harder.

Most computers don't have TPMs but Netflix runs on any Windows OS that has Silverlight. In the end, it is still software using the Win32 API, it just required implementing some Microsoft-specific functionality they had going on.

I do wonder how the Netflix apps not on Microsoft platforms work though. The Android, iOS, and game console versions mainly.

<comment><USER5> > software using the Win32 API

Which is all Wine provides, hence the name: Wine Is Not an Emulator.

(Alternately, I guess you could insist that glibc is a POSIX emulator on top of the OS kernel.)

(My point? All of a sudden I need a point? When did that happen?)

<comment><USER17> Technically WINE provides more than just Win32 APIs, but essentially you're right. WINE is more a compatibility layer / wrapper for PEs than an emulator.

In fact, I often make the container distinction: you have containers (Zones / Jails / OpenVZ) and you have virtual machines (VMWare / Vbox / Qemu / etc). WINE falls more into the containers category because it runs Windows PE natively on the host but in a sandboxed environment (and in an approximate sense of the term, chrooted) but with hooks that go between the host and client.

But, like with WINE, many lump containers into the virtualisation pigeon-hole as the full hardware emulation suites even though you're not actually emulating any hardware with containers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> No, no its not. Netflix works with WINE. When you install Ubuntu, and Netflix works out of the box, then Netflix on Ubuntu will be here.

</comment><comment><USER19> No! Silverlight & WINE? Horrible! I would have preferred pure HTML5 solution. Btw. I just cancelled my Netflix account a few months ago and told them to have fun with their MS Silverlight.

<comment><USER16> In Netflixes defence, they are dealing with an intrenched, politically influential, and absurdly powerful media sector that is used to monopolistic business and bleeding customers dry on their terms. Any ground netflix takes is given hesitantly, and their use of Silverlight was probably a mandate by some suits who thought Flash was too vulnerable to people taking their precious ones and zeros and saving them outside the app.

<comment><USER20> Yup, Lovefilm was also forced to switch to Silverlight. The content providers haven't learned anything from the mistakes of the music industry. This is going to end badly for them.

<comment><USER21> > This is going to end badly for them.

I doubt it. They'll continue to thrive because enough people will jump through their hoops. and they'll give up juuuuust enough ground to keep people agreeable.

<comment><USER22> How'd that work out with music and books? Amazon and iTunes became powerful players _because_ the DRM created lockin and they ended up controlling the customers. Publishers are stuck now that they gave control to Amazon and helped Kindle become a proprietary success.

The video producers seem to be running along, handing over the same control to folks like Apple and Microsoft. Not a good strategy long-term, when they want to make DRM go away and sell to any old platform. By then, people will be locked in via their collections on iTunes or whatnot.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> for about 10 seconds I was thinking about restarting my Netflix sub. Then I read part of the article and found it wasn't a native solution or Netflix who was stepping up.

<comment><USER24> Their loss. There's certainly no dearth of torrent clients for Linux.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I wouldn't call building a patched version of WINE to run the Windows version "working on Ubuntu", sadly.

<comment><USER10> I would - as someone who owns zero Windows machines, this means that I can actually use Netflix as opposed to - well, not.

Amusingly, this was literally _the last thing_ that I still wasn't able to do on Linux that I wanted to - GNU/Linux is a fully capable OS, but DRM is quite a nuisance.

<comment><USER25> There are two things I miss on Linux: my collection of games and half of my battery life. I do virtually everything on Linux, but when on the road or in the mood for a game, well, there's not much of a choice.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> My understanding is that netflix uses silverlight for DRM reasons. What I don't understand though is how this drm is effective or why there aren't popular tools (I am guess there actually are tools though) that circumvent this DRM. Fundamentally, there is a buffer for your screen where the content is being written with a 4 bytes or so per pixel right? Presumably there is something similar with audio? To me it seems like the best way to avoid all of this DRM garbage is to make effective ripping programs. If you did it right you could even use it as a dvr and then watch your media offline locally.

<comment><USER27> Even if you could rip at the raw 24bpp RGB output and streaming audio, you are talking 356MByte/s (20GByte/m) of data for 1080p. People want the original streams because they have already been nicely compressed.

Now sure, you can then recompress this stream, if your CPU is able to compress it in real time as Netflix sends it to you. You'll double your compression artifacts, and any dropped frames compensating for your CPU speed or bandwidth will be lost forever. The end result will probably be between VHS and camrip in terms of quality.

If someone really wants a rip, it's easier to get the decrypted form from a DVD or Bluray. Plenty of people have already done the work packaging most stuff like this anyway.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Or you can sign up for Amazon Prime and use their streaming service, which works on Linux without jumping through hoops.

If you're willing to pay for individual movies/shows (in addition to the $79 a year), Prime even has a much better selection than Netflix.

<comment><USER29> Only if you're American. Netflix works in a number of other countries.

<comment><USER30> With varying amounts of content.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> You can stream video on Ubuntu on Hulu right now without having to set up some custom wine/silverlight anything. Just point your web browser to Hulu and start watching.

</comment><comment><USER32> Is it possible to run the netflix app in an android emulator on an average machine?

</comment><comment><USER33> It's a pity it doesn't work for 64-bit systems

</comment><comment><USER34> This is awesome!

</comment><comment><USER5> Here's how you build Wine on a 64-bit system:

<http://wiki.winehq.org/WineOn64bit>

On Ubuntu it involves chroot, because Wine is apparently fundamentally dependent on a 32-bit architecture. Probably related to it implementing the Win32 API.

<comment><USER35> I have decided to hold on for them to create PPA.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> I am surprised that there is no Netflix for Boxee/Android reverse engineering taking place. Both Linux devices with fully working Netflix clients and no WINE.

<comment><USER37> It may not be legal to copy the code from these devices onto your Ubuntu PC or redistribute it on the Internet.

Both Firefox and Silverlight are available for download.

<comment><USER36> I did not suggest copying code (the code that I am referring to is not open source anyway), I suggested reverse engineering.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Multimedia and game are linux's weakness.

</comment><comment><USER39> I'm sure linux users are going to pay 8$ a month to watch old videos when they can just...

Netflix is more for the Windows and Mac kind anyway. I can see why they are not too concerned about the market of linux users their missing out on.

<comment><USER9> I pay for Netflix because I feel it's an okay value to get a few things I like to watch. I don't mind paying a reasonable price for media, but in exchange I want it when I want, on the device I want. I don't blame NF here, I blame the content holders.

