We're officially launching UBI - <AUTHOR> https://www.givedirectly.org/blog-post?id=7285958994145750939 <comment><USER2> How can you meaningfully experiment with UBI if the "BI" is not even _universal_? My understanding is that many of the criticisms of UBI are based on externalities that would only become manifest in a meaningfully large population. For example, price increases and inflation might arise from everyone having extra money.

If you're only testing UBI on a small population, then 1) it's not even universal, and 2) there will not be enough "beta testers" to (in)validate these criticisms.

So while this may be a "success" (how do you even measure that?) it's not a meaningful experiment at all.

<comment><USER3> I agree that it's tough to measure "success," but at least it would be presumably easy to measure failure. If we see exactly what opponents claim will happen, it would suggest a more strict implementation might be worse.

My concern is that with this we're likely looking at an even worse version of the problems seen with sending shoes to Africa [1]. Over the duration of this experiment, it's quite possible you'll create a society that abandons skills / equipment / expertise necessary to sustain an economy. That won't be a problem until the experiment ends, and then you've left people in a place far less than where you found them.

[1] [http://www.djiboutijones.com/2014/02/dont-send-your-used- sho...](http://www.djiboutijones.com/2014/02/dont-send-your-used-shoes-to- africa-or-maybe-do-send-them/)

<comment><USER4> This is the exact opposite of that. When you send free goods into an economy, you inhibit demand which in turn inhibits economic growth. When you send money into an economy, in increase demand and it will have the opposite effect.

<comment><USER3> UBI doesn't send money in, it redistributes it.

And if solving economic problems were as simple as "just take more money from the rich people and give it to the poor people," this problem would have been solved centuries ago.

<comment><USER4> The post I was responding to wasn't citicizing UBI, but rather criticizing this specific type of program which DOES inject money into the local economy from outside doners.

> And if solving economic problems were as simple as "just take more money > from the rich people and give it to the poor people," this problem would > have been solved centuries ago.

When in history have we tried anything like UBI? How can we know if it works if we have never tried it?

<comment><USER3> We've provided subsidies and guarantees to try to help poor people and manipulated markets with predictable results countless times. In the US, higher education loans and urban housing are modern day examples of this.

UBI isn't inherently different. It's trying to pretend you can manipulate a market with no detrimental side effects, but it's been tried many, many times.

<comment><USER4> The whole point of UBI is that markets are being manipulated as INDIRECTLY as possible. You aren't subsidizing people to not work (unemployment benefits), subsidizing people to work (minimum wage), subsidizing particular goods (housing, education loans) or inflating demand for a specific set of goods (food stamps).

You seem to be of the opinion that nothing can be done to eliminate poverty, so why even try?

<comment><USER3> I disagree. It may not be targeted to an industry, but it is a colossal subsidy that will greatly affect markets in a lot of ways.

Plenty can be done to eliminate poverty. I'm confused why you would think large-scale involuntary wealth redistribution is the only way.

<comment><USER4> > it is a colossal subsidy that will greatly affect markets in a lot of ways

It is, by definition, not a subsidy since it does not target a subset of economic sectors.

> Plenty can be done to eliminate poverty.

Name one means of eliminating poverty without wealth re-distribution or subsidies. The only ones I know of involve sterilizing, deporting, killing or otherwise demographically elminating poor people.

<comment><USER3> It will absolutely subsidize the industries most likely to gain from poorer people having more money. The yacht and high-end watch industries will not benefit while housing, auto, and entertainment industries absolutely will. This is basic common sense.

Nobody's eliminated poverty yet, so it may be impossible. We do have ways of fighting it, though, which can (and does) include charitable giving (note: voluntary) and economic development of areas.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Like others have said, pilot programs are a poor trial for UBI. You're creating wealth for select individuals (even a village), so you aren't dealing with economic issues such as inflation.

For example, read about Mansa Musa, who gave away so much gold in his pilgrimage to Mecca in the 1300s that he caused devaluation of money (hyperinflation) for nearly 10 years [1]. The huge influx of "free" money caused lasting damage to the functioning of the economy.

I don't doubt doubt the effectiveness of UBI. I just also believe in the efficiency of markets to absorb influxes of money while keeping the relative cost of tangible assets the same.

1\. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musa_I_of_Mali#Islam_and_pilgr...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musa_I_of_Mali#Islam_and_pilgrimage_to_Meccasinglehandedly- caused-economic-crises)

<comment> munk-a I haven't seen any proposals for UBI that rely on printing money to fund the benefits so I imagine that the Fed will still be able to control money production rates and keep the total currency within fixed limits.

