Google bosses convicted in Italy over a user video (that shows bullying) - <AUTHOR> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8533695.stm

<comment><USER2> Prosecutors with unknown motives:

\- Sued randomly chosen executives of Google

\- For someone unconnected to them uploading a video to YouTube

\- Before Google owned YouTube or had any relationship with YouTube

\- For a video that was taken down upon being reported

\- By its new owner which promptly turned over information about the uploader to the authorities

And the judge convicted these randomly chosen executives?

How is there even standing to make them the defendants of this case?

It's hard to believe this actually happened.

<comment><USER3> There's a media company owned by Silvio Berlusconi suing Google in one of those "you should pay us for indexing our content" lawsuits that Rupert Murdoch is always threatening to launch.

That probably explains a lot about this decision.</comment></comment>


What Happens When Anonymous Gets A Bank? - <AUTHOR> http://bigthink.com/ideas/38488

<comment><USER2> I think people misunderstood Jason Calcanis' article. Actually, his article is not so "OMG we're doomed!" at all, as the headline implies. From the article and the video I got that he's actually _pro-bitcoin_.

When he said it's "the most dangerous open source project" he's ever seen, he meant it in a _creative destruction_ kind of way, which is true. It would disrupt the financial system a lot, but that doesn't necessarily make it a bad thing in the grand scheme of things.

Also, from the way this author writes the article, I get the feeling he doesn't really understand Bitcoin or its purpose. He makes it sound like it would only ever be used by evil-doers, and I don't think that's true at all. Changing the way money are used and changing the status quo is not inherently bad, even though the incumbents in most markets seem to think that when they get disrupted. I'm sure a lot of people think the _Internet_ is bad, too.</comment>


Yes, Fossil Fuel Subsidies Are Real, Destructive and Protected by Lobbying - <AUTHOR> https://www.forbes.com/sites/walvanlierop/2019/12/06/yes-fossil-fuel-subsidies-are-real-destructive-and-protected-by-lobbying/#715ad094417e <comment><USER2> Welfare for the rich destroying the planet and transferring tax dollars including income taxes, tariffs and taking away benefits from the poor (like food and healthcare, killing people) to said rich. Austerity, hate on poor people who manage to get some crumbs and "worker harder, it's a meritocracy" for everyone not rich. And if you talk about it, you're a "BHL." (a pejorative misnomer that actually conflates an "excessive" sense of social justice with a particular form of even more contradictory libertarianism.)</comment>


Ask HN: DOCX to Markdown and Markdown to DOCX - <AUTHOR> I am looking for solution that would allow me to convert DOCX to Markdown and also the reverse.  I would like to be able to support embedded pictures as well as tables.  Is there such a system?
My ultimate goal is to be able to track the documents as Markdown in a git repository.
I came across this
https://github.com/benweet/stackedit
which has some conversion from Markdown to PDF but I do not see PDF to Markdown. <comment><USER2> A .docx file is a zip containing a one or more .xml files that describe the document. I once had the idea of of giving meaningful names to images in one...after all, it's xml and xml is just text and supposed to be human readable. It isn't. Word documents are rather complex, that's where the "one or more .xml files" comes in. It's why Microsoft built its own open standard back in the aughts when Sun was arguing that OpenDoc was good enough, i.e. Microsoft would have had to remove functionality from Office to implement it.

Which is to give some background on why .docx -> .md -> .docx might not do what users want it to do, if what users want at the end is what they put in at the beginning or something close to it. Markdown simply does not contain as much information as .docx. Even "only" going to .html will probably be a mess: last time I dealt with an html file generated from Word, it was full of local markup 's, but it might have become better since it's been a while.

Anyway, if I were trying to version track .docx files, I'd probably do something like unzip -> commit -> zip and forget about trying to read diffs in the repository.

Good luck.

</comment><comment><USER3> Pandoc supports conversion from DOCX to Markdown and vice versa: [http://pandoc.org/](http://pandoc.org/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Have you tried it with embedded pictures and tables in DOCX?</comment></comment>


Fastest rotating man-made object created - <AUTHOR> http://phys.org/news/2013-08-fastest-rotating-man-made.html <comment><USER2> Very cool! Small fast-spinning objects have practical use as 'spinning rotor pressure gauges'. They're the true pressure transfer standard at very high vacuum. You can buy them.

Beams et al. were spinning steel ball bearings at megahertz in the sixties. (For the fourier-inclined, the readout uses a cool trick. They bounce light off the bearing and track the frequency of the ~50th harmonic, increasing the size of the frequency shift.)

600 million RPM is 10 MHz. Beams reached at least 1 MHz, and their circuitry could do 8.

[http://rsi.aip.org/resource/1/rsinak/v33/i2/p151_s1](http://rsi.aip.org/resource/1/rsinak/v33/i2/p151_s1)

Thank you, OP, it's been fifty years since this field has seen a change.

</comment><comment><USER3> Made me want to look up dental drills. Wikipedia says they can spin up to 800,000 RPM.

Never would have occurred to me that the fucking drill in my mouth was rotating 10,000 times a second.

<comment><USER4> Those dental drills are powered by an air turbine, though.

Dyson (notable for their vacuums) actually have done a bunch of work pioneering high-speed electric motors. The Dyson Digital Motor is awesome and runs at +100k rpm. They're used in the "Airblade" hand dryer.

[http://www.dyson.com/vacuums/ddm.aspx](http://www.dyson.com/vacuums/ddm.aspx)

<comment><USER5> The dyson motor doesn't show any sizes, but 100k spindle motors are not impossible to make. They're commonly used for PCB production

> Some of the high performance spindle motors used on large-size mass > production PCB drilling machines are capable of running at 200,000 rpm or > higher.

from [http://www.mitspcb.com/edoc/spindle.htm](http://www.mitspcb.com/edoc/spindle.htm)

<comment><USER4> It's surprisingly large: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kcGltYWz3k](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kcGltYWz3k)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> In hope of finding relativistic effects, I calculated the outer edge of the spinning object travels about 7.85 m/s. Sigh...

<comment><USER7> I was hoping I could find something natural that spun faster, and thought that neutron stars might just be a candidate. Nope, not even close: _" The star rotates 716 times per second - faster than some theories predict is possible"_ [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8576-fastspinning- neut...](http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8576-fastspinning-neutron-star- smashes-speed-limit.html#.Uh5A03eBW2k)

<comment><USER8> > I was hoping I could find something natural that spun faster ...

A bit unrelated to your comment, but the original experimenters could have spun a buckyball instead of a sphere of calcium carbonate and gotten much, much higher rotational velocities. I hope they think of this.

<comment><USER9> Can you kindly explain how even a UV laser, with a wavelength of about 200 nm, can apply enough torque on a buckyball about 1.1 nm across?

My first thought was that the EM field would be essentially uniform, so what you propose wouldn't be possible. What am I missing?

<comment><USER8> > Can you kindly explain how even a UV laser, with a wavelength of about 200 > nm, can apply enough torque on a buckyball about 1.1 nm across?

No chance. But it turns out there are larger fullerenes:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fullerene#Other_buckyballs](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fullerene#Other_buckyballs)

But as it turns out, the larger fullerenes aren't as strong as C60, so my original idea probably wouldn't represent any easily achieved advantage.

<comment><USER9> As jlarocco and others point out, based on astronomical evidence, we know that C60 buckyballs are plenty strong enough to rotate at a much higher speed than this macroscopic experiment:

For example, "Hydrogenated fullerenes and the anomalous microwave emission of the dark cloud LDN 1622" (www.iac.es/folleto/research/preprints/files/PP06009.ps ) says:

> The recent detection of anomalous microwave emission (5–60 GHz) in LDN 1622 > by Casassus et al. can be explained as the result of electric dipole > radiation from hydrogenated fullerenes. The bulk of the emission (10–30 GHz) > appears to be associated with 60–80 carbon atoms fulleranes with a degree of > hydrogenation of C:H ≈ 3:1. ...

> The emissivity of fulleranes with more than 240 atoms are already two orders > of magnitude smaller than that of the C60 hydride and peaks at a frequency > of ∼3 GHz, far below the frequencies relevant to the anomalous emission > detected in the cloud.

It looks like C240 should be able to handle 1GHz rotational speeds without a problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I hate it how phys.org has apparently randomly placed links in the text pointing to the same site, giving no extra explanation about the linked word, just a list of articles vaguely related.

<comment><USER11> Could not agree more. It's unfortunately a common (and obviously automated) way to get page views. Extremely aggravating.

Put a list of related articles at the end. But don't underline terms like "radiation pressure" and expect me be happy when you don't immediately tell me what that is. And especially don't put the article I'm reading as the first result.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Quote: "To do this they manufactured a microscopic sphere of calcium carbonate only 4 millionths of a metre in diameter."

Calcium carbonate? How disappointing. Maybe they can be persuaded to spin a buckyball instead -- it would tolerate much higher centripetal forces.

<comment><USER12> It seemed like an odd choice to me at first, but they probably chose calcium carbonate because of its ability to polarize light:

[http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/P/polarization.htm...](http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/P/polarization.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Is there anyway for the generate electricity?

Example: They stick a tiny magnet in there, have it rotate super fast surrounded by cooper or something.

<comment><USER14> Why would this generate electricity? The energy put in to spin the ball must be higher than what you get out of it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Just to be sarcastic for a second about this title: "Fastest rotating man-made object created"

My answer: "No shit"

</comment><comment><USER16> This is very interesting. I'd like to see followup work done with a charged sphere and even a Bose–Einstein condensate, if possible.

As a layman, this looks to me like a really neat way to ask questions and learn more about the nature of reality. Cool stuff.

<comment><USER2> People do the analog with BECs. Look up BECs and, perhaps, Gauss-Laguerre beams, though there are other ways to rotate them.

