Four-day work week – Lessons learned - <AUTHOR> http://www.triplet.fi/blog/4-day-work-week-lessons-learned/ <comment><USER2> > I start my day with a 1.5 hour walk with my dog Fanny

> I normally get rid of sleep debt on Friday by sleeping a bit longer than on > working day

> lunch with my wife

> travel to martial arts training

Sounds like this person is scheduling an extra day for networking/meeting clients/etc., then filling the day with "day off" type of stuff like 1.5 hour dog walks and sleeping in, then complaining that the "4-day work week" doesn't work.

Am I the only one seeing the disconnect here?

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm sorry if I was misleading, my intention was not say that 4-day work week doesn't work.

I just didn't have to use the day for meetings like I originally planned and instead I was able to write that blog post that you just observed.

<comment><USER3> I also read this as just describing how it worked for you, not saying that it didn't work. I guess some changes to the post might help though since people seem to be getting that impression.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> For over a year, I had a job that was 3 days a week. I loved it. I spent the other 4 days hacking on random stuff. I never had issues with sleep dept, but I did build up house keeping dept.

I don't see how people manage to do shopping when the shops are open while you are at work. Granted, some shops are open on Saturday and in the evening, but still. Who are they selling to on workdays anyway? Jobless people?

If I could find another 3-day job, I'd take it in a hartbeat.

[edit] I was mostly joking about "who are they selling to". But you'd think staggering the weekends should be more profitable.

<comment><USER5> Retirees, students, the unemployed and the travelling businessmen/self employed that have the ability to fit a couple of hours into the middle of a workday. People that work in retail/service jobs that don't necessarily work a generic Monday-Friday. Night workers. People at companies with flexi-hours.

That said, I'd love to balance my work with the ability to not stand in queues for shops because I can only go at the same time as the majority of other people. I do much of my food shopping as close to midnight as possible and buy most other things online to avoid the crowds.

Passed a certain (lowish) threshold of income, I'd almost universally rather less hours than more money.

<comment><USER4> Right? I could rent a room and buy the things I wanted and had money to spare. I wasn't even making that much money. Why would I work many long days to no personal benefit?

Except maybe to save for my pension and/or buy luxury items and toys I don't need. Only if I had a significant other and offspring would it make sense to make more money.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I recently started working a 4-day work week and gained some great feedback here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9505868](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9505868)

Rather than use the 5th day as a casual, side project workday as it seems the author of this post has done, I decided to take the day totally off. So far it has worked fairly well, though I have had to check in a few times (as I am currently doing).

The most important factors of my decision to experiment with the new schedule was that I have a 4-month old and want to spend time with her and my wife. I was also pretty confident that I didn't actually have enough work to fill 40 hours and was spending a good amount of time reading news or whatever else from the office when I could be hanging out with my family or enjoying the outdoors.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for sharing your experience!

Taking the day totally off especially when you have a special time period going on sounds like wise move.

I think in the future all this will be more popular as there will more and more people and less work due to the automation. One solutions is to decrease amount of work single person is doing and giving the rest for someone else.

Now I'm going to read the feedback section of your question.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> _Depending on your life-situation you might have a better-half, kids, pets, housework etc. All of them are your past decisions you need to live with and all of them require attention._

I'm sure this wasn't the author's intention, but, gee, imagine your wife or kids reading that. Kinda makes it sound like those things always must take a back seat to work.

Edited to add: sorry, didn't see `dan_blanchard's comment.

<comment><AUTHOR> Heh, I see your point. See dan_blanchards comment and my answer to it.

I'm not native English speaker and by mistake made it sound bit more dramatic than I originally thought.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> "All of them are your past decisions you need to live with and all of them require attention."

Wow, this guy's wife must love being though of as a "past decision [he] need[s] to live with." Maybe it's just me, but that strongly implies "past decision you would not make again."

<comment><AUTHOR> Haha, Touché! I actually gave this text to my wife for proof-reading and didn't receive any negative comments on that sentence!

<comment><USER9> As someone else who has written about my wife and the time commitment involved, may I suggest "obligations I've previously committed to" as an alternate wording :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Nice one, thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Is there a place to find a job with an employer who offers this kind of flexibility? I'm thinking particularly of software development jobs.

Edit: I know many people working 4-day work weeks are self-employed, but I'm curious for those who are looking for employment.

<comment><USER11> Good question. I am a software developer in Germany and on every interview now and then I ask for the 4-day-week. It was denied 11 times so far. Most employers consider this to be a joke and cannot believe I am serious.

After half a year in a company you have a right to get into part time work, but there are some requirements that have to be met and every employer I talked to in my career so far was very... unhappy when asked about it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting! I tried to switch for 4-day work week earlier when I worked in consulting firm and the excuse was that it's harder to allocate me to a project.

I asked that isn't four days easier to allocate than five days as it means less allocation? Would it be easier if I would work 6-days week? Never got answer.

Most of the excuses are bullshit. The truth in consulting business is that they don't get as much money from you (even if you cut 1/5 from your salary).

<comment><USER12> > The truth in consulting business is that they don't get as much money from > you (even if you cut 1/5 from your salary).

Well, that's true of most jobs. If your job is directly tied to revenue production, you're certainly counted on to bring in more money than your (fully-burdened) cost. But I can see it being a particular problem in consulting.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I've had a 4-day work week (working 80%) for a while and it's great. If your circumstances allow you to do this (and I recognize that most people can't), I strongly recommend it. I've been able to do a lot more on side projects (like blog posts). It also gives me much better "work-life balance" and more time to spend with my family - I know it's a cliche, but kids will be gone before you know it so spend time with them while you can.

A few disadvantages: First, I only get paid 80% as much. Second, it took a fair bit of effort at work to set this up at work; management was supportive, but they'd rather I worked 100% and it took multiple levels of approval. Third, this basically puts me off the career fast track. Fourth, from a social/cultural point of view, people don't really understand working 80% and I find it's easier not telling people about it (thus the throwaway).

<comment><USER14> > _First, I only get paid 80% as much_

When you consider tax, you're getting more than that.

<comment><USER12> Note though that your fully burdened cost to the company is something like your 1.3-1.5x your salary and things like health insurance are more or less a fixed cost to the employer independent of how many hours you work.

