The New, Terrifying, No-Electronics US Flight Security Rules - <AUTHOR> http://gizmodo.com/5434592/no-electronics-allowed-during-international-flights <comment><USER2> Just flew back into USA last night from a week in Cancun. I saw two differences in security:

1\. Every carry-on bag was searched. Oddly, many people had those neck-pillow things, which were completely ignored. I bet you could pack a lot of semtex into one of those pillows.

2\. The security guy at the entrance to the gates -- you know, where we routinely take off our shoes, empty pockets, etc., was holding a sign say NOT to take off shoes. This supports Schneier's theory that the TSA is only engaging in theater, making a show of defending against whatever the most recent threat was.

<comment><USER3> Yeah. In LHR today, my bag was hand-searched, and I was patted down. Except, they didn't pat my whole body, and they only opened the smallest pocket in my backpack.

It may or may not be theater, but it's certainly not security.

Don't get me started on how I wasn't allowed to use a blanket or jacket for the last hour of the flight. I wish I was joking...

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> After being subjected to these rules today, I almost want to be the legal test case for compliance with secret rules. Is refusing to comply with an unpublished rule a violation of the rules? (I am pretty sure the Constitution has something to say about this...)

Basically, this proves that the terrorists won. One nut with a fake bomb can change millions of lives.

<comment><USER4> The latest reports I've seen indicate that the bomb was not fake:

"A preliminary FBI analysis indicates the device contained PETN, also known as Pentaerythritol Tetranitrate, a highly explosive chemical."

[http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/12/27/airline.attack.qanda/ind...](http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/12/27/airline.attack.qanda/index.html)

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PETN>

<comment><USER3> Not this time. Pretend to be setting off a bomb, though, and see if the TSA doesn't react.

I am looking forward to the "mp3 player bomber" and the "paperback book bomber".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Frankly, most airport security is an absolute joke and exists solely to add a certain amount of discomfort to all travelers _including potential terrorists_. The new TSA rules (like most of the old TSA rules) are utter theatrics.

If anyone really wants to see how security should be done just go to an international terminal which ElAl flies to and watch how they screen passengers at their check in. The ground staff are not there to frisk you or ask you to take your shoes off. They work directly for the airline and have received extensive security training. What they do is actually ask you a battery of questions designed to flush out inconsistencies. ElAl also pays much closer attention to so called "no fly" lists.

I think it's safe to say, and I'm sure the majority of us would agree that ElAl knows a thing or two about how to keep their planes in the sky with a maximum degree of confidence in their security. Would it really be that hard for other airlines to take a page out of their playbook? If not for the profiling (which I'm sure they do) then at least the questioning by ground staff.

<comment><USER6> _If anyone really wants to see how security should be done just go to an international terminal which ElAl flies to and watch how they screen passengers at their check in._

From my anecdotal experience, El Al has security personnel that appears trained to a naked eye, but in reality is extremely ineffective, flawed, and unethical. I had the misfortune to go through El Al security four times. These all occurred in a span of two weeks, roughly in the same circumstances (I had to fly into Israel, fly out, fly back in, and fly back out). I can tell you that the outcome of their screening is heavily inconsistent and highly dependent on the prejudices of the particular agent doing the interview, and not necessarily on advanced training procedures.

I had the same answers for their questions every time. Two of the times the agents were Israeli jews who immigrated from Russia. Since we share a common background, both let me pass after very few questions because my trip details seemed perfectly reasonable to them. The other two times, I was interviewed by jews of clearly middle-eastern descent - both had no understanding of my cultural background, and both thought my trip details were extremely suspicious, subjecting me to a detailed search. So the outcome of the interviews was effectively random, which means they might as well perform random searches.

The interviews were highly unethical, inappropriate, and degrading. Even more importantly, they were completely ineffective, resulting in a random outcome highly dependent on each agent's personal prejudices. I don't know what good security looks like, but I can tell you that this most certainly isn't it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Hanging out in YVR right now - the line that normally takes 15 minutes took 95 minutes today. It is the first time I've ever been told not to arrive so early for a flight. Apparently people showing up 3 1/2 hours early for a flight screws it up for other people somehow. Mea Culpa.

1\. Every single person had their luggage opened and sorted through, item by item.

2\. Every single person was being fully patted down. Including checking the soles of your (shoeless) feet.

The pat down was remarkably thorough - the seams of my pants were checked. The waistband, shirt cuffs, pants cuffs each carefully probed, hair was cautiously checked.

I was particularly impressed with what a good mood all of the screeners and passengers were in. Nobody was grumpy, and everyone was basically taking everything in a pretty good way, despite the inordinate delays.

<comment><USER7> Just landed in SFO. Some observations:

o United has (for now) discontinued Channel 9 (the pilot/ATC channel)

o The Pilot said the following "The TSA has requested I notify you of the following - You will not be allowed to move around the cabin for the last hour of the flight, you will not be allowed to have anything in your lap in the last hour of the flight, no blankets, jackets, nothing. We will make an announcement 15 minutes prior to the last hour of the flight so you can use the washroom."

So, when the announcement came that there was 15 minutes until lockdown in our seats - there was an immediate rush to line up for the washrooms, that spanned most of the cabin.

Interestingly enough, absolutely nobody paid attention to the 'Nothing in your lap' rule, and nobody policed it. People kept working on their laptops, tray tables were down, and nobody said anything. People kept wandering to the washroom.

One of the more ironic elements of the trip was as follows, the pilot announced "I will not be allowed to point out landmarks as we are flying" - and then 30 minutes prior to landing he noted "As you can all see on your left side, we are flying over the Golden Gate Bridge"

Definitely a bizarre experience.

<comment><USER8> The pilot obviously thinks the new security measures are stupid.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I am happy to report that this post is coming from 30k feet via an iPhone on virgin America.

<comment><USER10> Virgin America only flies domestic. Most of these restrictions will apply to the international flights _to_ the US. (I guess the US doesn't really care about what happens outside, as long as everything coming in is checked)

<comment><USER9> It's probably that they have no way of doing so once the plane is foreign airspace. Lots of Americans are on the outbound flights so they care a great deal for the plane's safety.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Why don't they just anesthesize people at the gates and shove them into comfortable boxes to be carried by cargo planes.

It would certainly be more pleasant for the travellers.

<comment><USER12> > Why don't they just anesthesize people at the gates

Because the regime insists that citizens be reminded that they are cattle.

<comment><USER3> No, it's because drugs are evil.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> i bought the domain 'iamnotacriminal.com' on my iphone post-security at SEA after a particularly nasty interaction with TSA - i just felt violated and tired of the treatment. at the time i thought it might be a great project to let off some steam - perhaps a community wiki of TSA incompetence.

more lucrative projects have always put it on the back burner but it's tempting to have a HN 'hack fest' made up of only disgruntled unwilling participants in the 'security theatre' that are also hackers and launch the site...

</comment><comment><USER14> I was expecting problems, but I was surprised when I flew today. Jetblue, JFK to LGB (via IAD) had the exact same security checks and regulations as every other time I've flown them. I guess it just shows how inconsistently the rules are applied, which is frustrating in its own way.

</comment><comment><USER15> I hate people.

<comment><USER16> Unfortunately, after having just spent a good few hours of my Boxing Day holiday (because Boxing Day fell on a Saturday, we get a Monday public holiday in leu) in a shopping centre, I'm inclined to agree

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> There is an elephant in the room.

The threat to US/Western Europe/Australasia is coming from muslims. They are by far the biggest terrorist threat to these areas. So we should have a 'no- fly' rule for muslims. A minority of current flyers would suffer inconvenience. As it is, the majority of flyers suffer both inconvenience and the possibility of being murdered.

I hardly fly any more because it is such an awful experience. It is only a matter of time before another plane comes down - in September Abdullah Asieri stuck a bomb up his ass and passed through 2 sets of airport security AND the Saudi security services, which shows us that there is no way to stop someone getting a bomb on board. Dealing with suicide bombers is the most difficult thing to do. They have no fear of any punishment, and they can take their deathly payload anywhere.

People should start reading sites like www.jihadwatch.org or www.thereligionofpeace.com instead of believing the politically correct media. Islam is the oldest form of totalitarianism.