Like superfluids, BECs don't rotate in the usual way. Instead, vortices are quantized and the vortices pack.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80%93Einstein_condensat...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80%93Einstein_condensate#Vortices)

See the 'vortex lattice' in this photo:

[http://ucan.physics.utoronto.ca/News/report.2006-07-06.39490...](http://ucan.physics.utoronto.ca/News/report.2006-07-06.3949014531/view)</comment></comment>


Dear Vine/Twitter et al, please support oEmbed, and support it properly. - <AUTHOR> http://sloblog.io/~hmans/6JjuoQdAC-M/dear-vine-twitter-et-al-please-support-oembed-and-support-it-properly

<comment><USER2> Putting OAuth authentication on an oEmbed endpoints strikes me as counterproductive.

<comment><AUTHOR> I concur.</comment></comment>


Puffchat threatens user after he exposes serious security problems with app - <AUTHOR> http://www.iclarified.com/38808/puffchat-threatens-user-after-he-exposes-serious-security-problems-with-app

<comment><USER2> I'm all for competition but there is nothing more unappealing than the way the founder is acting about his product. After reading the security article I did a look around as well and the thing is still wide open. The security on it is like a piece of swiss cheese. It's sad that he didn't just acknowledge the issues and let everyone know a security update would be on it's way or hell even hire or work with the guy who pointed out the flaws and clean everything up.</comment>


Save Firefox - <AUTHOR> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/04/save-firefox <comment><USER3> > [The W3C] needs to hear from you now. Please share this post, and spread the > word. Help the W3C be the organization it is meant to be.

This isn't about the W3C.

This is about EME, and about the companies that created it and promoted it: Google, Microsoft and Netflix (as you can see on the spec, for example [https://www.w3.org/TR/encrypted-media/](https://www.w3.org/TR/encrypted- media/) ).

Telling the W3C not to do DRM is not going to be effective. The only thing that can work is to put direct pressure on the parties behind EME, and their products: Google and Chrome, Microsoft and IE/Edge, and Netflix.

Not only is it not effective to focus on the W3C, it's counterproductive - <USER2> shifts the blame away from the real culprits just mentioned. If you lobby the W3C against EME but still use products from the companies that created EME, you're sending mixed messages at best.

Furthermore, even if somehow we got the W3C to not do EME, it wouldn't matter. Google, Microsoft and Netflix would still be implementing it. They would just find another standards body.

<comment><USER4> Your last sentence is exactly right.

Sure DRM is bad, but you can't tell people not to build things a priori like that, and DRM will be built because the content studios demand it, and the studios hold the content which everyone wants. The EFF greatly overestimates the amount of influence browser makers have. No amount of technical pressure will make an ounce of difference, because browser makers have literally no leverage on rights holders. If the streaming technology isn't available, then the studios will simply choose not to stream it, and whoever builds it first will have a huge market advantage.

Fighting EME not only is ineffectual, it harms open web standards by giving legs to completely proprietary solutions like Flash and Silverlight. The bottom line is that EME is a cleaner solution which compromises in a way that will make open standards more relevant going forward rather than taking an ideological position that will undermine the utility of open standards in the marketplace.

Instead of attempting to fight a self-harming losing battle, I wish the EFF would focus on the real problem which is the DMCA's overreach. Studios should feel free to build whatever DRM schemes they want, just like the people should be free to circumvent those measures for content they have legally purchased. Copyright law is sufficient to balance individual and studios' rights across a diversity of scenarios with getting a technical quagmire that benefits no one.

<comment><USER5> EME is not even a complete standard, its basically just a shim to bridge in a closed source DRM module that can do arbitrary things on the host platform, and needs specific DRM module support from providers. You cant just target EME as Netflix, or some other streaming site, you have to target Google Widevine, or Apple Fairplay etc.

Implementing EME in no way enables you to use these DRM technologies, so its a 100% worthless "standard".

The DRM/CDM modules are not browser agnostic either, and the browser <-> CDM api is entirely unspecified.

<comment><USER6> _closed source DRM module that can do arbitrary things on the host platform_

I don't know about other browsers, but at least Firefox is sandboxing EME modules so that they can only do a few approved things (security bugs aside, of course).

<comment><USER7> Perhaps the new browsers can implement the Firfox interfaces and install the same proprietary modules if they are so inclined.

<comment><USER8> Back then, Mozilla's plan was for the CDM to inspect the running Firefox and deny playback if it detects tampering of the relevant browser parts.

How the hell that is supposed to work if the CDM is oh-so-sandboxed is left as an exercise for the reader.

Did anyone actually check that own builds of vanilla Firefox sources are able to use the Adobe CDM? Wouldn't surprise me at all if it only worked with the official Mozilla-signed Windows binaries (yep, at least the Mozilla flavour of the "portable" and "interoperable" EME is provided for Windows and Windows only).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Media DRM is not and never was primarily designed to prevent piracy. Rather, DRM is used by content producers (Fox, Disney, Warner, etc) to assert control over the rest of vertical market. This article is a prime example of this. Thanks to DRM the movie studios force browser vendors to sign agreements to get access to the CDM, and from that agreement they can assert control. They can subtly suggest, for example, "Hey, Mozilla, could you revamp your plugin API to make blocking ads harder? It's fine if you don't, but, oh, by the way, your CDM agreement expires next month. Looking forward to seeing you at the re-negotiation meeting."

The same thing goes for encryption on Blu-ray discs, which forces Blu-ray player manufacturers to sign agreements with them. HDCP on HDMI and DisplayPort asserts control over TV manufacturers and infests video cards.

This is the same industry that pushed the DMCA on us, extends copyright in perpetuity, sues families because their kid downloaded an MP3, would like nothing more than SOPA to pass, etc, etc.

I know that the comments here like to demonize Google, Microsoft, Netflix, etc. Honestly, I don't believe it's their fault; Netflix in particular. Netflix is in no position to fight this. If they say no, the media empire will pull all their licenses and the company will collapse. And Netflix is already fighting for its life against these same companies for net neutrality (the major ISPs are owned by the media empire...). Google is leashed by its need for advertising revenue. Microsoft is beholden to its customers, who want access to DRM'd content.

In other words, we shouldn't be taking our fight to the W3C, Google, Microsoft, Netflix, etc. The media empire is the real enemy here. And there's hope. The rise of cheap, digital cameras and distribution platforms like YouTube and Twitch have enabled a wide array of independent artists to create AAA content mostly unbeholden to the incumbent media giants. Some of the best and most entertaining content I've watched has come from Patreon funded YouTubers. If that was the only content that the world watched, the media empire would starve and whither away, and DRM along with them.

<comment><USER10> Is there real evidence for this? Does Paramount care about ad blocking?

I feel like the simple explanation (DRM is about piracy + a certain worldview about effectiveness about DRM) is a bit easier to believe than a conspiracy.

DRM is being used as a red herring so that movie studios can control web browsers? What?

<comment><USER11> Paramount is a subsidiary of Viacom, which does care about ad blocking.

Here's an interview where the CEO fields a question about the topic: [http://www.businessinsider.com/viacom-bob-bakish- interview-2...](http://www.businessinsider.com/viacom-bob-bakish- interview-2016-2)

"Some of the traditional — dare I say — mediums like television remain very healthy and very attractive for advertisers because they're not subject to the whims of adblocking."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > This system, "Encrypted Media Extensions" (EME) uses standards-defined code > to funnel video into a proprietary container called a "Content Decryption > Module." For a new browser to support this new video streaming standard -- > which major studios and cable operators are pushing for -- it would have to > convince those entertainment companies or one of their partners to let them > have a CDM, or this part of the "open" Web would not display in their new > browser.

This is the crux of the issue. The W3C is creating a standard which gives control to the publishers over which browsers can display their content.

Whether that's "right" or "wrong" is worth debating, but sometimes the real issue at stake gets obscured in these discussions.

<comment><USER13> I've read many articles critical of EME and this is the first time I've heard this information. If true, as you said, it is THE issue.

It was always my assumption that EME represented a standard way for CDM's to interact with the browser. EME is to CDMs as NPAPI is to plugins. That is to say, a CDM can theoretically work in any browser implementing the EME standard. Is this assumption completely false?

<comment><USER13> That assumption may indeed be false.

See here[0] in the FAQ "What does this mean for downstream users of the Firefox code base?"

 _> >> The solution consists of three parts: the browser, the CDM host and the CDM.

>>> However, the CDM will refuse to work if it finds itself in a host that isn't identical to the Mozilla-shipped CDM host executable._

At first, I interpreted this to mean Mozilla, not Adobe, had implemented the restriction due to some particulars about the deal with Adobe. But I was wrong...

 _> >> This leaves downstream users of the Firefox code base with the following options:

>>> 4\. Making arrangements directly with Adobe to get a non-Mozilla CDM host executable recognized by the CDM._

In other words, the CDM can discriminate on the CDM host.

My only hope is that this is non-standard temporary behaviour while Mozilla finishes EME. Otherwise, this is extremely terrible.

[0] [https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/05/reconciling-mozillas- missi...](https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/05/reconciling-mozillas-mission- and-w3c-eme/)

<comment><USER14> ...and this - I guess - is where the DMCA issue that the EFF raises comes in.

Because sure, you could build a browser that loads Adobe's CRM and fools it into thinking it's been loaded into Firefox - but if you did that, you could well be construed as defeating a technological copyright protection method.

<comment><USER13> So then, the only way CDMs are acceptable IMO is if they're never given enough information to know where they're running.

This should be a critical part of the standard and I'm surprised I haven't heard the EFF pushing for this, specifically. If the CDM has enough information to discriminate, your choice of browser for watching DRMed video is entirely in the publisher's hands.