Would this run away inflation be possible in a system where we're drawing money out of the top of the economy?

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I wonder what the differences are between UBI and the day to day life's of people who get straight cash payments for being citizens like: UAE, Saudi Arabia, Native American tribesmen with successful casinos etc.

To my knowledge, it ain't all sunshine and rainbows (technical term) for them either. They suffer stagnation, heavy dependency into oil money(for those in the Middle East), and it's dsfinitely a time bomb which those in power know it's coming.

If anyone could present some points so we could further advance this point, id be grateful

<comment><USER7> I'm only really familiar with Abu Dhabi but there, idleness is a concern.

It's directly evident in schemes such as paying school children to exercise.

However, it is masked somewhat in the adult population as foreign companies are required to employ natives in senior positions. Anecdotally, the incumbents aren't famous for their work ethic.

But it's hard to argue that it's not overall positive for the local population. Healthcare, education, services etc are all excellent.

That being said, I don't think these are useful comparators. The elephant in the room is who is paying? In the case of Abu Dhabi, it's the buyers of their oil. As such, you don't have an internal tension between the net tax consumers and net tax generators. Nor do you have a significant allocation of resource issue when there is a surfeit of resource.

And I think it's the latter issue that is a critical one for UBI.

Although not equivalent, I think the example of UK child benefit is instructive. It was a universal benefit in the sense that it applied to all children regardless of parental income (it differed by birth order but that's not material to the point). While the economy was doing well, the money flowed. Post crash, the economy tightened and it was an immediate target and became means tested.

It's not clear to me that, even if you managed to get UBI implemented, it would be stable. I would expect that it would need to show tangible, widespread benefit in about one economic cycle. Otherwise, as soon as things started to slow, you'd be seeing stories about the wasters and layabouts. It wouldn't matter if there were many cf the refugee "deluge" or similar triggers.

In other words, I can see UBI lasting only if a number of other, very significant economic (cycles) and societal (selfishness) issues are resolved. Tricky.

<comment><USER6> thats an issue I considered as well for the gulf states. What happens when there is less oil consumption ? I'm very much hard pressed to think of a global company that has come out of these for all intensive purposes UBI countries. (Please don't cite Aramco or Emirates etc. As they all are either started or staffed largely by Americans and Brits)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> UBI desperately needs to be tried out on a semi-large scale as a social experiment. We can't even form a useful moral argument about it until we know its effects. Will it start shaping local and regional policy or is it just going to quietly get discarded as a idea before its time?

<comment><USER9>
       We can't even form a useful moral argument about it until we know its effects

Of course we can. It's ok for people to donate their money and time for this kind of experiment. It's not ok for governments to tax citizens for a new social giveaway unless others social benefits are reduced accordingly (which will never happen).

<comment><USER10> The most popular UBI proposals that I've seen all contain some level of social safety net reduction (some more than others). None of the proposals I've seen suggest that social services remain at their current level and we give everyone $ _N_ on top of that.

<comment><USER9> But, will it happen ? Are laws implemented according to the proposals ? Of course the most urgent thing will be to implement UBI. And then to raise it. No one will think about deleting previous welfare benefits

<comment><USER11> Where do you live that politicians aren't constantly trying to remove welfare benefits?

<comment><USER12> This is why UBI will never become law. Once you start talking about taking away benefits (Social Security, Medicare, SNAP, Food Stamps, HUD Housing Subsidies), people will freak out. The backlash will be very loud.

Look at the tax reform debate now: When they proposed taking away deductibility of mortgage interest or state and local taxes deductions, I started seeing headlines from the New York Times and Washington Post about how this a "Middle Class Tax Hike"...

I would compare UBI to the "second system syndrome" with software developers: If only we can start over with an entirely new platform rather than addressing the technical debt in the current system, all would be well.

<comment><USER11> Look up the Welfare Reform Act of 1996. And with UBI you'd be replacing benefits, not removing them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> When I look at the US and see how difficult it is to get universal health care I don't think that UBI has a chance. The people in power would rather see people starve on the streets.

<comment><USER14> No idea why this is being downvoted. It's plain as day.