I'm no racist (I don't believe there are races). For 15 years I have lived in the heart of the most muslim area of London. I've seen most non-muslims leave the area, and watched as the muslims have become more and more radical. I'm married to an asian, and I've had two muslim boyfriends in the past.

<comment><USER18> You may not be racist, but you're a bigot. No matter whether or not Muslims tend to bomb airplanes more than anyone else, preventing Muslims from flying is both unethical and inconsistent with the principles of Western democracy.

<comment><USER3> But only Muslims commit terrorist attacks. Remember the Oklahoma City bomber? Muslim. Remember the Unabomber? Muslim.

Oh wait... they were both Regular Old White Guys.

<comment><USER19> "But only Muslims commit terrorist attacks."

I sympathize with your outrage when confronted with blatant bigotry, but this isn't what was implied. If you take a random sample of a 1000 terrorist attacks in the world, I suspect you'd have well over 85 % of them committed by Muslims.

Now, this in itself doesn't imply that you can (or should) discriminate against Muslims, because that is a very very small percentage of the total Muslim population, but there is _some_ truth to the old saw "Most muslims are not terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslim".

I am not sure what the correct conclusion to draw is, but as a proto truth, perhaps just like Communism is a dangerous and suboptimal way to run a society, maybe a religion with millions of followers that advocates eternal war and subjugation of the Infidel should be carefully watched. In the Middle Ages this would be Christianity. In the 20th century, this would probably be Islam.

I also submit we may never be able to have rational discussion of this topic, except among very close friends, because it would veer rapidly into divisive topics and useless hairsplitting - a prime example of "things you can't say" (or discuss rationally). Besides this is politics - something that should rarely be on HN in any case.

<comment><USER3> 100% of terrorist attacks are committed by terrorists. That sounds like a better filter than religious beliefs.

You have to look at it the other way. 0.00% of Christians commit terrorist attacks. 0.00% of Muslims commit terrorist attacks. Therefore, it doesn't seem too valuable to discriminate in this way.

 _a prime example of "things you can't say"_

You can say it, but legalized discrimination goes against every value a Free society has. Liberty is more important than a little bit of temporary safety. It's that simple.

<comment><USER19> "You can say it, but legalized discrimination goes against every value a Free society has."

I completely agree. I was careful to make the point that discrimination is _NOT_ ok even if 100% of terrorist acts in the world were by Muslims because the number of people who are decent citizens far outweigh the terrorists, just as the number of decent communists far outweighed the Red- Terror-kill-all- capitalists folks and McCarthyism was not an acceptable solution either.

I was reacting to your "But only Muslims commit terrorist attacks." That is an _exaggeration_ of the claim made by those who _would_ advocate legal discrimination. Mischaracterizing your opponents' arguments (no matter how distasteful their ideologies are) isn't the right way (imo) to refute their ideas. You do it again with

" 0.00% of Christians commit terrorist attacks. 0.00% of Muslims commit terrorist attacks. "

Most muslim terrorists are educated in madrassas where they study their religion for a long time. Saudi Arabia and Iran (and to a lesser extent, Pakistan), where much of Islamic terrorism originates are the terrorism originates are theocracies or hevaily theocratic. Their motivation, training, goals and methods are all influenced by religion are religious. To deny that there is a religious element to Islamic terrorism is an extreme position not justified by facts. You could argue that this isn't "True Islam", but that is a different argument.

Again I completely agree with your idea that "Muslims must NOT be discriminated against" idea. Such discrimination is against everything Western Democracy (and human decency) stand for.

I am still disturbed by Islam as a political and social ideology dictating how others should submit to the "true believers". I guess I just don't go to extremes in _either_ direction. Some social visions _are_ dangerous.

All that said, I will now follow my own advice of keeping politics off HN! Peace!</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Google Hangouts only works on Chrome - <AUTHOR> http://i.imgur.com/skSj76t.jpg

<comment><USER2> This misleadingly comes after you click the Get Hangouts -> Computers option on [http://www.google.com/hangouts/](http://www.google.com/hangouts/).

Google+ Photo Editing has also gone Chrome-only: [https://www.evernote.com/shard/s2/sh/776b19e1-487f-4dbb-9962...](https://www.evernote.com/shard/s2/sh/776b19e1-487f-4dbb-9962-8316e0f169ee/8ee0abe4087868519c3d96a6a9ddea59/deep/0/Photos ---Google+-and-Google+-Hangouts---Google-Hangouts-and-Google.png)

Regardless if this is for a local installation using Chrome Desktop APIs, the phrasing "Hangouts won't work in your current browser" seems intentionally misleading.

<comment><AUTHOR> > Regardless if this is for a local installation using Chrome Desktop APIs, > the phrasing "Hangouts won't work in your current browser" seems > intentionally misleading.

Not providing a link for "browser" along side Android, iOS and Computer is terrible. Intentional or not I expect better from Google.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> So what you're attempting to install here is a chrome app[1]. It uses the Chrome Extension/App APIs to create "desktop app" experience. Hangouts as a part of gmail/google+ I believe is supported on Google supported browsers[2].

[1]: [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/hangouts/nckgahada...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/hangouts/nckgahadagoaajjgafhacjanaoiihapd?hl=en) [2]: [https://support.google.com/a/answer/33864?hl=en](https://support.google.com/a/answer/33864?hl=en)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the clarification. The messaging is terribly misleading. I'm not claiming they are doing it on purpose but they aren't expending much effort to make it clear that you're installing a Chrome app that can't be installed on Firefox/Safari when they say "Hangouts won't work in your current browser".

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Update on Twitter[1] from Googler.

> The "Only Chrome" thing in google.com/hangouts/ is not correct and an > error/confusing UI. Will be fixed. CC @andreasgal @angelinamagnum

I'll leave it up to the reader to believe it or not :).

[1] [https://twitter.com/cramforce/status/486572034458021888](https://twitter.com/cramforce/status/486572034458021888)</comment>


Street View New York 1982 - <AUTHOR> http://streetview1982.com/index-street-view-panoramas-new-york-city-1982.html

<comment><USER2> One of my first thoughts upon using Streetview was what a great resource this will be to future generations. A real (almost) unedited glimpse into the past.

<comment><USER3> I think that Google Earth has a feature for looking into the past? As their database grows (with time) this will become really cool.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Someone with some free time and a bit of programming chops, help this guy out with mapping these onto a Google maps mashup so they're actually tied into the street grid map - please! There's so much potential here beyond a static web site.

</comment><comment><USER5> For another street view of NYC circa 1982, check out Style Wars.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Style_Wars>

</comment><comment><USER6> Awesome project, but I would love higher resolution images.

<comment><USER7> Yeah - hate to look a gift horse in the mouth, but this is less enjoyable and more frustratingly tantalizingly almost _extremely_ interesting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm sure it's partially the B&W but it's amazing how old this looks. Without thinking too much about the cars I would probably have been at least 15 years off to guess when it was.

</comment><comment> johnx123-up Old is gold

</comment><comment><USER9> It's like a jungle sometimes...</comment>


Porsche's Taycan EV has pulled in more than 20k deposits - <AUTHOR> https://www.engadget.com/2019/03/09/porche-taycan-ev-20-000-reservations/ <comment><USER2> Did Porsche change the terms on these deposits? When they were announced, local magazines reported (correctly) that these "reservations" don't reserve anything, all Porsche owes the payer is regular information about the vehicle. In particular, they don't affect the deliveries in any way.

They're basically refundable deposits with no obligations on either side, so 20.000 wealthy people either misunderstood the terms or paid to receive newsletters.

<comment><USER3> Sounds exactly the first Model 3 reservations... sans securing the beta build of a car (which is a plus for some)

Maybe they just really want the car and can afford a deposit.

<comment><USER4> Securing a spot in line was the whole point of Model 3 deposits.

<comment><USER5> IIRC, the order of deliveries depended on state and the specific build and options. This was clear up front.

<comment><USER6> Perhaps you are both correct, and the reservation secured your spot in line. Not a global line for all Model 3 sales, but a small line for your particular combination of build and options.

<comment><USER4> Yes. Having a reservation let you order earlier. All else being equal, an earlier reservation let you order before a later one, but there were other factors as well.

I saw both sides of this, placing a reservation and then ultimately waiting for a version that didn't require one. I did get a chance to order before it opened up to the general public, but I didn't take advantage.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm 100% sure the interior of this car will have a much better finish than a Tesla. A Tesla inside just feels cheap to me.