The fact that you may get in trouble for fooling the CDM to run on another browser is almost beside the point. Why should we trust a black box with ANY information outside of the DRM-specific?

A website can refuse to load based on my user-agent, for example. However, I have full control over what the website knows about my browser including my user-agent. Because of this fact, I am always free from browser-discrimination on the Web.

But I have zero control over what the CDM knows about my browser. Therefore, the CDM has _complete and unavoidable_ ability to prevent me from accessing parts of the public Web based solely on my choice of browser. AFAIK this is unprecedented. It means that users are no longer free from browser- discrimination, perhaps for the first time in the history of the Web.

<comment><USER15> > This should be a critical part of the standard

The standard is not at all concerned with the browser-CDM interaction, sadly. And yes, that's a major issue with the standard. We (Mozilla) brought it up repeatedly when the standard was being developed, because it causes precisely the issues you describe, and basically got ignored. Microsoft, Google, and Netflix (the editors for the standard) simply didn't see this as a problem.

Now in practice, Mozilla aims to give the CDM as little information as possible, because we think it's the right thing to do. But nothing in the EME standard requires us to do that, and I can't tell you what other browsers do with their CDMs.

> It means that users are no longer free from browser-discrimination

That's correct. You never _really_ were, by the way: sites can and do use Modernizr-like testing instead of UA string sniffing to detect what browser you're running, so the only way to avoid being discriminated against by a site that really wants to discriminate is to have a browser which responds the same way an "approved" browser does to all API calls... Doable, but in practice requires using an "approved" browser with some tweaks that are invisible to the site.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> k-mcgrady Honestly, I'm not against online/streaming content being protected with DRM. I don't think it's very effective but it doesn't effect me as I don't own the content so I don't really care.

This seems to be a step to far though. The browser should be a standards based 'viewer' that anyone with the will and the time can create. Let's say Netflix implements this DRM. They account for more than a third of internet traffic. If your browser can't support Netflix it's dead in the water.

This is open to so much abuse. The gatekeepers (it seems to be the entertainment companies in this case) get to choose which browsers live and die. As we've seen over the last 20 years competition in the browser space is very important - without Mozilla stepping up and competing with IE I can't imagine the sorry state the internet would be in today.

Edit: Once again, the DMCA rears it's ugly head. Time and again it seems to be the thing that is abused to screw over consumers. Maybe that's what we should actually be fighting against.

<comment><USER16> I don't have any problems with the concept of DRM (controlling how a movie is used) but I have major issues with what is required to implement it. Essentially by definition you need to run some code that the user doesn't control on their computer. How Firefox does it isn't that bad because it is fairly well sandboxed but over time the urge will be to push it further up the stack so that gaining access to the content becomes more and more difficult.

I suspect give enough time they will push until they close the Analog Loophole.

<comment><USER17> It seems to me that the implementation issue is just a symptom of a deeper problem: copyright and DRM by definition grants a monopoly. This monopoly can be abused. For instance, if you want to watch movie X and it is distributed in such a way that you have to give private data, your options are not to watch it or get a "non official" version.

Could the copyright law be extend in order to prevent its abuse and protect the consumers, for instance by using the concept of "abusive clause" [0]?

[0] [http://en.wikimediation.org/index.php?title=Abusive_clause](http://en.wikimediation.org/index.php?title=Abusive_clause)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> > This system, "Encrypted Media Extensions" (EME) uses standards-defined code > to funnel video into a proprietary container called a "Content Decryption > Module." For a new browser to support this new video streaming standard -- > which major studios and cable operators are pushing for -- it would have to > convince those entertainment companies or one of their partners to let them > have a CDM, or this part of the "open" Web would not display in their new > browser.

Isn't this just a standardization of the status quo, with Flash/Silverlight? Why is it that I always feel like I'm being sold a bill of goods when I read EFF pieces?

<comment><USER19> I am a little confused by this comment. What status quo?

Silverlight is deprecated. Flash is (at least seems to me) taking its final breaths.

HTML5 pushed many web native standards for open media: [https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Web/Guide/HTML/Usin...](https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Web/Guide/HTML/Using_HTML5_audio_and_video). In fact, the HTML5 video/audio was so open that YouTube had to kill a Chrome extension that allowed users to use YouTube as a music source without advertisements or video: [http://thenextweb.com/insider/2015/07/21/how-youtube- killed-...](http://thenextweb.com/insider/2015/07/21/how-youtube-killed-an- extension-with-300000-users/#gref). (Side note: the history of what went on with Streamus is woefully simplified in this article...but let's just say the Streamus dev was open from Day 1 with Google but only after his extensions started getting traction they shut it down.)

Anyway, moral of the story is this would be a standardization that steps _back_ (in many ways) to the days of Flash/Silverlight dominance...not standardization of the status quo (at least IMO).

<comment><USER18> The status quo is this:

If I build a browser right now from scratch, it can't play Netflix videos.

<comment><USER20> Can't you just implement NPAPI to get silverlight support and then fake a user agent to get Netflix to give you the right content?

<comment><USER21> I have tried implementing NPAPI loading in a standalone C++ app to load Silverlight, but failed horribly. NPAPI is badly documented. Anyone here with any tips? :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> The biggest problem is intellectual property. Copyright lasts life + 70 years and patents last 20 years. That's a long time to have a legal monopoly on something, and is partly why companies are so big and can behave so badly.

Innovation comes through competition, not monopoly. Ideally, we'd eliminate patents and copyrights altogether, but as a compromise, I think having terms of 3 years, with no renewals, is fair. That way a business can capitalize on what it creates and get a 3 year head start on competition, but you still get competition fairly soon which benefits consumers.

<comment><USER23> I doubt reducing the monopoly period would stop companies from pushing DRM, but the length of IP protection is ridiculous and has to change.

3 years will never happen, though. 10-15 years for copyright and 5 years for patents is more reasonable.

<comment><USER24> I saw a study some years ago that compared the interests of copyright holders of that of consumers, and concluded that 14 years after initial publication (non-renewable of course) is the optimal duration for copyright.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> You can test your convictions by disabling DRM content in Firefox. Uncheck "Play DRM content".

Unfortunately, convictions won't have consequences on future decisions because the standard is here and the more you wait the more it becomes embedded. W3C allowed it to come to light when various plugins wouldn't make DRM viable or at least more difficult to implement and reach general agreement. Now, even if you can opt out with Firefox, Netflix really don't care about that because you decided to disable it so you are a bad client anyway. I understand why the article is talking about pop-ups because the moment Firefox decided to implement it, we lost the fight. I use Firefox but lately, I am saddened by their lack of strong convictions and how they tend to follow google a little too much. (At least, FF sandboxed the CDM, while not perfect, the other browsers didn't do it, isn't it?)

<comment><USER26> >Uncheck "Play DRM content".

You need to turn this on <_<

about:config browser.eme.ui.enabled true to allow the checkbox to be displayed.

FF 46.0.1 OS X.

<comment><USER25> I didn't have to turn this on. It's in Content section by default...

[https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enable- drm](https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enable-drm)

media.eme.enabled to false to disable EME if you want to tweak the config.

<comment><USER24> I had to turn it on: FF 45.x-esr on OS X (cannot specify ".x" because apparently the "About Firefox" dialog is broken).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Can someone explain why we're stoking the fire this late in the game, not that it shouldn't be?

Firefox implemented this since May 12, 2015 -- [https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2015/05/12/update-on- digital-r...](https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2015/05/12/update-on-digital- rights-management-and-firefox/)

Chrome's had it since v 42

[https://www.chromestatus.com/feature/6578378068983808](https://www.chromestatus.com/feature/6578378068983808)

<comment><USER28> Because, with the recent decisions re Thunderbird & Firefox, the only browsers that were designed with the intelligent and free user in mind aren't getting better - they're actually getting worse. Also, EFF has been running articles about DRM lately. It's not that we're only stoking the fire now... It's that they are writing about it again.

<comment><USER29> > Thunderbird & Firefox, the only browsers that were designed with the > intelligent and free user in mind

That's not remotely close to being true.

<comment><USER30> some examples, por favor?

<comment><USER31> Vivaldi?

<comment><USER32> Vivaldi is (a) new; (b) based on Chromium; and (c) not actually open source. (I use both Vivaldi and Firefox, but not Chrome.)

Historically, Firefox has been the main user-entered browser, but not the only one. Especially if you include forks.

<comment><USER28> Vivaldi also shares a design lineage with Opera 12 and previous, in terms of who the designers are/were. When we lost Opera, I think we lost the open web in a lot of ways. As much as Opera was a closed-source proprietary engine etc. browser, it stood out against the background of the larger Web giants. When they folded and gave in to Google, I was horrified.

Still, the loss of a Community Firefox is a bad thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Are clickbait titles permitted on HN? The link has absolutely nothing to do with Firefox, let alone "saving it". It's an opinion piece / call to action regarding the W3C and the state of Encrypted Media Extensions. "Firefox" does not belong in the title, as it's irrelevant to the topic. Luring us with the name of a popular open source application, to then present a piece with a barely-related agenda behind it should not be acceptable.

As a side note, I'm sad to see that the EFF has adopted a PETA-like strategy to the way they tackle issues.

</comment><comment><USER34> > users want to sit in the driver's seat.

> We need more Firefoxes.

> We need more browsers that treat their users, rather than publishers, as > their customers.

Until they started talking about DRM I was hoping that we were "saving Firefox" from mandatory extension signing.

As of Firefox 47, you will not be able to install any extension which hasn't been digitally signed by Mozilla. There will be no about:config setting to override this. They claim that this will prevent adware from disabling the digital signature requirement. But it's also taking power out of the hands of users, with the justification that supposedly Mozilla knows better than their users do what code they want to run.

This is the death-knell of Firefox for me. I'll be switching to an unbranded fork and hoping that the security updates keep coming.