<comment><USER14> Right, so you're better to work 80% time and still get full everything else. Yet another reason to not work 100% time

<comment><USER12> Yet I see a lot of people who think 20% time off should "cost them" <= 20% reduction in salary. I agree that it's a good deal for (many) employees who value time off at least as highly as salary. But it's not such a great deal for the company making the offer.

<comment><USER14> _But it 's not such a great deal for the company making the offer._

Exactly. Which tells you as an employee it's a good deal!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I've worked all kinds of hours in many situations. My favorite are 4x10 shifts. They give you the full pay without the extra day of commute.

Next up would be a Sun-Thurs shift, I never do anything on Sundays that I can't do Fridays, and this is great for errands, catching up, etc.

My least favorite is overnight 10p-6a. These shifts are rare, and it's easy to feel like all you do is work and sleep.

Second least favorite is 4h Wed, 12h Thurs, 12h Fri, 12h Sat. They slimmed a 6-person team down to 4, and had an unmanned window of time on Wednesday. I drew the short straw and so worked 6p-6a. HN was my playground during those hours.

<comment><USER16> What kind of gig was the 10p-6a?

<comment><USER17> Possibly a need for 24/7 IT support with someone always active; rather than just being paged for emergencies.

<comment><USER15> Exactly - we handled the overnight emergency (top severity) alerts for a dozen other groups, as well as our own service. And we had to do the mailbox moves after-hours so they weren't disruptive to the end users.

Exchange 2010 I think added online automated mailbox moves, which obviated my job. So I've experienced software eating my job more than once.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> As mentioned in the thread, only TeamTreeHouse and Basecamp (this one only when you are there for a while) allow to have a 4 day workweek.

I strongly believe it will be a good asset for any company on many level.

First: If everyone is working 4 days a week it means you have to fill the gap. This means that knowledge must be shared and that you always have a backup plan no matter what.

This is great for the company because it allows better work, and a more relaxed mindset because you're not tied to anyone and you always have an employee ready to help you.

On the other side, the employees are more happy, have more free time and mind.

I don't know if every company could do this, but I sure do know it might be worth a try if your business allows this

</comment><comment><USER19> > The original plan was to use the fifth day for non-billable work such as > searching clients, meeting with people, doing mandatory paperwork, writing > blog posts, doing something that would later generate passive income etc.

That's work.

<comment><AUTHOR> The mandatory paperwork in case of freelancer is quite minimal effort. I have an accountant to whom I need to provide material. Currently in the paper form, but soon switching to electronic. Gathering the material takes about 2 hrs/ month.

Billing takes 5 minutes (I use web application called Zervant) and checking that the payment is received takes few minutes.

Then there are "random" stuff like updating insurance, meeting people (few times per month) etc.

Not that much stuff really.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> For those asking about how to get a four day work week - I've negotiated to a 4 day work week once, and do a 20 hour week a second time. Each time I just said it's what I wanted to do and the employer was on board, but each time was also after working full time for over a year. I'd try that route instead of looking for a new job that would do 4 days, as that seems pretty uncommon.

<comment><USER21> A coworker at my last job did something like that - he had been there several years, and asked to work only 4 days a week for 80% pay. I don't think he's ended up getting as much out of it as he hoped, though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> > _For example, next time I could take new client is after autumn and it 's > now June 5th._

Sounds like demand is greater than supply. A nice spot to be in for any business! Have you considered hiring help? Are you able to figure out a way to delegate some of the additional work and someday claim another day of the week?

<comment><AUTHOR> Good question!

I'm lucky in a sense that demand is high at the moment. I haven't been able to yet convert that to high hourly price, but it's high enough to actually have a 4-day work week.

I have considered hiring help and came to conclusion that I have two options:

A) hire an employee B) get another freelancer to help

As the demand is high it also means that hiring is also difficult for me. Front-end developers have plenty of options to choose from and that basically means that I should provide good culture, benefits, salary etc. which require lot of effort from my side to do properly. Also, hiring people in Finland is quite expensive due to the "overhead": insurances, pensions etc.

Providing work to another freelancer and taking a cut might be profitable when you've >3 freelancers working on a project you've successfully written contract for.

I am bit more towards karma thinking: if I recommend someone for free, the positive action will be returned to me when the demand is lower.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Same here, also having a 4-day work-week planning to run some sort of side- project. Actually all i do is fixing stuff of previous side-projects, setting op PoC's for new projects en creating a big pile of poo.

Besides that, dogs, cats and child need attention all day long, so sitting at home does not work at 1 day a week.

Now i am planning to give all that up, and just add the day to my work-week.

A full time job, without sideprojects, sounds more comfortable than a mess of private-work-life. It keeps your head spinning all day, not reaching the goals you imagined.

I am not able to take all day working on my own projects, so this seems like the only option to play safe and clear my head.

<comment><AUTHOR> Is there a possibility to go and do your stuff in other place than home? Library, cafe, co-working space perhaps?

<comment><USER22> Tried that, but it is to distracting, i also dont get how people manage to work at a place where all sort of people work on different stuff. Sounds more like a silicon valley/hipster kind of thing to me, which i am not.

I also tried to do it at the office where i work, but you can imagine that you will not be working on your own projects

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I've decided if I ever start my own business we will work Mon-Sat 4 or 5 hours a day (for a grand total of 24-30 hours a week). Especially in our industry I feel like productivity falls off after 4 hours of work. Plus Saturday sounds like a great day to get random stuff done. I know that kind of schedule isn't for everyone, but I think enough people would appreciate it that I could still get qualified workers. What do you all think?

<comment> saiya-jin Ever considered just taking a long break (ie 2 hours), spend it wither with some intense physical training & cool down afterwards (ie on some lunch)? In this way, you might be able to keep creativity & concentration high in afternoon too.

It might be just me, but I prefer whole days off compared to shorter more frequent work. Rason - I enjoy trips in nature, and all kinds of full-day or even full-weekend events (hiking, mountains, travel, whatever). The perfect situation for me would be 3 days off, 4 days work. The day I have to work, even for few hours, is already "taken" from me by work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> For a year, I had two part-time contracts, one for 3 days a week and one for 1 day a week. It was nice to have an extra relaxation day per week. It wound up ending when I got a full-time job for a 30% hourly increase.

It also made it easy to interview for a new job. I scheduled all my interviews on the off day.