<comment><USER15> Not sure but maybe because it's not that politicians of all stripes want people to starve but that there is disagreement on how to bring that about. It's a painfully true reality that there are people who when given every opportunity, trust funds, etc, they are still immense drags on their community and economy as a whole with the destruction they leave behind in their wake. How will UBI deal with it's empowerment of such people or such tendencies in people? Until you do, you don't have workable system but an absolutely disaster in the making that will amplify suffering rather than decrease it.

<comment><USER4> Nobody disputes that there are lazy people who wouldn't work if given UBI. The dispute is whether that is actually a problem for UBI.

The questions we need answered to know this are:

1) How many (what proportion) of these lazy people are there?

2) How much economic output is wasted by employers trying to filter these lazy people out of their workforce.

3) How much economic output is wasted by the systems employers have to create to force the lazy people whom they do hire to be productive.

4) How much economic output can we gain by giving non-lazy people a safety net that allows them to find ideal vocations for their talents and preferences.

Proponents of UBI generally maintain 1) is low enough to be out-weighted by 2-4) while skeptics claim it is high enough to out-weight 2-4)

Really, these questions can only be answered by data. While 2) and 3) will be very hard to measure with small/medium studies, we can start getting a pretty good idea of how big 1) and 4) are respectively. So far there have been promising indications that 1) may well be out-weighted 4), but we need more, better and larger studies to be sure.

UBI's biggest challenge will likely not be finding ways to minimize 1) vs. 4) sufficiently, but will be finding ways to overcome people's cultural and political fear of 1)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I suspect that UBI, or something similar, will be necessary when automation/AI/whatever-you-like is good enough to replace "front-end", customer-facing jobs. At that point, it'll be hard to break into the job market without having a degree in something, and there'll be a sharp spike of unemployment in the lower class.

<comment><USER17> Replace that 'degree in something' with 'degree in an IT field'. There will come a day, where programming and creative arts are the only things not fully automated. Doctors, Surgeons, Lawyers, even Architects will probably be automated by 2040.

Hopefully, that brings hospital care costs down, but I'm betting their still greedy and just make 10x as much on 10x less staff.

I'm anxious for the ai revolution to just get on with already. UBI will be needed eventually, I want us to hurry and get to the breaking point where unemployment is 40% or greater across the globe because of automation so policymakers start to see that without some safety net for people there will be an uprising. I'm optimistic we can come together as a human race and solve poverty someday.

But I'm not naive, it could become a dystopian world where the rich live in lavish cities with closed walls, and everyone else lives outside those walls.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Here's more info about the program [https://www.givedirectly.org/basic- income](https://www.givedirectly.org/basic-income)

      We will assess the impact of a basic income against a broad set of metrics, including:

      - economic status (income, assets, standard of living)
      - time use (work, education, leisure, community involvement)
      - risk-taking (migrating, starting businesses)
      - gender relations (especially female empowerment)
      - aspirations and outlook on life

<comment><USER19> And here's what they're paying out:

        Long-term basic income: 40 villages with recipients receiving roughly $0.75 (nominal) per adult per day, delivered monthly for 12 years

        Short-term basic income: 80 villages with recipients receiving the same monthly amount, but only for 2 years

        Lump sum payments: 80 villages with recipients receiving a lump sum payment equivalent to the total value of payments of the short-term stream

        Control group: 100 villages not receiving cash transfers

<comment><USER10> [removed: I'm dumb.]

<comment><USER19> It's _Kenya_ , not Kansas.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> munk-a I would be extremely interested to see the social/psychological effects of UBI on how people treat the homeless. This is a bit divergent but if UBI was introduced without any increase in mental care I am curious if the portion of the population remaining homeless would be exploited for their earnings or supported into stable life settings. I do believe it's a good idea to try UBI but this particular point has always interested me.

<comment><USER20> This may be slightly on a tangent, but how would UBI be distributed to the homeless - esp. people who have no address or documents or identification of any kind?

Is step one everyone needs a national ID in order to receive UBI?

<comment><USER21> A national ID makes it much simpler and more practical, so probably yes, but it's not that big of a deal as only a handful of countries don't have a usable form of national ID (some have usable ID cards, some have passports for everyone, etc). In this issue, as with many others, USA is an exception that has problems that almost noone else in the world has.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> The math on UBI doesn't work. It simply resets $0 to some higher amount set by UBI. It's a means of inflation and hilariously, it will make the rich even richer, because it will remove some incentives to do what it takes to get rich - learn skills and information that make you wealthy.