[https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add- ons/Extension_Signing](https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Extension_Signing)

</comment><comment><USER35> I'm interested to see how effective the EME is to prevent illicit copying of media. YouTube and Netflix both use DRM _now_ but it doesn't stop youtube-dl or pirate WEB-DL rips from netflix from existing.

</comment><comment><USER36> There is a way to protect the content by adding per-user (subscriber) watermarks in the video/audio streams. Thus, no one will need these shady CDMs and Co. Of course, you say, you can try to find those watermarks/etc. But in the same way you can try to circumvent CDM code as well. Still, it will allow to eliminate proprietary extensions from the web standards.

</comment><comment><USER37> Question: He says EME will allow publishers to dictate which browsers can implement CDMs that can interoperate with their content, and therefore control the browser market, and that this will quell innovation. I have questions about this, however. In the old but waning status quo, Adobe and Microsoft got to decide which browsers would work with Silverlight and Flash (right?) so it still wasn't possible for a developer to make a new browser that could play DRMed video without getting their permission. What is the meaningful difference from the new status quo?

Is the difference that now, publishers control content and compatibility, whereas before publishers controlled content and DRM companies controlled compatibility? Is that actually a meaningful change for users or for browser developers? It doesn't seem like it is.

Am I missing something?

<comment><USER38> > In the old but waning status quo, Adobe and Microsoft got to decide which > browsers would work with Silverlight and Flash (right?)

Nope. The status quo was that any browser which implemented NPAPI (officially the Mozilla plugin API, but historically used by everyone but IE) could use Silverlight and Flash. That's how Google Chrome got Flash support initially and the reason why obscure browsers that neither Adobe and Microsoft cared about could still support both.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Honest question: How relevant is DRM in preventing piracy in non-interactive media?

Consider a theoretical world in which DRM would reliably prevent unauthorized copying or decryption of DRM-secured content 100% of the time. The obvious attack vector for pirates would be to play the video and audio and just capture it with a camera directly in front of the monitor, and a microphone attached to every speaker.

Are pirates doing this today, or is it just not worth it because DRM schemes are easily circumvented? I'm quite confident that copying of the physical signals should produce good results. There are consumer cameras capturing 4K video, and a video that's distorted by a non-orthogonal view on the screen can trivially be fixed in software. (It loses some fidelity, but you should still be able to get near-full-HD output out.)

</comment><comment><USER39> I just found out that Firefox removed the 3D Inspector with v.47. It's a shame because that was an excellent tool for auditing and inspecting. If you haven't had the chance, give it a whirl.

<comment><USER40> It was a neat tool for sure, but apparently did not work in multi-process Firefox. Guess it wasn't used enough to merit a rewrite.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Better solution: repeal the DMCA.

</comment><comment><USER42> Isn't it trivial to reverse engineer the DRM module to create its clean room open source implementation thus effectively deprecating it?

<comment><USER43> And then it's trivial for the DRM creator to sue you under the DMCA. I also suspect that CDMs can update (this is called "renewability" in DRM newspeak).

<comment><USER44> If the reversing and reimplementation happens outside of the US you can avoid the DMCA issue entirely. Or take steps to publish anonymously.

<comment><USER8> You probably should also give up on going to any conferences on US soil in the future.

<comment><USER44> That's true, they treated Sklyarov most unfairly, given that it was entirely legal in his home country.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> > Literally none of the dominant browsers from a decade ago are in widespread > use today.

Sorry to nitpick and detract from the real point here, but unless my memory deceives me IE was the dominant browser in 2006 and by a lot of measures still is. What a bizarre statement to make.

<comment><USER46> Chrome, for better or for worse, has the largest market share, by a fair margin. IE11+/Edge, Safari, and Firefox each have a good share, but none are dominant.

IE10 and lower are down to 1-2% (!).¹

[1]: [http://caniuse.com](http://caniuse.com)

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> Well, the issue is that popups were a nuisance, while being able to watch all those publishers content is not.

I totally understand the concerns, but making users choose something out of ideology is much harder than simply providing a better experience.

</comment><comment><USER48> Let's get something straight here. This EME debacle was never a choice between DRM and no DRM, it was a choice between _DRM in a consistent standard_ vs _DRM with a thousand ad-hoc plugins_.

The browser without EME will be pilloried by its users for not supporting the content they want to access. Users use a browser to access content, not to support philosophical positions on what software should and shouldn't do.

The lesser of two evils was chosen. You don't have to like it, but that's the reality of this situation. It is _not realistic_ to suggest that the largest browser vendors not support user demanded content.

Speaking of philosophical positions, most DRMed content accessed by a user in a browser is going to be of the streaming variety, i.e. something that DRM isn't preventing you from doing something you're otherwise not supposed to be doing anyways.

<comment><USER49> The unsupported assertion that a DRM-free universe "is not realistic" is not an argument, even when it is repeated for emphasis in italics.

In the music industry, DRM seemed inevitable until one morning Steve Jobs woke up on the wrong side of the bed. Then the whole thing crumbled overnight.

iTunes was _not_ "pilloried by its users for not supporting the content they want to access". Users _did_ prefer to buy DRM-free music, bolstering iTunes marketshare in the process. The historical record demonstrates the opposite of your hypothetical.

If Chrome or Safari drew a line in the sand and said "No DRM", that would be the end of DRM on the web. It seems they are not willing to do that. But that is a reflection on the lack of leadership at the technology companies, not on the inevitability of DRM.

<comment><USER48> No it wouldn't have - we'd just continue on the existing path of multiple different plugins with their own incompatibilities and security holes, which is strictly worse for the user.

Furthermore, you imply a level of informal cooperation between the browser vendors that doesn't exist. It turns into a game of prisoners dilemma, where the first person to defect gets to claim a massive feature that none of the others do, and the others are left in worse shape.

I'm no fan of DRM, but again, it's the world we live in.

<comment><USER50> > we'd just continue on the existing path of multiple different plugins with > their own incompatibilities and security holes, which is strictly worse for > the user.

And this is how it should be. I want users to get tired of installing more plugins. I want them to roll their eyes when a site says "you need to do add $x to be able to use this site." We had the same problems with mp3's, and we won out. I see no reason we can't win out with any other media.

<comment><USER48> _And this is how it should be_

Only if you ignore:

* Users "rolling their eyes" means nothing when they'll gladly click OK to dismiss all the security warnings and installations of n plugins so they can watch Netflix. They'll complain, but the plugin will still be installed at the end of the day. I'd rather that plugin be sandboxed.

* That the practical implications of lessened security are more real, hence important than the theoretical concerns by a sandboxed plugin who's entire mission in life is stopping you from recording a fscking video stream.

The user you're talking about, the one who signs up for Netflix, gets prompted to download a plugin, shakes their head sadly and cancels their subscription because DRM is evil, doesn't exist outside of FSF patrons.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> I'm actually more concerned by the "save itunes" ( [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11670232](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11670232) )

</comment><comment><USER52> The problem here is capture. W3C has been captured by the digital restrictions management cabal. Mozilla, Google, Apple, and Amazon are playing along. In three cases, they _are_ the cabal.

</comment><comment><USER53> If firefox really cared about its users maybe it should stop force-feeding "value-adds" like Hello and Pocket down everyone's throat by default.

<comment><USER54> If Firefox really cared about its users maybe it shouldn't have broken the security of Firefox Accounts and Sync. It used to be secure; it no longer is.

<comment><USER53> Source?

<comment><USER55> [I edited my answer, because now I read that new system is claimed to be end- to-end secure as well]

[https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/sync-your-firefox- bookm...](https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/sync-your-firefox-bookmarks- history-passwords-and-)

In the old system your data was encrypted with a key that was only stored on your devices. Adding a new device meant that you had to do a kind of key exchange process (which was perceived as complicated[1]).

When Mozilla introduced the new system there was very little information on how the data was encrypted. I think the documentation only said that they used TLS (or something like that). But when reading their current documentation I see that it's not the case; they are apparently encrypting your data with a key derived from your password. So if you use a (cryptographically) strong password it should be secure[2]. Assuming that it works as documented of course.

[1] [http://www.cnet.com/news/mozilla-adopts-plain-vanilla- passwo...](http://www.cnet.com/news/mozilla-adopts-plain-vanilla-password- sign-in-for-firefox-sync/)

[2] [https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-sync-upgrade- fr...](https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-sync-upgrade-frequently- asked-questions)

<comment><USER54> The new system encrypts one's secrets with a function of one's Firefox account password and stores it on Mozilla's servers. That has two effects: one, an insecure Firefox account password (i.e., a password it is possible to remember) can compromise one's entire synced data; two, anywhere one enters one's Firefox account password is a potential danger.

As it turns out, Mozilla serves JavaScript files which are used to handle Firefox account passwords. Any government Mozilla is beholden to could compel them to serve malicious versions of those files and steal one's Firefox account password (and then decrypt all of one's synced data, including passwords). Likewise, a malicious Mozilla employee could do the same.

As a result Mozilla Sync may no longer be used by anyone who cares about the privacy of his browsing history and/or passwords.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> Currently, watching a DRM protected video requires flash and gives an inferior experience than watching a non DRM protected video. Most of the non protected video can be easily downloaded using youtube-dl. Recently, I wanted to watch a movie on M6 live (french TV). Firefox (on wine to have the latest upgrade of flash) crashed twice. As a result, I downloaded it from a torrent and removed it after watching it.

I think the current situation gives a lot of motivation to avoid DRM. If EME becomes a standard, we would lose much.

<comment><USER56> To make my opinion clear: current situation is a mess, a future with EME would be a hell.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> I thought from the title that this was a plea for Mozilla to rewrite Firefox from scratch since it such a bloated mess

<comment><USER24> Actually they're rewriting the better part, see Servo.