<comment><USER8> porsche can be worse than an 80s cheap honda when they want to, so get them down of that high horse.

for proof, go see a 1999-2006 carrera 911/996.

<comment><USER9> Which details should I look for, exactly?

<comment><USER10> Quality of plastics is the main thing. I don't think it's as poor as people hype it up to be.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Related: Polestar, Volvo's spinoff, is also taking deposits on their Polestar 2, which they also position against Tesla's Model 3:

[https://www.polestar.com/](https://www.polestar.com/)

Price is higher than the Telsa, but you could take the view that just like Porche, they bring Volvo's experience--good or bad--at running a sustainable manufacturing business to the table.

<comment><USER11> Call me superficial, insecure, vain, pathetic, etc. There's no way I'm driving around in a car called the Polestar. It's just not happening.

<comment><USER6> I'm not sure why you find the word so troubling.

Polestar have been racing Volvos for a decade, and Volvo have been selling Polestar editions of their cars very successfully. "Polestar" is essentially Volvo's performance branding, just like AMG for Mercedes and M for BMW.

I personally like the V60 Polestar, it's a nice little 360hp wagon. I have a Polestar engine tune on my personal wagon.

As for the word itself... Volvo is from the Nordics, and culturally the Pole Star is a significant and positive term:

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

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> These numbers don't mean much. There are plenty of people willing to put down a bit of refundable cash for their electric car dreams.

A tiny Canadian company called ElectraMecchanica has over 40,000 paid reservations for their Tofino electric roadster ($1k deposit each). Does that mean they're going to be twice as successful as Porsche?

<comment><USER13> The difference being that Porsche Taycan is going to happen and the owners are going to benefit from the overall Porsche service infrastructure.

<comment><USER12> Sure. Just saying that 20k deposits is actually low by "electric dream machine" standards.

<comment><USER13> They initially announced only 20k cars to be manufactured. The reservations prompted them to double the number. That's exactly the point of the article.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Well earned. The car is beautiful, even in the renderings. If it succeeds, we could expect an electric 911 in 4-5 years. Who knows.

<comment><USER15> The iconic shape and design of the 911 is dictated by its engine placement. I feel with an electric drivetrain, a new design would be needed. A design copy of the 911 would be lazy and regressive. The abilities and packaging of electrics are amazing. Too amazing to sacrifice for looks. And I say that still perfering petrol cars.

<comment><USER16> It might still sell well. Drive a new Camaro or Challenger, and you'll see they heavily sacrificed driver visibility for the sake of better emulating the old look.

<comment><USER17> So many vehicles these days have really lousy sightlines. I rented some Dodge sporty car a few months back and I almost felt unsafe driving because I didn't have a good view when changing lanes.

<comment><USER13> These "sporty" muscle cars are designed for drag racing. No need to change lanes there! Just look up the marketing for Charger Demon. It's not a bug, it's a feature ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I wish they'd suck with Mission E as the name, but it's a nice looking car either way

</comment><comment><USER19> I sat in the Taycan at a Porsche sponsored conference last year. The design feels so plain normal and boring to me. The Model 3 design is 1000% more innovative. I am convinced that car museums in the future will have a Model 3 on display, but not a Taycan.

That said, if you like Porsche, the Taycan gives you a Porsche with an electric motor. That is the only innovation I can see here.

<comment><USER20> I took once a Tesla-taxi from Schiphol to Amsterdam center. It had a huge touch screen console and the driver could not enter the destination into the carnav because of some annoying modal pop up.

If turning a car into a crappy pc/tablet is innovative then yes. But some people just like to drive their cars (by themselves)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> For people expecting Tesla like software, upgrade experience, user experience, they will likely be disappointed. Otherwise you should just expect nothing much more than a Porsche that has an electrical drive train

<comment><USER22> "For people expecting Tesla like software, upgrade experience, user experience ..."

That sounds like a potential selling point ...

"Otherwise you should just expect nothing much more than a Porsche that has an electrical drive train ..."

For me, the killer features are the CoG and weight distributions of a "skateboard design", achieving AWD with multiple motors, and the acceleration/torque advantages of an electric drivetrain. It appears that the Porsche has all of those.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Typecast – Design in the browser with Google Fonts - <AUTHOR> http://typecast.com/preview/google

<comment><USER2> Jesus this is absolutely _brilliant_.

Occasionally I do sites for my business partner and the endless tweaking of fonts to get them how he wants is a pita.

I can throw this at him and he can give me back the CSS, fantastic!.

<comment><AUTHOR> Wow, thanks very much!

<comment><USER3> I like to think you are the aforementioned business partner.

<comment><USER2> Nah, Business Partner is a Mac user he's busy shouting at Mavericks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This has huge potential for us as a way of quickly making styleguides reducing both development time and designer QA time.

There are some important things missing, as far as I can tell though, like ... how do I make a list?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback. We're continually working to improve the product and lists, along with support for other elements are on our roadmap.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I see you have support for Typekit as well. Very cool.

This is pretty damn awesome, I have to admit. One of the big pains of working with web font services like Typekit is that you have to select a set of fonts beforehand, save the kit, change your CSS, and only THEN can you see a change. At best you can keep a handful of browser tabs open without refreshing them so that you can flip between them to compare. But this makes everything so much easier.

</comment><comment><USER6> Great concept and good implementation.

One bug report - The font selection scroll bar becomes hidden and un-clickable for me often in Google Chrome 30.

[http://imgur.com/6nohjWD](http://imgur.com/6nohjWD)

<comment><USER7> Also hidden in Firefox 25 for me. I'm constrained for vertical space on my netbook, which did make me think you could display at least a couple more typefaces at a time in the left hand menu if it wasn't for vertical space used up by the menu bar at the top, and the line with "$number typefaces"

Love the basic concept though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Just observed a bug. I changed the font for one of the blocks, and it changed it for all of the elements.

<comment><USER9> When you change the style of an element, like a paragraph, it works like CSS and applies the change to all elements of that type. To add specificity, you have to give an element a class.

Really appreciate the feedback.</comment></comment>


Q. Did You Ever Smoke Pot? A. It's Complicated. - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/health/views/13klass.html?_r=1

<comment><USER2> It is interesting that he never directly makes the case that marijuana is bad for the teen brain, just kind of leaves it as an assumption. I don't think that is a fair assumption.

At the end he does make a vague reference to pot killing brain cells, but I think the most recent science shows the opposite and that the whole "kills brain cells" thing was from government funded research a long time ago where they basically suffocated monkeys and the oxygen deprivation likely killed the brain cells.

So, the article seems a little disingenuous to me.

<comment><USER3> That aside I still don't think it's a good idea for young teenagers to smoke pot.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> [http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&v...](http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2010%2F07%2F13%2Fhealth%2Fviews%2F13klass.html&ei=Q4c8TJDeCMGC8ga2rPWnBg&usg=AFQjCNFho7Sk61OZrUpfz_31H-bEuHVoqA)

that should get you past the login-wall.

</comment><comment><USER5> I'm not a parent but would like to think that if I were I could be honest about any past substance abuse. I think this can go a long way into preventing a real crisis with the worst of illegal substances (the hard stuff). Anecdotally, I have a friend who nearly went off the deep end on abusing narcotics - he claims some of this was brought on by the lies he heard about the softer drugs being as equally bad as the harder stuff.

</comment><comment><USER6> may be it cames out as I-did-it-and-I'm-fine because, well, you did it and you are fine, duh! I mean, why are so many parents deny their children the fun they themselves were going though being young and all?

some lessons are to be learned on your own, and not to be told about.