</comment><comment><USER25> > _My free day is normally on Friday 's and first thing I do is get rid of > possible sleep debt that has been slowly increasing between Monday and > Thursday_

Perhaps write how much time you actually spend working. 4 days could also mean 60 hours.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good point! About 30 hours per week.

I'll update the blog post also.

<comment><USER25> Where is the sleep deficit comming from? I work 7 days a week, sometimes crazy hours in different time-zones, but dont have this problem.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's just me who to blame. I like to leave early to work, so that when I commute it's quiet and I can do work in the train. But the problem is than I like evenings. You just have to have one Game of Thrones episode and sleep rhythm is ruined. ;)

My normal sleep routine would be 23:15 to bed and 06:45 up, so about 7,5 hours. Everything under that I consider sleep deficit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I can't work at full stream with any sleep debt. Seems worth it to sleep properly all 7 nights of a week, then incur debt Sun-Thurs to be "fixed" Fri- Sat...

Seems not that healthy either to be chronically sleep deprived.</comment>


Female co-founder (not CEO): can this be an obstacle for investors' decision? - <AUTHOR>

We're a team of three founders (plus one non-founder) recently applied to YCombinator. One of us is a young woman (web designer) and she thinks we're better off not listing her as a co-founder.<p>There are many articles and interviews saying that VCs welcome female startup CEOs, but it's unclear about female co-founders (not CEO). It's perceived that in general women are more emotional, so does that throw up red flags to some  investors, since they may consider it a higher risk that the team could split up? <comment><USER2> This is insane.

First of all, no one's going to bat an eyelash that you have a female cofounder, and if an investor decides not to fund you because you have a female cofounder, then it is not an investor worth taking money from.

Second of all, if you don't list her as a co-founder now and you have interest from investors, what are you going to do, lie about it, or say "oh, shit, I am sorry, we forgot to list one of our cofounders earlier?" Regardless of how you think having a female cofounder makes you look, forgetting to list someone as a cofounder or lying is an immediate disqualifier.

<comment><AUTHOR> Why lie? You can be part of the team, but at the same time, not a co-owner.

<comment><USER2> I am sorry, I am thoroughly confused.

"In reality", is she a full-on cofounder or just an employee with some stock? Whatever that reality is, you must communicate that reality to your investors.

<comment><AUTHOR> A valuable employee, who's brought some fresh ideas as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> A VC who will marginalize an intelligent and productive co-founder just because that person has the wrong set of chromosomes - such a VC, I'm sorry, there's no polite way to say this - is a fucking moron. (I may be naive, but I find it hard to believe that such a VC exists). You do not want to do business with this kind of investor. You're creating a new, cutting-edge technology. A sexist, luddite dinosaur is not the type of person you want funding and influencing business decisions.

Don't hide the fact that you have a female founder. Her presence will filter out any sexist assholes and will ensure you find a true financial partner, whose interests align with your own.

<comment><AUTHOR> True. But not everyone has progressive view of life, especially some "old school (in a bad way) people" .

<comment><USER3> Absolutely, people like this may exist. And you don't want to jump into business with this type of person, no matter how much money they may offer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> No, do not misrepresent yourself or your team.

However, if I were you I would reconsider your plan. I think you may need a clinic specializing in paranoia more than you need a start up accelerator.

</comment><comment><USER5> It seems that if anything having a woman as a cofounder would be a positive thing. I am basing this off all the "women in tech" initiatives from big players in the industry.

<comment><AUTHOR> Big players and startups are quite different cases..

<comment><USER5> > she thinks we're better off not listing her as a co-founder.

Why does she think this?

<comment><AUTHOR> That's her opinion: "It's perceived that in general women are more emotional, so that may throw up red flags to some investors, since they may consider it a higher risk that the team could split up"

<comment><USER2> So what? It's also "perceived" that women are more scheming, which could be a thorough advantage in business.

<comment><AUTHOR> Probably that's the main reason for some VCs to especially welcome female startup CEOs, lol. But we're talking not about CEO.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Hashing to estimate the size of a stream - <AUTHOR> http://jeremykun.com/2016/01/04/hashing-to-estimate-the-size-of-a-stream/ <comment><USER2> This feels very similar to how the total work expended by the Bitcoin network can be approximated (not the current hashrate, but the sum of all hashes over time). Basically, you can take all of the block hashes, and find the lowest one of the lot. From that number, you can estimate the total work performed by the network in aggregate. The concept is basically the same here.

</comment><comment><USER3> I find this interesting, but somewhat sloppy writing. Examples:

 _" Problem: Estimate the number of distinct items in a data stream that is too large to fit in memory"_

That is _not_ what the title promises: the size of the stream.

 _" assume the data in the stream consists of uniformly random integers between zero and N"_

I guess the lower bound is inclusive and the upper bound exclusive (that probably doesn't matter in practice. It would matter if you want to estimate the number of different byte values in a data stream on a truly tiny device, but I would guess that anything that can do that division to get the estimate would have the 32 bytes to store a bitmask with 256 values)

 _" Maintain a single integer xMin [...] expected value would be 1/(xMin+1)"_

With xMin a nonnegative integer, that estimate (of the number of different values in the stream) would never get larger than 1. The code is correct; it multiplies by N to get a number between 1 and N (inclusive).

<comment><USER4> Thanks for the feedback. I updated the post a bit, but I'm not sure what to use in place of "size." Maybe "cardinality" but that's not a very appealing word for a title. Suggestions welcome :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> > So if we assume the data in the stream consists of uniformly random integers > between zero and N

This needs to be in the problem statement.

<comment><USER6> It shouldn't, the algorithm as described works for arbitrary data. The whole point of the hashing is to transform the stream of arbitrary data to a stream of uniformly distributed random integers, so that you can then apply the reasoning from that paragraph.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I enjoyed the discussion at least. I always enjoy these estimation algorithms. Most of the time, you don't really need a precise answer.</comment>


Genesis – A tool for data center automation - <AUTHOR> http://tumblr.github.io/genesis/

<comment><USER2> This looks like a rewrite of [https://tumblr.github.io/collins/tools.html#it](https://tumblr.github.io/collins/tools.html#it), which they never released.

As a shop that uses collins, we wrote our own replacement for invisible touch called alchemy linux. The key difference here seems to be that genesis uses scripts embedded into the image, where as alchemy gets the scripts dynamically from its PXE server, and is more of a dumb job runner.