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> firefox invested more time in the omnibar nobody wanted than in fixing compatibility issues.

we are actively discouraging people using firefox because whenever we try to use anything modern, firefox will fail it.

the wonky outline implementation has been borked for more than a luster, has multiple bug opened and ignored etc. [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=687311](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=687311)

and I found people complaining as early as this [http://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2010/03/css-bugs-and- inconsi...](http://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2010/03/css-bugs-and- inconsistencies-in-firefox-3-x/) and now I wonder how many of those are still there.

firefox cornered itself out of relevance, and this

"We need more Firefoxes.

We need more browsers that treat their users, rather than publishers, as their customers."

doesn't match with firefox priorities as observed so far at all. firefox needs to save firefox.

</comment><comment><USER59> Just don't pay for DRM'd content. Use torrents, libgen, etc.

</comment><comment><USER60> Can someone clarify what is meant by `publisher' in this piece?

<comment><USER12> The parties which provide the content, often the one's who create it but not always. As opposed to the browser vendor, or the consumer (browser user).

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> What Firefox needs to be saved from, it's from Mozilla.

</comment><comment><USER62> Doesn't Mozilla have a lucrative deal with Yahoo? I mean Yahoo!

<comment><USER63> yeah but so? from my read-through, its not literally "save the one and only firefox", its "we need an environment that allows for other browsers to enter the field" which DRM prevents

<comment><USER64> Does EME prevent new browsers from implementing it freely. I admit I haven't read the spec but from what I've read second-hand, it seems like it enables the _vendor_ to ship the DRM code as a binary blob that runs natively in a sandbox.

As I understand, EME doesn't lockout new _browsers_ , it locks out new architectures and kernels. But any new architecture that comes along that anyone would want to use to view DRM-encumbered media would be mainstream enough that content providors would support it, and people running an experimental OS kernel already have to use a more traditional system for a lot of things, and probably aren't a demographic too keen on DRM in the first place.

<comment><USER15> EME doesn't prevent browsers from implementing EME. But since EME doesn't describe how the browser should talk to the CDM (just how scripts on a page talk to the browser), implementing EME is not useful in terms of working with actual CDMs that exist in the real world...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> Servo might save it the c++ codebase for firefox is a nightmare but servo could wind up taking back the crown from chrome.

</comment><comment><USER66> As much I would love to... Just recently switched from FF to Chrome since the latter just works technically a lot better :-(

Hope the new servo engine can make FF shine again otherwise I fear the worst.

<comment><USER67> You really should have read the article before posting.

<comment><USER66> True ;)</comment></comment></comment>


Sapphire Got People Talking About High End Credit Cards, Amex Reaping Benefits - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-05/amex-regrouped-after-being-stung-by-jpmorgan-s-sapphire-attack <comment><USER2> Content marketing?</comment>


A national housing crisis is brewing - <AUTHOR> https://m.sfgate.com/news/article/A-national-housing-crisis-is-brewing-What-13505365.php <comment><USER2> The real housing crisis is the inability of cities like SF to approve redevelopment projects to tear down single story structures and build multistory structures as fast as is needed by the growth of the economy.

We might not like to admit this but part of this problem is us: people vote against putting up an apartment complex across the street from them while claiming that "affordable housing" should simultaneously exist. This leads to all sorts of bad decisions like restricting this building, but when we do build it, setting aside two apartments for "low income" occupants that is intellectually dishonest at best.

<comment><USER3> I always see this parroted. But there is two facts that come into play that are ignored biy this bit of propaganda.

1\. It's not just housing but transportation infrastructure. Of which SF has developed nothing other than the 3rd St light rail and the Central Subway. After that there is _nothing_ in the pipeline. Which means nothing will be built for the next 15-20 years.

2\. They are building new multifamily. Cost is about $700-1000 a square foot. Unlike you I had a talk with my insurance agent. Guess what, _rebuilding_ costs between $600-1000 a square foot.

Really the solution is not more housing in SF but to move tech bro jobs elsewhere more affordable. Like Detroit.

<comment><USER4> > Really the solution is not more housing in SF but to move tech bro jobs > elsewhere more affordable. Like Detroit.

When the tech bro jobs leave, SF will be in dismay, it wont get better. SF city spends 2,600U$S a month per household. If it were to lose its corporate/sales tax revenues, it would have to cut spending aggressively, and it will not make rent cheaper: it will make it unaffordable, exacerbating unemployment which could lead to rising homeless ness.

SF is in a terribly delicate position right now, its just masked by a lot of money.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I feel like they are projecting SF's problem on the rest of the US.

In my city, affordable housing isn't available downtown, but it's not more than a 10 minute bus ride away.

<comment><USER6> Aren't you possibly doing the reverse with your anecdote?

The points raised: higher interests rates, higher construction costs, flat home building stats, slower price growth, and historically low homeownership rates are countrywide facts, not specific to San Fran.

<comment><USER7> But none of those indicate a lack of affordability, except home ownership rates. In most states (31 of 50), the median household income can more than afford a median mortgage.

[http://time.com/money/5355518/home-price-salary-every- state/](http://time.com/money/5355518/home-price-salary-every-state/)

So I agree with the OP, the author of this article is unjustifiably projecting the SF housing crisis onto the rest of the country.

<comment><USER8> Did you get that backwards?

Also, this map looks a lot like a population density map - it's great housing is cheap in Nebraska. But there's just not many people there. I would say Pennsylvania and Ohio might be worth looking at though.

> Indeed, only 19 states have an actual median income that tops the amount > needed to buy a home: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, > Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, > Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming.

<comment><USER6> Pennsylvania and Ohio are interesting in that they contain many rust belt towns devastated by de-industrialization. You can buy an affordable house in Erie, PA or Youngstown, OH because the populations of those towns have fallen as the jobs have left.

Doing this type of analysis state-by-state doesn't really tell the story as you can't really live in Youngstown and work in Cleveland or live in Erie and work in Pittsburgh.

<comment><USER9> FWIW, there are also plenty of affordable options that are in the Cleveland metro area, too.

> Doing this type of analysis state-by-state doesn't really tell the story

Yeah. For example, that map does an average of property taxes, which is not super great. Property taxes in some of the suburbs in Cleveland can be higher than your mortgage.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Brewing? We have had a national housing crisis since the bubble around 2005 made housing unthinkable to a generation and then the crash destroyed those who did manage to wedge into an overpriced house. Since then we've reinflated to sacrifice the young to the baby boomers, and now it looks like another crash is looming. The housing market hasn't been sane in 20 years.

Brewing? Seriously? People wonder what is fueling populist rage and a desire to basically fire everyone in any position of authority or expertise...

</comment><comment><USER11> A lot of young people are saddled with student loans that eat into their budgets for things like housing. Obviously a lot of factors at play.

<comment><USER12> I think it'd really be better if young people stopped getting student loans, and just didn't go to college, so they wouldn't have this problem. Eventually, the problem of overpriced housing will correct itself.

<comment><USER13> By the same logic, if they keep at it, eventually wages will rise to accommodate increased housing costs, and the problem corrects itself.

The problem is "eventually" has an unclear definition in both cases, and few are willing to sacrifice their potential of attaining certain careers or income in exchange for working low wage jobs waiting for a hypothetical future correction of this inequality.

It's hard to level existing residences in many historic cities and so housing costs rise, yet people are still wanting the opportunities afforded by those cities enough to sacrifice having better housing conditions elsewhere.

<comment><USER12> >It's hard to level existing residences in many historic cities and so housing costs rise, yet people are still wanting the opportunities afforded by those cities enough to sacrifice having better housing conditions elsewhere.

We don't have historic cities in America. At best, we have a few small historic districts, but everything else in the metro area is certainly not historic. But they don't build enough housing anyway, because too many Americans want McMansions instead of condos which are far more space- efficient.

The Bay area is particularly awful since existing homeowners have too much power (and local government has way too much power; local government should have NO power to restrict development, that should be the state's decision) and won't allow higher-density housing to be built as it affects their property values. This is a uniquely American problem.

>The problem is "eventually" has an unclear definition in both cases, and few are willing to sacrifice their potential of attaining certain careers or income in exchange for working low wage jobs waiting for a hypothetical future correction of this inequality.

My proposal is to just let the economy crash and take a couple of generations to recover, so just worry about your kids or grandkids having a better future. It's basically what's going to happen anyway, so you might as well not burden yourself with student debt. The situation we have now is totally unsustainable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> [https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CSUSHPINSA](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CSUSHPINSA) Overpriced and due for a correction

<comment><USER15> There's a couple reasons it could be over priced. If it's a bubble, then we could be due for a correction. If it's a shortage, and it certainly looks more like a shortage from my vantage point in California, there wont be a huge fall in prices unless there's a large economic decline.

<comment><USER16> Probably both a bubble and a shortage.

I can't speak for California, but in Boston rents are high and mortgages to sustain the same units are much much higher. Regardless of the existence of a housing shortage, this is bubble economics.

In a zero-speculation environment, the total cost of homeownership should be comparable to the cost of renting. Without speculation, market prices in places like Boston mean investment properties are absolutely horrid investments because they have little or no return (when you factor in the total cost of managing the property and the opportunity cost of the capital used to purchase the property). The fact that despite this most properties are rented means that landowners are banking on rents rising to meet current prices (or they aren't confident they can sell at current "market price" in a short amount of time - real estate can't be easily liquidated with a click like stocks can, plus there's tons of overhead costs involved in trying to liquidate real estate)

Or to put it in other words, the high rents in boston reflect the current housing shortage and the higher home prices in boston reflect the expected continuation of the housing shortage (backed by the reality that population here is increasing faster than housing is being built)

<comment><USER17> Actually, rents should not just be about equal to mortgages+maintenance but higher, because they are more liquid - it's easier and cheaper to finish or exit a lease than it is to sell a house, and that's worth something.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> _Zandi is the chief economist at Moody 's Analytics._

Does Moody's stand to benefit more or less directly from the policy changes being advocated here?