I can understand the pressure to prevent the hard and most dangerous stuff, but with stuff like moderate alcohol and recreational drugs I think the risks don't great enough to warrant all the craziness.</comment>


My WebSummit 2015 experience recap as an Alpha Track startup - <AUTHOR> Did we buy the WebSummit (WS) tickets based on deceptive marketing? Yes! They were just lying about what an Alpha Track (AT) participant is. Nevertheless it was a unique and great experience.
WS is really huge. There were about 2000+ AT participants and as such you get to present your startup one day long. The other two days you're "just" an attendee. The event was really well organized and filled up to the stocks with all kinds of stuff. We were lucky that we (www.jack.chat) had our AT stand on day one because everything is new to everyone, and everybody is excited and curious. We had nonstop traffic at our 40" wide stand and everybody was really nice and excited for us. It was just an awesome experience! A few investors showed up as well, asked interesting questions, and took notes. Our booth neighbors - Mommy Dearest - were really cool, too, and we hung out after the events and shared insights and experiences.
I attended 3 talks. 2 on main stage and 1 at the code summit. The main stage talks were watched by thousands of people and honestly were just plain boring. The stage was very impressive but the speakers weren't. The code summit talk by Jon Hodgson on the other hand was really good. The Night Summit was kind of disappointing because all people went to this one place and it was just heavily overcrowded. But we went to some other places (a taxi driver told us about - btw the irishest Irish ever). And later that night we got to meet the amazing guys from the Startup Van (twitter.com/Startup_van). You really have to check them out! All in all it was a great trip. Dublin is an amazing city and the WS is a mind-blowing, well organized event. But even to gain the littlest thing out of it we had to work very hard. Don't be fooled that you can buy a ticket and everything will just falls into place.
PS: we met a guy at breakfast who knows Paddy and the inner circle around him and he told us that everything they are ever talking about is how much money they make. <comment><USER2> I was just a normal attendee so I have to ask what kind of deceptive marketing you're referring to.

That said, Web Summit was a fantastic experience. I agree some of the speakers were somewhat lacklustre or at least not as spectacular as I expected them to be. Others were great though (Ed Catmull for instance or the one about what Facebook is going to do the next ten years) Most of the talks on the smaller stages generally were more intriguing anyway.

As for the Night Summit: Yes, it was crowded but it was far from being just at one place. You could meet all sorts of interesting Web Summit visitors at pretty much all of the places.

This certainly requires some effort. In order to get anything out of an event like this you have to actively make it happen. Plan who you'd like to meet, walk around, look around, talk with people. It can be overwhelming and 3 days (and nights) of this indeed can be a bit exhausting but also very rewarding.

Besides, there's worse ways to work than over a pint of Guinness or Smithwick's in the evening.

<comment><AUTHOR> Don't get me wrong, the evenings were great because Dublins night live is great. The intentions behind the Night Summit might be good but I can't talk to anyone in a disco. At the end it worked out for us because we talked to really cool people and had a great time at Dublin's pubs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Regarding your P.S., there has been a huge controversy here in Ireland regarding the move to Lisbon since it was announced. Paddy Cosgrave has blamed everyone under the sun for the problems that apparently require the event to be moved, but at the end of the day, the Portuguese government offered them money while the Irish government refused to cater to their demands so I would have no doubt that the only thing that matters to those involved is the cash. The whole debacle has been pretty embarrassing for Paddy Cosgrave and the WebSummit.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is simply a shame since leaving Dublin over money (besides making a shitload of it either way) is just uninspiring.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Did your return key break..? ;-)

<comment><AUTHOR> character limit

<comment><USER4> Gotcha.

I would've loved one less sentence and more readability.

I was at Web Summit, too. Booths were pretty small, uh? It was four of us, and it was kind of ridiculous how little space they give you for EUR 500...

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, totally. We were three guys and it was really packed. But I was glad that we were at the town square. From all the halls there was the most free space.

<comment><USER4> Yup, well worth it :-)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Abuses show Assange case was never about law - <AUTHOR> https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2019-05-27/abuses-show-assange-case-was-never-about-law/ <comment><USER2> According to the UN Special Rapporteur on torture, who just visited Assange [1], he has fallen gravely ill and shows all the signs of prolonged psychological torture.

Apparently at first he assumed Assange was just a good actor, but after visiting him it had become clear to him and the medical experts with him that this is a case of treatment amounting to psychological torture, the likes of which (psychological, not physical) he has not seen in 20 years.

He's been giving numerous interviews about the matter and says that extradition to the US should be ruled out at all costs and that he has very real fears for Assange's health and for the probable violation of his human rights.

[1] [https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/julian-assange-showing- sy...](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/julian-assange-showing-symptoms- psychological-torture-expert-says-n1012081)

<comment><USER3> > that this is a case of treatment amounting to psychological torture

I don't deny his symptoms, but I strongly deny that "his treatment" by others led to those symptoms.

His own decisions and actions, namely, to live in a cramped room for years, and not going to see a doctor, led to those.

Now, you may argue that he was right to do so. But it was by his own volition. Sweden would have given him first-class medical treatment and much better living conditions, even if he would have been put in a prison cell (which isn't too likely).

<comment><USER2> I agree with you. I believe he even offered to present himself to Sweden if he could be guaranteed that he would not be extradited to the US. A Swedish prison would be a country club in comparison. But I think the concern of the UN here is that the circumstances were prolonged due to the refusal of all states to abide by a more or less binding UN ruling.

<comment><USER3> > more or less binding UN ruling

Less. As in "not at all binding".

<comment><USER2> "Binding", in that the parties had signed the convention and agreed to "uphold" such rulings. They instead claimed that "Assange was free to leave at any time", i.e. that they were "upholding" the ruling. At the very least, Assange would be entitled to compensation as a means of enforcing the ruling, should the states refuse to comply. Which court would rule about such compensation is not clear to me. Perhaps the European court of Human Rights, but that is speculation on my part.

<comment><USER3> You're right, I concede that point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> > _No state in the world gives a non-citizen political asylum to avoid a rape > trial_

The granting of political asylum does not prove the crimes alleged are solely political. That this point is granted zero further attention weakens every subsequent claim.

The granting of political asylum is itself a political act. Particularly when extended by an executive. When Assange's asylum was granted, Assange was popular and well known. The Ecuadorean leader drew power from an anti-American base. Years later, most Americans don't know who Assange is [1]. The leadership in Ecuador changed, and with it the political incentives that made Assange valuable [2].

I don't think Assange fled the Swedish charges _per se_. But there is insufficient evidence to show he didn't commit any _bona fide_ crimes under U.S. law. Yes, he exposed war crimes. But he also published sensitive information of zero public benefit yet detrimental to those exposed, _e.g._ agents in terrorist organisations or the medical records of gay men in Saudi Arabia [3].

I am unfamiliar as to how those balance under American law. But to dismiss the latter solely because of the former is to say a good deed single-handedly excuses bad deeds, which isn't justice.

[1] [https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles- reports/20...](https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles- reports/2019/04/11/julian-assange-wikileaks-arrested-poll-survey)

[2] [https://www.wsj.com/articles/ecuadors-president-turns-on- his...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/ecuadors-president-turns-on-his-anti- american-mentor-1517308200)

[3] [https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/aug/23/wikileaks- post...](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/aug/23/wikileaks-posts- sensitive-medical-information-saudi-arabia)

[4] [https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=6024868-Assa...](https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=6024868-Assange- Superseding-Indictment)

<comment><USER5> > But there is insufficient evidence to show he didn't commit any _bona fide_ > crimes under U.S. law.

Assange is an Australian, currently in the U.K., and was accused of rape in Sweden. We shouldn't let the apparently global reach of U.S. law go unexamined.

<comment><USER6> So as an American, with an American targeted business (and having never visited the EU), doesn't the EU's GDPR law make the same attempt at global reach should a European decide, unbeknownst to me, to visit my web properties? Or are you suggesting that laws that try to assert such global scope are wrong in general?

<comment><USER5> That's a good question - if your business has no presence in the EU, then I would think the GDPR is toothless? But yes, I don't like such laws in general.

Although the attempt is certainly not the _same_ , as I don't think you can get extradited for GDPR violations.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> How could anyone possibly think this was ever about the law? When he first published "Collateral Murder", you knew what it was about, and you knew how it would (eventually) end for him. Does anyone not living under a rock, think what is happening to Assange is even remotely based on law and justice? spoiler alert: it's not!

<comment><USER8> Do you think the rape charges were made from nothing?

<comment><USER9> Did you follow the Snowden case? In early interviews he talked about working for the CIA and in order to coerce a senior official, they got him drunk and then had the cops arrest him for DUI. Then told him if he didn't comply, the DUI charges would end his career. Can you put 2 and 2 together here?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The whole "didn't flee rape charges" (or some form of that claim as the 'charges' thing hadn't happened at that time IIRC) situation is always odd to me.