In addition to restricting what I watch, the content holders are also only selling half to NF. Most series they'll sell a few seasons and reserve the rest locked up, hoping you'll buy a disk from them. Suck.</comment></comment>


Cars overwhelmingly cause bike collisions, and the law should reflect that - <AUTHOR> https://theconversation.com/cars-overwhelmingly-cause-bike-collisions-and-the-law-should-reflect-that-78922 <comment><USER2> I completely agree with the article. Car drivers have to have a lot more responsibility for their actions. They are already the worst part of every city, with their excessive honking, stinky exhaust and lack of awareness of their surroundings. So far, while riding on the side of a road, I've had a pickup truck driver trying to kill me in the US; numerous buses and trucks trying to hit me or run me off the road, SUV drivers and passengers trying to hit me with garbage and multiple people threatening me with violence (and a bus who had actually succeeded in hitting me) in Lithuania. Just over several years of commuting. In addition, I closely follow traffic rules, and always do the hand signals for turns. Basically, ride the bike the same way as I would drive a car. I also refuse to ever ride a bicycle on the sidewalk.

In contrast, in Denmark, the drivers were very aware of every bicycle and pedestrian and much more relaxed towards them. It felt like utopia there, and according to the locals, the strict liability laws are a large part of it. Another significant reason is that Danes in general are much more calm and relaxed than anyone else I've seen so far.

<comment><USER3> Everyone kicks down. I've seen drivers treat cyclists like shit, and seen cyclists treat pedestrians like shit. In my hometown there have been a couple of deaths of pedestrians because cyclists are too busy being macho on their morning commute. As a pedestrian, I've been buzzed and verbally abused by cyclists riding where they're not supposed to.

Yes, the cars:cyclists thing is more dangerous to life and limb, but cyclists:pedestrians has the same proportion of arseholes. I'm not sure who pedestrians 'kick down' to, but no doubt they'd be the same if they do.

<comment><USER4> My city had 47 pedestrians killed by cars in 2016, and back in 2010 we had the first and last known pedstrian-cyclist collision fatality, it was an 80 year old man.

<comment><USER5> How many cars do you have driving and how many bicycles? If the number of cars is greater than 47x the number of bikes, might completely flip that outcome.

I just read the article about statistics errors including base rate fallacy on HN today, worth a read:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14545089](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14545089)

<comment><USER6> Another caveat would be how many are sharing the same space. In a lot of places cyclist and pedestrians are sharing a footpath or some sort of shared cycle path. There aren't nearly as many shared spaces between cars and people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Apparently, drivers are scarcely even charged for killing cyclists:

\- [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/opinion/sunday/is-it-ok- to...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/opinion/sunday/is-it-ok-to-kill- cyclists.html)

\- [https://nextcity.org/features/view/how-much-is-a-cyclists- li...](https://nextcity.org/features/view/how-much-is-a-cyclists-life-worth- anyway)

</comment><comment><USER8> Are cars causing bike collisions or bikes causing collisions on the road?

I'm a car driver and I'll be honest here - I hate cyclists and bikers. And don't get me wrong, I like bikes in general. To be more specific, I hate them on the road because it's so easy to hit a biker with your car. Sometimes cyclists appear from nowhere. The biggest problem is that it's hard to predict where cyclist is going to move next. It seems that a lot of them think that since they're small, they can maneuver as much as they want.

In terms of safety, I strongly think that while car stays the main type of vehicle, bikers/cyclists should have its own road. Not a lane, but a dedicated road. Single responsibility principle [1] FTW. But, as we know, cities do not have space for more roads (and it doesn't mean that they should). At that point, a lane for cyclists is a trade-off.

Now one may ask, "why don't you sell your car and get a bike instead?". This is a fair question, but wrong way of thinking, since these two vehicles are meant for different purposes, and that's a whole separate topic.

Now should car drivers have a lot more responsibility for their actions? Maybe, but that's a "quick hack", not a solution.

      [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_responsibility_principle

<comment><USER9> Alternatively, cyclists should have total right of way on roads and should ride in the center just as cars do. It solves the visibility and unpredictability problem (usually caused by side-of-the-road woes such as broken glass, anticipation of car doors opening, pedestrians stepping onto the road etc.).

<comment><USER10> This is theoretically how one should ride when there is no bike lane. The practice, however, is that drivers consider you an obstruction. I was almost run down by a SCHOOL BUS (!!!) in NYC while doing this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> In case "presumed liability" seems like a troubling innovation, here in the US we have something like it for rear-end collisions. The person driving the car in the rear, is presumed to have caused the crash.

<comment><USER12> Heh, which opens up the possibility of fraud by backing into someone. Which then of course results in more drivers deciding to get a dash cam. So now we have excellent coverage of weird things happening in Russia because a decent fraction of the population has a dash cam.

<comment><USER11> Soon every car will have a dash cam anyway, as part of the mechanism for _preventing_ rear end collisions.

<comment><USER12> Currently many cars have automatic braking (honda, subaru, bmw, tesla, etc) I'm not aware of any that actually record it for playback. Does anyone know otherwise?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Generally I support policies which incentives safer driving, but it feels a bit won't to punish drivers when, although nominally" cars cause accidents", the actual root cause is probably more related to cyclist visibility. This is a technical problem, and it should probably be addressed as such.

<comment><USER12> I'm betting you aren't a bicyclist. If you ride regularly you quickly realize that it's not a visibility problem, but that some drivers feel like bikes don't belong on the road.

I was raced on road and off, was a bicycle messenger, and used it as my primary transportation. Often cars were openly aggressive, I had a brick thrown at me, various cars would try to run me off the road. It's fairly common to be on a long distance ride and have one issue or another with a motorist that believes the bikes shouldn't be there. I've had numerous things yelled me along the lines of "bikes are for kids" and "bikes don't belong on the road". Threatening by swerving, passing way to close to be safe, revving the engine, "rolling coal", etc.

Fortunately cell phones have helped quite a bit, pictures and videos have lead to convictions. There's even boards where locals share info about hazardous drivers. The cyclist death tolls are definitely non-trivial, I've ridden by quite a few memorials. For some reason hitting a pedestrian is often considered manslaughter, but hitting a bicyclist is often called an "accident", as if it was an act of god, not a driver not paying enough attention.

<comment><USER14> > I had a brick thrown at me

Apropos of the validity of your story I feel that one, well, who carries a brick in their car, and two, the kind of psychopath who /does/ carry a brick in their car for the purpose of throwing at anyone or anything, not just a cyclist, is not the kind of person to be dissuaded by any of this.

<comment><USER15> Go to your local ice cream/coffee social cycling ride in any major city and ask around about having things thrown at you. Nearly every person there will have a story.

<comment><USER14> Oh, I'm not disputing the validity of his story. I'm just saying that anyone willing to do this is already breaking the law, regardless of "presumption of guilt as applied to car vs bicycle incidents".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I recently moved to NYC which while slightly less hellish than expected, still manages to be very unfriendly to cyclists. NYPD routinely blames cyclists for their own deaths, seemingly always looking for some excuse for the driver's distraction/unawareness/aggressiveness.

