Recent trends in grade inflation at American universities - <AUTHOR> http://www.gradeinflation.com/

<comment><USER3> The most important line in the paper:

"As a rough rule of thumb, the average GPA of a school today can be estimated by the rejection percentage of its applicant pool: GPA = 2.8 + Rejection Percentage /200 + (if the school is private add 0.2)"

Interesting the more students a school rejects the higher its GPA seems to be. To say it another way, the more selective an institution is the higher the GPAs. ie. If you get smarter students, they tend to have higher GPAs. Example my econ professor has been looking at the actual distribution of performance in his class. He does not find a bell curve. Additionally he asserts there is no reason to expect a bell curve in a college course, as students tend take courses they are both interested in, and good at. The consequence, since you don't have an even distribution of stupid students to smart students, you won't have an even distribution of grades.

<comment><USER4> The problem (or at least the obvious problem) is not that some schools have higher GPAs than other schools, but that average GPA has been increasing over time at a rate that cannot plausibly be explained by improvements in performance.

<comment><USER5> It depends on enrollment at the institutions in questions. If overall enrollment has not increased in step with population, then it makes sense that the quality of the students at the most selective schools has increased.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> When I was a grad student, 2 years ago, I was the teaching assistant for Operating Systems. I was responsible for all the grading in the class and the professor told me to give everyone A's no matter what on the assignments and quizzes. Most of the students had little to no understanding of the material. The professor said he was up for tenure that year and he was afraid that if we handed out bad grades the students poor evaluations of him would keep him from getting tenure.

I wonder if universities put to much stock in the opinions of the students. I'd imagine that the professors eveluations would be heavily skewed towards the negative if they grade their students performance accurately. I'd expect, if grades were some how a normal distribution which they probably weren't, that the students doing poorly in the class would give the prof low marks and the students doing well would give the prof _meaningful_ marks - <USER2> percentage of which would be negative.

<comment><USER5> Student evaluations are there to determine how effective the professor is at teaching. Only talking to the students the professor succeeded at teaching gives you a completely skewed and overly rosy perspective.

Also it may surprise you that some people have such poor self-esteem that they will in fact take on blame themselves for their failings, even when an objective analysis might show that another professor could have made that student succeed.

Conversely, a high performer might falsely believe that their success occurred in spite of the professor's incompetence, when the professors actions were a key part of the student's success.

<comment><USER7> Student evaluations may be there to determine that, but they don't do an effective job.

If you make the class difficult, students will hate you. If you are easy, they like you. There are a few other tricks you can do to get better evaluations: sympathy, good looks, and jokes.

It doesn't matter if they learn more in your class than they would elsewhere, since we don't measure learning. If we really wanted to determine how effective the professor is, we would standardize exams and compare student performance across sections. We don't do this, probably because we don't really want to know the results.

<comment><USER5> Standardized tests stunt the curriculum, forcing an inflexible notion of what is worth knowing onto students. How, for example, do you have a standardized test to judge undergraduate research? Doing something absolutely absurd based on a fundamentally untrue proposition, so long as you put a lot of effort and thought into it, is an essential part of the academic endeavor. (The key of course being that there is no such thing as a fundamentally untrue proposition, and one can start with a premise generally believed false to produce a useful result which proves the premise true.)

Peer review and student evaluations together give a much better picture of a professor's ability, and recognize that professor's ability to truly challenge students, not merely parroting the general wisdom. Obviously, there are inviolable facts, and it's important to recognize them - but learning is more than understanding that which is generally accepted to be true.

<comment><USER7> Standardized tests don't stunt the curriculum, they merely define it. They force an "inflexible notion of what is worth knowing" only as much as a syllabus does.

For example, I'm forced to teach eigenvalues, but I don't get to teach about linear programming, even though I think linear programming is well worth knowing. That's because eigenvalues are on the syllabus, but not linear programming. This would not change if someone else, rather than me, designed my final exam.

All standardization does is give you a mechanism for comparing my students to yours.

Obviously you don't use a standardized test for research credits. But you do use it for already known material taught in class. In fact, many graduate schools do exactly this - the standardized exams are called "written qualifying exams."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Good to have statistics to back up my anecdotal observations.

My hypothesis about the cause: students complain more than they used to, and professors cater to them. Student evaluations amplify this: the common formula is "2 points easiness, 2 points sympathy, 1 point good looks."

(Evaluations are out of 5 points.)

I received the following complaint this semester: "Linear algebra is supposed to be an _easy A_! But people are failing!" Linear algebra is the first class where you do proofs and see abstractions like vector spaces. It's meant to be a weed-out course. Some profs remove all the proofs and just teach you to multiply matrices, which is indeed an easy A.

Interesting fact: there was a much bigger spike in grade inflation during the Vietnam war. Professors graded more easily at that time to allow students to remain in college and escape the draft.

<comment><USER8> I don't know how I feel about this. Many of the students probably took Linear Algebra because they believed it would be a way to satisfy their electives without messing up their grades and thus their future. They were thinking about other things than your class. Also, you don't really know anything about your students and what path they might be on. For example, I'm taking an elementary level class right now _because_ it's easy and I have one more requirement left and I am graduating this semester and have a startup on my mind.

University is incredibly valuable but the idea that it's the only thing in a student's life is just not true anymore (if it ever was). Even with amazing grades you will lose out to those with experience.

I'm not saying these classes are worthless, and I value highly the things I've learned that I wouldn't have otherwise. I just don't know what the solution is. I feel like society has destroyed our students' ability to make university their life. Trying to force the students to dedicate their lives to your elective class is just not realistic and you are focusing on the wrong group.

<comment><USER7> If you want a certification without knowledge, go to the University of Phoenix.

It's completely unreasonable to expect one of the most fundamental math courses (taught at a top 5 applied math school) to be an easy A. Particularly when the students are business, econ, CS and physical science majors, some of whom plan to work on a trading desk.

A specific complaint: I showed how to use linear algebra to construct synthetic derivatives (e.g., build a bull spread or iron condor from puts and calls). One of the _business majors_ complained to me that it wasn't in the book and was too hard.

<comment><USER8> I think you're missing my point. While many kids in your math class might need linear algebra in the future, there are many classes that don't adequately prepare you for study in that field yet expect that you _are_ , in fact, on a major path in that field.

This just isn't true for many cases and you can't expect students to not be turned off by this. At the same time, learning that you _don't_ know anything about a certain field is incredibly enlightening and makes you realize you aren't an expert in that field, it's just unreasonable to expect students to risk messing up their future in their field of study over a class that isn't relevant.

In hindsight, Linear Algebra was a bad example of irrelevance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I teach at a public institution of higher learning. Over the past 30 years funding per student has declined. This causes a shift in perception. Society is no longer my client as a result of this shift in funding. My clients are the students and the students want to pass. This pressure to pass people is especially present in adjuncts and the use of adjuncts has dramatically increased.

<comment><USER10> _Over the past 30 years funding per student has declined_

Source? According to this paper: "From 1970 to the present, state support for higher education has generally kept pace with both enrollment growth and inflation, as measured by the Consumer Price Index." <http://www.sheeo.org/about/paulpres/Baruch%20College.pdf>

<comment><USER9> Your source is hardly a valid one. It gives statistics but does not cite the source of the statistics.

The paper you cited contains statements like this:

"Increases in net tuition have significantly, but not completely replaced the decline in state support per student from 2001 to 2005. In 2001 total revenue per FTE was $10,100 in 2005 dollars, essentially an all time high. It dropped 8.8% to $9,212 by 2005. While this is a material decrease from the high point in 2001, it is roughly the level of funding available in the early 1990s. "

The author thinks that since the funding per FTE student in 2005 is roughly the same as in the early 90's there has been no decline. This is an astoundingly bad conclusion. There is a thing called inflation. There is no reason to believe that since $9,000 per student was spent in the early 90s then this same amount ought to be adequate in 2005.

The author also writes:

"This amounted to about $10,000 per FTE student in financial aid, half grants and half loans and work study."

See, he counts as part of his funding per student debt that the student acquires in order to attend school. When a student acquires debt to pay for his/her tuition then this can't be counted as part of government funding for higher education. The only part of this debt that can be counted is the reduced cost in interest payments due to any federal guarantees of such loans.

In another place the author writes:

"The State Higher Education Finance study, done annually by SHEEO, shows "net tuition" (tuition revenues less waivers and student aid from state and institutional sources) has grown from 22% of total expenditures in 1981, to 26% in 1991, to 37% in 2005. This is a worrisome trend. "

Later the author writes:

"Increases in net tuition have significantly, but not completely replaced the decline in state support per student from 2001 to 2005. "

It's a bad paper and a bad source of information.