Sweeden considers espionage a political crime and does not extradite people for political crimes. Sweeden seems like a great place to be if you're wanted for political crimes. Not a great situation in life, but a good place to be for that.

The usual theory in response to that is that the US was going to kidnap him from Sweeden or something (it seems to be the standard response I get). I find the idea that a kidnapping would be less likely in the UK or Ecuador fairly absurd. If the US (or any nation) really wanted him that bad, it seems like a first world country that doesn't extradite political crimes would be a RELATIVELY great place to be... and if things are as folks say about governments wanting to kidnap him, I think they could have done it long before the embassy events too.

I think Assange at some point (maybe the start, who knows) really has struggled with the "truth" in favor of grooming his own narrative. This is hardly unique to him, politicians do it all the time too, but it also makes his stated motives and explanations hard to belive. On their old Facebook page (not sure if they still had one) in the early days if you followed up and asked "hey want happened to what you said you were going to release today" they'd delete your post in short order, and any post about their past plans to release whatever it is they had promised ... IMO their willingness to control the information for their own purposes seemed to betray whatever people wanted Wikileaks to be. Not that they should just dump it without consideration but their actions did not seem to follow the ideals.

This article talks about "never about the law", and yet in the end he's charged with helping someone try to break into a computer. IMO that is a step beyond what a journalist should do. That's the law, it's a legitimate law IMO, and we'll see how the trial goes as for proving it and what if any punishment there is.

<comment><USER11> Might not extradite for political crimes, but they straight up let CIA kidnap people from their soil. If Assange was returned to Sweden, he'd be let out on 'house arrest' and he'd just dissapear into the dark one night.

<comment><USER12> As long as there will be Russian subs sailing under the nose of the Swedish authorities in Swedish teritorial waters then I'm pretty sure every Swedish government will play by the rules dictated by the US.

A country like Switzerland can afford to act a little bit more neutral because they are located in the middle of Europe, with no close enemy in sight, but when you share the same sea with the Russians things are different. Come to think of it even the Swiss had to renounce part of their famous banking secrecy when the American IRS came asking for questions.

<comment><USER10> Edit, oops I misunderstood your post, now I get it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is a hard read as so much of it is "I don't like this opinion I hear, here are some vied insults about people who share that view".

There doesn't seem to be any real critical thinking about Assange's actual actions here, or taking any accusations directed at him seriously.

To some extent this blog post takes the law as seriously as it claims the government(s) take it.

</comment><comment><USER13> The system is rigged but our society lacks the idealism necessary to make a change. We have no shared values. The only thing we agree about is who has power... So whoever that is can decide what values should be upheld; unfortunately those people are usually greedy psychopaths whose entire value systems revolve around personal aggrandisement and enrichment.

Our system empowers psychopaths because those people are attracted by power more than any other kind of person. I think the best solution is to abolish democracy and to replace it by a random number generator which elects government officials by random (kind of like jury duty). Randomn selection is the best way to prevent a system from being gamed.

</comment><comment><USER14> The biggest issue here imo is he encouraged his sources to get more information for him in way that could be considered to have a alleviated him of the protections a journalist would normally receive. I used to be a fan of Assange but hes lost his way entirely. That being said the US government ought not to be prosecuting actual whistleblowers.

</comment><comment><USER15> He starts by asserting that things which are incompatible with his personal opinions are factual errors or some artifact of a corporate media conspiracy.

He doesn't say "wake up sheeple" but this is unlikely to result in a good discussion and he has no new information or analysis to contribute.

<comment><USER16> He's compiling a list of existing information that, as per his assertion, every media outlet seems to ignore which therefore serves to misinform the readership.

The author isn't attempting to add anything new, he's merely trying to reincorporate the facts back into a narrative that has strayed from the appropriate journalistic path.

The facts presented plainly is the contribution.

<comment><USER15> Here's an exercise: try to find an actual fact in that blog post and then look to see whether it was in fact not covered in the stories about Assange. For example, "he wasn't fleeing rape charges" is true only to the extent that journalists said "charges" without explaining that it was an arrest warrant which could lead to those charges — that was heavily covered at the time and for the subsequent years in which it ended up, among other things, being litigated to the U.K. Supreme Court[1], all of which got a ton of publicity for years.

Again, I'm not saying anything about the actual merits of the case or the conduct of any of the parties involved, only that I don't think a good discussion will come out of an inflamatory blog post by someone who lacks particular legal expertise, knowledge about the case, and seems to be using it as grist for preexisting grievances about "corporate media".

Accordingly, I'm not going to reply further.

1\. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority)

<comment><USER9> The fact that he illustrated is: how the media keeps ignoring salient points about the case. They consistently get it wrong. That consistency is not a mistake, it's by design.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> > When Assange's popular recognition fell, and Ecuador's political incentives > changed, the asylum was rescinded.

An important side note: this is the why the state always attacks the personality and popularity of activists, and why it's important to defend personalities and people.

For example, let me say that, having met Cody Wilson several times and spending several hours with him on a couple of occasions (and moderating a panel on which he sat), I found him to be an absolute standup guy. He seems like a genuine patriot to me and a person of big heart and bravery.

<comment><USER18> This guy? [https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/01/texas-indicts- co...](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/01/texas-indicts-cody-wilson- on-multiple-counts-of-sexual-assault-of-a-minor/)

It's absolutely routine for basically anyone accused of sexual assault to find a whole bunch of men reporting that they seemed to be a standup guy. That doesn't mean they remain a standup guy when left alone around women.

<comment><USER19> Why can't they just be a standup guy that has issues dealing with women in specific circumstances? Why are they defined by that specific case and not their holistic behavior?

<comment><USER20> Why can't Josef Stalin just be a standup defender of the arts that has issues with killing people in specific circumstances?

<comment><USER21> Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The guy ran and seeked asylum because he feared he will 'be made an example of' by USA. He sat in that tiny room for 6 years while US actors were working hard to smear him as a rapist and Russian puppet, while insinuating that everyone who claims USA is targeting Assange, or that there are indictments just waiting for his arrest is a conspiracy theorist.

The moment he was removed from the embassy protection (again, as result of extreme pressure by USA onto Ecuador), the indictment for a death-sentence charge becomes public, and his personal belongings are illegally given by Ecuador to USA.

In my opinion, Assange was proven right.

<comment><USER22> The Russian puppet claims only started after Wikileaks started acting like a Russian puppet.

<comment><USER23> How's that? Leaking info about corruption in a political party doesn't make them Russian puppets just because you happen to be a member of that party.

<comment><USER24> No, but knowingly releasing documents that were partially or entirely forged by the Russian intelligence agencies does make one a Russian puppet.

Which is exactly what Wikileaks did, openly, at Assange's direction...despite the misgivings of the rest of the staff that the releases were timed for political effect on the US campaign on not out of some desire for the truth.

<comment><USER23> This is the first I've heard that the DNC/Podesta emails were forged, do you have a source for that?

And personally, assuming the emails are legit, I would rather they release that info before the election when it actually matters instead of afterwards. If a candidate is engaging in collusion/corruption to rig the primary against a competitor (Sanders) and receiving debate questions prior to a debate that's something I'd want voters to know about.

<comment><USER24> [https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2017/05/26/russi...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2017/05/26/russian- dnc-hackers-planted-leaks-with-fake-data/#50209f5e52ff)

<comment><USER23> This is in regards to emails leaked from a journalist David Satter by Fancy Bear, the article doesn't say those were published by Wikileaks and I couldn't confirm elsewhere that they were. The article does mention:

>The Clinton campaign warned about the files pilfered from Podesta and published on Wikileaks, though it never offered any proof.

While the Podesta emails are believed by US intelligence to have been hacked by Fancy Bear as well, the wikipedia page on the Podesta hack says this:

>Cybersecurity experts interviewed by PolitiFact believe the majority of emails are probably unaltered, while stating it is possible that the hackers inserted at least some doctored or fabricated emails. The article then attests that the Clinton campaign, however, has yet to produce any evidence that any specific emails in the latest leak were fraudulent.[4] A subsequent investigation by U.S. intelligence agencies also reported that the files obtained by WikiLeaks during the U.S. election contained no "evident forgeries".[5]

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

In regards to the DNC server leaks, there is no convincing evidence the Russians were involved and I do not trust the conclusions of an analysis done by a third-party cyber security company contracted by the DNC (Crowdstrike)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> The US gov got him where they wanted him, but let's hope Assange breaks this cycle of the U.S. gov arresting and accusing whistleblowers of espionage by not taking any plea deal or pleading guilty. He needs to take this all the way to the Supreme Court.