If you want a taste of the local discussion, just peruse the Streetsblog NYC bicycling category: [http://nyc.streetsblog.org/category/bicycling/](http://nyc.streetsblog.org/category/bicycling/)

I've lived in a few major American cities, where cycle infrastructure is poor and subservient to car traffic, and also in Sweden, Denmark, and Germany where cycling infrastructure is (mostly) reasonable and well-maintained. I've written on Metafilter before about the swedish infrastructure: [http://www.metafilter.com/140136/Intersection- Protection#559...](http://www.metafilter.com/140136/Intersection- Protection#5599557)

It's pretty pathetic that the "greatest city" in the wealthiest country in the world can't provide better infrastructure.

</comment><comment> i-machine-learn It's interesting to note that a common refrain you hear is "Bikes are the worst offenders! I see bikes running red lights all the time". If you pair it with this report, you might think your anecdotal experience doesn't jive with this report. As a biker, I would have to agree with the car drivers, a high % of bikers blatantly (and unsafely) break road rules; a much higher percentage than cars. I'd estimate it at 20-30% in SF.

Does this mean the law should be focused on bikers? No, here's why:

1) the laws should be focused on # of bad actors. There are more significantly more drivers than bikers on the road meaning:

Probability(driving unsafely | biker) > probability(driving unsafely | driver) BUT Number(bikers biking unsafely) <<< Number(drivers driving unsafely)

2) Even excluding the frequency of each mode of transportation, the risk profile is completely different. A car is a 1 ton fast moving object capable of killing 10s of people (see the London attacks). A bike is much less deadly. The legal constraints should follow the risk profile of the mode of transportation (which is also why truckers have much stricter rules and penalties while driving)

3) If you do a damage assessment (i.e # of biker deaths caused by bad drivers vs vice versa) you will see the numbers are way way higher on the driver side. So from a public policy perspective it makes sense to focus on the drivers.

That being said, I think public policy should have some focus on the bikers. I think humans expect some sense of fairness in their legal systems and when car drivers don't see rules fairly applied, you get road rage directed at pedestrians and bikers. So I'd applaud: * Stricter enforcement of ticketing on bikers who fail to signal before turns, do not slow at busy intersections, running red lights, unsafely lane splitting , etc. I've seen so many bikers do this and it's so unsafe. * Education requirements for BOTH drivers and bikers for getting a state id / drivers license

</comment><comment><USER16> I ride a bike in Australia as a commuter regularly, and rode in Amsterdam and Berlin on a recent trip. Wow, the difference was amazing. Berlin, especially, was a dream come true. Cycling in a city was actually pleasant.

Australian drivers are actively hostile to cyclists. To the extent that I've had stuff thrown at me (by strangers) from cars. This is a specific cultural problem that I've not seen elsewhere. You can see it in the comments on any site whenever the question of cycling comes up.

We also have a problem with lycra-clad sports cyclists who generally behave intolerantly. Often they defend this as a reaction to driver hostility. But it's not helping.

Aussies really hate anyone breaking the rules, too. Or rather, someone else breaking the rules when they have to obey them. Cyclists being unidentifiable by camera, and therefore able to run red lights with impunity, enrages car drivers stuck at one of our 4-hour red lights.

It's pretty rare to see a "normal" person cycling as a method of transport here. Which is ridiculous, because the climate's amazing for it.

</comment><comment><USER17> Cars are a thing of the past. I'm in Leiden, NL right now, and "wow" what a refreshing thing to be surrounded by bikes instead of cars. It feels human, it's futuristic and beautiful.

<comment><USER18> The bike infrastructure in the Netherlands really is amazing.

It has roughly 4 significant advantages over many areas though. A history of relying on bicycles, temperate weather, flatness and a population density that can justify spending a lot of money on infrastructure.

I live in region about the same physical size as the Netherlands, with a population of ~300,000. It isn't stunning that we have 50x less infrastructure here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I ride my bike to work and it's incredible how asinine and stupid some drivers are. Some of them don't even know (or at least pretend) that bicycles can occupy the rods along with cars. It's just ridiculous.

But in the end, I actually blame the police. Truth is police just doesn't give a damn. If police acted when they see a car disrespecting a bicycle (for instance seeing a car passing the bicycle without holding the minimum legal distance from it... which happens constantly a lot of times every day to me) or when they see a car ignoring a STOP or priority sign when a bicycle is coming, then the car drivers would learn the lesson and it would stop.

But no, the police just ignores those situations and this way nothing will ever change,

</comment><comment><USER20> Good read on this subject:

[https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/strict- liabili...](https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/strict-liability-in- the-netherlands/)

</comment><comment><USER21> If you dig deep enough into this article you see this sweeping assertion in the headline is based on a few hundred crashes in South Australia. And rather than say the cars were at fault, the report says in most cases the cyclists were found to be not at fault. Which I don't believe is the same thing, legally.

And if it is it undermines the central thesis of the piece, which is that car drivers should be assumed to be at fault and have to prove their innocence.

If it's so dangerous to be a cyclist, we should probably make bicycles illegal outside designated bike paths.

</comment><comment><USER22> I think more needs to be done to make the roads safer for bikes. Multi lane roundabouts are insane when you throw in cyclists. I don't know a solution but they are way too dangerous.

</comment><comment><USER23> Pulled over, off the street, on a bicycle in Palo Alto to comment...

In California, it's the law for automobiles to give bicyclists 3 ft / 1 m of clearance. [https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2014/09/16/3-foot- buffer...](https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2014/09/16/3-foot-buffer-zone- for-cyclists-takes-effect)

Other things like bicycle lanes and intersections need to be designed to minimize risks like in the Netherlands.

Bicyclists and drivers have responsibilities to follow safe practices like:

\- not running stop signs

\- using proper reflectors, clothing and lighting

\- not getting too close to other traffic or occupying their blindspot(s)

\- not getting caught between curb and turning vehicles, and turning vehicles eliminating space to prevent bicycles from occupying space that is unsafe.

\- not riding on sidewalks because it's mostly illegal

<comment><USER24> Often running stop signs and red lights (while taking due care) is safer for cyclists. This has started to be recognised with some places legalising it.

<comment><USER25> Source?

From personal experience - I have yet to see a cyclist "taking due care" when they run the stop sign by where I live. They just run it full speed downhill and cars have to dodge them.

What especially confuses me in this situation is that if the cyclist runs into a car turning left after the car properly stopped and then started moving without see the cyclist speeding downhill (uphill from the car and usually beyond the view due to the said hill), the cyclist is the one with the most to lose. They do it anyways.