The story that comes after UBI and other forms of socialism is that humans are greedy and terrible to each other and institutionalized theft only makes greed and corruption worse.

Oh, and the funniest part is it will look initially like a good idea because it will probably improve the lives of those who are given money in small and rare cases, and the positive effect will dwindle the more universal it becomes.

A wiser move would be to teach others how to compete more effectively, but that doesn't sell as well as free money. The people doing these programs aren't stupid and I think it is our generation's "Let them eat cake!" moment. It's certainly good marketing to do so, and I think they believe it will truly make a difference.

One last thought on my silly little rant, "Do you think Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates or Warren Buffet should get UBI paid out to him?"

<comment><USER23> > One last thought on my silly little rant, "Do you think Mark Zuckerberg or > Bill Gates or Warren Buffet should get UBI paid out to him?"

Of course they would. That's how it works, dude.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> There seems to be lots of confusion about what constitutes UBI here. This isn't talking about America or developed nations. And government led UBI experiments in developed nations were always doing UBI in place of other social welfare benefits.

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

The argument isn't about if UBI is good or bad. It's if UBI is better than the current social welfare structure. The question is, "is it cheaper and more efficient to just give people money and get rid of the several programs we have?".

And I'm quite sure any UBI done on a large scale will end up taking money away from those who don't need it in the form of higher taxes so it effectively balances out.

Yes it is income redistribution. That's not necessarily bad. We already do it in several forms. It helps society more than it hurts it. Most people are ambitious and don't want to live at or below the poverty line for the rest of their lives. Some do, that's unfortunate.

<comment><USER25> But the "U" in "UBI" stands for _universal_. In other words, UBI means _everyone_ gets a basic income, not just the subset of everyone who currently receives welfare benefits. You get it whether you need it or not.

This distinction actually has political significance. One of the explanations that has been offered for why Social Security in the U.S. has proven so impervious to cutbacks or other political meddling is that it is universal in this sense as well; there's no maximum income at which you no longer receive Social Security benefits. This universality has helped Social Security escape the "for poor/minority/lazy people only" stigmas that peoples' prejudices attach to more selective welfare programs.

None of which is to say that you can't have a basic income project that isn't universal, of course; just that such a project is not a UBI.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Congrats, and good luck. I'm personally against the idea of UBI because I don't believe it works at a large scale because all it will do is create inflation, but I'm genuinely curious to see me proven wrong. That's the whole point of experimentation, so I fully support this.

<comment><USER4> > I don't believe it works at a large scale because all it will do is create > inflation.

Inflation is not necessarily a bad thing, high inflation and low inflation (or deflation) are both bad. (Specifically, it is expectations of high or low inflation are bad as they tend to compound into further increases or decreases in inflation.)

This is why the Fed in the US targets a base inflation rate of 2%, the expectation of a stable rate of inflation help keep that inflation rate stable and support economic activity.

While limiting inflation used to be the primary concern of monetary policy, we have seen more and more effort being put into limiting deflation and maintaining a healthy level of inflation.

Any increase in inflation due to UBI would be caused by UBI causing demand growth to outstrip supply growth. Yet boosting demand is exactly the tool we need to deal with economic downturns.

I think the path to introducing UBI is to legally couple UBI increases with slightly lesser minimum wage, unemployment and welfare decreases. We then give the Fed the power to trigger this as needed to stimulate the economy when needed and avoid deflation.

I think it is a positive sign that the anti-UBI skeptics seem to be shifting away from the "but people will be lazy" argument to the "but it will cause inflation" argument.

<comment><USER26> Inflation would cause the recipients of UBI who need it most to suffer the most. Unless we increase UBI, which would cause more inflation, and this then becomes positive feedback loop.

As a homeowner with a substantial but fixed-rate mortgage and a well-paying job, I would LOVE to see high inflation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Can someone explain to me why UBI is preferable to a negative income tax?

I don't get why we've come up with a worse version of a 40 year old idea. Are these two ships passing in the night or were there some perceived problems with Negative Income Tax that UBI is supposed to solve.

<comment><USER28> Wait, aren't they essentially the same thing?

<comment><USER27> No.

Universal Basic Income is 'Universal', meaning there's no qualification to receive it. Basically it's flat and it goes to everyone equally, rich and poor.

A negative income tax is a progressive tax system that starts off in the negatives and works itself up as you move up in brackets or (ideally) on a smooth curve or line.