<comment><USER10> So what is your source?

The author is controlling for inflation, that's why he says, _in 2005 dollars_ , meaning inflation adjusted dollars.

I don't think it's a particular good piece, since he doesn't cite the raw sources, which is what I'd want to look at. But it's enough to question your original statement that inflation adjusted, per student state funding of education has decreased over the past thirty years. Do you have a better source?

I do agree that net tuition has increased. But that's because the universities have allowed costs to increase at a much greater rate than inflation. The solution is to control costs, not to complain about under funding.

<comment><USER9> The author of the paper you cited explains that funding per student has declined from 2001 to 2005. He says that in 2000 funding was at an all time high. This is so because of the Clinton presidency and the economic boom.

Sorry, I didn't read the part of the 2005 dollars. I suspected but didn't find it in the paper. I retract my paragraph that this relates to.

<comment><USER10> You originally stated that, "Over the past 30 years funding per student has declined". What is your evidence for this? The paper I cited states that funding had no general trend over the time period, although with ups and downs based on the economy (for instance it declined from 2001 to 2005).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I have a theory about the second half of that graph.

<http://imgur.com/nmEsW.png>

I could be wrong, but surely home computer access plays a role in evening the playing field and raising the bar.

</comment><comment><USER12> This is NOT a recent complaint. I went to college '74-'78, and they raised Dean's List from 3.2 to 3.4 in 1978 to reflect grade inflation...

</comment><comment><USER13> This also has a lot to do with the watering down and "subjectivization" (for lack of a better word) of the humanities. Even at Harvard, which is notorious for grade inflation, math and science courses still give Bs and Cs for middling work (I know some very intelligent people who've received Cs in physics and chemistry courses there). The inflation is mostly in the humanities.

Also flagrant is the bifurcation of the economics major. There's a "serious economics" track for those who want to go to grad school, involving quant courses and math up to real analysis, and a watered-down/easy-A economics track for the mediocrities who want to be investment bankers.

<comment><USER7> _There's a "serious economics" track for those who want to go to grad school, involving quant courses and math up to real analysis, and a watered- down/easy-A economics track for the mediocrities who want to be investment bankers._

Fun fact: the I-banks don't even look at students who did the watered-down track.

<comment><USER13> False. It's not like people put "watered-down track" on their resume, and most investment banks don't ask for transcripts until after employment (as verification; they fire you if you don't have one, but this is extremely rare).

Investment banks don't care about intelligence so much as the ability to go through hoops, follow orders, and game the system. In fact, if you look at their preferences as far as analysts go, intelligence seems to be selected against.

<comment><USER7> Most students list difficult courses on their resume. They also ask tricky brain teasers on the first phone screen. It's not that hard to weed out the dumb ones. Students on the watered down track will never get into the front office.

I've gone on IB interviews myself, and I've spoken to students who've done the same. They do focus on conformity and big company culture (I was definitely a bad fit at Goldman), but they also aim for a great deal of intelligence.

I think you are basing your opinion more on politics and tribal identity than on facts.

<comment><USER13> This is true of trader and quant interviews, but not when people are being evaluated for "soft skills" departments like IBD and M&A.

A "tricky" brain teaser for IBD is: "What is the expected value of an 8-sided die?" or "If the Euro is worth $1.50 and a dollar is worth 100 yen, what is a Euro worth in yen?" Mathematically-illiterate but intelligent people (125 IQ; Ivy League non-quant major) will sometimes get these wrong on occasion, but they're not exactly hard questions by our standards.

DE Shaw quant interviews, on the other hand, are tough, but the average wannabe banker will never get anywhere near one of those.

This is what an IBD or M&A interview will be like for the average HN reader: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0yQunhOaU0#t=0m51s>

As for intelligence in investment banking, it's an asset to be very smart (135+) if you're looking to be a quant or a quant trader (floor trading is dying) but it's generally to your detriment if you're looking for an analyst position, because the smart people tend to fail when it comes to the conformity aspect. If you tell a smart person that he needs to sacrifice his weekend in order to have X finished by Monday morning, he'll probably do it, but he'll ask (gasp!) why it was left on his desk on Friday afternoon instead of delivered to him earlier... and you just don't ask such questions if you want to make it in banking.

Analyst programs are designed to pick out people with an unconditional work ethic: people who believe "deadlines are deadlines" and will never question why the work needs to be delivered in the way specified at the time specified, people who will toil for 100 hours per week and not care if their results are ever used or even relevant. This process tends to select against intelligence. Don't get me wrong: investment banks would obviously love to have someone with a high IQ and that sort of obedient profile, but that's a very rare combination. Not only that, but people with that sort of obedient makeup, while sometimes smart, are never creative or passionate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Why did you start the graph at 2.6? I understand you want to prove your point, but please don't lie with graphs.

<comment><USER15> Because otherwise the graph would be several thousand pixels tall?

<comment><USER14> No, you could keep the graphs just as tall. However, it would show that this trend is smaller than you are currently making it appear.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Mooqr – Finish your online courses in the right way - <AUTHOR> http://www.mooqr.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey guys, I'm the founder of Mooqr and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

\-----

We've observed that most of the online learners cannot successfully finish a course. We built this tool to allow students to manage their plans and sync the progress. We'll add another feature "creating a study group" soon. By the study group, students can share the progress and discuss with each others. We're eager to help students to finish their online courses successfully.</comment>


Will YC's newly launched The Macro fall victim to its founders' bad ideas? - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/insider/2015/11/20/will-y-combinators-newly-launched-the-macro-fall-victim-to-its-founders-bad-ideas/ <comment><USER2> The author's remark on Twitter reads to me as if she has been waiting for an opportunity to criticize pg's recent essay.[0]

There doesn't really seem to be a fair basis for the author's criticisms of The Macro, seeing as The Macro has just launched. Edit: article's flagged so whatever, but to complete my own thoughts… It strikes me as uncharitable to attack this new project based on one essay, and unfair to demand an organization change for the better but attack it before it can attempt change.

[0] "Finally got to talk about that ridiculous Paul Graham essay." ([https://twitter.com/lhockenson/status/667786124165705728](https://twitter.com/lhockenson/status/667786124165705728))

</comment><comment><USER3> I really did not enjoy with or agree with this piece but I encourage others not to flag it due to eco-chamber risk.

<comment><USER4> Many users did flag it—understandably, since it's an unsubstantive hit piece. The flags killed the post, but we unkilled it so people can continue to post comments here if they want to.

<comment><USER3> Yeah that makes sense. Whether it was a hit piece or not is what I was encouraging people to avoid making a judgement on (echo-chamber risk, etc) but the fact that lacks substance is a fact.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> tl;dr: a hit piece in which the author uses the launch of The Macro to criticize (and not insightfully) YC on completely unrelated topics.

</comment><comment><USER6> Bleh, what a hit job of an article... the title made me think that it would be something other than a "Silicon Valley is too whitemaleofascist!"

</comment><comment><USER7> Fuck these people.</comment>


Do you want to kill millions? Because this is how you kill millions - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@DanSodkiewicz/do-you-want-to-kill-millions-because-this-is-how-you-kill-millions-a7fef20bc1e

<comment><USER2> It's not just conservatives who are potentially the issue here. Our government as a whole (both sides of the aisle) is responsible for the lame brained response to Ebola. It's not just the conservatives who are against shutting down flights from Africa. As a country I suspect there are every bit as many conservatives worried about Ebola as there are liberals. The problem our government has is one of arrogance: they're supremely confident in our ability to handle any cases of Ebola which occur here. I'm with you that there extremely prudent measure of shutting down flights from Africa is one of the best ways we can proactively avoid the loss of American lives, but I doubt we'll see sanity prevail in our hopelessly inept government.</comment>


Uquery.com - The Appstore Search Engine - <AUTHOR> http://www.uquery.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> Clean and simple, no signup required.

Looks like the patented? Google home page, but that is good change for me. I really don't like the other sites with the same purpose that I have tried (appsafari, apptism or 148apps).

I also think that iTunes or the included inside iPhone AppStore app are not very useful to find anything.

</comment><comment><USER2> It is a nice and simple interface, but I'm not sure about the sorting algorithm.

For instance, searching 'to do list' returns epicurious, loopt, etc on the first page. It is acceptable that these would be returned somewhere, but not on the first page, when there are tons of proper 'to do list' apps out there.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, 'todo list' gives better results.

It seems that 'to do' and 'do' gives almost the same results so may be that 'to' gets discarted in the search (the word is never bold in the results).</comment></comment>


7M Downloads: Why Angry Birds Is Free on Android - <AUTHOR> http://phandroid.com/2010/11/26/rovio-over-7-million-people-helping-those-angry-birds-out-on-android-christmas-update-coming/ <comment><USER3> Personally I view this as bad news for the Android ecosystem.