<comment><USER26> > Source?

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

It's safer[1], and other places (California[2], Denver[3] from a quick Google search) have looked to implement similar laws.

You probably only notice when the cyclists don't take "due care" before they proceed into an intersection. Of course there will be dumb people, but the chances of them causing injury to anyone else is still tiny compared to cars. You're missing all the times (quiet streets, quiet times of the day) when no one is around and it doesn't make sense to wait for a light (and for cars to show up that'll probably pass too close by the cyclists when the light turns green).

[1] [http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-bike- st...](http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-bike-study- getting-around-20161211-column.html) [2] [http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics- government/capitol-alert...](http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics- government/capitol-alert/article147952354.html) [3] [http://www.denverpost.com/2017/01/26/senate-bill- bicyclists-...](http://www.denverpost.com/2017/01/26/senate-bill-bicyclists- stop-signs/)

<comment><USER25> Thanks, interesting read.

I think the key here is that stop sign is treated as a yield sign and not an automatic right of way. That distinction makes a lot of sense to me, but is quite different from what I've been observing in my neighborhood.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> The stagnation of cycling in Australia is well-understood to be due to the mandatory helmet laws of the early 1990s.

<comment><USER28> How else are we supposed to face the magpies?

<comment><USER6> Last time I lived in Brisbane the Magpies had adapted to helmets anyway, they will semi-land on your shoulder and attack your ears.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> "If the insurance company contests the claim, the injured cyclist or pedestrian has to take the case to a civil court."

If we're going to be liberal pinheads here, why don't we go all the way? Make cyclists who use public roadways retain insurance coverage for the same necessary risks(pip, uninsured motorist, minimum liability insurance).

<comment><USER4> I've only seen conservatives makes those arguments, and never in good faith.

<comment><USER29> Good faith is only what you perceive it to be?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> How do you disprove guilt-by-default in a "he said/she said" legal case?

<comment><USER30> You don't.

That being said, it's important to realize this only applies to civil cases, which are decided on the balance of evidence, not "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Absent any other factors, it's more likely the the car caused the accident. This is just like the default assumption that, absent any other evidence, if there is a rear-end collision, the fault lies with the person in the rear, even if the person in the rear claims that the person in front actually threw their car into reverse and was driving the wrong way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Dear world,

Please stop writing articles that argue laws need to be changed to make cycling safer so that more people ride bikes. It immediately signals to me that the article is strongly biased towards cyclists.

Cyclists do need to be protected and laws do probably need to be changed, but don't make it part of your agenda to convince everyone to cycle.</comment>


TSB online banking chaos continues for a fourth day - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43877667 <comment><AUTHOR> Summary (from [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16902208](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16902208) ):

> This appears to be an IT failure comparable to the 2012 and 2015 IT failures > at the Royal Bank of Scotland. These involved multi-day / multi-week > full/partial outages, and multi-million pound fines.

> FT: > [https://www.ft.com/content/9178ef60-46d9-11e8-8ee8-cae73aab7...](https://www.ft.com/content/9178ef60-46d9-11e8-8ee8-cae73aab7..).

> Background: TSB is a UK bank. They had a planned 50-hour maintenance window > over the weekend (Fri 16:00 - Sun 18:00), to move away from Lloyds's systems > (following the "un-merger" in 2013-2014). This went wrong, in what is likely > to become a textbook example of an IT failure.

From a letter from Nicky Morgan, chair of the UK Parliament's Treasury committee, to TSB CEO Paul Pester:

> The reports of unauthorised transactions, access to other customers' > accounts, and failures of in-branch services have all the hallmarks of an IT > meltdown. This is yet another addition to the litany of failures of banking > IT systems. Potentially millions of customers could be affected by > uncertainty and disruption.

More from The Guardian: [https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2018/apr/24/tsb- on...](https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2018/apr/24/tsb-online- banking-troubles-uk-public-finances-business-live)

Some interesting screenshots of people seeing debugging information in the front-end: [https://twitter.com/bcleeve/status/988333991676796928](https://twitter.com/bcleeve/status/988333991676796928) [https://twitter.com/apphancer/status/988698182170357760](https://twitter.com/apphancer/status/988698182170357760) [https://twitter.com/thejackthomson_/status/98856435451268710...](https://twitter.com/thejackthomson_/status/988564354512687104)

Ironically, TSB's parent company issued a press release (in error?) claiming that the migration has been a "success"! [http://press.bancsabadell.com/en/News/2018/04/banco- sabadell...](http://press.bancsabadell.com/en/News/2018/04/banco-sabadell- successfully-completes-tsb-technology-migration)</comment>


We wish live in Eu but my groom is syrian.What can we do? - <AUTHOR> Hi guys I need of your tips and opinion because I need help.My groom is syrian,he now finished with university in Jordan and he come back now to Turkey because now this is our basic country.I have EU citizenship,and we wish live in EU because in Turkey we didnt find any job to him but we are afraid because he is syrian citizenship.How can I help him?I want to help with my EU citizenship,can he get blue card?Can he find any job in EU and can we live in EU?He has degree and valid passport and if we marry after that I hope that we can live in EU.What we can do now at this situation?Thanks for answers <comment><USER2> Under EU freedom of movement rules, if you find a job in an EU country (that is not your own country of citizenship, because then your home country rules apply), he can usually get a residence permit as your spouse. He would not need to find a job first.

</comment><comment><USER3> What is your EU citizenship? Which EU country do you want to move to?

"Can he find any job in EU" Maybe, it depends on what he can do.

I'm pretty sure you won't be able to get him a visa before getting married.</comment>


Release Strategies and the Social Impacts of Language Models - <AUTHOR> https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.09203 <comment><USER2> What about the possibility that staged release makes their product seem more badass than it really is?</comment>


Invite talking about Paul E. McKenney's perfbook at freenode IRC - <AUTHOR> Is Parallel Programming Hard, And If So, What Can You Do About It? #perfbook@freenode <comment><AUTHOR> #perfbook @ freenode</comment>


Open source law firm sues over GPL violations - <AUTHOR> http://www.computerworlduk.com/toolbox/open-source/open-source-business/news/index.cfm?newsid=18026 <comment><USER2> Apparently the claim isn't that anyone copied their code, misrepresented it, or anything like that. The claim is that the defendants didn't make the original source code available. As I read the OP, the source code they're talking about isn't a modified version of the original package, but simply a direct usage of the exact package.

 _"You have to provide the source code, whether or not you modified the program," Williamson said. "Just distributing the program, even if you haven't made any changes yourself, you still have an obligation to provide the source code."_

Sheesh. It's so important that an _additional_ copy of the original source is published, that there needs to be a lawsuit over it.