<comment><USER3> You are correct in that Tumblr did not release Invisible Touch. Genesis is the outcome of lesson learned from IT.

Genesis does not use scripts embedded into the image. In fact this was the original design of IT and much of the reason IT was not released and Genesis was created.

</comment></comment><comment> vezzy-fnord So after taking a closer look, this appears to be a PXE installation and server provisioning tool not unlike Cobbler.

The difference is that it uses YAML for configuration instead of Red Hat's Kickstart format that also powers their Anaconda installer, is far more minimal, and seems to be intended for configuration on a lower level than Cobbler is typically used for.

Quickly skimming the modules, they're actually remarkably unsophisticated. Most of it just directly shells out to programs like Dell's firmware tools, or ntpdate (which is officially deprecated, funnily enough).

<comment><USER4> I thought it was more like Razor from PuppetLabs. [http://puppetlabs.com/solutions/next-generation- provisioning](http://puppetlabs.com/solutions/next-generation-provisioning)

<comment><USER3> Looking through the bulleted list on Razor. One use case for Genesis that drove its development is "Auto-Discovered Real-Time Inventory Data".

Genesis tho is intended for much more. It is both a linux image, a framework implementing a DSL which you can use to write tasks utilizing all of ruby.

Ex: Genesis allows you to configure hardware raid based on asset policies/attributes in Collins. Would this fall into "Policy-Based Provisioning?"

On "Open APIs and Plug-in Architecture", it is correct to state that Genesis is built around utilizing functionality from Collins, however there aren't specific limitation in Genesis which cannot be addressed to support other asset management systems, tho, this isn't a priority.

On "Dynamic Image Selection", currently we have an additional internal system that in conjunction with Collins provides support for OS versions, some aspects of this may at a later time be introduced into Genesis.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Mistitled. Looks like DC hardware inventory taking at time of ingestion, not overall automation of DC infrastructure.

<comment><USER3> You are correct in that one use case for Genesis is hardware inventory taking, however Genesis is intended for use with Collins and shares aspects of automation with Collins and Phil (internal tool not currently Open Sourced).

On the title itself, I think it is correct, tho requires more nuanced interpretation.</comment></comment>


In a new study, those who ate more organic food had fewer cancer diagnoses - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/23/well/eat/can-eating-organic-food-lower-your-cancer-risk.html <comment><USER2> Nope.

[https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/problems- with-...](https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/problems-with-that- organic-food-and-cancer-study/)

<comment><AUTHOR> I find most of this post persuasive, but it seems to me like there shouldn't be excessive certainty on either the yes or no column here. The author's claim is not "no, this is false" but "the study is not bad, for what it is, but is highly limited in the conclusions that can be drawn from it, and it has some serious limitations." It seems reasonable to remain agnostic for now and pursue further studies on the topic that attempt to more accurately correct for other confounding variables.

This also gives me pause: "It is certainly possible that some pesticide is causing adverse health effects at the currently used levels (although there is no current evidence for this)."

That claim seems to me to be false if we include studies on occupational use of pesticides [1]. It could definitely be the case that the residues that ordinary consumers encounter are entirely non-toxic, but again, it seems to me like the jury is still out on that.

[1] [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0128766)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Is this just a correlation or it's something more thorough?

People that have more money or are more health conscience tend to have better health could be another explanation.

<comment><USER4> Among my friends and coworkers, those who tend to eat more organic food also do a lot more physical activity/exercise than those who don't. This smells like correlation.

<comment><AUTHOR> From the article: _Participants in the French study also provided information about their general health status, their occupation, education, income and other details, like whether they smoked. Since people who eat organic food tend to be health-conscious and may benefit from other healthful behaviors, and also tend to have higher incomes and more years of education than those who don't eat organic, the researchers made adjustments to account for differences in these characteristics, as well as such factors as physical activity, smoking, use of alcohol, a family history of cancer and weight.

Even after these adjustments, the most frequent consumers of organic food had 76 percent fewer lymphomas, with 86 percent fewer non-Hodgkin's lymphomas, and a 34 percent reduction in breast cancers that develop after menopause._

Granted, it could be that these socio-economic factors weren't adequately corrected for, but they did at least attempt to.

<comment><USER4> How do you even make those adjustments? Do we actually understand the impact on developing cancer that exercise has, for example?

<comment><USER5> The field of biostatistics is dedicated to answering those kinds of questions:

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> open-source-ux Here's a review of the same study from the NHS:

 _" Despite the encouraging media reports, this study does not prove that eating organic food will protect you against cancer."_

[https://www.nhs.uk/news/cancer/eating-organic-food-linked- lo...](https://www.nhs.uk/news/cancer/eating-organic-food-linked-lower-cancer- risk/)

<comment><USER6> Re: the NHS Take on this..

<Previous research has demonstrated other potential beneficial effects of eating an organic diet, such as a lowered level of pesticides in urine samples>

Well this can only be a good thing..

i find it unacceptable that pesticides should be found in urine from eating anything in a modern society.

<comment><USER7> That in itself makes it worth it to eat organic food, in my opinion.

<comment><USER8> Especially with the growing concerns about glycophosphate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> People that drink exactly one glass of red wine per day are wealthier than average, don't over indulge, and live longer. Ergo, red wine makes you live longer.

</comment><comment><USER10> A thing that really annoys me on HN (though it's certainly not specific to this website but more general to any place where the users self style as 'intellectuals' or 'rationally minded' or whatever) is the amount of smart- sounding comments that betray a very cursory reading of what is being posted in the first place. For instance:

-Yes, we know correlation isn't causation. Don't you think the authors aren't aware of that, you know, being scientists and all? That doesn't mean they aren't useful and shouldn't be taken into consideration for making policies. It doesn't mean people shouldn't investigate correlations in the search of a potential causal link. For the record, many therapeutic drugs are approved way before the exact mechanism causing the therapeutic effect is known.

-Yes, they _did_ control for all the obvious things such as socio-economic factors and so on. You'd know it if you actually read the paper, but searching for confounding factors is literally high school statistics. Don't you think the PhD-level authors wouldn't have thought about that?

-No, no one ever said that there even was a causal link in the first place. It's explicitly acknowledged in the paper. What makes it interesting, though, is: 1) the large sample size and observation period, and 2) the _prospective_ aspect of it, i.e. they simply waited for possible cancer outcomes instead of actively going for them and hunting for correlations. This makes the findings significantly more solid.