The iOS/iTunes ecosystem is incredibly accessible. You don't need a credit card (important for minors; a _huge_ market). You can buy credit everywhere. iOS users seem willing to part with cash.

Google Checkout on the other hand is not available everywhere Android is. People seem less willing to use it (eg 50k paid from this post). You can't buy credit in the retail chain. Google gives developers 95%.

The last one is actually a _huge_ problem. Google's 5% will never pay for retail distribution (Apple's 30% clearly does).

Developers have come to the obvious conclusion: they'd rather have 70% of (potentially) a lot rather than 95% of much less.

iOS has the option of paid and ad-supported. Android only having ad-supported (realistically) is a major disadvantage.

The only way Abgry Birds could make it to Android is on the back of the success of iOS. I wonder how much money their experiment is really making.

<comment><USER4> A minor point: outside the US, Android prices are listed as (some examples from featured apps):

~CA$1.96

~CA$5.08

~CA$3.05

~CA$1.01

It's completely irrational, but I actually find myself less willing to buy for "untidy" prices. I didn't fully understand why Apple has its tiered pricing system, but now I do.

<comment><USER5> That's relatively new, but I was glad when they changed it. To be clear, it's not "outside the US", that's Canada -- the point is that prices are now listed in local currency, including in the US.

Back to the point: while I'm pretty comfortable with translating Canadian dollars, British Pounds, or Euros to US dollars, that's about as much as I can do in my head. I'm much happier seeing ~US$1.17 than ¥99, and I'm much more likely to buy the app.

So while I can see your point, I think it was definitely a change for the better, and it probably resulted in increased sales.

<comment><USER6> I think the point was that iOS apps have a set of fixed prices in each area (in local currency). Here in the UK the cheapest non-free app is 59p (corresponding with a 99c app in the US store), the next is £1.19 ($1.99), and so on. This makes for a better user experience because people can think in terms of the price brackets.

Here is a summary of the price brackets: <http://www.mcmnet.co.uk/news/the- app-store-explained-news>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'd love to know how many active installs there are of those 7M downloads. I must have downloaded it 3 times to my devices and it didn't successfully run on any of them.

We have an app with over 1.2M downloads and around 500k active installs. I think the active install rate is low because it is a LITE version. Only - <USER2> haven't put ads on the game yet, and have been wondering whether it's worth it or not. If it only makes a little per day, then I'd rather just leave my free users alone and stick with the paid upgrade.

I'd also like to know what kind of revenue they are making from ads on Android. I feel like if we made our game completely free, we'd reach over 2-3M downloads pretty quickly and triple our active install rate, and if that meant we were making as much in ads as paid downloads, then I think we'd consider going that direction. It's just too big of a maybe, and we can't seem to get any inside info about ad revenues to make the leap - even when emailing Mobclix and Admob, we get no response to this question.

Worst of all - I wonder if we are leaving money on the table by not being an ad supported app.

Ho hum.

<comment><USER8> If you change from completely free to free w/ads you will incur quite a bit of wrath in the reviews, at least with current users.

<comment><USER7> The free version is VERY limited however. So, going from 10% of a game to 100% would hopefully sway the reviews my way even with ads, but still - hard to say.

I could start slow, with just ads on the home screen, then maybe put them throughout.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This seems to say really bad things for the Android marketplace. If a game as good and popular as Angry Birds can't survive if charged for, it doesn't seem like a good place for developers. Ad supported doesn't work unless you can get to millions of downloads.

</comment><comment><USER10> Something the article doesn't keep in consideration is the fact that Angry Birds is so famous that most likely those people on Android who downloaded it have seen their iPhone friends playing it and praising it for months...

</comment><comment><USER11> I have the game on my android phone and like it, so I put it on my wife's new ipod touch. I am amazed at how much better the graphics and gameplay seem to be on her ipod. The graphics seem much more detailed, and the controls seem more responsive.

<comment><USER12> Byte code vs native code? I have a hard time believing that anyone would make an Android game without the NDK (without which you're basically CPU starved - Android isn't the platform for heavy CPU work), but maybe Angry Birds is Dalvik-only?

<comment><USER13> I have it on good authority[1] that Angry Birds is a native-inclusive app. Also, I wouldn't look down my nose at Dalvik-only apps. The JIT (which, AFAIK, is the target of the litigation) gets pretty close to optimal code the longer it runs - and theoretically games run the same code a lot more than your average application.

In fact, my EUR0.02 is that native-inclusive apps (just like any Java apps which rely on native libraries) are worse, in my opinion, because it limits the number of platforms that one can execute the apps upon. And as a huge Linux fan, current Mac user, and user of x64 Windows at work, I can assure you that I get left out in the cold a LOT.

It's one level of bad to tie your app only to Windows, which coincidentally includes 90% (last metric I heard) of the world. It's another thing entirely to say, "oh, sorry, your Android isn't the same as my Android: too bad for you."

1 = unzip -l AngryBirds_1.3.5.apk|grep -i \\\\.so

<comment><USER12> _Also, I wouldn't look down my nose at Dalvik-only apps. The JIT (which, AFAIK, is the target of the litigation) gets pretty close to optimal code the longer it runs - and theoretically games run the same code a lot more than your average application_

That's interesting - are you sure about that? There's a big difference between a static translation JIT and the more modern and memory-intensive progressively-optimizing JIT's that are used outside mobile. My understanding was that Dalvik's JIT was a one-time-only translater. Its difficult to find any comprehensive benchmarks of the 2.2 JIT - there are plenty of benchmarks showing the 2.1 interpreter eating CPU cycles compared to native code (think 20-to-1), and Google themselves claimed that the 2.2 JIT would mean a 2-5x improvement in CPU efficiency, but I'm still waiting for a set of comprehensive cross-platform benchmarks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I don't get why there isn't a version I can pay for to get rid of the ads. They're annoying.

<comment><USER15> Because it'd be pirated ad infinitum and the game presumably makes more money on the Marketplace with the ads included, no?

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> This is neither here nor there, but I'm wondering if anyone else has an opinion on this: Does anyone find the physics in Angry Birds INCREDIBLY frustrating? There seems to be very little rhyme or reason to the way momentum is transferred. And the material modeling just makes me want to bite my tongue off.

<comment><USER17> I've heard this complaint before, and it puzzles me. Figuring out the odd physical rules (to manipulate them) is almost the entirety of the game. If you don't enjoy the physics, then you don't enjoy the game, but blaming the physics for your non-enjoyment is like criticizing Pac-Man because you die when you run into a ghost.

<comment><USER16> I don't believe that this is intrinsically correct. Part of what makes I feel makes a game good or not is if the rules are consistent and can be extrapolated.

If every action is a special case, the game is frustrating to any player trying to build a mental model of the cause and effect relationships within the world.

Now on the other hand, the premise of a game and it's basic interactions may be enjoyable, or at least conceptually enjoyable, by themselves. There need not be the call for the player to accept the gestalt as it is.

Personally, I'd like to see an Angry Birds clone that made it a little easier to understand what's going to happen when you launch a game object in a particular way.

<comment><USER17> Inconsistency can certainly break a game, but where's the inconsistency in Angry Birds?

I've got three stars on every level through the first ten worlds, and only a couple of levels seemed to require lucky breaks for maximum points. 3-1 was the one time I gave up and found the three-star solution on youtube.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Rovo could easily release a paid version without ads. It's practically ancient tradition on the iPhone, which everyone is arguing is completely different to the Android market. I just assumed that Rovo must be making more money from ads than they ever could from sales. In what order did Rovo release versions for alternate platforms? I would be interested in knowing whether there was a point where they started preferring ad-support.

</comment><comment><USER19> From an UI perspective I really hate the ads in angry birds on android: the advertised products are never interesting and the ad is placed in a way that it can be accidentally tapped during gameplay (happened to me multiple times).

I would GLADLY pay to get the ads to go away. Maybe they should add a premium, ad-free, version

<comment><USER20> And as lots of people have already pointed out, an ad-free version would be pirated instantly. This way they make some money out of the Android user base.

Personally I suspect that once the hive mind gets to work even ads will stop working and Android will simply not have any commercial-grade software whatsoever.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> "Because it makes more money that way" is the short answer. While this explains why they have a free version, it doesn't explain why they don't have a paid version as well. There are plenty of people who would pay $.99 to remove ads. Piracy is the only explanation for this that comes to mind.

</comment><comment><USER22> I think Rovio is putting all their weight into turning Angry Birds into a global brand.