I thought that the open-source movement was supposed to be about freeing information and code. But every day, it seems more and more like a passive- aggressive means of control.

<comment><USER3> Not entirely silly. They also have to publish any modifications they make and any part of the software that is directly based on busybox - which is the part that is of interest to the authors and foss community. Anyways... it's not passive-aggressive: companies used the software, so they should respect the license - noone forced them to use this particular application. Busybox people probably sued the largest number of users over GPL so far - you'd think that big companies would know better than to repeat the mistake.

Why is that good? If someone ports busybox, or libc, or the compiler, or some other software to a new architecture / environment / ..., everyone gets that port / patch back for free. You're also more likely to get a stable custom firmware for that device once it's known what is running on the original box.

<comment><USER2> _They also have to publish any modifications...everyone gets that port_

While the article doesn't quite make it explicit, it strongly implies that there are no modifications. It seems to be purely a question of providing an additional archive of the source.

 _You're also more likely to get a stable custom firmware for that device once it's known what is running on the original box_

No more so than simply documenting what packages at what revisions were used. How does the source itself help? (Yes, I can think of edge cases, like the project goes away, but in such a case there's no one left to defend the licensing terms anyway)

 _companies used the software, so they should respect the license_

Yes. There's no question that they should. The license is the license, they chose to use it, and they are now obligated to live by its terms. If they're not doing so, the court must penalize them. That's life in the real world.

My complaint is with the terms themselves, and the enforcement of them. First, I don't see how an additional archive somewhere out there, that no one is ever going to look at anyway. is of any benefit. Second, I don't see how a lawsuit to enforce this is of any benefit (yes, they have the right to do so, but that doesn't mean they're not jerks).

<comment><USER3> Well... there are two ways to ensure that there are no modifications to the original software. One is to ask politely. The other is to enforce the license. I get the impression that if it was never enforced, there would be some companies who simply say - "yeah, we're using the original source, go away" whether they modify it or not. Since publishing the unmodified source is neither hard, nor time consuming, I think it's perfectly reasonable to enforce it on everyone.

<comment><USER4> What about the case where the company modifies the code and then publishes the original unmodified source as their work? How is "yeah, look at our unmodified source repo," any better than "yeah, we're using the original source, go away"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> They have to provide it _on request_. The GPL does not say that the source code has to be provided in the box. They just have to furnish it whenever asked.

<comment><USER6> I believe you either have to provide it or provide a written offer to supply it on request.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Is there a comphrenesive course or resource on understanding nutrition? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> NIH has some good resources [1]; also the Mayo clinic [2]. Finally, examine.com [3] has lots of information on a whole bunch of supplements, vitamins, etc.

[1] [https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/educational/wecan/tools- res...](https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/educational/wecan/tools- resources/nutrition.htm)

[2] [https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition- and-h...](https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy- eating/basics/nutrition-basics/hlv-20049477)

[3] [https://examine.com/](https://examine.com/)

<comment><USER3> +1 for examine.com, they collate and simplify studies to the point where you don't need any related scientific knowledge to grok them, and provide dimensions that help you to understand the trustworthiness of the result, and the strength of the effect.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> [https://courses.edx.org/courses/course-v1:WageningenX+NUTR10...](https://courses.edx.org/courses/course-v1:WageningenX+NUTR101x+2T2017/course/)

NUTR101x - Nutrition and Health: Macronutrients and Overnutrition

"For anyone who is interested in the relation between nutrition and health and wants to acquire the skills to better weigh and interpret the information overload about nutrition and health."

This is a free, self-paced course by WageningenX and hosted by edX.

</comment><comment><USER5> Sigma Nutrition is a very good evidence based nutrition podcast [1] . It also has some great articles [2] and has a list of recommended resources as well [3].

[1] [http://sigmanutrition.com/](http://sigmanutrition.com/) [2] [http://sigmanutrition.com/blog/](http://sigmanutrition.com/blog/) [3] [http://sigmanutrition.com/recommended- resources-2/](http://sigmanutrition.com/recommended-resources-2/)

</comment><comment><USER6> The books of Adelle Davis ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adelle_Davis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adelle_Davis)). Writing in the mid-20th century, she was _way_ ahead of her time. She's just as relevant now as she ever was.

She had detractors (and I'm sure someone here will be quick to point them out). Just ignore them and read her best known book _Let 's Eat Right To Keep Fit_: it's an excellent and comprehensive introduction to nutrition.

The final chapters go beyond nutrition - they're a manifesto for building glowing health, first starting with oneself, then family, and finally society; all on a foundation of good soil and sound agriculture. They truly instill a sense of infectious hope and optimism. You'll _want_ to be a soil scientist, or farmer, or nutritionist. Even the references lead one on to the ideas of permaculture, before the term was even invented.

 _How Not to Die_ by Dr. Michael Greger is another superb book (mentioned by others here).

</comment><comment><USER7> [https://nutritionfacts.org/](https://nutritionfacts.org/) Is a great resource (and nonprofit) where Dr Greger reviews all the latest scientific studies about nutrition, and then summarizes them in videos. They also post to youtube: [https://www.youtube.com/user/NutritionFactsOrg](https://www.youtube.com/user/NutritionFactsOrg)

Spoiler alert: all of the videos can be summed up by: "eat a whole food, plant based diet".

As a general note though - nutrition as a science is _hard_, because everyone responds slightly differently to the same foods in unexpected ways, and it's really hard to do double blind, controlled trials over a long period of time (they cost too much, or are just unfeasible). So I think the best approach is to read/watch a lot of different content from different sources, in order to gain a wide understanding of the current research.

</comment><comment><USER8> You could look up syllabi for masters and PhD programs in nutrition.

</comment><comment><USER9> I heard lots of good things about Deep nutrition (a book).

</comment><comment><USER10> Not quite what you're looking for, but this SciShow episode [1] tries to explain why so many studies seem to contradict each other. tl;dr they usually study different things, and studies on humans are very difficult to control.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPIQ7YhE4cE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPIQ7YhE4cE)

</comment><comment><USER11> [https://www.naturopathy-uk.com/](https://www.naturopathy-uk.com/) has some links however the actual sylubus pretty comprehensive course, and tends to look at aspects of curriculum not covered by traditional (and reductionalistically broken) alopathic medicine.