<comment><USER26> Calling him a whistleblower may have fit early on in his 'career', but by the end he was a huckster and an agent, knowing or unknowing, in state level espionage.

I absolutely think the case should go to the Supreme Court, if only to clarify the culpability journalists and news agencies have when they publish illegally obtained information.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> part of the snowden leaks was a document where the gov recognized JA as an increasing threat, and laid out plans to character assasinate him and other psyops things, and most of the bullshit being spewed about him is easily identifiable as feddback loops on that operation which continues today</comment>


Ask HN: What is a good alternative to PayPal? - <AUTHOR> Requirements: 1- has recurring payments 2- invisible to end user 3- accepts canadian companies 4- (nice to have) easy to set-up 5- (nice to have) does not require a merchant bank account. <comment><USER2> I've said this before (for which I've been roundly criticized), and I'll say it again.

The reason there is no good alternative to PayPal, and especially an alternative that works internationally, is the regulatory environment around money transmission in the United States. If startups expect to solve this problem, there needs to be a coordinated effort to change that environment just as there was a coordinated effort to combat SOPA.

Exhibit A - [http://www.thinkcomputer.com/corporate/whitepapers/heldhosta...](http://www.thinkcomputer.com/corporate/whitepapers/heldhostage.pdf)

Exhibit B - <http://www.plainsite.org/flashlight/case.html?id=716056>

Exhibit C - <http://www.plainsite.org/issues/index.html?id=1>

Exhibit D - [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi- bin/displaycode?section=fin...](http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi- bin/displaycode?section=fin&group=01001-02000&file=2000-2003)

To head off the most common objections: PayPal is grandfathered in at this point. You can only get away with breaking the law and hoping no one will notice for so long. The penalties for violation are criminal (federal felony), not civil. And yes, I'm biased as the head of a payments company affected by the law, but I'm not the only one, and I'm not wrong.

<comment><USER3> Hi Aaron I'm interested in this space too, especially around the latter. The issue with money transfers U.S & regulatory practices hindering any innovative development on the international front. What have your experiences been with facecash in that area?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm going with "wait for Stripe to arrive" personally.

<comment><USER5> We're using Stripe - it's out already.

Also check out Dwolla - <http://dwolla.com>

<comment><AUTHOR> Stripe looks good, but its not available for canadian companies. Dwolla doesn't seem to have a way to do invisible recurring payments.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> One of the best services out there is <http://www.braintreepayments.com/> but you can also look at <http://www.2checkout.com>. Both of them have great solutions depending on what you need. We are migrating from PayPal to BrainTree this spring.

<comment><USER7> They don't seem to provide an all-in-one service for non-US customers.

<comment><USER6> Contact William Ready, he is the CEO of BrainTree and very accessible. There are many Global companies using their service so it might be worth dropping him a message just to clarify. <http://www.linkedin.com/pub/william- ready/b/203/1b1>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I like Saasy (<http://saasy.com/>). It's frictionless and supports international merchants but a little pricier than other options.

<comment><USER9> Using them right now - pretty easy to implement. Sadly, my product has not seen any purchases yet so I can't comment on the whole money part of it yet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Possibly one of the Amazon payments solutions?

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Payments>

<comment><USER11> As a consumer I personally prefer Amazon Payments. They already have my information and their checkout is familiar.

I can't say if they support international payments though (but they're a good "for US customers" option!)

<comment><USER12> I'm in Ireland and pay through Amazon for JungleDisk.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I think WePay deserves mention here, though AFAIK they don't yet support Canadian businesses. They don't require a merchant account, support recurring payments, and can be made fairly though perhaps not completely invisible. I've found their API quite easy to use.

<comment><USER6> WePay is good for selling tickets or selling items through their web store, not for general ecommerce. Its not useful for developers.

<comment><USER13> Have you actually looked at their API? I'm using it for something quite different from that. (My site isn't live yet or I'd show you.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Go with Beanstream as the payment gateway, and either Chargify or Recurly for the recurring payments. I've personally had no problem with this combination on many projects, and all of my clients are canadian companies.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's not my clients are canadian, it's my company is canadian and Beanstream does not work with non-US. I'll take a look at chargify though :)

<comment><USER15> His clients are the ones accepting payments though, so they need Canadian merchant accounts. Beanstream accepts Canadian merchants. We just started the sign up process with them last week, from Victoria BC.

We're going with Beanstream + Chargify. You might want to take a look at this: [http://expletiveinserted.com/2011/10/02/stripes-new- online-p...](http://expletiveinserted.com/2011/10/02/stripes-new-online- payments-service-wheres-the-catch/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Samurai from FeeFighters <https://samurai.feefighters.com/>. They seem to be beta-testing their service for Canadian companies.

<comment><AUTHOR> their site and APIs say nothing about recurring payments. I don't think they support it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> During my search, I have found that Stripe is the best solution out there. There is even a post with cost comparison ([http://expletiveinserted.com/2011/10/02/stripes-new- online-p...](http://expletiveinserted.com/2011/10/02/stripes-new-online- payments-service-wheres-the-catch/)) that demosntrates that is also cheap.

Unfortunately, Stripe is for USA-only.

An alternative is, as some people already mentioned, <http://saasy.com/>, which is a FastSpring service.

</comment><comment><USER18> Since you mention recurring payments as a priority, I'd recommend Chargify. They give a list of gateway options here: <http://chargify.com/payment- gateways/>

One of my businesses is an online retailer. We use PayPal Standard (but don't require a PP account) simply because the UI for generating postage and tracking shipments is very easy. USPS has an open API, but I've yet to find a payment processor that integrates shipping.

<comment><USER19> I second this, <http://chargify.com> has many more features than Braintree, Spreedly, and Recurly. Also, they work with international merchant accounts/gateways.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Stripe.com, although not sure about #3.

</comment><comment><USER21> Wait for Stripe. It should be there soon. Just wait for it. It is hands down the best option out there.

</comment><comment><USER22> How "invisible" is critical? If not really, then Plimus looks nice, share*it also has subscriptions. Both are quite easy to integrate (web callbacks).

<comment><USER7> I haven't used it, but BMT Micro seems to offer the same kind of service.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> You won't find anything quite like PayPal but some nice options include Payfirma, Versapay and Intuit GoPayment.

</comment><comment><USER24> Stripe is the best right now. Great user interface, great API, and awesome staff. Give it a try.

</comment><comment><USER25> Do you consider PayPal to be invisible to the end user?

<comment><AUTHOR> PayPal standard is not, but PayPal Pro is. With Pro, the user doesn't need a Paypal account, would never get redirected to paypal site, and their credit card doesn't show paypal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> 6 (nice to have) handles invoicing automatically.

</comment><comment><USER27> Dwollar

check it out

<comment><USER6> its actually called Dwolla <https://www.dwolla.com/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Consider Bitcoin yet?

</comment><comment><USER29> Bitcoin is the best!</comment>


Show HN: An open source EmberJS-powered FirefoxOS for importing contacts - <AUTHOR> http://vadosware.com/2014/11/19/vcfporter-an-open-source-cross-platform-ember-app-for-importing-contacts-vcard-on-firefoxos/

<comment><AUTHOR> Creator here -- was very fun to build this, though it's somewhat obviated by the recent FF 2.0 release (it properly reads a VCF that error'd in 1.3)

Also my first foray into embedded Ember :)</comment>


How QuizUp Mastered Android Device Fragmentation - <AUTHOR> http://blog.testmunk.com/quizup-mastering-android-device-fragmentation-automated-testing/

<comment><USER2> It would have been nice to hear how they went about solving all of the different device UI issues they ran into. Looking at the screenshot in the article, there seemed to be a lot of inconsistencies amongst devices. How did they come up with a solution to fix each issue? Did they target screen sizes and pixel densities like the app were a webpage and styled things differently depending on those factors?