The mobile app market is still pretty limited. Getting beyond $10 million revenue over all is incredible but nobody has any experience on sustaining success in the mobile market in the long run.

Investing in the brand, on the other had, gives Rovio a lot more options - licensing deals, a movie deal or whatever. It is a tried and tested model.

If Rovio got 7 million extra fans and alot of free media coverage by releasing it for free on Android, that in itself might be a better deal than a half a million in revenue from sales, even if you don't count the advertising revenue.

</comment><comment><USER23> Developer of Angry Birds: "Really Big and New Project Underway" [http://techie-buzz.com/mobile-news/angry-birds-new- project.h...](http://techie-buzz.com/mobile-news/angry-birds-new-project.html)

</comment><comment><USER24> Still stuck on 7/11 :(</comment>


Datomic: this is not the history you're looking for - <AUTHOR> http://vvvvalvalval.github.io/posts/2017-07-08-Datomic-this-is-not-the-history-youre-looking-for.html?t=1&cn=ZmxleGlibGVfcmVjc18y&iid=1e725951a13247d8bdc6fe8c113647d5&uid=2418042062&nid=244+293670920 <comment><USER2> This is a standard bi-temporal model; valid time and transaction time are the terms the author is looking for.

We plan to add more dynamic query control over temporality to FaunaDB to solve this problem; you will be able to do a half-temporal join and get your past blog post versions by their current tags and other tricks.

<comment><USER3> Temporal tables are a pet interest of mine, so here are some links that people might find useful:

Richard Snodgrass, _Developing Time-Oriented Database Applications in SQL_.

Hugh Darwen & C.J. Date, "An Overview and Analysis of Proposals Based on the TSQL2 Approach".

Krishna Kulkarni & Jan-Eike Michels, "Temporal features in SQL:2011".

Tom Johnston, _Managing Time in Relational Databases_. (I haven't read this one yet.)

Tom Johnston, _Bitemporal Data_.

Magnus Hagander, "A TARDIS for Your ORM": [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRgni5q0YM8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRgni5q0YM8)

Also I've yet to see anyone even talk about managing DDL changes in temporal databases (well Magnus mentions that he won't cover it), but it's the same problem as discussed here. It's very practical, but you could write a dissertation or a book about it.

<comment><USER4> Also _Temporal Data and the Relational Model_ [https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B005UY0W0E/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=...](https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B005UY0W0E/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1499712804&sr=8-1&pi=SL75_QL70&keywords=temporal+data+and+the+relational+model)

A great book which inspired Range Types in PostgreSQL: [https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/rangetypes.ht...](https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/rangetypes.html)

<comment><USER3> Thank you for range types! They are awesome and I have lost count of how often I've used them. I even have a blog post you might enjoy about defining an inetrange: [http://illuminatedcomputing.com/posts/2016/06/inet- range/](http://illuminatedcomputing.com/posts/2016/06/inet-range/) (Corrections/suggestions welcome. :-)

I know about that Date book but it is pretty low on my priority list. I've read a few other things by him and they seem like great ideas but hopelessly impractical for a working programmer like me (e.g. Tutorial D). And I am a little sore that rejecting Snodgrass's TSQL2 seems to have set back temporal databases by about 20 years. The Date paper I mentioned above has a lot of criticism but gives no real alternative proposals. So is that book better? Does it have something to add?

<comment><USER4> Glad to see all the ways people use them!

Date and Darwen are clear-thinking and they write well. But you are right that they are quick to criticize and some of the alternative solutions they offer are unconvincing.

The most obvious example is their handling of NULL, which had a bunch of great criticisms followed by a totally impractical altenative ("special values"). If they had been a bit more humble, maybe they would have just borrowed Maybe/Option types from ML.

On the other hand, they really helped me make the connection between logic and databases. And that helped me a lot in practical ways (e.g. exploring dirty data precisely).

Regarding temporal data, they divorced from SQL and started from first priciples. That clarified a lot of things for me and then I adapted those ideas to SQL.

So: their books are great, but I don't recommend joining their cult ;-)

EDIT: I think a lot of SQL implementations are going about temporal the wrong way. They should focus on the fundamental building blocks first (like ranges of time) and build up from there.

<comment><USER3> Okay, I appreciate the reply! I admit they had some good points about problems they found in some TSQL2 edge cases (mentioned in that paper of theirs). I will reconsider how quickly I get to their temporal book. I agree knowing a more pure way to do relational is helpful even if your day-to-day is still SQL.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This issue was discussed in the Datomic google group back in 2012. I think a satisfying solution was found in the end. [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/datomic/zDoFsxKgARQ](https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/datomic/zDoFsxKgARQ). Also, there's this blog post: [http://blog.podsnap.com/bitemp.html](http://blog.podsnap.com/bitemp.html)

<comment><USER6> Thanks!

<comment><USER7> It's a very important distinction though. Arguably Datomic is missing the point here, which is that t_truth and t_recorded are often different. My classic example of this is an accounting system. Sometimes you want to know "what was the P&L on Dec 2016?" sometimes you want to know "what was the P&L on Dec 2016 believed to be on Dec 2016"? And sometimes you want to do differences between the two: e.g. Dec2016 using Dec2016 facts vs Dec2015 using Dec2016 facts.

Both are equally important, but Datomic blesses one and not the other.

<comment><USER8> Where I work at, we have a special database used to log any state of certain noteworthy user personal info. We also store declarations about future states. We hesitated between a store-facts-then-aggregate model à la Datomic and a bitemporal model. A bitemporal model stores states with a validity period and instead of relying on a single punctual timestamp as with facts, makes use of two date fields to model an interval. Current states are encoded with a +Infinity until_timestamp. Updating a state, means closing the previous state's interval (setting its until_timestamp to Time.now) and opening a new interval (from: Time.now, until: +Infinity or the next future state's from_timestamp). This is stil monotemporal. So far we can log/store data, pretty much the same way Datomic does.' and set states in the future. But in the event we store data about future states, that is also store dates in our temporal system we are tempted to model it with the same interval-based heuristics. Why would we do such a thing if we already can set events in the future thanks to the intervals ? Here is the thing : you can only keep one of these two info: \- the interval for which the state was the freshest state in the database \- the interval declared by the user about the future state

These two correspond to the temporal two axis of a bitemporal database. They are are most often named system and validity temporal axis. Axis is a bit vain I think as it's an expression that conveys the idea they all entertain the same homogenous relationships as in a space whereas it's in practice more like a subtle dependency graph. In the context of tax-related declarations ahead of time we store both the moment the declaration has been stated (and subsequent amendments that may be made to it) as well as the year for which it applies. For this to work the validity axis heuristics must be built on top of that of the system axis. You have to put one close-previous-interval-open-next-one semantic over another one. You could even build a n-tower of such edit mechanisms in a n-temporal database. But in practice you most likely won't need to go linear like that. Suppose that you also want to confirm all those special facts your customer tell about themselves and you want to log it the same way. Unless you do not need to validate present declarations about future states you won't need to make this confirmation axis stand on top the validity axis that himself stands on top of the system axis (a 3 temporal-system).

What's fun is that with the benefit of a system-axis you can schedule data- maintenance in the future. It's also very fast on a relational database engine.

But it messes up with your relationships cardinalities. You will need two ids on your table. One for the state, and one for the item it models. 1_to_1 becomes 1_to_n when the right-end is temporalized. This gets really hairy if you want to temporalize relationships.

Edit: The author writes: >event time: the time at which stuff happened. >recording time: the time at which you're system learns that stuff happened. >(Disclaimer: this terminology is totally made up by me as I'm writing this.)

In short I do not think such a terminology exists, there is no definite terminology but only metatimes over metatimes and as many field-driven reasons to bring them up, and why not store them all in a badass npm-style time-axis dependency oriented byzantine database.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The problem 1 he describes would be solved with software engineering. Schema migration is a complex issue. It is funny that he asked the intern to do this part. Bad article.

<comment><USER6> Right, I forgot, curating editorial content is best done via software engineering :) what was I thinking?

<comment><USER9> If you need to do a HUGE schema migration in a running software, for sure. If it wasn't a running software, put it as a Datomic problem is even more juvenile.</comment></comment></comment>


2013 Index of Economic Freedom – Country Rankings - <AUTHOR> http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

<comment><USER2> Complaint:

HEY WEB DESIGNER, WHY DO YOU STICK AN AUTO-ROTATING SLIDESHOW AT THE TOP OF THIS PAGE, AND THEN FILL THAT SLIDESHOW WITH INTERESTING BUT DETAILED MATERIAL AND NO WAY TO PAUSE IT?

I HATE YOU WEB DESIGNER AND I CLOSED THE TAB.

There are other websites out there that respect me.