</comment><comment><USER19> Non-mobile link: [https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/A-national-housing- crisi...](https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/A-national-housing-crisis-is- brewing-What-13505365.php)

</comment><comment><USER20> I don't know about SF (I have no first hand experience there) but I can say that the market in the Boston area seems similarly overpriced and not very sustainable. Maybe for some different reasons, maybe some are the same. It's to the point where mediocre 3br suburban homes even far from the city are 500k+. It makes me very hesitant to purchase a home right now because I don't see how the value could do much anything besides decrease from here. That's my gut feeling. Would love to understand better how prices could continue to increase still.

<comment><USER21> Agreed. I recently moved from the Midwest to Boston and the housing and rent prices are giving me major sticker shock. My rent has tripled and looking at the housing prices, looks like they have too. Who's buying these 1 million dollar homes?

<comment><USER22> That's easy. Depending on the interest rate, condo fees, taxes, etc, a 1 million home is about $4500 (less when the interest rates were lower, I think).

If you have a couple of DINKs, it's 2250 per person per month, or about $27000/year. 150k/year per person, about 90-100k/year after tax, and that's well under 30% of your take home pay.

I used round numbers and I'm probably off, but even if you have to tweak the math, it's pretty easy to see where people are coming from.

When I was looking to buy in the area, a bunch of people looking at the open houses were couples with both people sporting their Amazon/Microsoft/Google/whatever backpacks or jackets.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Just going to leave this here: [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-03/manhattan...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-03/manhattan- home-prices-fall-under-1-million-as-sellers-cut-deals)

I buy the story about rates and mobility falling in general, although I think this a longer term trend.

Mostly, if wages stagnate, people don't buy homes. Not rocket science. Been going on for nearly 50 years now.

</comment><comment><USER24> I think there will be problems in housing, but not the problems this article describes. (Yes, I am over 40. And no, a 5% mortgage is not remotely problematic.)

With increased automation and wage stratification, there will be fewer jobs and fewer good-paying ones to allow people to buy houses. The price of housing has always marched upward, but it will get to the point where only the wealthy can afford a house.

That's my guess, anyway. Time will tell.

</comment><comment><USER25> Things aren't likely to get better soon, particularly for lower- and middle- income households struggling to make the rent and become homeowners.

This sounds backwards. If housing prices stop going up, won't it be easier to make the jump from renter to buyer?

</comment><comment><USER26> Housing cannot be both an asset, and also affordable. Pick one.</comment>


Linus Torvalds: 'Nvidia  is the worst we've ever dealt with' - <AUTHOR> http://www.engadget.com/2012/06/18/linus-torvalds-nvidia-linux/ <comment><USER2> How many times will this be submitted?

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4121698>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4123480>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4124097>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4124645>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4126185>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4126272>

</comment><comment><USER3> I love watching Linux talk, he looks like he is always suppressing rage (... the hulk?). Also, this talk has one of my all time favorite quotes

"People who get offended should be offended." ... zen</comment>


Bernie's New Climate Change Plan Is an Environmentalist's Dream, Except for This - <AUTHOR> http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/12/07/bernie_sanders_climate_plan_calls_for_end_to_nuclear_energy.html <comment><AUTHOR> The one exception to the otherwise excellent plan:

> But there's one major flaw in Bernie's plan: Sanders is calling for a total > phase-out of nuclear energy.</comment>


Ask HN: Should I use "My" or "Your" at all in web app verbiage? - <AUTHOR>

Should possessive adjectives be used at all in web app UI elements?
I consider it a given that helpful copy should use "you" when relevant: "Drag the image into your browser," "Don't [you] reload during this process."
But what about UI elements like tabs and buttons? Should they use "My," "Your," or neither?
"My Account," "My Profile."
"Your Account," "Edit your profile."
"Account," "Profile."
I know there's been research done in this area, but a couple Google, DuckDuckGo, and SearchYC searches came up empty.  Does anyone have this advice bookmarked? <comment><USER2> Well Facebook uses "My Profile" etc. I guess they may know a thing or two about this, by looking at the number of their users.

Gmail uses none, just "Contacts", "Inbox" etc.

Twitter uses "Create your account" but when signed in turns into non possesive nouns.

I guess using possesives while calling to an action is an efficent practice.

</comment><comment><USER3> I try to avoid them altogether. Gun to my head, I'd go with "Your". See also: [http://weblog.muledesign.com/2010/06/unsuck_it_special_byeby...](http://weblog.muledesign.com/2010/06/unsuck_it_special_byebye_my.php)

</comment><comment><USER4> Sounds like you should be able to A/B test this.

<comment><AUTHOR> Maybe we could. We don't necessarily have the resources right now, though.</comment></comment>


Npm 'isntall' - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/npm/npm/issues/2933 <comment><USER2> This seems "helpful" but here's what I think will happen: a few people will accidentally write scripts that depend on the typo version, then a future maintainer of NPM will scrap this feature and cause those scripts to break.

Rather than promoting multiple interfaces, pick one correct name and force people to use it. And this isn't just for typos; in Subversion for instance, it is ridiculous that "svn blame", "svn praise" and "svn annotate" all refer to exactly the same operation. Which probably means that someone has to make sure "man" page queries with any of those names will all work, etc. Useless extra effort.

I set up shell aliases for typos that I find _myself_ making frequently, which are probably not the same typos that other people make. In the case of "npm install", there are probably a series of equally-probable ways to make a mistake: "onstall", "nistall", "unstall" or heck even "instal". Therefore, don't cater to any of them. Let me fix my own typos in my own shell, and don't give people a chance to introduce those things into scripts.

<comment><USER3> Yes, I agree and also thought of shell aliases when I read this. On top of that there's an argument forming somewhere in my mind that this also sets a bad _security_ precedent in the long term... although I can't put my finger on it exactly. Any place where you unnecessarily widen the range of possible inputs (especially in a shell interface) seems to invite future abuse. For example, what if some future maintainer decides to make this a regex match?

<comment><USER3> Or perhaps the more obvious: you try to _disallow_ 'npm install' in some limited environment but allow other npm commands?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Related:

'unisntall' \- [https://github.com/npm/npm/issues/6095](https://github.com/npm/npm/issues/6095)

'verison' \- [https://github.com/npm/npm/pull/6832](https://github.com/npm/npm/pull/6832)</comment>


Why we don't build websites with WordPress - <AUTHOR> https://www.qdigitalstudio.com/library/why-we-dont-build-websites-with-wordpress <comment><USER2> Most clients with a budget in the sub $10,000 range ultimately want to take over daily content management. Although I agree with her take on Wordpress, it would be nice to see what alternatives she proposes, keeping in mind basic content management capabilities, security, and other client needs.

For what it's worth, concrete5[1] solves many of the issues discussed, and has been our go-to CMS for some time now. It satisfies both developer and client needs quite nicely.

[1] [http://www.concrete5.org/](http://www.concrete5.org/)

<comment><USER3> They use ExpressionEngine.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The most important thing written in this post was "A professional picks the right tool for the job." Sometimes WordPress is the right tool for the job, other times it is not.

This applies to software development and engineering too. Pick the right tool (stack) to solve the problem at-hand with an eye towards lifecycle maintenance. As a professional developer for 10+ years, that's one of the most important things I've learned.

</comment><comment><USER5> A copious list of drivel advertising a lack of competence.

#1 Whatever you use to build a selfhosted website, you have to maintain it and deal with security issues. A bespoke system that you build has unknown security flaws, is hard to replace, is hard to find specialised developers for and is hard to update.

#2 Software Upgrades are constant

Of course. You can mitigate issues with upgrades. But the fact that you're using a piece of software that is actively worked on is generally a good thing. Compared to other platforms, WP gives a damn about backward compatibility though, which reduces the amount of time you spend on upgrade activities.

#3 Themes are only not awesome if you don't know what the hell you are doing and you don't know how to pick a good one. I trust an agency knows what it is doing, but in this case I guess not.

#4 Sure you can not rely on plugins, but then you have to build your own code and maintain it, test it, reinvent the wheel, all on your customer's pocket. That's not very efficient and doesn't guarantee your code will be better than the work of a community.

#5 The argument is getting even sillier now... To use software you need to have some knowledge, yes. But anyone can learn, which is the point. The alternative is you pay an agency to build something bespoke, but where does that leave you if you want to customise or change it?

And actually, serious work requires paying developers a lot of the time, no matter what route you go. WordPress developers are bountiful and compared to other specialists, charge lower rates. So the author makes another self- defeating argument.

#6 WordPress has lots of features that you may not need. But you can lock it down and add new features with greater ease than you can if you build something lean yourself. If there's a better tool, of course you use the better tool. But there's a reason most people go with WordPress, because invariably, people's needs eclipse the ability to cost-effectively expand beyond some simple initial features.

#7 What happens when your developer needs help?

Truly, this boggles my mind that anybody with a clue would say this out loud. WordPress has tons of documentation, forums, paid and unpaid professionals available for help, more than any other platform...and because it is OSS you can pretty much fix or at least identify most problems you might encounter yourself. If you are picking a platform based on access to help, WordPress is one of the best choices you can make.

#8 "WordPress does not have the corner on the SEO market, or any other cool feature."

WordPress largely covers all SEO needs. The time of gimmicky SEO tactics is largely over anyway. Now sites just need to make sure they generate the proper markup and run fast.