Patrick Holford is considered by many as a goto know all for holistic nutrition [https://www.patrickholford.com/](https://www.patrickholford.com/)</comment>


Join a group of researchers analyzing data to fight Covid-19 - <AUTHOR> SafeGraph is giving out data describing places and where people are going right now during the COVID-19 pandemic. We've formed a consortium with researchers from universities and government agencies and are partnering with data analytics platforms to host the data.
We are providing free usage of aggregate access patterns for all Points of Interest in the US and Canada on both a weekly basis and a monthly basis, with historical data going back a year to compare to.
We are seeking engineers and data scientists to assist the less data-equipped organizations with their analysis to combat this epidemic. Sign up here to help advance epidemiological research into COVID-19 and join everyone currently discussing on Slack: https://forms.gle/TK83uJNjEZSfAU5t6 <comment><USER2> Thanks. I think this would be very useful</comment>


The mystery of India's deadly exam scam - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/17/the-mystery-of-indias-deadly-exam-scam <comment><USER2> It is hard for those in Western countries to imagine what it is like to live in a corrupt state like that.

Eastern Europe is like that as well. Corruption is a way of life. It starts from bribing the doctor who will deliver the baby, to bribing kindergarten teachers, to high school teachers, paying to cheat on a state exam, buying a driver's license etc, until bribing the cemetery to take make an extra spot for the deceased when the person dies.

Pretty much any interaction with a state could involve bribery and corruption. From the most mundane things, like a traffic stop, to paying a bribe to get away with murder.

In school I remember people who did very badly during the year often ended up miraculously get good grades on finals. Cases of judges being paid off to exonerate criminals were common.

One of the lowest of the low scam artist was an acquintance of a neighbor living next door. That person worked for a DNA testing lab. They did criminal testing as well as paternity testing. You can imagine the kind of things they were dealing with and the pain they were causing. They drove a fancy car and had a big house on the outskirts of the city -- all on a lab technician's salary.

Corruption is the reason I cannot tollerate visiting that part of the world anymore. It really angers and gets to me. It is not the poverty, crime, bad infrastructure, I can handle those things, but I can't handle corruption.

<comment><USER3> Having lived in Romania and Vietnam, you learn to appreciate the efficiency of just paying the bribe and getting on with your life. For example, if I get caught speeding I can bribe a cop for like $20 in Eastern Europe or Asia versus losing $1000s in Canada between fines and insurance premium increases.

I personally find it a lot less stressful than living in Canada where every time I see a cop I get a little adrenaline rush of fear.

Anyways, most of the other things on your list exist in Canada too, we just don't call it bribery, we call it "private clinics", "private school", "private motorcycle training academy where your instructor, who's the same person you're paying and reviewing, is the one who gives you your license".

<comment><USER4> Have you considered not speeding? It also helps avoid the fines.

<comment><USER5> I was going to say that too, but in corrupt countries, you'll get fined for speeding whether you were speeding or not - and expected to bribe the 'officer' regardless. It's not paying a policeman something then and there that's the problem - for you it'd become the fine for speeding - but it's having to pay without having done anything wrong. It's the power abuse associated with it that's wrong.

<comment><USER6> This happened to me in Vietnam. A police officer pulled over me and a friend as we rode past, then came up with a story about us having 'incorrect papers'. Later found out from the owner of the hostel that the same thing had happened to most of his guests for the entire season!

<comment><USER3> While I can't say for sure, you probably did have incorrect papers. I drove the whole time there without proper registration or a valid license because it was basically impossible to obtain them as a foreigner. I tried my best and it just wasn't happening and the advice I got was to act dumb and pay off anyone who tried to stop me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I've come to the conclusion over the last several years and specifically after spending a bit of time in India, that corruption is the #1 challenge facing humanity.

In the past I believed that poverty was largely due to a lack of resources (food, housing, etc) but I've come to believe that corruption is actually the source of this "lack of resources" \-- the resources are most likely not lacking at all, they are probably just being distributed in a massively improper way due to corruption.

When you see the amount of poverty on the streets of Mumbai in person and realize that the government is involved in just ONE scam with a value of up to 22 billion pounds, it really brings things into focus. [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/nov/16/india- corruptio...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/nov/16/india-corruption- government)

And parts of the developed world, like the US, are just as corrupt (or more corrupt) than India, only in different and potentially even more damaging ways, like having an election system captured by corporations.

Until corruption is tackled, I don't think we're going to solve issues like poverty, hunger, and climate change. But corruption can only thrive in the dark and my hope is that the internet will allow a light to be shined in the dark corners of both developed and developing nations.

Maybe the ultimate question we should ask is why individual people feel the need to accumulate enormous sums of wealth, at all. My opinion is that it is the result of deep-seated fears about "losing everything" and ending up impoverished. Until societies can guarantee EVERY citizen a right to food and shelter, regardless of the ability of the person to create income, the citizens of that society will manifest their fear in the form of hording and, sometimes, corruption.

I have no problem with people like Bill Gates earning vast amounts of money by adding value to the world, but we can allow individuals to accumulate that sort of wealth while still proving a safety net for every individual in society. Perhaps this safety net will assuage the fear that, I believe, ultimately inspires at least a good portion of corruption.

Despite all of humanity's achievements, we are still living like animals, ruled by fear, where the law of the jungle still reigns.

<comment><USER8> > And parts of the developed world, like the US, are just as corrupt (or more > corrupt) than India, only in different and potentially even more damaging > ways, like having an election system captured by corporations.

I'll just have to disagree. The one thing every single Brazilian comments after traveling to the US or Western Europe is how honest and rule-based everything is.

You do have a corruption problem in the US, and it seems to be growing. Just don't think it's as big as in the developing countries.

<comment><USER9> All of our politicians in the U.S. are for sale through perfectly legal means. What we don't tolerate is corruption in the bureaucracies that actually run the state day to day. This is the crucial difference.

<comment><USER10> Corruption also doesn't have to be about money. Access to power can also have a big payoff for a US politician. Someone with money wants something to be done; help a politician raise huge money to ensure they get elected, in return they get the office and the someone gets a friend in high places. With Citizens United its now easy to do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This one reads like a Mystery novel, if not for the deaths of many people, it is utterly fascinating insight into Indian politics, power brokers and moneyed interests. The trail of death is unheard of, even though the trail of corruption is more or less accepted. There is no trust in the Police force there would be a thorough investigation and any high-profile case involves CBI, which is nominally independent and it self entangled in all kinds of Political games. India is a Democracy to an extent that there are elections and the change of guard is peaceful, outside of it, the many institutions are incompetent and are utterly undemocratic. 65 Years after Independence, people do not believe Police for a good reason. Police in India are thugs for the ruling party. The do not enforce law, but the wishes of people in power and that format goes up to the higher level, including CBI, Intelligence Wing, Enforcement Directorate etc. In this scenario, if nothing happened in 2013 when INC was in Power at the Center, nothing is going to happen with BJP in Power, the party of Shavraj(sic) the Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh.