Please, remember the guidelines: always take the most charitable interpretation of what someone says. Do assume that scientists are capable of doing their jobs, and whatever you've thought of in the few minutes of attention you gave this link, chances are the authors thought about it in the seven-odd years it took to publish it.

</comment><comment><USER11> Not discounting the benefits or organic food, but this specific study isn't very useful: there's certainly a correlation between eating organics and lower cancer rates, but there are too many other plausible variables (ie people who buy organics are more healthy in general: exercise more, have more disposable income (therefore higher quality of life), are more mindful of other environmental problems, etc).

What would actually be interesting is a double blind study: a group of people get a weekly box of unbranded vegetables, either organic or regular, then track health/cancer rates/whatever.

</comment><comment><USER12> "In a new study, those who ate more organic food had fewer cancer diagnoses"

The title is correct. And it's not surprising at all. People who eat organic food are usually richer, which comes with all kinds of health benefits.

What this study didn't show: That they had less cancer because of the organic food.

<comment><USER13> The study could have controlled for income, as it should for smoking, exercise, etc. Richer people also eat out more often (some, all the time) and usually are served the cheapest ingredients there, except for very expensive venues.

<comment><USER14> > Richer people also eat out more often (some, all the time) and usually are > served the cheapest ingredients there, except for very expensive venues.

I'm not sure about that last part. It's not hard to find moderately priced restaurants using quality and/or organic ingredients. It won't be fast food prices, obviously, but it isn't going to break the bank, either.

<comment><USER13> IDK, there's so many reports of rancid olive oil and the wrong type of fish being served. Ingredients are where restaurants can really save costs without anyone noticing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Was it a double blind study?

<comment><USER16> How exactly would you ethically conduct a double blind nutrition study that looks at cancer diagnoses in humans?

<comment><USER17> I don't think that's uncommon. You have something which you think reduces _problem X_ , and you give it to half of your population, and a placebo to the other half. Over a long period of time, you observe the rate of _problem X_ across both populations. I believe we have done this with many different kinds of problems, including cancer, heart disease, arthritis, etc.

<comment><USER16> If it's not uncommon, then it should be easy for you to cite one.

<comment><USER18> Your reply is unnecessarily combative and short. Assume good faith in grandparent's reply, and preferably try to find out yourself and report back your findings.

Meanwhile, have a bit to read on the ethics of placebo-controlled clinical trials (which is what is meant with "double blind" study here): [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3844122](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3844122)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Retro Gaming Roundup: 40 iPhone Games to Take You Back in Time - <AUTHOR> http://theappleblog.com/2009/09/16/retro-gaming-roundup-40-iphone-games-to-take-you-back-in-time/

<comment><USER2> Frotz is incredible. If you're into Interactive Fiction, give it a go.

I note that their Tetris isn't the original Tetris, it's a "modernized" version.

<comment><USER3> Some other games there are quite 'modernized' as well. SimCity being an example.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I must have wasted years playing those games... Wonder how many of them are abandonware now?</comment>


Show HN: NoMouseAllowed - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/doodzik/NoMouseAllowed <comment><USER2> No mouse on a Mac? What's next, no BSOD on Windows?

<comment><AUTHOR> I see the irony. Although I sometimes find it helpful to disrupt my mouse usage. For example when I want to learn new keyboard shortcuts or test a website for accessibility.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Props for linking the inspiration (also a Mac-only utility) in the README!</comment>


Instagram Launches One-Touch Photo and Video Messaging App Bolt Outside the US - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2014/07/29/instagram-bolt/

<comment><USER2> I'm in NZ and have downloaded it and signed up. I've never really gotten into SnapChat because my SnapChat network is slightly too small to keep me using it regularly.

As far as I can tell, the success of these similar apps boil down to network effects. If Instagram can transition their Instagram users into Bolt users in NZ, it might be able to compete with SnapChat, but until they do, it's clearly an uphill battle to build these redundant networks.

Regarding name stealing, I recognise that a lot of people put effort into their branding and I'm not a trademark lawyer, but I haven't seen much success with little companies defending messaging-app marks against big companies.

</comment><comment><USER3> Previously: [https://blog.bolt.co/2014/07/28/dear- instagram](https://blog.bolt.co/2014/07/28/dear-instagram)

And our discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8096936](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8096936)

<comment><USER4> This was the first thing I thought about when I saw this was released. It will be interesting to see if that goes anywhere.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Just a copy clone of Taptalk.</comment>


Apollo – Funding for Moonshots - <AUTHOR> https://apolloprojects.com/ <comment><USER2> No disrespect intended, but what is the point of using terminology like "moonshot" coupled with tiny amounts of funding like $3m. If moonshot is taken to be a loose reference to the Apollo program - which I imagine it is otherwise the name is poorly chosen - then the funding amounts are off by several orders of magnitude. In 1960 the US government got its feet wet with a 900 million (in 2020 dollars) spend on the Apollo program and ramped up to a high of 40,000 million a year by 1964. The total spent on the Apollo program between 1960 and 1973 was 283,000 million or almost one hundred thousand times as much as the 3 million investment under the moonshots fund.

Sure the 3 million is a seed round but the US spent 300 times as much on its exploratory "seed" round in 1960.

It is unlikely until he extreme that any real "moonshot" will achieve significant impact without the combined talents of a large percentage of the world greatest talents driven by goals of the highest social priority funded by limitless pockets and organized by the very best managers and leaders that society can produce.

3m will achieve none of that.

<comment><USER3> For once, I disagree. When spent wisely, $3M can make a huge difference in a development of promising technology.

And I am not talking just about software - an aerospace, material science, fusion or biotech startup can work with that.

<comment><USER4> > can work with that

I think the more apt wording is it's enough to get to the next round of funding

<comment><USER3> Well, true!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm probably ignorant in this, but this program feels like normal venture capital with different branding.

Moonshots are very exciting but also have an incredibly low success rate. Investing in only five companies makes me believe that they're either setting themselves up for failure (unlikely bc these people are smart) or they're trying to fish for startup pitches with a different branding approach.

</comment><comment><USER6> To all the voices in the thread who are commenting on how only $3m is no Apollo project: my fusion startup in the 1990s was financed with less than that (even including the inflation adjustment). Sure, we didn't make self- sustaining fusion, but it wasn't lack of money that stopped us. This level of funding may not give you an Apollo program, but it could easily give you a Robert Goddard.