<comment><USER3> Seems a small thing considering every element of said slideshow links to fully detailed, single page version of the same - exactly the way I'd prefer to navigate it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Heritage.org is a conservative think tank. I suppose they're saying economic freedom isn't that important for a strong economy? Because you'd think if it were important it would correlate more strongly with economic size and growth.</comment>


Ask HN: What are your opinions on Flutter for mobile dev? - <AUTHOR> I'm thinking about committing some time to writing an iOS/Android app with Flutter.  Before I sink any reasonable time into it I want to get some opinions. <comment><USER2> Wish it wasn't in dart (no JavaScript either).

Aside from this, I am happy.

</comment><comment><USER3> Awesome so far.

Wish it wasn't in dart but no complaints.

Not sure I would make a game in it, but fine for 2d.

</comment><comment><USER4> I wish they used JavaScript.

<comment><USER5> NO. we don't want to deal with npm issues.

<comment><USER4> Good luck reimplementing all frameworks, libraries, tools and clients in Dart.

<comment><USER6> With type safety, at least it'd be less buggy than in JS.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Stream audio from YouTube videos without downloading, on lockscreen - <AUTHOR> https://boogeh.com/?hn2 <comment><AUTHOR> FYI this is based on my remote browser and it's just that with an audio component so you just have to navigate to any pages with audio and if you're on your mobile device you can do it and then lock the screen and keep listening to it.

I made this because listening to audio from YouTube on mobile is not always possible if you lock the screen. I want to be able to lock my phone and just kind of have it in my pocket.</comment>


Healthcare Breach Exposes Nearly 4 Million Patients' Data - <AUTHOR> http://www.informationweek.com/news/security/attacks/231903336

<comment><USER2> ([http://www.darkreading.com/database- security/167901020/secur...](http://www.darkreading.com/database- security/167901020/security/attacks-breaches/231903320/stolen-desktop- computer-exposes-data-of-nearly-4-million-patients.html?itc=edit_stub))

> _The computer also contained demographic data -- names, addresses, dates of > birth, phone numbers, email addresses, medical record numbers, and health > insurance plan providers -- as well as medical diagnoses between January > 2005 and January 2011 of 943,000 Sutter Medical Foundation patients._

> _The database included names, addresses, dates of birth, phone numbers, > email addresses, medical record numbers, and health insurance plan > providers, between 1995 and January 2011 of 3.3 million patients under > Sutter Physician Services. SPS provides managed care services and billing > for healthcare providers._

And from the company:

(<http://www.sutterhealth.org/noticeforpatients/>)</comment>


LA Police Chief Scolded for 7 Hours in Zoom Meeting - <AUTHOR> https://youtu.be/oz0CKlGj3uI <comment><AUTHOR> The new online format allowed for hundred of public comments which were overwhelmingly negative. The action starts 1 hour and 10 minutes into the meeting.</comment>


Yes, open office plans are the worst - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/13/yes-open-office-plans-are-the-worst/ <comment><USER2> >While the concept behind open office spaces is to drive informal interaction and collaboration among employees

I would replace the word "concept" with "pretext." It has always been no more than a cost saving measure.</comment>


Dropbox is down - <AUTHOR> http://status.dropbox.com/

<comment><USER2> No it is not. The status page show the last downtime was 7 months ago. Is that right? Weren't they affected by the recent AWS outage?

<comment><AUTHOR> It's back up again. Dropbox was returning 5xx responses for every page on the site (including links to things in people's dropbox folders) when I sent the link.</comment></comment>


The Galaxy That Got Too Big - <AUTHOR> http://nautil.us/issue/29/scaling/the-galaxy-that-got-too-big <comment><USER2> Cool, never knew about [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pando_(tree)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pando_\(tree\))

<comment><USER3> I am surprised by the weight they mention in the article (and on Wikipedia).

6600 tons for more than 40 000 trunks, considering that Populus tremuloides are usually 20–25m tall at maturity (again, according to wikipedia), seems very low.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> All this information collected from such a distance with technology, science, and ingenuity from the last hundred years. Even if we have only a hundred or so left, there is plenty of awesomeness that can happen in that time. Good stuff.

<comment><USER5> Why would _we_ have only a hundred or so left?</comment></comment>


In Fifty Days, Payments Innovation Will Stop In Silicon Valley - <AUTHOR> http://www.quora.com/Aaron-Greenspan/In-Fifty-Days-Payments-Innovation-Will-Stop-In-Silicon-Valley <comment><USER2> In the interest of correctness I should point out that the half a million fee is not a fee but a bond. The state does not take it but it is kept in a trust for people that may be injured by the particular money transmission business that gets a license.

Thus, if a money transmission business steals someone's money you can sue them and when you win you can take your money from the 500,000 bond so you are sure they will not run out on you.

I am not sure whether it is a good law (I have not done enough research to figure that out), but I just wanted to clarify. The quora post made it look like the state was just greedy and taking all the money for themselves.

<comment><USER3> Thanks for clarifying.

I'd like to add that this is a good practice in the financial industry, and isn't a bad thing at all. It's consumer protection.

And, $500k is actually a pretty low figure for this type of 'bond'.

For example, in Australia I believe you would need a banking license (or a guarantor with a banking license) which requires a deposit of at least $40M in to an escrow account which is managed by the central bank.

<comment><USER4> I'd like to say this should not be legislated, and people should choose who to do business with on their own. If they offer the government a bond to cover losses, then people might go to that business instead of some startup. OTOH, perhaps I don't care when all I'm investing in my "Silicon Valley Facespacecash" bank is $20.

Another reason to use alternative currencies...

<comment><USER5> That works in theory. But have YOU read all the fine print when opening an account with your bank? I haven't either -- everything we do is based on some common sense and trust. If we had to verify everything we did with everyone we did it, our way of life would end.

<comment><USER6> > But have YOU read all the fine print when opening an account with your bank?

Yes. Paraphrased:

Bank agent: "You'll also have to sign this." (Hands over a sheet of paper.)

Me: "Let's see here… […] 'comply with the Deposit Agreement and Disclosure'. I need to see a copy of the Deposit Agreement and Disclosure, please."

Agent: "Of course." (Hands over a booklet.)

Me: "All right. Well, you may have to wait a bit…" (Starts leafing through the booklet. Cut to analog clock, then to clock fifteen minutes later.)

It was the same thing with signing up for public storage. "… 'agrees to the Privacy Policy, which is incorporated by reference'. I don't seem to have a copy of the Privacy Policy here." "Here you go," and another sheaf of paper appears.

Note that in these cases I'm _still_ basing my interpretation on a lot of contextual and cultural information, because while the alternative of trying to get them to lock down all the definitions separately would be amusing, it would fail. In many cases, every one of the relevant providers is in a position to drop me, whereas I'm reliant on at least one of them accepting me, so the power balance is tipped heavily in their favor.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Doesn't all regulation stifle innovation? If I wanted to sell a homes in a skyscraper made of papier-mâché, building codes would prevent me from doing that. But that's not necessarily a bad thing: the first time someone leaves their soldering iron on while they're not using it, the building burns down and we have five hundred dead families on our hands. "Innovators" tend to think about the good aspects of their ideas rather than potential downsides, so the government has stepped in to prevent the downsides from being too bad.

In this case, the government is saying, "make any new innovative money transmission system you want, but keep $100,000 in an account so when you fuck up someone's paycheck, they can sue you and you can pay the damages you owe." Not too unreasonable.

Regulation is bad for businesses individually, but it's good for society in aggregate. Progress may be slowed, but it's still happening and happening with fewer horror stories along the way.

<comment><USER8> Government regulation is in just about every case either not needed at all or better provided through non-coercive institutions. Since government innovates more slowly than private industries, government regulation tends to become outdated, going from common-sense prudence to arbitrary burden on innovation. For example, right now the Mississippi River in the US is flooding, destroying many homes. This is a huge loss partly because homes are very expensive. Maybe it would make sense to have some housing constructed of paper-mâché, not try so hard to resist disaster, but instead concentrate on making it cheap to rebuild. Government building codes prevent this kind of innovation.

Regulation reflects a lack of creativity. It says, "There is no other way to do this." But maybe there is another way and the politicians just can't think of it. They shouldn't be allowed to limit other, more enlightened people.

The above assumes that regulations are honestly designed to promote the public good, a dubious assumption. Often I suspect that regulation is designed to protect influential but inefficient businesses against competition.

<comment><USER9> You wrote:

"Since government innovates more slowly than private industries, government regulation tends to become outdated, going from common-sense prudence to arbitrary burden on innovation. "

The space program spawned a tremendous amount of innovation. Public research universities throughout the nation innovate on a grand scale. The internet is an example of government innovation.