<comment><USER28> > A negative income tax is a progressive tax system that starts off in the > negatives and works itself up as you move up in brackets or (ideally) on a > smooth curve or line.

But if UBI says you get $30k/year in gross income and then if you choose not to do UBI, then you pay taxes on your income, isn't that essentially the same thing? Because if you get $30k/year in income from UBI, it wouldn't make any sense to tax an income that comes from taxes...right?

<comment><USER29> Some theories of UBI believe UBI may only work if it is taxable income. Those theories include some sort of assumption that the defining characteristic of a fiat currency is it's value to pay taxes, so the way to control (hyper-)inflation is continue to set the value of the currency in tax policy. From that perspective the taxable portion of the income becomes a "year long loan" and that loan amount is useful to set expectations (versus interest/inflation) on the value of the overall UBI.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> From the linked article about previous results with one-time cash grants:

 _As it turns out, that assumption was wrong. Across many contexts and continents, experimental tests show that the poor don't stop trying when they are given money, and they don't get drunk. Instead, they make productive use of the funds, feeding their families, sending their children to school, and investing in businesses and their own futures. Even a short-term infusion of capital has been shown to significantly improve long-term living standards, improve psychological well-being, and even add one year of life._

</comment><comment><USER31> I'd rather see someone work on the Universal part first. Get distributions, however small, into the hands of every individual.

Scaling up the distributions isn't a difficult problem to solve, the universal part is.

<comment><USER10> A dollar a day to every US citizen is $114 billion a year. At that expense I would think scaling it _at all_ once it reaches universality is nearly impossible. Even if we're theoretically giving every $10k/yr, upping that to $10,365/yr still costs well over $100 billion.

<comment><USER32> Make it a dollar a year, then. Or a cent a year. The point was to install and test the required infrastructure (identity check, payment method and so on...) and then increase the amount.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> The results from this experiment will likely be used to influence government policy at some point or another. Whoever is funding this effort is probably going to do that in phase 2, once the results are sufficiently in their favor. Isn't this a convoluted implementation of the Wal-Mart model? Keep minimum wages low and influence policy to be as such, so that people use food stamps, which are mostly spent at Wal-Mart. I remember Bernie Sanders talking about this during the 2016 campaign.

I can't help but think that some corporate research department has already done a study on Universal Basic Income in terms of how it will affect the bottom line of the donors, and this is part of a plan to influence government policy in various parts of the world, with the ultimate end goal of lining their own pockets.

I find this to be far more believable than the idea that people are genuinely altruistic and charitable in 2017, perhaps the most vain, narcissistic, virtue signalling self-obsessed period in history, which is a period that directly follows the most egregious example of corporate greed and fraud that led to the housing crisis and wall street collapse.

I would be very skeptical of any and all data that is generated from such experiments until we know who the donors are. I think it's only fair to ask.

<comment><USER34> It's very much the opposite of "Walmart wants to keep people on food stamps so they spend their food stamps at Walmart" because they're getting cash they can spend anywhere.

<comment><USER33> In theory yes, but if you had research saying that if people received universal basic income, your specific industry, maybe food, maybe alcohol, maybe cigarettes, would have a 10% increase in purchases, disproportionate to all the others, you'd think it was a good idea.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9>
       Now it's time for us to do our jobs, and wait to learn.

They will never learn anything from this experiment as long as they keep hiding where does the money come from. Let's not fool ourselves : if UBI is implemented, money will come from taxpayers citizens, and will increase the power of governments over our lives.

For good arguments against UBI, cf Hazlitt : [https://fee.org/articles/income- without-work/](https://fee.org/articles/income-without-work/) .

      - UBI is not a right because it would mean some have a duty to work and transfer wealth to others.
      - Costs are always badly estimated. Proponents of UBI obviously never look at the big picture
      - There's no such a thing as "living in dignity", more is always welcomed
      - Old social welfare benefits will never die
      - Money can't flow from rich people for a long period of time. They either stop having money or emigrate in others countries

<comment><USER35> There may be an issue with government control, but I think the "how is it funded" is a bigger problem: an experiment were the money comes from a different society is not going to model the effects of the taxes needed to fund it. You're not seeing a major downside of the policy, which is the deadweight loss induced by having all those work/investment acts taxed more.

(I know, "people still work", "people still invest". That's not the problem. The problem is the marginal unit of labor/investment, and quantifying how that compares to the benefit of the UBI.)

There's also, of course, the issue of how much gets eaten away by higher rents, which everyone just assumes away.