Bottom line

If you're going to write an article explaining why you don't use WordPress, do it right. Contrast it against what you use and highlight the benefits of what you use, but also be honest about the downsides. Case in point, a bespoke system has a whole array of disadvantages that can hurt clients. Many of the painpoints the author mentions become even worse if you build a bespoke system. It's not a good way to start a relationship with a client, by distorting the landscape that way.

<comment><USER6> Spot on!

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Let me start by saying I'm not a big fan of WordPress. That said, after using Drupal for a while, working on Ruby on Rails sites, and even building my own CMS' with a few different programming languages, after all that I ended up back with WordPress as the best solution for quite a number of clients.

So here I am defending WordPress...

> Sucuri reports that 78% of the sites with security issues they work on are > WordPress sites.

Or maybe it's because WordPress is by far the most popular CMS. It's a bit like the argument why there are 'no' viruses on macs. Sure, there might be some merit to the argument that it's intrinsic to the OS, but a big part of it is that the market share is much larger for Windows.

I'm still willing to bet that WordPress core is probably safer than any of the self-built CMS'es that offer feature parity.

> While WordPress's core software is built and tested by a centralized > development team, __the same is not true for the thousands of themes and > plugins __

If the alternative is a platform with 'managed plugins' or 'no plugins other than self-written ones', then obviously that's probably safer than random code downloaded from the internet. But there's the option to just not use these plugins, leaving you with a core that is probably safer, or at least as safe, as whatever you're using instead. Not every 'feature' needs to be used.

> One of my professional colleagues told me this story and I know it's not > unusual. As he was setting up a new WordPress site for a non-profit, he > recalled __another site he built with a theme he really liked __

Same as above: just don 't use themes or only use a few carefully-vetted ones. I'm willing to bet any dev shop worth their salt has their own 'starter theme' built from scratch.

> But that doesn't work for us. Our clients want to be able to change their > look and feel based on their customer feedback, to integrate new features, > or just because they want to. And we want to be able to tell them, "Yes, we > can change what your site looks like—with no limits." For us, a site that > doesn't adhere to standard coding practices is simply not good enough. The > poor code quality and design constraints of pre-built themes do not work for > a custom website.

So build a theme. It's really, really easy to do, and if a client pays me a few thousand for a site I sure as hell won't saddle them with a cheap theme that is difficult to customize.

> But for complex site, this constraint really gets in the way. For example, a > site that requires a searchable product database, resources like white > papers and case studies, and a directory of sales representatives can be > built with WordPress, but it's going to take a developer more time to set up > the data structure and make all of these parts usable for a content editor.

While I agree that it's probably easier to do this 'from scratch' than mess with WordPress' innards, there's a perfectly fine solution to this that can handle quite a degree of complexity: the Advanced Custom Fields (ACF) plugin. More on that later.

> We prefer to build a site from the ground up. With a tool like WordPress, we > have to strip out a bunch of the default features just to make it more > secure and fit with a website's specific goals.

I tried that a few times only to realize that it's a _major_ amount of work to get the crucial parts working, and the end result is probably rougher than WordPress (which offers most of these core feature out of the box).

Sure, use Django, RoR, or something else if your needs are custom enough that you end up fighting WordPress. But judging from their 'our work' section, I can't really see what they need that can't be done with WordPress and ACF, and a handful - at most - of reputable plugins.

Finally, I just can't help but notice that their own site is not exactly the prettiest, to put it mildly. Now, if this were some developer site I wouldn't really hold it against them, but from looking at their portfolio (and the fact that they apparently prefer fucking ExpressionEngine to Wordpress) they strike me as a fairly typical CRUD website agency. Design is kind of core to that line of work.

So, anyways, what's so great about ACF that it alone was enough to pull me back to WordPress? Well, it piggy-backs on WordPress' slick UI (relative to most popular or self-built CMS' anyways) and allows you to enrich any content type or post or whatnot with extra fields. Pretty much anything you might need, at least for the kind of sites they seem to build. The UI for these fields is slick, and the plugin offers pretty decent functions for getting your data out of the system. I generally just directly query the metadata though.

As far as getting data into your database, this pretty much obviates the need for tons of plugins. You'll have to build your own gallery code, or whatnot, but honestly I believe any quality dev should should do that already, or settle for high-quality front-end plugins that do what they need. Of course, if you use a front-end plugin it's gonna need it's data in a particular format. That's trivial to achieve with ACF: get your data out, and shape it in your theming layer.

Anyways, maybe I'm being too hard on them, but this article just doesn't make much sense to me. Especially since their alternative is ExpressionEngine which, last I looked, was a very shitty hosted system that locks you and your clients into a commercial third party.

<comment><USER6> Seems like she did an awful lot of "Strawmanning" in that article:

[http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/what- is-a...](http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/what-is-a-straw- man-argument)</comment></comment>


In conversation with... a computer program  - <AUTHOR> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7670050.stm

<comment><USER2> Elbot isn't really that impressive. Not much more than a keyword parser, like Eliza was some 35 years ago.

Although if you point this out to Elbot, he does flip into ELIZAMODE, which is clever.

</comment><comment><USER3> Tell me, how does that make you feel?</comment>


Vive Pro Is Targeted at Prosumers and Will Be More Expensive Than Consumer Vive - <AUTHOR> https://www.roadtovr.com/htc-vive-pro-targeted-prosumers-will-expensive-consumer-vive/ <comment><USER2> Vive Pro is mostly an incremental step. Hopefully in 3-5 iterations we can comfortably read small text, improved screen refresh, and decrease the weight.

For screen refresh and resolution numbers I wonder if the bottle neck is having affordable displays or having affordable GPUs.</comment>


Sympathy for the Luddites - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/opinion/krugman-sympathy-for-the-luddites.html?smid=fb-nytimes&WT.z_sma=OP_SFT_20130614&_r=0 <comment><USER2> Basic income for everyone does indeed seem reasonable to me. If new technology drastically reduces the amount of labour, it seems obviously fair that everyone should be eligible to profit from its benefits. If 2% of the population can provide food for the whole society, maybe another 30% (a number to be drastically reduced by new technology) needed to maintain the social and economical infrastructure, then we will have a majority of people whose economic output is not required. Those people, e.g. children, retirees, handicapped, people with illness, etc. need means to live a decent life. To excessively burden the relatives of those people seems to be an arbitrary and cruel neglect of the society to care for its members.

The argument against basic income is the same as for IP laws. Without money or legal constructs to monetize their products, people have no incentives to work. Maybe we need better incentives for working and creating things.

<comment><USER3> I would argue that it's not obviously fair that everyone should profit from it. What incentives do people have to make new technologies that drastically increase labor if they cannot be paid for inventing them? People should only invent to serve their fellow men, and receive no compensation for their efforts?

If they do deserve compensation for their efforts, how do you do that aside from "capitalism"? In a capitalist society if you can make more things from less resources, you should (everything else being equal) reap higher profits. That's your compensation for your invention. In the absence of such a mechanism, what is the fair price for an invention? Who decides?

<comment><USER4> The incentive to work is you make more money.

Everyone gets basic income, regardless of other income. It isn't taxed because taxing what the government gives just so it can redistribute again later is stupid.

If you earn additional income above the government provided basic income, you pay taxes on it, on a sliding scale. The more you make, the higher the rate you pay. The rich who work for their wealth are still rich, but the gaps between their wealth and the "poor" who only receive basic income is made smaller, and no matter what, everyone has enough to live.

<comment><USER3> Sure, but who decides what the right number is for a basic income? No matter what number you pick there will be a portion of the population who sees that number as "good enough" and will cease to work.

As the basic income grows, more people will choose not to work. This is good as it reduces the supply of labor, thus increasing the wages of those who do work. But it also reduces the amount of income available for taxation, as this basic income isn't taxed. And as the tax base is reduced through a higher basic income, more money is needed to pay that basic income. That drives up the tax rate. It wouldn't be terribly difficult to find yourself in a situation where the math simply doesn't work.

This analysis also neglects the increase in prices that might accompany such a system. The higher the basic income the more likely you are to see an increase in prices that guts the effectiveness of the basic income.

<comment><USER5> _" Sure, but who decides what the right number is for a basic income?"_

I addressed a very similar question in an earlier thread on topic ([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5658967](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5658967)). It's short and directly applicable enough I'll just copy:

Like any policy question, the answer is:

Ideally, the level will be set to what will produce the best outcome based on our current understanding of the world, where the precise parameters under which 'best' is determined is negotiated through a fair political and/or economic process.

In practice, the question is how we best approximate that. The shape of that should be informed by economics, and will likely depend on the particular country.

All of that said, I agree it's a key factor to look at when assessing a particular BI proposal; I don't think it's an unanswerable question.

<comment><USER3> Okay, I get it. I think it's basically unanswerable but I'm happy to agree to disagree.

<comment><USER6> Maybe we won't get it exactly right, but I think the answer is greater than 0 which means right now, we're doing it wrong.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Please read about Basic Income Guarantees(BIG)[1-2], if you are unfamiliar. Essentially, it is a set amount of money for EVERY citizen with NO means testing. It has been promulgated by conservative and liberal Nobel laureates alike. It turns out that the limited, preliminary data shows it to be INCREDIBLY effective. Basic Income offers surprising, non-intuitive effects which -- sometimes -- strongly contradict derogatory stereotypes of the poor. For example, BIG has resulted in increased hours worked per week and wage. These increases were attributed to people finding jobs they liked more and were better at (in lieu of jobs-based means testing programs which incentivize getting crappiest job possible as soon as possible).

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_guarantee](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_guarantee)

[2] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5656249](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5656249)

</comment><comment><USER8> In many ways I think the industrial revolution has made us forget a very important historical fact. Prior to industrialization, "labor" was often little more than serfdom. "Labor" in the purest sense didn't own anything, but was simply a necessary component for the wealth-producing activities of those who did. Laborers only had one economic move: to offer their time and hands in the service of those who owned things (land, a shop, a ship, etc) in return for a wage. That wage, effectively their value as laborers, was determined by the law of supply and demand. All the industrial revolution did was to vastly increase the demand for labor.