I am not short on India, but I am not long on it either. Its a country with potential to be great, but many of us know, will not be great in our lifetimes.

<comment><USER12> eh you are too pessimistic, like many comments in the thread. There are still many people in the system who work daily for the betterment of the country. There are concrete steps being taken to battle corruption. It is not black and white

<comment><USER11> Your comment is any thing but concrete. Please enlighten me, with what those concrete steps are that have made dent in the monumental corruption of India's Political and Bureaucratic classes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Reform in India is the hardest thing ever. Corruption is soaked in our veins. In some states a birth certificate itself is modified (to start school early). Almost every aspect of any government is scam ridden, at any given time there can be a multitude of scams in progress and eye-wash investigations as well.

The common man foots the bill, and pays blood money to survive. The recent floods in Chennai (a metropolitan city) was because of corruption and encroachment of lake beds, marshland, improper management of reservoirs, blocked canals, etc and lead to the death of an unknown number (~350) of individuals.

There was a huge anti-corruption drive a couple years back which culminated in a new political party (AAP) which won Delhi elections, and now they've been blocked from working because of ludicrous reasons.

The right-wing is alive and well, and any criticism/investigations of parties that are part of it is met with huge protests and name calling.

It gets really silly and petty, and one has to wonder if most of us are really educated (morally, ethically and in things that matter) other than being able to string together sentences in a foreign language or copy-pasting from elsewhere.

<comment><USER14> If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/05/15...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/05/15/a-fascinating- map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-racially-tolerant-countries/) [http://goo.gl/bdvGlL](http://goo.gl/bdvGlL)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> This sort of corruption is still running strong here in India. A few days ago an acquaintance of my father told him that he knows a guy who can get her daughter a government job for a fee of 8 lakhs (~$12,000). And that he would go for it, given he had this much money. The sentiment was that he treats this bribe as an investment, which can be recovered from the job salary in a couple years and is worth it.

<comment><USER16> Fun cultural note for those reading this who may not know: a "lakh" is just 100,000 of anything, in India, Sri Lanka, and Nepal. People do not speak or think in terms of "millions" regardless of the magnitude, it would be "20 lakh" not "2 million" even when spoken in an English sentence. You might sometimes hear "half a lakh" but less often "a quarter lakh" than you would "a quarter million."

<comment><USER17> Fun addendum to this cultural note: the fact that things are based in hundred thousands leads to weird comma structural in written numerals. [http://www.fullstopindia.com/indian-number-system-made- easy/](http://www.fullstopindia.com/indian-number-system-made-easy/)

For example:

1,00,000 = 1 lakh

1,05,000 = 1 lakh + 5,000 rupees = 105,000 rupees

<comment><USER18> According to your link, your first example should be 10 lakh

<comment><USER19> 1 => one 10 => ten 100 => one hundred 1,000 => one thousand 10,000 => ten thousand 1,00,000 => one lakh 10,00,000 => ten lakh (one million)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I grew up and spent most of my life in Madhya Pradesh. I know some of the people mentioned in the article. I never thought things would get out in the open, and arrests will be made. That was a good sign.

There is more to it. I doubt the practices will stop. The cases will be dismissed, and the accused will walk free soon.

Chief Minister's role in the scandal is downplayed.

Corruption in India is worse than what this article wants you to believe.

</comment><comment><USER21> As an Indian I often wonder, the real question is not why India is so corrupt(esp. at the lower levels of bureaucracy), rather how come certain countries have zero corruption at those levels? Perhaps I'm too pessimistic about human nature.

<comment><USER22> As a New Zealander, any form of corruption is unacceptable. It's just not in the DNA of being a good New Zealander to be corrupt. Therefore, there's great social pressure to not be corrupt. Being corrupt is not celebrated, and I wouldn't show off or discuss it here.

<comment><USER23> Everywhere in Northern Europe getting labelled as corrupt would be a huge stigma, too. Just not something that can be done.

This applies to direct corruption. There are different, structural kinds of corruption though, like "old boy networks" where business may get handled via personal relations. While still damaging for the society, it probably isn't even illegal in most cases.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> A true good at heart multi-billionaire CAN change India/ Indians and drive 1/5th of the humans to be good example of future world. Which will bring lot of stability to the world and make Africa and other poor countries to have belief in "good system". Indians are are very good at idolizing and following a person. Like Gandhi or today's Sachin or whoever. There is lot of people praying if god will send a person to change India. While corrupt to the core... A majority, i would say may be 70% (based on my village and relations) are willing to put up efforts to be completely not corrupt as long as justice and police system work, but now justice system is very questionable..so any multi billionaire or to be billionaire's via start-up , please consider donating money to this... with number of people in India and willingness to study... if you invest in changing this country you pretty much can change the world....otherwise we will continue to do BPO work and Rem Infra Mgmt work and support your business irrespective of what happens to us and our country....

<comment><USER25> What would they invest in?

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I wish Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg would start sometjhing like an X-prize to reduce corruption. Lack of drinking water and malaria are just the symptoms. I grew up in India and am too familiar with this cancerous corruption that keeps third world countries firmly in the third world... :-(

<comment><USER27> Would have been nice, not gonna happen though. Just imagine the headlines about the American billionaires funding efforts to influence those poor countries political systems :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> There was similar scam in Turkey [http://mobile.todayszaman.com/anasayfa_30-released-in- case-o...](http://mobile.todayszaman.com/anasayfa_30-released-in-case-of- alleged-centralized-exam-scam_376427.html)

The investigation still continues even today.

<comment><USER29> Oh, Today's Zaman is trying to cover up the real perpetrators.. The irony.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Rather surprising, I did hear about the scams in Indian education, but this beats it all. People dying because of a scam? That's pathetic.

<comment><USER31> People in India are killed for scams of far lesser magnitude. Being an Indian I sometimes feel really bad about what my country has become.

<comment><USER32> Do you feel like it is getting better or worse?

<comment><USER31> This is my belief. It was worse when Congress was in power. Now that Modi is in power, I'm hopeful India's state would improve.

But this goes without saying, I don't really know. No one really knows. Modi has committed a lot of atrocities during his term as a CM for Gujarath.

The only feeling that sticks with me is, fear/uncertainty of future.

Still not sure why I'm being down voted. I did provide some reasoning as to 'why' I'm being uncertain.

<comment><USER33> As someone who doesn't know a lot about Indian politics, could you please tell me why there seems to be a large liberal crowd in India that's very anti-Modi? I heard recently Arundhati Roy returned her government honors, for example.