<comment><USER9> I agree. Maybe all this experiment can prove is that giving money directly to people in "poor" countries is more effective than international aid programmes that started after WWII. Big news.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> This is a poor implementation of Welfare 2.0 and it will fail just like the first iteration.

<comment><USER12> At its heart, UBI sounds like a good thing but it ignore basic human nature and particularly in-group and out-group conflicts. UBI in America would calcify a class system where one group of people works and another lives off their work. The working group will come to resent the non-working group and it will further divide the society. People are living a bubble if they don't think this would be a major source of political and social friction.

Also, I don't think the proponents of UBI can account for how many people would simply not work if they had the option. I love programming but there are some days where I don't like my boss and my co-workers. I endure some discomfort but at the end of the day, I'm compensated for that. If you told me I would get 50k per year and free housing, I would probably spend most of my time snowboarding and playing video games rather sit in 1 hour planning meeting. I would probably be much more likely to do this if all my friends were snowboarding and playing video games ….

<comment><USER4> Nobody is talking about giving you 50k and free housing. You would likely receive much closer to 15k (federal poverty level) and free housing (if any) would likely not be in a ski town. Good luck affording food and rent in a ski town, plus enough video games to keep you busy all year on 15k.

You might quit your full time job, but you would probably find some part-time programming work you enjoyed to allow you to afford good snowboards, new video games, and trips to other ski towns.

Disclaimer: I am currently doing part-time freelance work and living in a ski town.

Plus, if you truly love programming, you would still want to work on side projects and assist with open source development that you find interesting or valuable.

Nobody disputes that there are lazy people who wouldn't work if given UBI. The questions are:

1) How many of these lazy people are there?

2) How much economic output is wasted by employers trying to filter these lazy people out of their workforce.

3) How much economic output is wasted by the systems employers have to create to force the lazy people they do hire to be productive.

4) How much economic output can we gain by giving non-lazy people a safety net that allows them to find ideal vocations for their talents and preferences.

<comment><USER12> > 1) How many of these lazy people are there? > 2) How much economic output is > wasted by employers trying to filter these lazy people out of their > workforce.

I am pretty lazy but I'm not lazy all the time. I don't think there exists such a classes of "lazy people" vs "non-lazy people". Laziness is a mood, a state. It can be altered by motivation. Income is one important motivator although arguably not the only one.

My point is, if we have welfare state with UBI, we will form in-groups and out-groups just as you describe. The taxes of all the "non-lazy" group will be unbearable high. You will hear choruses of complaints from them. They will resent those "lazy people". Let's add some other component like race, language or country of origin and you have society more divided than before. These are just a few of the unintended consequences I would see.

And 15k is hardly enough to sell this program politically. You can get that now on disability.

> You might quit your full time job, but you would probably find some part- > time programming work you enjoyed to allow you to afford good snowboards

I can get by on a used snowboard. I could also steal on from one of those "non-lazy people" :)

<comment><USER4> >I am pretty lazy but I'm not lazy all the time. I don't think there exists such a classes of "lazy people" vs "non-lazy people". Laziness is a mood, a state. It can be altered by motivation. Income is one important motivator although arguably not the only one.

Yes, "number of lazy people" is a heuristic to talk about the over effect on the productive effort put in the by population at large.

> My point is, if we have welfare state with UBI, we will form in-groups and > out-groups just as you describe.

Look at the current economic demographics and tell me that we don't already have these groups? The distinctions between these groups have been widening for almost 40 years now. These groups are not based on laziness, but on systemic economic disadvantages.

I suspect we will see fairly evenly distributed continium of effort between highly motivated workers (workaholics) and un-motivated mooches (bums).

> Let's add some other component like race, language or country of origin and > you have society more divided than before.

I would expect to see UBI as a democratizing influence, especially when it comes the the creation of small businesses and the ability of acquire education. I believe UBI would help erase the economic divides that currently exist along racial lines as it would help erase some of the inherent advantages of middle and upper class citizens who already have functional support networks that provide a similar safety net to UBI.

> And 15k is hardly enough to sell this program politically. You can get that > now on disability.

I expect that 15k number to be more of a mid to long term goal with UBI that it's starting point.

> the taxes of all the "non-lazy" group will be unbearable high.

That is your presumption. Tax rates of 100%, fully redirected to UBI (or spent any other way) would obviously be a huge drag on the economy. Tax rates of 0% are also huge drag on the economy since there is of government spending that stimulate and support economic activity.