However, the ancient fact that one's existence as more than a serf required ownership of something did not change. The living standards of serfs simply improved dramatically. Those living standards still depended on the demand for labor being high and/or the supply low.

When technology reduces the demand for labor, while the supply increases due to population growth, it's easy to think that the economic sky is falling. But since none of us have lived in a pre-industrial revolution era, we are accustomed to thinking of wage-earning labor as an economic strategy that is more common than ownership of property, and just as valid. But historically it has been a specialized and risky economic strategy, and as the demand for labor-intensive physical products decreases it should not be surprising if those who are dependent on this economic strategy suffer. It may be tragic, but it's certainly not a new tragedy.

If you want long term economic security, own something.

<comment><USER9> >> If you want long term economic security, own something.

So your solution is to tell labor that they should turn into capital? That is what you tell the millions of people who will be unable to find a job that pays a living wage?

Come on.

<comment><USER10> > So your solution is to tell labor that they should turn into capital?

Progressive automation, it is at least arguable, makes that an essential part of any long-term solution. Labor as the key to income for the vast majority of the population may well not be a long-term viable option.

Of course, arguably, basic income / negative income tax is just an incredibly way of turning everyone into (at least, in part) capitalist living off what they own; what you own is a dividend-producing share of the commons. At a minimum, its a way of reducing the need to engage in wage labor to meet survival needs, and increasing the ability to direct efforts _towards_ becoming a capitalist.

<comment><USER11> I REALLY like the way you phrase this.

Perhaps that could even be a way to sell it to the populace so that it can't be immediately struck down as "worse than communism".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> We should stop using the term "highly skilled" when it really means "highly specialized". The trouble is we are still using school, from kindergarten to university (and beyond), as a system to turn people into highly specialized automatons. And the trouble with automatons is they get automated. A few have been lucky during the course of the industrial revolution to pick the right skill to specialize in, and at the right time, but examples abound when you pick the "wrong" specialization, just to see it subsequently automated.

I never really understood what Buckminster Fuller was trying to get across in his Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth, until recently. The amazing thing is he addressed these concerns quite presciently in the 1960s--he saw this coming.

The only advice I can give is always be learning and adapting and apply it in creative and entrepreneurial ways.

</comment><comment><USER13> This problem is inherently transient. The worst case is that it takes a full generation for skills and customs to adapt.

Skills like "reading" and "writing" were once the province of highly-educated specialists. They became mainstream when the economic incentives made them critical to have. People learn what they need to learn -- especially if they start as children.

It's entirely appropriate to worry about how we can help people during this painful transition. But we need to be careful not to turn this temporary problem into a permanent one by creating cultures of dependence.

<comment><USER14> _People learn what they need to learn -- especially if they start as children._

Mass literacy is very much the result of concerted efforts by the state to provide universal education -- it didn't just come into being.

Moreover, the point of the article is that we are in a time where education, whether self- or school-directed, can't solve the problem, because the productivity benefits of technology are going almost entirely to those with capital, rather than labor, i.e., the people doing the learning. You can argue with whether that is the case, but be aware that when you say "people will learn what they need to learn," you are actually stating the argument that the OP is already rebutting.

<comment><USER15> "Mass literacy is very much the result of concerted efforts by the state to provide universal education..."

This isn't necessarily accurate. The U.S. was a highly literate society before the advent of state sponsored, public education. State sponsored education did indeed increase the literacy rate because many states forced parents to send children to school.

[http://nces.ed.gov/naal/lit_history.asp#illiteracy](http://nces.ed.gov/naal/lit_history.asp#illiteracy)

<comment><USER14> You're right, I should have said "universal literacy."

<comment><USER16> I would be cautious to say we have universal literacy today, even with universal education.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Krugman's trying to juggle two contradictory viewpoints: one (the Luddite view) holds that the purpose of work is to _have something to do_. The Luddite petition is arguing that allowing these people to fall into idleness simply because there is a more effective machine to do their job will be toxic to society. This is somewhat confused by the Luddites also throwing out a lot of half-baked economic arguments, but those can be safely ignored in hindsight.

Krugman then proposes a solution from an entirely opposite viewpoint: that the purpose of work is to _produce useful things_ , and if the constant disruption of jobs is the cost of efficiency, we should just give the affected a handout to provide for their needs.

But because the guaranteed income doesn't solve the Luddite's complaint, it misses the point entirely.

<comment><USER18> Where do you get that the Luddites' only complaint was having something to do?

"How are those men, thus thrown out of employ to provide for their families?" asked the petitioners.

<comment><USER17> They answer their own question: with a retraining process that will leave their children behind as untrained bums.

They semi-accurately predict a future where employment is sufficiently fluid that nobody is securely enough situated at a job that they can train their children into it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> On the other hand, perhaps it's entirely possible that creators of technology will notice this large swath of available labor and create technology to make use of it.

An important point about the Luddites is that while expensive weavers were put out of work by machines, those machines functioned by employing greater numbers of (vastly lower paid) unskilled immigrants.

If you put a 150k salary expert out of work by creating a piece of technology that requires two 70k workers, you still profit.

</comment><comment><USER20> I think we need to start distinguishing between the part of the 1% that builds new technologies, products, etc. and the part of the 1% that speculates on African food futures, high-frequency trading, etc.. The former is useful. The latter is entirely destructive and should be legislated into poverty for the greater good.

<comment><USER21> This article is specifically about how your "useful" subset of the 1% creates technologies which benefit humanity in the long run, but harm large numbers of individuals in the short run, and what to do about that. Your "destructive" 1% doesn't even factor into this article yet you feel entitled to come in here and rant about them.

<comment><USER22> _how your "useful" subset of the 1% creates technologies which benefit humanity in the long run, but harm large numbers of individuals in the short run_

I think you forgot to add "in the current economical/social system". The technology never hurts anyone objectively, it always helps. It's us, humans, who decide that someone should be punished for the technological progress. ("You've been replaced by a machine, go eat cake. To celebrate our newly redoubled productivity, we'll let you starve.")

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> In the short term taxing the rich seems like the only viable solution. But just give it some time. Skill acquisition via free online courses will replace high cost universities. This alone will solve most of Krugman's problem. Entrepreneurs have a funny way of figuring out how to solve our problems - without redistributing wealth (save for the overly hyped Tesla)

<comment><USER24> It still takes time to retrain, even if the education is free.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Yeah he definitely identifies a problem but does not address any of the knock- on effects of a guaranteed minimum income, namely the incentive to not work rather than to work.

What he's arguing is that we should pay people not to work the same way we pay farmers not to grow corn, to ensure that the price is kept high enough for those who do engage in working/farming to earn the "right" amount of money.

It's a noble goal to be sure, to ensure that everyone can feed their families and live a comfortable-enough life and such. I don't argue with his intentions one iota.

The problem for Krugman is that taxing is his hammer and every problem in the world looks like a nail. It's far easier to exhort "we must do something!" and to use the force of law to do SOMETHING than to figure out a better solution to a very real problem.

I am of course in some ways a hypocrite since I can't think of any solutions myself off the top of my head.

<comment><USER25> Actually, the idea of a basic income (under the rubric 'negative income tax') was favored by economists like Milton Friedman as well (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax) for an OK overview). The underlying concept here is not so much fairness as that there's an opportunity cost to society in having people engaged in the sort of work they're not especially well-suited to in order to meet the basic needs of survival.

<comment><USER3> I never argued against this for "fairness" nor did Krugman mention the societal opportunity cost.

It's more an issue of signaling. People won't go through the pain necessary to learn a new skill if there's no incentive. High wages are encouragements to endure the discomfort inherent (for most) in change necessary for the rebalancing of the labor force. Low wages signal that the skill is not in high demand (relative to supply) and that there may be other more opportunities more attractive.

The negative income tax reduces the incentive to move from one segment of the labor force to another and could be analogous to a tariff, in a way.

<comment><USER25> It's equally arguable that people won't engage in time-consuming activities of uncertain return if there's too much financial risk. 'Lack of demand' is often a stumbling block for new technologies that are ahead of their time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> The solution is obviously to watch the average standard of living get significantly worse, then elect the one promising a chicken in every pot, and a chicken-cooking robot in every kitchen (pot and kitchen sold separately).

</comment><comment><USER27> Get rid of corporate entitlements like patents, obscenely long copyrights, the FDA (yes, it's an entitlement -- see how hard it is for a little guy to compete when the hurdles are so high), etc. etc. and then see how it shakes out.

<comment><USER28> _> the FDA (yes, it's an entitlement -- see how hard it is for a little guy to compete when the hurdles are so high)_

Would you like to try Ed's Patent Elixir? I promise it won't kill you. It's from a little guy, just tryin' to compete.

<comment><USER27> If you're too foolish to do some vetting of what you take, you shouldn't compound that foolishness by stripping away others' right to take novel drugs that might, say, cure their cancer, etc.

<comment><USER28> I'm not foolish enough to not vet what I take. Or I like to think I'm not. But I _can 't vet what I would take_, because I'm not an expert. Therein lies the problem.

And, no, no free-market solution solves this without people fucking _dying_. Back to mises.org with this silliness, please.

<comment><USER27> The fact is that what another person chooses to take is none of your business. You use fearmongering as an irrational pretext to usurp someone's right to choose what they do with their own body, and sadly, that fearmongering works. It just doesn't work on reasonable people, who are in the minority.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Again? What has it been? two months since we last had a round of these "unlike all the other times where we said that things were really different, this time it really is different" opionions bullshit (no it isn't any different this time).

Can we please just let it be just this one article, this time?</comment>