<comment><USER3> I don't know how they did it but I know how I would do it: stop fighting Android and work with it. "Issue 1" is a classic example of someone trying to have a lot of control over their layout and ultimately creating a lot of work for themselves. Instead of trying to lay things out exactly, use the built in layout managers in Android. In this example one could use a LinearLayout to stack items one below the other, ensuring the "Connect with Facebook" button would never overlap the text above it.

<comment><USER4> Yeah, it seems like this article is a perfect example of why trying to do it your own way, instead of the Android way, is going to cause a lot of problems.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Martin here founder of testmunk. Yes, we support hybrid apps. You are able to execute common gestures such as scrolling, touching, swiping, filling forms and you can verify the results too.

</comment><comment><USER5> If you're a full time android dev with experience doing testing like this, could you comment on how it compares to cross-device testing for the web, where you have to deal with desktops of various sizes, browsers of different types (IE problems, ofc), now mobile browsers, etc. It seems that Android development these days is as much of a hornet's nest as web dev, perhaps even more so?

</comment><comment><USER6> How well do automated testing services like testmunk work with hybrid applications? Can it interact with data instead webviews (i.e. buttons, forms etc)?</comment>


Why are there so few women programmers? - <AUTHOR> http://scripting.com/2013/08/19/whyArentThereMoreWomenProgrammers?

<comment><USER2> Rewind, reload, repeat, restart... again.

<comment><USER3> You're right. I didn't read the article but I bet someone already replied and started a sexism chit chat to nowhere land.</comment></comment>


Generals.io Bot API: Build bots to play against humans - <AUTHOR> http://dev.generals.io <comment><USER2> Do bots watch ads?

For the last several weeks I've been an avid generals player. For awhile I was even ranked #7 on the FFA ladder. And I have to say that this is the second change in about a week that has left me confused about who generals is trying to appeal to. Maybe the bots will be fun for humans to play against but I doubt it. Maybe this will be a benign change and the quality of the bots that play generals on the non-bot servers won't improve much from what they are now. But either way why is an ad-supported game encouraging bots to try and take it over? What happens when the bots become so good and so prevalent that humans can't hope to compete? Why would anyone want to play?

Though I guess in the end I don't really care all that much as the recent changes to the movement scheme have really put me off the game. High level play used to be about feints and visibility, cutting off your opponents tendrils whilst building your own, pulling their forces away from your king while trying to find theirs. It really had a nice balance. Now, not so much.

I don't want to seem too sour. I had a lot of fun with generals [thanks devs] but now I'm in search of a new favorite game.

PWG

<comment><USER3> I think I'd like to point out two very important points you may be missing:

1\. This was implemented directly to combat the prevalence of bots on the EU & NA servers (and the annoyance some players were facing when they were just playing AIs all the time), where you're now not allowed to bot on. Players have the _option_ of choosing whether or not they wish to play against bots, but if they wish not to they can still play on the NA and EU servers.

2\. We're supported by ads, but that doesn't mean we want to stop people enjoying the game in their own ways. We still have tens of thousands of players daily on the other servers, so a few tens of pounds on a bot server for people to compete in programming against one another doesn't seem too problematic.

And, to address your movement concern, it was a tough decision to make. But we wanted to allow everyone to enjoy the game, even people with lag or on mobile devices (where control is significantly harder). If you dislike the new movement settings, you are able to disable them in the options menu.

<comment><USER2> I debated whether to respond to your comment at all. Let me first say that I wish you all the best and hope for your continued success. However, some of what you said feels like you're asserting that "up" is in fact "down". So let me first establish my bona fides with this screenshot that was taken on the 25 of last month:

[http://imgur.com/a/uv1C6](http://imgur.com/a/uv1C6)

so you can believe me when I say that I was a pretty good player that spent a lot of time playing your game.

> This was implemented directly to combat the prevalence of bots on the EU & > NA servers (and the annoyance some players were facing when they were just > playing AIs all the time), where you're now not allowed to bot on. Players > have the option of choosing whether or not they wish to play against bots, > but if they wish not to they can still play on the NA and EU servers.

Respectfully, yours is not the first game to have these types of problems. People grief and cheat in every online game where it's possible. Creating bot- only servers will not curtail bot use on non-bot servers. It will instead give people who grief and cheat stronger bots that they can pull down from github or wherever and adapt to play on non-bot servers.

They only thing that will stop people from using bots in bot free zones are technological countermeasures. Captchas being the classic example of such technology.

> If you dislike the new movement settings, you are able to disable them in > the options menu.

That fact that you suggest this as a way to address my concerns makes me wonder if you actually play your game outside of testing it to see if a new feature works.

When you changed the way players can move you not only changed how I play the game but how everyone else plays against me. Essentially, with this latest revision you've created a substantially different game. Using the option to limit how I move without it changing how my opponent's move would only serve to put me at a disadvantage. It would not roll back the clock to the make the game be like the old game I liked.

All of the tactical nuance that the game used to have was based on timing and multitasking. High level gameplay steamed from getting inside your opponent's head and trying to force them into mistakes. The key to doing that was to realize that if an opponent is trying one thing they most likely aren't doing something else. If you could get them to focus on the wrong thing you gained the advantage. In my opinion the old game had a great balance between strategy and execution. If you weren't good at both you couldn't win. The new control scheme throws that particular balance out window. It's hard to describe in words because it's a million little differences that add up to a whole but suffice it to say that games now to me feel less like a sword fight and more like people running at each other with pots on their heads.

<comment><USER4> Another avid player here, also ranked in the top 10 for a decent amount of time, now in the mid one hundreds.

I think the primary difference is now that moves can be infinitely queued, whereas in the past moving into an enemy's territory took time and concentration. Now, if I know where enemy cities are, I can order them to be attacked within a few seconds. Previously players were required to constantly expend time and concentration on each move, making multitasking and balancing a much more fine dance.

The new system tends to favor troop numbers above all, prioritizing strength over strategy. Before the update, if I had 2/3rds the troops of an average opponent by the time an 8v8 was down to a 1v1, I had about a 50% chance of winning. Now it's _maybe_ a 10% chance.

<comment><USER5> I don't play the game, but this is an interesting discussion to hear you players cover. Are you sure it's not emphasizing strength over APM and not strength over strategy? (The description you give makes it seem like that)

<comment><USER3> This is really what the argument boils down to. Whether being able to move only once at a time could really be considered strategy or just mechanical skill.

Personally, I feel that this falls under the category of mechanical skill, because you can play just as well with this movement style as you can in the previous style, it just requires less ability to click and press a key exactly every 500ms.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This will be super interesting. I think this game makes very much sense as an intermediate frontier on the road to a StarCraft AI. Here are my reasons:

* The playing field is relatively limited, just a little larger than Go. This makes it much more approachable than StarCraft as you will not need a server farm to get started.

* It has a fog of war, so a bot needs to handle uncertainty and have a memory.

* It's controlled through a web API and allows total freedom for the bot implementation by that.

* There are very competitive humans players.

* There is already a very huge dump of replays to train on.

I really hope this will get traction and establish as an ongoing AI competition. Also it will be very interesting, when the first bots will be better than the top humans here.

</comment><comment><USER7> [https://halite.io](https://halite.io) is pretty similar if you'd like to play against bots only. Plus it has a great forum that has a few posts on creating a bot using ML.

<comment><USER6> Halite also looks interesting, but I think with generals bot-makers will have much more possibilities, because there are no limitations for your implementation. The game mechanics might also a little more challenging in generals, especially the fog of war makes a huge difference imo.

<comment><USER8> You'd be surprised how many implementation options there are in halite. People have come up with starter packages for just about every language you would ever want to use.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is very interesting and I'd love to play with it. As a player though, the thought of being matched against a bot sucks in the sense that it makes the game less enjoyable. I enjoy winning (mostly losing) against flesh and bone humans. I wonder if the folks of generals.io would implement a different "league" where bots are somehow not allowed.

<comment><USER6> That is already there :) Only one of the three servers allows bots.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Fix the paragraph on the Bot API page... "Your bot will be self-hosted, meaning you don't upload anything to your servers (we never see your code)."

<comment><USER3> Oooh, nice catch! Made the fix, will be updated next time we release.

EDIT: Well, I tried, Vzhou beat me to fixing it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is going to add a great new dimension to the game, especially in terms of being able to 2v2 with a bot for a partner.