The section on "Why don't more people start them" was interesting to me. One hugely important thing I don't see mentioned as a possible cause is the failure path (i.e. what happens when you fail, which is the most likely outcome). This is drastically different in 'moonshot' fields than in software startups. In many fields, a failed startup causes permanent career damage, so that's a big reason why people don't start them.

Because of this, I think the founder equity exchange program is a great idea. I would have happily diversified 10% of my stock with other founders, and it would not have de-incentivized us at all.

<comment><USER7> "Sure, we didn't make self-sustaining fusion, but it wasn't lack of money that stopped us. "

What was it?

<comment><USER8> Guessing a lack of good results :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > A network of moonshot companies could be the modern-day version of the great > research efforts of the past.

It would be super interesting to know what led YC to abandon HARC, which actually had a membership comparable to the great research efforts of the past [1], in favor of doing things this way. I don't believe they have ever said much about that, it just seemed to vanish.

[1] [https://harc.ycr.org/member/](https://harc.ycr.org/member/)

</comment><comment><USER10> > _As an initial experiment, we will fund about 5 companies._

This is the most telling line in the whole thing. Why? Well, for n=5 to be a useful experiment, the success rate would have to be... way higher than 1 in 100 or even 1 in 10! They're practically asking for people who want to open fast food franchise locations.

<comment><USER11> Or maybe they use these 5 to experiment and iterate on the program, and then fund another 15-20 in 6 months from now, and by then they'll have a nice batch of 20-25 companies, hoping that one of these will become a decacorn or more.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> > There will be an optional founder equity exchange with other companies in > the program, which will somewhat reduce the risk for founders and hopefully > encourage a lot of collaboration.

This is super cool. I wonder where this idea came from.

<comment><USER13> I had a similar idea back in 2010. See here :[https://web.archive.org/web/20101218084431/http://chestergra...](https://web.archive.org/web/20101218084431/http://chestergrant.posterous.com/startup- insurance)

"

October 12, 2010

Startup Insurance

This post is another theoretical post. Humans by nature are very risk averse. Start-up in itself is very risky with a high probability of failure. Failure in the start up world means lost time, lost opportunity, lost capital, lost confidence and so much more. For some of us we handle these risk pretty well and can perform excellent under these conditions, but for most of us, we would rather have these risk mitigated if we could .

One of the questions I have often pondered was how to succeed at this start up game in one go? How do I mitigate my risk to the point that failure is almost impossible?

Consider VC or even Y-combinator, the way they mitigate their risk is to acquire small equity in a lot of companies. The companies that make a killing pay for those that didn't make one. Let suppose you had 10million to invest and you are investing 20k into each business for 10% equity and the probability of making 100million is 10%[These numbers were chosen for ease of calculation and only here to illustrate a point] . The probability that you don't make back your 10million is 1 x 10^-23 reflecting a very minute risk.

In the case above, only the VCs are actually reducing their risk; the startup themselves are still faced with 90% chance of failure. I think startups should basically use the same strategies as VCs to mitigate their risk. Each startup donates 5% equity to what would be the equivalence of an insurance scheme, if somehow your start goes bust, no need to worry cause at the end of period you would be given profits from all the rest companies that participated which should be enough to get you back on your feet."

<comment><USER14> This isn't a new idea. There was such a founder equity swap program that Google was nearly a part of, but the other founders thought the valuation Sergey and Larry were demanding was too high.

This is from memory, and I tried to search for a source, but the keywords are practically ungoogleable. Maybe someone else knows more.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> So what other VCs are out there funding moonshots? I'm curious, cause I'm working on a moonshot of my own.

It's still fairly early-stage (self funding, saving money by doing a lot myself + hiring Russian aerospace engineers) so if there's anyone here on HN with a spare 20k/100k/1MM they want to spend on awesome futuristic technology, my email's in my profile :)

I'm keeping the specifics of my company under wraps (to everyone but potential investors), but the idea is radically improved long distance transportation here on Earth with a near-zero carbon footprint as one benefit.

I've considered various US gov't funding options, which can be really nice (they don't take any equity & some are pretty lax with how you spend the money) but those take a while to get, and you generally need someone who's got experience writing proposals if you want to have a good chance.

<comment><USER3> Someone said "Russian aerospace engineers"? Can you share a bit about your idea? My email is firstname.lastname@example.com

<comment><USER15> Sure! Sent you an email :)

Hiring Russian aerospace engineers worked out great for me so far, but I'm not sure I'd recommend the process to most startups. The biggest thing is that the geniuses that speak English well have all left Russia for various reasons. That leaves you with either non-geniuses, or geniuses with poor English. Usually, they've tried to learn English themselves and didn't get as far as they'd like, so "just hire a language coach" isn't a simple solution here. If you just want a lot of average engineer bodies, though, you can get that for cheap. I imagine it'd be ideal for something like building a tunnel or a bridge, with a lot of routine calculations and established design procedures.

The other big thing is the hiring itself. I got extremely lucky - I'm good friends with a great Russian technical recruiter living in Moscow, who was able to actually find people for me. But even with that huge advantage, it was tough.

If anyone has questions about the process, ask away - the idea of hiring expert engineers/programmers from cheaper countries has always fascinated me, and surprised me with how difficult it is.

<comment><USER16> Anecdote 1: I have a translation of a Russian book of high school physics problems, most of which I can't solve.

Anecdote 2: Michael Spivak's "Calculus on Manifolds" is famous as the hardest math textbook an engineer will have to tackle. Well, there are major theorems in that book that are "easy" exercises in Vladimir Arnold's Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics.

<comment><USER17> > I have a translation of a Russian book of high school physics problems, most > of which I can't solve.

Irodov by any chance?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> As a historical note, the actual Apollo project to the moon cost $25.4 billion dollars, which corresponds to over $150 billion in current dollars. So this funding is about 4 orders of magnitude short of the real moonshot. (This is not meant as a criticism of Apollo Projects, but just to put things in scale.)

<comment><USER19> To be fair, they're not expecting you to put someone on the moon with $3M

> We expect you to have a big vision and a "Tesla Roadster"—a concrete first > step, ideally something you can accomplish in a year or two

Seems the $3M is to get to that first step vs. achieve the vision.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I'm all for supporting moonshot ventures!