Regulation does not reflect a lack of creativity. It reflects an acknowledgment of a problem and steps to address the problem. Sometimes side effects occur and are bad and the regulation needs to be reanalyzed. Sometimes there is regulatory capture (by private entities).

Government had to mandate the use of seatbelts. This led to airbags because after the government made safety an issue innovations were made in this area. They probably would have been made without government intervention but government got the ball rolling and the innovations occurred sooner as a result of government.

Regulations can be good, bad, or neutral. But talking about "non-coercive institutions" makes your view look extreme.

<comment><USER10> The air force actually developed seat belts from scratch. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stapp> demonstrated that the human body could withstand vary high G's for short periods, and because more pilots where dieing in car accidents than airplane accidents the air-force was willing to do some vary important basic research.

Which brings up the basic issue, the incentives of car makers / home builders / bankers to create safe products does not line up with society's benefit from safe products without some external input.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> They want companies that operate like banks, such as PayPal, to be licensed. I'm not sure I see the downside. PayPal has a shocking record of abusing it's customers, and it can only do so because it isn't bound by the same laws as banks are.

Personally, I think if you rely on PayPal/etc for your business, you're asking to get financially raped.

<comment><AUTHOR> If they wanted companies to be licensed they could just require a license. Instead they require a license and a bond worth millions of dollars in some cases, nominally to protect consumers. Yet if you have a million consumers in a state and a $1,000,000 bond, that means that if the company defaults, each consumer gets back a dollar.

This doesn't sound like consumer protection to me. It sounds like an artificial barrier to entry.

Also, PayPal has had licenses in all states that require them since its IPO, and clearly there's no connection between this issue and customer service.

<comment><USER12> Well, there is a (flawed) line of reasoning that says that if you can come up with $1M then you must be more trustworthy than someone that can't.

<comment><USER13> I don't think it's _that_ flawed.

Would you elaborate?

<comment><USER12> Trustworthiness is not tied to money, the ability to make large sums of money, or the ability to convince others to loan you money/invest in you.

<comment><USER14> Depends on context; in some cases it absolutely is.

Courts often "trust" people to go free temporarily if they can post bail pending trial. Lenders will "trust" you with their money in the form of a loan if you can post collateral.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Here in Europe, PayPal (which is acting like a bank) had to get a banking license (like any other bank). As far as I know they didn't go bankrupt yet, so it can't be a wholly bad thing.

If I drive a vehicle that acts like a car, I need a drivers license. If I run a service that acts like a bank I need a banking license.

I really don't see a problem here.

<comment><USER16> They are talking innovation; sure Paypal can get licenses like that, but a startup can't. Most (by far) startups don't have 500k to lock away. And most don't have the money to pay the license fees. So yes, it's an issue as far as innovation of payment services goes; now suddenly you NEED to get millions in investment and that all doesn't go into the product but instead into government crap.

<comment><USER17> And most startups don't go into banking. Seriously, if you're going into that kind of business you should have that kind of money behind you.

<comment><USER8> Why is banking (specifically money transfering) different than other kinds of business? Seems to me that money transfer is a particularly easy business for the market to regulate. A failed money transfer is a lot easier to spot than, say, a dangerously defective physical product.

<comment><USER17> A fraudulent one isn't though.

You're also dealing with especially sensitive data, life ruining data if it gets into the wrong hands.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> So, a new startup comes along, and things are going well. The have new, innovative ideas that satisfy the needs of consumers. They manage to get a few hundred thousand dollars from a VC so that they keep operating for another 6 months. This startup offers a service that is cheaper, safer, quicker and generally more efficient that what is currently available. All of a sudden they'll be breaking the law unless they hand over half a million to the government. They can't find the money. They're done. You never hear about it. Other new companies that might have added value in the marketplace come along, look at the regulatory hurdles, and don't even try.

They might have provided a service that would be beneficial to the consumer and they might have hired a bunch of programmers once they had established themselves. The established companies already in the market would have had to lower prices and become more efficient to compete. Instead, the competition is crushed, you never hear about it, never know about it.

This is what this law is designed to accomplish. Nothing to do with Paypal. Stop talking about Paypal.

Many regulations serve the interests of politically well connected powerful oligopolies in this way. This is just one example. The reason put forward is always that this is some way of protecting you. That, if this regulation didn't exist, these companies wouldn't have to be responsible. In reality, it strengthens the hold on the marketplace of the oligopoly already in place and makes you more vulnerable to them.

Keeping companies out of the marketplace stifles competition. This is not good for you, the consumer.

<comment><USER19> > All of a sudden they'll be breaking the law unless they hand over half a > million to the government.

Or put up a few coins for a surety bond. If you're a financial startup and your investors don't trust you enough to put up bond money, you should probably find a different niche (or investors).

<comment><USER18> So, we assume they're going to commit some type of fraud or crime up front so they have to submit to posting bond, but the investors are supposed to trust them with another half million. Or, as you put it, a few coins. Wow, in your world a half million is a few coins. You live in a universe different than mine.

<comment><USER19> Fraud or criminal elements are not required. Old fashioned screw ups and security lapses do the job of losing other people's money just fine too. The bond requirements are just a method of basic consumer protection. Money transfers are a serious business with serious consequences, if your investors don't trust you with either the funds for the bond or the payments on a surety bond, you really are in the wrong business.

A surety bond means you only have to pay a small portion of the total. It's similar to insurance. You pay a company with larger resources to vouch for you in case you have a problem. Instead of ponying up (the refundable) $500K you pay something like $25k. You don't get it all back if you close up shop, but you didn't need to put much capital out there. This is how a lot if not most licensing bonds work.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Reminds me of mortgage lead generation.

If you want to take people's names and then pass them on to mortgage brokers, LowerMyBills style, you have to register as a mortgage broker in almost all fifty states. Requirements vary widely from state-to-state but included obnoxious things like high fees, local residency requirements, and annual written tests.

The end result - mortgage lead generation didn't stop, but it became something that was difficult to legally bootstrap. You needed one hell of a GC, and he needed to have experience. Venture-backed companies had a big advantage in the space.

As long as the rewards are high enough, I suspect the same will be true here. Nothing great, but not the apocalypse.

</comment><comment><USER21> His argument makes no sense. He says that 43 other states have such regulations, so that if you want to do business nationally you have to get licensed in each, at costs ranging from less than California's new cost to more than California's new cost.

So what is the significance of California making it 44 states? I doubt a new payment system that only works in a handful of states has much of a chance, so if regulation kills payment innovation it would have have been killed long ago, when the majority of other states adopted regulation.

<comment><USER22> The difference: if you start a business in California, you have to care about California law, and federal law, but not necessarily any other states' laws. Similarly, Internet businesses don't legally have to collect sales taxes for states other than their home state (and most don't make the mistake of putting their HQ in a state with sales taxes), though various states have attempted to (illegally) claim otherwise.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> You know... If you look like a bank, walk like a bank and quack like a bank, you should obey the same regulations banks do.

Some laws exist to protect the establishment. Others exist to protect society from it. I am not sure where this one sits.

</comment><comment><USER24> How does this affect SaaS billing companies such as Chargify, Spreedly, Recurly, et. al. since they're merely passing along information to a gateway? I assume not at all, if I understand what I am reading.

What about something like Stripe? It sounds like they may be affected?

This does not sound particularly fun or exciting.

<comment><AUTHOR> Credit and debit cards are issued by banks and banks are exempt from money transmission laws.

This is why you see most startups gravitating toward niche markets that revolve around the existing infrastructure, but those niches are becoming awfully narrow.

In contrast, I contend that the system itself is flawed and needs to be replaced.

<comment><USER24> Ah, thank you for explaining that to me. I some how missed that from reading the link. Though, it was quite verbose and I am, admittedly, partially into a celebratory post-coding-session bottle of wine.

I agree. The system most definitely appears to be flawed.

Isn't Paypal forced to operate as a bank in Europe as opposed to the way they exist in the U.S.?

<comment><USER25> Yes, Paypal operates with a Luxembourg banking license in Europe (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PayPal#Bank_status> ).

Note that banking in Europe is in part regulated by national law of the member states. To operate as a bank in Germany, you need not only 0,5-5 million € as starting capital (depending on the type of financial transactions you are getting into), but you also need two reliable* executive managers who have at least three years experience leading a bank of the intended size (or similar experience).

Thus, the barrier to entry is rather high in Europe, too. But after that, if you get big enough, the tax payers will pay all your bills, like in the US.

* no criminal record and no other facts known that would cast doubt on their trustworthiness.