<comment><USER34> BJP is a right wing "Hindu" party with close ties to nationalist organizations like Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Shiv Sena. They have had a rather sordid history in the last couple of decades wrt religious violence - Gujarat Riots, Babri Masjid demolition etc.,

Recently, there have been some incidents which have resulted in communal/religious tensions flaring up

1\. [http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/india-divided-after-hindu-mob- lynch...](http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/india-divided-after-hindu-mob-lynched- muslim-man-over-rumours-he-killed-cow-ate-beef-1522743)

2\. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._M._Kalburgi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._M._Kalburgi)

India's intellectuals have started criticizing the Government for not speaking out against this violence. In fact, some BJP affiliated people have made some really controversial statements with regards to Muslims in India. Arundhati Roy is among a host of people who are returning their awards in protest of the Government's stance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> guard-of-terra When the selection process is too competitive, it begins to select wrong people.

The right way is probably a test one should merely pass and then lottery. Guarantees that you bring some genuinely worthy people onboard and not just really well connected or spearheaded.

<comment><USER35> A lottery would make it even easier to game/cheat. Corruption needs to be rooted out from the top with a transparent vigilance process, just changing the system would just shuffle who gets the bribe money.

<comment> guard-of-terra How do you think real lotteries work? Everybody has incentive to pocket the money but that is prevented.

<comment><USER36> Maybe real lotteries don't work in India. How could you tell?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Most of the corruption done by people in India are driven ultimately by politicians (via bureaucrats). These politicians need the money to fund their election which is about giving it to the voters (yes, money is transferred to the illiterate folks during elections). Without money it is impossible to get elected to even a small position. So it indirectly hinges on the illiteracy levels. If people are educated enough to earn their own living without going for freebies and money which again is a Government budget and policy matter which is controlled by politicians. It is a vicious cycle.

<comment><USER17> The same happens in Brazil (and Venezuela). It's exactly how Lula, Rousseff and Chavez were elected.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> I think it's incorrect to label it an "exam" scam. It's really a scam about recruitment to government jobs. India has this weird system where almost every good government job has an exam that you're supposed to take to get that job. These exams are held once a year or so and all that matters is your performance in that exam and maybe an interview. This makes it impossible for anyone from private industry to take such a job. So what you get instead is a bunch of lifers who continue the cycle of corruption.

</comment><comment><USER39> I think this sums it up "Vyapam appears to be a vast societal swindle – one that reveals the hollowness at the heart of practically every Indian state institution: inadequate schools, a crushing shortage of meaningful jobs, a corrupt government, a cynical middle class happy to cheat the system to aid their own children, a compromised and inept police force and a judiciary incapable of enforcing its laws."

</comment><comment><USER14> Everybody is naked in nudist camp;

[http://images.outlookindia.com/Uploads/outlookindia/2013/201...](http://images.outlookindia.com/Uploads/outlookindia/2013/20130211/page_32_20130211.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER40> a milder example in the west: Atlanta cheating scandal [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta_Public_Schools_cheat...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta_Public_Schools_cheating_scandal)

Maybe the nsa can help... This is at least a little terror.

</comment><comment><USER41> Americans need to be much more worried about corruption than India. At least it is illegal in India.

<comment><USER42> Corruption is illegal in America as well. Not all versions of corruption but the majority is not legal nor is it tolerated, in general. There is still old- boy corruption but I'm not sure that doesn't happen anywhere.

<comment><USER41> Things like lobbying are illegal in India.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Who designs websites like that? Page devotes about 5% of its area to the story; the rest is banners, and scrolling pgup/pgdn don't work.

</comment><comment><USER44> Wondering whether it is becoming easier to publish long articles as opposed to shorter and concise

<comment><USER45> This is part of the "The Long Read" series, The Guardian publishes one every weekday: [http://www.theguardian.com/news/series/the-long- read](http://www.theguardian.com/news/series/the-long-read)

It's certainly much easier to publish long, detailed reads online than in newspapers, but I haven't seen any real increase in the numbers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> > Nothing else matters – not your grades over 12 years of school, nor any > hobbies, interests or transformative life experiences.

Good. The US habit of putting bullshit criteria in the admission score is just a way to subjectively select the desired candidates regardless of their merit. And there's no objective way to grade essays, extracurricular activities, obligatory volunteering, interviews, teacher recommendations, being liked by the admission officers, being in a hip minority, etc.

<comment><USER47> You sound a bit harsh, but as someone not from the US, I was surprised that these things count when it comes to getting an admission. Does any particular hobby makes someone a better person? Or a 20-year old without a transformative life experience isn't capable of achiveing the same things? These factors are way to subjective.

<comment><USER36> My guess is that the US used to have objective criteria but because University admissions are so competitive everyone studied just for the test and Universities filled with people who were very good at "book-learning" at the expense of everything else.

They wanted students to be more varied, more well-rounded individuals instead of robots who memorize books. So naturally, they started _testing_ for holistic well-roundedness and Goodhart's law did the rest.

<comment><USER48> I always thought it was so they could reject undesirables (wrong ancestry and such) without having to give the real reason.

<comment><USER36> I heard something similar too, that Harvard felt they were admitting too many Jews so they started using other criteria instead of just the written tests for admission.

Now they are probably using the subjective tests to attract disadvantaged minorities.

<comment><USER48> I also thought it was the Jews, I was just a little too timid to say so directly!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Can't expect much from a British newspaper. No country is best its just the media gimmick that creates the perception. Till yesterday people were hating Russia and Putin, now all know who created ISIS. I just won't go into numbers of rapes, kidnaps, murders, racism that happens in Britain (proportion wise for dummies).

<comment><USER13> Deflection isn't really a solution. Never be dismissive, there's always some truth (the death tally in this case) we can get better.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How much are your clients worth? - <AUTHOR>

Hello all
One feature of my new web app is the evaluation of clients.  At the moment I have the following criteria: 1.  Size of billing 2.  Payment speed 3.  Amount learned on their projects 4.  Fun had on their projects 5.  Effective rate on their projects
Am I missing anything?  Does anyone have any thoughts on how these criteria should be ranked? <comment><USER2> The amount learned is not something which I would use to evaluate clients - some of the most valuable lessons are learned the hard way from really bad clients. A more meaningful related concept is how does a particular client lead you to additional projects.

The element which is missing is cash flow - it is touched on by several of the other elements but given that your business will fold if it runs out of cash it is really the most important metric of customer value. What matters most is how fast does the client put cash in your hand - if you can cover your needs for two months by working 150 hours in two weeks, then you have a lot of time to chase other work even if your effective rate is low and the size of the billing unimpressive. On the other hand, a huge project with a high rate of pay can kill you with lots of delays and slow payment if you wind up with no other work during a downtime.

</comment><comment><USER3> What about "number of clients referred" or "potential to generate new business"?

</comment><comment><USER4> Lifetime spend of the client.</comment>