I did find it amusing though that "affordable housing" is listed as an example of a moonshot venture, considering the core reason behind high housing costs (in the US at least) is overly restrictive zoning.

Though I guess one could say it would take a venture of that scale to defeat the entrenched and gatekeeping NIMBYs and enable much more housing to be built.

<comment><USER21> It doesn't take a genius to figure out how to make affordable housing. It's not like the US can't afford it. It's a wealthy country, look how much they have for the military.

It's just not a problem capitalism is gonna solve. There isn't huge profit to be made. Government could solve it.

<comment><USER22> Maybe I'm naive, but isn't this exactly the type of thing capitalism is good at doing (lowering prices)? My understanding is that greedy capitalists would love to build more, denser housing here in the Bay, but are unable to due to zoning restrictions as the parent comment suggested. Why isn't this a problem capitalism can solve?

<comment><USER23> But local residents block new developments, using zoning and other methods, since new developments (affordable or not) lower their own property values.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> How far along with your company / MVP do you have to be? I imagine they want to see a compelling demo, not just a plan or idea.

I'm still a little too early with my project to meet the July 11th deadline, and I'd feel ashamed to pitch too early. It's a very ambitious moonshot project, though.

20% for 3M sounds generous for some, but perhaps risky for those that are further along. What do comparable investment offerings look like?

</comment><comment><USER25> Sorry if this sounds dumb, but what is a "charter country"? Are there examples of startups doing this?

<comment><USER23> Sounds like "seasteading".

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

<comment><USER25> It doesn't look like that's had a great track record in terms of actual country building. If they meant seasteading I suppose I can see why they'd avoid using that phrase but then I'm doubly confused as to why they'd point it out as a category for investment.

I'm curious as to how historically "charter countries" are significantly different from a model like imperialism, and if I'm entirely off base here what _startups_ would qualify as a success in this category (that I've obviously clearly failed to understand.)

<comment><USER26> Because starting a country is really hard. Technical issues aside, you have to convince at least one, and ideally several, countries to accept the passport you issue and engage with you diplomatically.

Besides, there is no real history of country creation without violence to assert borders, and a charter country would assert a monopoly on violence within its geographic borders, which can displease a lot of other countries.

> significantly different from a model like imperialism

You can imagine a direct democracy anarchist commune charter country. Which is pretty opposite to imperialism.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> We'll apply, for sure.

P.S. Our moonshot: [https://www.exodusorbitals.com](https://www.exodusorbitals.com)

<comment><USER27> What's your moonshot?

<comment><USER3> Beating Elon Musk in his game, for starts.

We are working on making space more accessible for everyone, through "satellite-as-a-service" model. We will allow software developers to upload their code to our satellite, creating an application development platform in space.

You can read more about us at our website in parent comment.

<comment><USER28> What is your approach to time sharing, and packaging? Do I send you an ELF binary, source, a Docker container?

I read: [https://www.exodusorbitals.com/files/nova_mission.pdf](https://www.exodusorbitals.com/files/nova_mission.pdf)

Will there only be one instance of the "user segment" per Satellite, or will there be one supervisor / bus, with lots of simultaneously running user segments?

<comment><USER3> The short answer: you send us the source, we build, test and deploy the application package (binary+configuration files) to the satellite user segment.

The answer to "one or many user segments" will depend on what we will learn from that ESA mission ourselves. Some satellite instruments can be shared simultaneously, some require exclusive access and have to be accessed in sequential order.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> This is awesome! It will be interesting to see if a new trend of moonshot project startups emerge, and if their returns can be comparable to software startups.

<comment><USER30> > _... and if their returns can be comparable to software startups._

Strictly speaking, there's nothing that says moonshot startups can't be pure software plays.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I want to see an incredibly accurate physics/chemistry simulator in distributed software.

This is the same first step needed to support automated testing materials science at a massive scale, which will unlock innovations in battery energy density, photovoltaic energy capture efficiency, construction materials, manufacturing efficiencies, etc.

AI/ML require some way to verify proposed designs, similar to OpenAI's Gym. A physics/chemistry simulator would save massive time by allowing software automation to allow software to run simulations in massive parallel.

I see this as a "human genome" sized project that unlocks massive amounts of basic science.

<comment><USER32> So, my research is focused around exactly this topic (high performance computing is one of the words you're looking for, I believe) and unfortunately I think I'm obligated to tel you from an engineering perspective it's basically a non-starter. There are a few reasons why:

1) Very high-fidelity codes which you're describing, accurate at the molecular (atomic?) scale are typically never usable in any meaningful sense for macroscopic scenarios. This is usually because they're either too computationally expensive, taking too long to run even on huge supercomputers, or because we actually don't know how to bridge the gap between the small and large-scale physics behavior.

2) It's unclear what you mean by "incredibly accurate". Different fields have different definitions of what accurate means (as well as different kinds of physics they're trying to take into account) so your ultra-accurate simulator in one domain might be very off in another. From reading your comments it seems you're most interested in materials science. That's not my direct field of expertise but if they're anything like every other field of science/engineering, there is a very strong division in the field with regards to what kinds of simulations are used where.

3) This is something people usually don't think about, but stuff like materials research is protected not just by proprietary laws but actual government export control laws. So not only will such a distributed system be looked at with raised eyebrows by corporations, but the US government might move in to shut it down if there's suspicion that the distributed information is getting to nodes managed by foreign nationals.

In short, there are a plethora of issues related to the scope and objective of what you're proposing. It would require a Herculean amount of effort for an unclear payoff, unfortunately.

<comment><USER33> >It would require a Herculean amount of effort for an unclear payoff, unfortunately.

Yup, almost like a virtual moonshot or something . . .

<comment><USER32> That's fair, the term is usually abused out of context. Let me give a bit more context: the amount of effort required would probably be up to a trillion dollars, just to be generous. You're talking about making a generalized physics solver at-scale after all, a lot of domains we don't even have a good model for how things work. It's dangerous to assume that the scientists working on these projects/simulations don't use generalized physics solvers just because they're not ambitious. It's almost universally because reality is messy and difficult to model in full, so approximations and compromises have to be made otherwise you'll never get anything done. I find that mathematicians and theoretical physics peeps tend to fetishize universal solvers in this way, but the long and the short of it is those guys only fetishize it because they live in a perfect physics world where inconvenient factors are abstracted out to a coefficient and they just say "that's an implementation problem". Making simulators which can actually be trusted is difficult, time consuming, and sometimes completely counter-intuitive. So I wouldn't call what this person is suggesting a "moonshot" per se, I'd more call it "attempting to create God".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> > Sam, Max, and Jack Altman (Max is going to run the program, and Sam and Jack > will be available to advise the companies)

Is there a list of advisors we can see as well?