<comment><USER26> Yes, Europe is full of regulations, and I don't think anyone that's read HN for long enough isn't tired of hearing about a lack of innovation in Europe vs. the US (especially SV).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Can't I just live as a shareholder in silicon valley, basing my limited company and shill directors in Alabama, and leasing the limited company software produced by my other company in California?

Requirements:

2 limited companies.

Licensing agreement.

Alabama-based Non-executive directors (cousin Ed and Chuck).

<comment><USER28> Then your other company in California have to post the bond. The software has nothing to do with it.

<comment><USER27> The company in California produces software components. It is not involved in any financial transmissions whatsoever. That is my point.

<comment><USER28> Then as long as you don't transfer money in California, you're fine. If you do, you need a license. Note the part of the law that refers to the travel costs incurred to get an inspector to whatever part of the country you domicile the business-end of your business in.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> > _Oh, and if you want to do business nationwide, you'll need 43 more of those > licenses from almost every state._

Does this mean California is just another state in a long line of similar laws? Or is there something unique about California's situation in this aside from it containing Silicon Valley?

<comment><USER30> California is also the home of many tech-savvy people that buy stuff online ... if you can't get a license to operate in California and maybe New York, you may as well not exist.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> What's the jurisdiction? Some freshly made illegal company can operate to California residents and be located outside of it (even the USA.) Are they going to block the website to California residents?

</comment><comment><USER32> And so we have one more reason to use Bitcoin.

<comment><USER33> ... whose exchange rate against the dollar has gone up by a factor of 6 over the past weeks? If you had any debt nominated in Bitcoin, you'd be screwed.

<comment><USER34> You wouldn't be screwed if your business operates in Bitcoins, and your customers pay you in Bitcoins. If you take out a loan for 100 Bitcoins, you will still owe 100 Bitcoins, regardless of the USD exchange rate.

If you aren't dealing in USD, it doesn't matter how much value the USD loses.

Similarly, if you had debt denominated in USD, it wouldn't matter how much value the Zimbabwe Dollar or Weimar Republic Mark lost in hyperinflation. Your debt burden would be the same amount of USD. It just depends on your frame of reference.

<comment><USER35> The dollar has not reduced in value by a factor of six in the last few weeks. Nearly all of the change in the USD/BTC exchange rate is due to a reevaluation of the _real_ value of bitcoins.

So even if you did all your business in them, it's likely prices would have fallen _substantially_ in the last few weeks, and you would be screwed, per the grandparent.

That said, the source of BTC's volatility right now is precisely the fact _that_ few people are doing business in them, and nearly all demand for them is speculative.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> While I agree with other commentators that the prose is a bit over the top, its an interesting move on the part of financial interests. (there was a great report in the Murky News that special interests are writing the laws [1])

Clearly financial transactions have provided a means for the state to both detect and to a lesser degree mitigate criminal activity. The phrase 'follow the money' works because such activities are at their heart economic in nature (trying to enrich the criminals) and understanding the path to that enrichment often allows law enforcement to disassemble the criminal enterprise behind it.

That being said, I would not be the least bit surprised (although I did not read through any floor debate if there was any) if the people who voted for this law did so believing that they were addressing a great threat to society, which is the proliferation of payment processors which are not accountable to the state for tracking or even reporting their transactions in any form.

That does cut into 'innovation' as thinkcomp points out but it doesn't preclude it. It changes the conversation from 'build it and see what works' to something more along the lines of a slow plod from idea to implementation while bringing legislators and law enforement along. The bad news is that criminals are motivated to stay ahead of 'the system's abilty to track their money, consumers need a value proposition and a trial period before they switch so adoption rates are probably (not data driven, just intuition here) lower.

Perhaps the next innovation is a payment processing company that provides the regulatory shield for innovative sub companies.

[1] <http://www.mercurynews.com/politics-government/ci_15517816>

<comment><USER28> Does contractor licensing and bonding cut down innovation in contracting? Aren't most contractors firms of less than 10 people? Are there not hundreds of them? How can you defend the argument that a yearly bond premium payment that is less than many companies pay for liability insurance is a serious drag on innovation?

<comment><USER36> Hmm, I'm curious how you equate building a contracting business is equivalent to building a new payments system?

I agreed that the article's portrayal of the fees as extortionate was hyperbole but agreed that raising the barrier to entry would slow down the creation of new payment systems. If you accept that the rate of innovation is related, at least linearly, to the creation of new companies in a product space, then reducing the creation rate would necessarily reduce the rate of innovation.

An alternative look at your question with contractors would be to ask "Has the licensing and bonding requirements cut down on innovation in contracting business models?"

I don't know how to answer that question without first removing the licensing and bonding requirement and then observing the resulting market. It certainly mitigates crime in the contracting market to some extent by making it more difficult for a criminal to pass themselves off as a bonafide contractor. But the current state of affairs don't say about whether or not the contracting market would be more innovative without those restrictions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> A bit of a red scare here. All the time I was reading I was led to assume that companies like PayPal and Square (imperative mechanisms for freelance these days) were to be affected, ultimately though, this was dismissed toward the end. I can understand the frustration here, but like a lot of people are saying, those are the rules. Also, for the FaceCash folks, if you intend to disrupt the financial industry in any fashion (in this case circumventing traditional forms of cash transfer) you should be ready for a significant amount of red tape and "fuck you."

<comment><AUTHOR> We're ready for it, but that doesn't mean we have to take it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> so what if my company uses paypal to process payments and send payouts to users? do i have to care about this stuff or its just paypal's headache now?

</comment><comment><USER39> What does this mean for systems like Facebook Credits?

<comment><USER40> Nothing. Facebook credits are not a money transfer system, it's whats known as a 'closed loop' system. If they opened it up so that anyone can take a payment with a facebook credit and receive dollars then they would start to fall under the money transfer arrangements and would require these restrictions.

I don't think $500k is much of a barrier to them getting into this business however...

<comment><USER41> Can't anyone build a Facebook app that takes payment in Facebook credits, and then cash out that payment into dollars?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> I wonder how BankSimple is doing now.

<comment><USER43> Probably just fine; I'm sure they had to apply for a regular banking license anyway, and banks are exempt from money-transmission regulations.

<comment><USER44> I'm not sure about that. From their website:

 _However, BankSimple is not a "bank." We partner with chartered banks who provide FDIC-insured products, leaving us free to concentrate on designing the complete consumer banking experience, via the web and your smartphone._

What implications this has on their regulatory requirements, whether banking or money transfering, would be interesting to discover.

<comment><USER20> Yep, BankSimple doesn't have to apply for a regular banking license because they don't hold the actual deposits. (See SmartyPig for an example of a startup in the market that uses the same 'we don't hold the deposits' strategy.)

Piggybacking off of someone else's banking license isn't trivial, but it beats the delays and capital requirements associated with starting a bank.

Of course, they still have to deal with all the internal industry regulations in order to offer things like ATM cards that work across ATM networks. Those aren't regulatory requirements, but when you're dealing with VISA-size entities they might as well be.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Every company in Silicon Valley is actually a Delaware corp anyway..

<comment><USER45> I think it's a relevant distinction. Clearly the California company doesn't apply to all corporations in the world or even country. The point is there's likely a loophole that for an interstate or international software corporation will render the regulation toothless.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> What does this mean for freelancing sites? Or for services like AdSense where credit accumulates in a user's account till it's withdrawn? Do they have to get a license too?

</comment><comment><USER47> Here goes one more reason to use Bitcoin, that's where the real innovation is.

<comment><USER40> Bitcoin is operating in a legally very grey area, you can bet your bottom- dollar that as soon as they get real traction laws like this are going to come down on the ecosystem extremely fast.

<comment><USER32> Im quite sure most of what Bitcoin is used for is already illegal, but that doesn't mean anything. It's just being used for what people have always done, this is the government outlawing perfectly normal things. Thanks to bitcoin (and it's growing network of services that operate from cypherspace) we nolonger have to dance to the governments tune.

<comment><USER29> I'm sure similar claims can be made for Linden dollars, which have been used for _far_ more transactions over the years than Bitcoin has.

Why single out Bitcoin? Because it's new?

<comment><USER47> Bitcoin is much more powerful then Linden dollars, Egold etc. because it allows transactions online, anonymously, and has no central authority. No other payment method has ever had all three of these characteristics.

<comment><USER29> No?

I can create an anonymous Second Life character at any time, linked only to my account info (an email - Mailinator solves that). I can build something in- game and sell it, creating money with no person bound to it. Or be given money in-game for a real-world purchase, leaving me with money that _still_ has no connection with me. There's _barely_ a central authority, as there's nothing stopping you from passing money around in-game, which would be the major barrier to illegal trading. And what is there is rather impotent, as everything can be done just as anonymously as in Bitcoin - they can get your IP address, but only if they're watching, and that's far from an identification. Just go to a coffee shop.