</comment><comment><USER12> This might revive my interest in Generals, as I found it a mixture of boring and excitingly stressful when I played by hand.

However, because Generals is an RTS, bots might have a pretty steep advantage (although movements take a good bit of time, so it's not as bad as it could be). Does anybody know how bad this is in real play?

<comment><USER3> Although we haven't had many bots on bot.generals.io yet (early days), my experience of playing against bots on the main leagues show that although we had several dozen bots built, all of them were no match for a competent human being. The only one that comes close is called "Sora AI", but that AI can be easily beaten by anyone in the top fifty odd.

I'd be interested to see if a bot will be able to always defeat players, waiting for what will happen with this latest release.

<comment><USER13> The bots were all pretty incompetent, but it was INFURIATING to play against a dumb bot that does nothing but attack you.

Unlike a player, where you have a decent chance to juke their stack and cap them (and then have a great chance to win), many dumb bot implementations would just aggressively trade 1:1, basically guaranteeing that you're both screwed.

I got up to rank #3 on the FFA US server, and spawning next to Simple Bot would mess me up more than spawning next to an 80+ (back when it topped out at ~86).

That, and the terrible latency handling (if your internet is acting up a tiny but, you basically have no chance to win), was what made me stop playing eventually.

<comment><USER3> Well, then I'm glad I think we've fixed both of these issues! Bots now can only play on one server, so people have the choice of playing against them.

Also we've significantly reduced the impact of lag by allowing you to queue up moves, even in enemy territory. Although all real-time games need a certain amount of reliability in your internet connection to work, I think we've recently reduced it significantly. Although, of course, any suggestions you have for improvement would still be useful!

<comment><USER13> No, that's perfect. Certainly there's always going to be a limit to lag compensation, but it was very frustrating when you could no longer double move, but your opponent could.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This is great, I'm glad the developers are officially supporting this now. I had started building a simple bot before this was released [https://github.com/pfista/generals](https://github.com/pfista/generals)

</comment><comment><USER15> Are all game replays since inception stored in a database? It would be great if you could release one grand zip file to the public that could then be hosted on S3. Even a subset of say all games of the top 200 FFA players would make an interesting training data set!

<comment><USER3> Already released! You can see the page explaining it here:

[http://dev.generals.io/replays](http://dev.generals.io/replays)

It contains 200,000 games of varying levels, so should hopefully make good training data.

<comment><USER16> One thing that's missing is a tool to reconstruct a bot's input at a particular turn from the replays (they don't have fog of war).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I know this could be a bit of a big ask because obviously it would be too easy to clone the website, but is there any chance of a headless game server that would let us do adversarial training?

</comment><comment><USER18> I started making a bot last night but it keep getting disconnected in the first 10ish rounds. Anyone else see this and resolve it?

<comment><USER3> Could you give us some details on this? Like which web socket library you used, the technology you used, etc?

If you copy & paste the example bot verbatim, does that work for over 10 rounds? As far as I know we've got tens of bots working at the moment and I haven't heard this strange problem from anyone else.

<comment><USER18> I don't have the code handy at the moment but I was using ruby with this socket.io gem 'socket.io-client-simple'

I was able to connect, join a game, send chat messages, just couldn't stay connected.

I basically just converted the JS tutorial on the site to ruby style.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Awesome stuff. I think a bot server is a logical choice and a good one. It will be neat to see what people can come up with.</comment>


A Walk on the Dart Side: A Quick Tour of Dart [2011] - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IavVtOE_Fg

<comment><AUTHOR> Very thorough discussion on the benefits of optional typing in the last 3rd of the talk. Very interesting if you want to learn more about what optional typing means & enables. Very critical audience :D</comment>


Warm and Cold Water KIDS SCIENCE without long boring parental prep - <AUTHOR> https://youtu.be/XGpKH0Sobcs <comment><AUTHOR> I am a stay at home mum of twins & previously a scientist . I spend many hours trying to teach my twins through play and the part I struggled the most, is the long preparations before an activity.

I decided to take matters on my own hands and create what I was looking for: Quick videos, engaging for young audience (2–7 Year Olds) with easy science activities that use household items.

Let me know, ask me questions & stay connected!</comment>


Ask HN: Forum software similar to the style of HN posts/comments? - <AUTHOR>

I want to start a discussion board and was wondering if there was something I could use with threaded comments, and other features.
I'm more of a front-end dev and don't have enough experience to build something like this on my own.
Anyone want to lend me a hand? <comment><USER2> [http://www.discourse.org/](http://www.discourse.org/)

Designed for just this sort of thing. It's fairly easy to get a basic install going on Heroku, also comes with moderation features.

<comment><USER3> Looks really slick. Even though I don't work with Ruby, I might just play around after reading this statement:

""Move back and forth freely between your laptop and your tablet, without the constant irritation of being told this forum has an app, do you want it?"</comment></comment>


How To Develop a Exceptional Software Product  - <AUTHOR> http://www.abhinavgulyani.com/how-to-develop-a-software-product/ Notes on software development <comment><USER2> Wow, is this a troll/joke post? _This_ is why developers look at marketers with such disdain...

<comment><AUTHOR> Looking at the other side of the view. What I am trying to tell someone in this blog post is that there are cheaper options while you look at programmers. I have personally hired a team of 3 developers who have developed softwares for me (to automate few tasks) and they costed me a total salary of 1200$ which any native person from the west would had charged me atleast 3x the same amount. Since, there are other options ofcourse and if any developer who reads this post will under value outsourcing or systemizing the work in this manner.

Anyways, for those looking for some open suggestions. I just did that. :)

<comment><USER2> Then just say _that_ , and leave the rest of the suggestions on creating a product, finding a market, etc. out of it. It's like the tired old "if you get x people for y a day" or "if you could only get [arbitrary small percentage] of a [giant market]" marketing speak that any semi-experienced dev knows is completely misleading.

There are devs struggling to make a few hundred sales in the iOS/Android app stores while producing quality products. Selling software isn't easy, and making it sound trivial well...makes it sound like a scam.</comment></comment></comment>


Why Bitcoin Isn't Worth More Than Gold - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-12/and-a-bitcoin-is-now-worth <comment><USER2> The units have no correlation

<comment><USER3> I'll trade you a pound of gold for a pound of Bitcoin.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> My takeaway is 1 BTC will eventually worth $347,000. :)</comment>


Popularity of Salvia May Thwart Medical Use - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/09/us/09salvia.html?hp=&pagewanted=all <comment><USER2> The article doesn't touch on medical uses other than the same therapeutic ones as other psychedelics and I doubt that salvia would be as good medically in that sense as the more traditional psychedelics.

This is the most interesting medical usage of salvia: a new atypical opioid. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herkinorin></comment>


Failreminder.com, just launched, any feedback?  - <AUTHOR>

http://failreminder.com <comment><USER2> Probably not a good idea to put any political figure with a popular following on your front page - why alienate a segment of your audience?

<comment><AUTHOR> You are right. Let's change that. and thanks for the head up

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Honestly, I don't see how this is any different than awesomenessreminders.com. How are you set apart from that service? This is important, since they already have national press coverage and a userbase. What's going to stop them from pivoting ever so slightly to crush you?

<comment><AUTHOR> Deeply different, it leverages on awesomenessreminders.com weakness, it becomes easily boring. Our message will be different every time, and not only in the way we present it to you, but also in its content.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The easiest weakness of awesomenessreminders you could attack, but failed to do so? Site design.

<comment><AUTHOR> Why do you think that's the easiest to attack? i think your point is wrong. i acknowledge that i plainly copied the design but that's not an important issue. Their site design is not one of their weaknesses.

<comment><USER4> I'm not a designer, but as a consumer I think site design is extremely important. If your site looks like it was thrown up hastily or is a fly-by- night operation, I'm definitely less likely to give you my credit card information. Why is it the easiest to attack? Because I think their design is _so_ bad that it wouldn't be hard to dramatically improve, with relatively little effort.</comment></comment></comment>


Why CouchDB over MongoDB and Riak? Distributability. - <AUTHOR> http://www.nickaugust.com/post/393630580/bend-or-break-choosing-a-datastore-for-web

<comment><AUTHOR> Bend or Break: Choosing a Datastore for Web Applications. Why CouchDB over MongoDB and Riak? Distributability</comment>