</comment><comment><USER35> Based on the name and it not being mentioned at all, I guess this is US only? In general, websites seems to always mention the countries where you can apply from, except US websites that simply assumes everyone is in the US or otherwise knows it's restricted to the US.

</comment><comment><USER36> Cheers to this. Startups and the ecosystem in general (funding) seem increasingly drawn to incrementalism -- largely unimaginative solutions to low-stakes problems but with a high perceived exit probability.

We need way more things like this.

</comment><comment><USER37> > _WHAT IS A MOONSHOT COMPANY?_

> _A company 1) focused on a significant technological development or complex > coordination and 2) that could have a transformative impact on the world._

> _EXAMPLES:_

> _Rapid response vaccines, non-carbon energy, solar geoengineering, VR /AR, > biological manufacturing, new education formats, new medicines, affordable > housing, and charter countries._

What are some examples of current or past startups that could have qualified for Apollo?

<comment><USER37> Some examples that come to my mind:

– Boom

– Genentech

– Pixar

– SpaceX

One challenge is that there's an implicit third requirement for moonshots: _3) transformative potential must be recognizable at the start_. Thus, a company that sells BASIC interpreters for the Altair might be missed.

<comment><USER38> "BASIC interpreters for the Altair" doesn't sound impressive, but "a computer on every desk, Microsoft software in every computer" was Bill's actual pitch and is a bit better.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> EXAMPLES:

> Rapid response vaccines, non-carbon energy, solar geoengineering, VR/AR, > biological manufacturing, new education formats, new medicines, affordable > housing, and charter countries.

I think none of these are moonshots except "new education formats"

I think this is a problem.

Moonshot doesn't have to be, we wish this existed.

It should be, this field hasn't had much work and no one has gone down this path, it's about exploring a new world.

VR/AR are done to death for instance and will continue to be done. Someone will just loophole this with a interesting X (that's done to death) and add the word VR to make it sound like a moonshot.

Moonshoot idea - setup a framework that allows people to accurately identify moonshots.

</comment><comment><USER40> "Moonshot" and "Apollo" as in "vast spending of money for a show of that isn't actually transformative but is cool"?</comment>


Verizon says it received over 321,000 legal orders for user data in 2013 - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/01/verizon-says-it-received-over-321000-legal-orders-for-user-data-in-2013/ <comment><USER2> Are they reimbursed for these? If so how much? I am curious if its a money making process for them or if the costs are just rolled into "the cost of doing business"

Still the numbers are beyond phenomenal, bordering on insane. Just how does one go about validating that all these request are remotely legal, let alone how does one go about generating so many requests!

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes the providers usually have a contract based fee that they charge for each one.

This article ( [http://www.cbsnews.com/news/verizon-att-get-most-bucks- from-...](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/verizon-att-get-most-bucks-from-feds- for-wiretaps/) ) is for wiretap fees but has this info: "AT&T, for example, imposes a $325 "activation fee" for each wiretap and $10 a day to maintain it. Smaller carriers Cricket and U.S. Cellular charge only about $250 per wiretap. But snoop on a Verizon customer? That costs the government $775 for the first month and $500 each month after that".

According to this ( [http://www.cnbc.com/id/101178369](http://www.cnbc.com/id/101178369) ) article: "The C.I.A. is paying AT&T more than $10 million a year to assist with overseas counterterrorism investigations by exploiting the company's vast database of phone records, which includes Americans' international calls".

So yes I'm sure assisting government agencies in this way is quite profitable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Having worked at one of these carriers I can tell you that everyone there trips over themselves to help out law enforcement. Everyone is constantly thinking up new ways to help, particularly if it's a service they can charge for or some data they can sell. You can be a part-time meter maid in Cracker Barrel, Arkansas and if you know which number to call you will get pretty much any data on any number you want. There was some bespoke software where the cell numbers of undercover law enforcement are not returned from searches but otherwise the data is voluntarily shared because really the government contracts for cellphones from every vendor are so big who would jeopardize them?

When they get a big public backlash about a thing like this the company's lawyers pop in and remind you of the policies, demand to see that you are following them, etc. but no change occurs.

</comment><comment><USER4> 321k for one carrier (that were reported) meaning a conservative total would be ~1 million requests. 2013 census reports that there are 8 states with populations of 1 mil or less.

</comment><comment><USER5> So out of the 321,000 orders how many caught a suspected terrorist or foiled a terrorist plot?

<comment><USER6> To be fair...

some of these could be just cops targeting suspected criminals who have nothing to do with terrorism. Also, I suspect a very large number may just be divorce cases or civil proceedings.

They don't ALL have to be tied to terrorism necessarily.

<comment><USER5> Ahh that makes sense then. I thought it was referring to the FISA court orders from the NSA, not orders from all agencies.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> One every 2 minutes.

<comment><USER8> Assuming each of these were for different persons, that amount of request would already amount to about 1/1000 of US population.

Given that Verizon isn't the only telecom operator in the US, the percentage of people under surveillance is quite significant.

And I assume this is only non-secret requests, we've heard news about such requests that are accompanied by a gag order which probably wouldn't end up in transparency reports.

<comment><USER9> I don't have hard information here, but I suspect the number is far lower. Each one of these requests is likely for a very small time period; keeping a single individual under surveillance likely takes a large number of requests.

Furthermore, the vast majority of these requests are subpoenas (161K) which can be issued in divorce proceedings or legal tussles over car accidents (was the driver texting?) among other uses.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> From the article: 6000 pen register or trap and trace orders (real time info of who called whom). And (drumroll, please): 1000 to 2000 National Security Letters.</comment>


Is there already a non profit independent organization for flagging fake news? - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/11/18/my-fake-news-list-went-viral-but-made-up-stories-are-only-part-of-the-problem/?utm_term=.e6d41af7819a <comment><AUTHOR> I hope the title for this link is not misleading. I'm genuinely curious of the answer and hope people read the full article.</comment>