Bitcoin just makes it easier, and fault/attack-tolerant. It's been possible for quite a while. Though perhaps the most useful aspect to this is that transactions aren't revokable, where they are in nearly any other non-physical system.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Can this affect Bitcoin, and if so, how?

</comment><comment><USER49> no bitcoins in CA

</comment><comment><USER50> Today I learned Hacker News is filled with libertarian ideologues.

It's amazing that people who pride themselves in critical thinking and problem solving (hackers), can actually be so naive as to believe this nihilistic Ann Rand crap.

HN is starting to look more like Reddit every day.

<comment><USER51> HN has always had its share of libertarian partisans, some who were reasonably cogent and some who drank the Randian kool-aid and did not notice when it dissolved their brain. The difference is that on HN you will see a lot more pushback from people who are not going to let the second class of ideologues get a free pass on their BS (e.g. the responses to various "just let the market sort it out" tropes being dragged out by the usual suspects.) On Reddit the moderates would be downvoted into oblivion and this discussion would have turned into a libertarian circle-jerk within fifteen minutes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> If you run a node on Bitcoin, aren't you technically a payment processor?

I wouldn't be surprised if this is step 1 of a 3 step plan on Bitcoin takedown. Clever too I might add, so props to whoever came up with it.

</comment><comment><USER53> Who is John Galt?

<comment><USER54> Some obnoxious bint beloved by people who clamor to be his oppressed, destitute underclass.

(What's that? They all think that they'll _be_ him? Statistics would like to have a word, folks.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> So is paypal going to shut down after this goes into effect?

<comment><USER24> I don't think they'll go anywhere.

I assume they can easily afford any cost involved. I wouldn't be surprised if they already have the licenses while existing as a non-bank.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> Boohoo, cry PayPal a river.

In most countries outside the US, PayPal is regulated like a bank. This means PayPal can't just lay claim to your money and never give it back to you.

<comment><USER57> Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if PayPal supported the law. Many regulations protect large, established players by raising the cost of entry for new market participants. PayPal can afford to post this bond, but many bootstrapped start-ups probably can't. This is just one of the ways regulation _can_ increase the price of products and services; they decrease competition, allowing established players to raise prices.</comment></comment>


Low-level x86 code compression for 64k intros - <AUTHOR> http://fgiesen.wordpress.com/2011/01/24/x86-code-compression-in-kkrunchy/

<comment><USER2> In case you haven't seen a 64k intro, "Chaos Theory" by Conspiracy is probably the coolest and most impressive one I've ever seen (fullscreen it in 720p for maximum awesomeness): <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfuierUvx1A>

I think it's probably one of the few I've seen that goes beyond being just impressive coding and actually seems to evoke the feeling of a post- singularity civilization, or something like that.

The graphics and music are all generated on the fly from 64k of code. I think it actually uses the code compression from the linked article.

<comment><USER3> Panic room is my absolute favorite 64k: <http://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=51125>

The graphics are amazing (and not random abstract stuff like most 64ks of the time) and it's not only got a great song, it has _vocals_. In a 64k. Simply stunning.

<comment><USER4> The water rippling/shimmer effect in the opening scene was amazing! Youtube link: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyKtZT4GPus>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Carmack expresses admiration for these in his recent keynote.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zgYG-_ha28#t=4820s>

</comment><comment><USER6> Just look what can be done on a C64 with 512KB RAM expansion cartridge. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQqR35k4SMQ&feature=relat...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQqR35k4SMQ&feature=related)

Beats most PC demos IMHO. (I'm an old C64 and Amiga hacker) That said, the 6510 and 68k don't stand a chance when it comes to compact code compared to the x86.

<comment><USER7> Love it! I love it when modern coders hack on old hardware. There's some great stuff like that...especially some homebrew on old consoles.

(though I should probably be mad about that bit halfway through the demo)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Demosceners beat dotcom web kids any day of the week.

I simply cannot see any of the current boy kings being able to keep up with this sort of thing.

<comment><USER3> I'm a demoscener, and I disagree on the basis that the comparison simply doesn't make sense. Take your average scener and tell them to build a simple web application that works well and you'll see that the skill sets simply could not be more different. Am I _able_ to make a webapp, sure; am I remotely good at it, not at all.

Now, there's something to be said about the flexibility that sceners tend to have, but I think the standard you-wear-every-hat approach of a small startup shows the same sort of flexibility. They're just two vastly different worlds.

<comment><USER9> What resources are there available, or how does someone start getting into the demoscene? Are there any good websites or books for a complete beginner?

<comment><USER10> Any book on computer graphics would be a good start for the graphics side.

I like 3D Computer Graphics by Alan Watt as an introduction and overview [http://www.amazon.co.uk/3D-Computer-Graphics-Alan- Watt/dp/02...](http://www.amazon.co.uk/3D-Computer-Graphics-Alan- Watt/dp/0201398559/)

and Real-time Rendering for more advanced subjects [http://www.amazon.co.uk/Real-time-Rendering-Tomas-Akenine- Mo...](http://www.amazon.co.uk/Real-time-Rendering-Tomas-Akenine- Moller/dp/1568814240/)

The session from Assembly 'The Basics of Demo Programming' is online and may also be useful <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbcZyAO6K7c> or have a look at The Demo Effects Collection <http://demo-effects.sourceforge.net/>

But it depends what platform you want to use C-64 An Introduction to Programming C-64 Demos <http://www.antimon.org/code/Linus/> and <http://codebase64.org/doku.php>

Processing <http://www.processing.org/>

WebGL Browserscene: Creating demos on the Web <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZLqwXdXjqY>

Deconstructing a browserscene demo <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOjWOA- iPnA>

I have some more bookmarks on pinboard <http://pinboard.in/u:z303/t:demoscene/></comment></comment></comment></comment>


3 million masks ordered by Massachusetts confiscated by US government in NY - <AUTHOR> https://www.wcvb.com/article/3-million-masks-ordered-by-massachusetts-were-confiscated-in-port-of-new-york/32021700# <comment><AUTHOR> Can anybody figure out what the reason for the confiscation is? The deepest link I see is to [https://www.statehousenews.com/](https://www.statehousenews.com/) but I can't see what was there due to the subscription requirement. But the more I'm searching, the more I'm getting skeptical the story is true. Otherwise, it should be on some major outlets at this point? Related links:

\- [https://twitter.com/RomancingNope/status/1246234872663945217](https://twitter.com/RomancingNope/status/1246234872663945217)

\- [https://www.wwlp.com/news/massachusetts/3-million-masks- orde...](https://www.wwlp.com/news/massachusetts/3-million-masks-ordered-by- massachusetts-seized-at-port-of-ny-in-march/)

\- [https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/03/27/nation/states- intense...](https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/03/27/nation/states-intense- chase-protective-equipment-coronavirus-isnt-only-rival/)

</comment><comment><USER2> Very strange. CBP enforces federal laws generally, but there still must be legal authority for confiscation.

This does explain, however, the involvement of Chinese consuls general who have been thanked for successful shipments from China. CBP cannot confiscate diplomatic mail.

<comment><USER2> This is tweeted generally as fact; it needs to get cleared up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> One of those cases when no one is wrong or right

<comment><USER2> Either it happened or it didn't. Shrodinger's Cat doesn't apply to the seizure of goods at the border.</comment></comment>


Beyond product/market fit, 3 types of fit - <AUTHOR> http://www.philippcannons.com/2017/09/14/problem-solution-product-market-fit/ <comment><USER2> awesome explanation, we need more of these shared context explanations of fit within product development that does not get called out often enough</comment>


Track Commits. Not Time. - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/what-i-learned-building/5d9e1d61d34f

<comment><USER2> No, man. It's certainly useful to _read_ a developer's commit history. But at they end of the day they're just as silly and misleading as any other metric.

The only metric that matters is _business value_ generated. A really valuable developer might be able to make important strategic contributions to a project through just a handful of commits. While a particularly weak (or negative- performing) committer might be making zillions of commits, but actually doing irreparable damage to the project before anyone notices.

Those activity charts might make good eye candy, but if you don't know your developers or understand their working styles, they just won't tell you that much.

<comment><AUTHOR> (OP here) Oh, I'm must have not been very clear on the purpose behind tracking commits vs. time - for accounting purposes when recording what time gets capitalized and what time gets expensed. As for misleading, when we matched up commits to time spent per project, they lined up incredibly well, as mentioned in the article.

You're correct that business value is a crucial metric, but that's applied across departments and largely for strategic reasons. This is managed & handled entirely separate from how developer time is translated into accounting practices, which is what my post was about.</comment></comment>