Thus there is a point past which increasing taxes is ineffective, as the drag on the economy outweighs reduces the taxes collected more than the increased rate increases the taxes collected. Let's call this the point of diminishing revenue.

There is also point prior to the point of diminishing revenue. That point is where, given a certain portfolio of spending by the government, the economic boost provided by that spending no longer out weighs the economic drag due to taxes. Let's call this the point of diminishing growth.

While where is points lie is hotly debated by politicians, their existence is not particularly controversial (except among communists and anti-tax kooks).

I don't claim to know what those points are. Realistically, they will be constantly shifting and should be determined by data gathering and science rather than politicians.

Obviously, any taxes beyond the point of diminishing revenue are pointless. For UBI to be to advantageous to all members of society, both lazy and motivated, we also shouldn't tax past the point of diminishing growth. Currently, maybe this is 1000 dollars a year, possibly even as high as 10k. I doubt it is as high as 15k currently but I expect that we will get there as automation increases. The hope is that as lower levels of UBI stimulate economic growth and boost economic efficiency, we will reach the point where higher levels of UBI are affordable and advantageous more quickly.

Since we don't know what this point is, it makes sense to introduce UBI gradually and slowly increase it, paired with decreases to welfare, unemployment, disability and the minimum wage. These changes should be triggered by a organization more like the Fed than like our Congress.

> I can get by on a used snowboard. I could also steal on from one of those > "non-lazy people" :)

You can already do all of this. I am proof that this "dream life" of yours is already pretty feasible (without theft even) with our skillsets. The fact that you are not pursuing this leads me to think that you don't have an accurate understanding of your own motivations.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Maybe the post should state what "UBI" means.

</comment><comment><USER38> _> Send money directly to the extreme poor_

Ahh, so GiveDirectly is a charity? It certainly isn't universal, so calling it UBI seems misleading at best.</comment>


This phone can detect people with the coronavirus from a distance - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=le_iLjf2adc <comment><USER2> the video is private, can't open it</comment>


Tech Hiring Has Always Been Broken. Here's How I Survived It for Decades - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/javascript-scene/tech-hiring-has-always-been-broken-heres-how-i-survived-it-for-decades-b7ac33088de6#.lyods8mtb <comment><USER2> I like Eric's writing style. He made a post before that offered a little more perspective on tech hiring: [https://medium.com/javascript-scene/the- recruiter-plague-how...](https://medium.com/javascript-scene/the-recruiter- plague-how-recruiters-have-broken-tech-hiring-b7de2897247)

What I particularly liked about this article is that he made it obvious that instead of recruiters, "tech agents" are really the best way to get hired at great companies. It's analogous to music industry's managers who arrange a gig and the band just have to the venue and play great music.

</comment><comment><USER3> The elephant in the room is the bullshit that happens after you get the job.</comment>


Harvard ignored warnings about investments - <AUTHOR> http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/11/29/harvard_ignored_warnings_about_investments/

<comment><USER2> This article puts most of the blame on Summers for his expansion plans; I've seen other articles put the blame on Meyer and El-Erian for running the endowment like a hedge fund.</comment>


Sleep deprivation is killing your career - <AUTHOR> http://qz.com/306095/sleep-deprivation-is-killing-your-career/

<comment><USER2> You have to sacrifice something.

<comment><USER3> why?

<comment><USER2> Because that's how it works.</comment></comment></comment>


Fanboy's Anti-Cookie Filters – will remove cookie and privacy warnings - <AUTHOR> https://fanboy.co.nz/ <comment><USER2> Very very nice, some new filters.</comment>


Firebase: Streamline Your TypeScript Development of Cloud Functions Code - <AUTHOR> https://firebase.googleblog.com/2018/01/streamline-typescript-development-cloud-functions.html <comment><USER2> pretty hipster... does anyone use visual studio code???

I want a python and other languages live subscription API and the ability to offer that API access to my customers of [https://bitbank.nz](https://bitbank.nz) (cryptocurrency forecasting service), i don't really see what the selling point of firebase cloud functions is yet.</comment>


From Mac to Linux: Web Development with Linux - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@nitai/from-mac-to-linux-web-development-with-linux-68c90ff002d4#.u50g8jr3y <comment><USER2> To me a huge selling point of linux is i3wm. If you haven't used this thing yet, you absolutely have to try it out! It is the best tool that I have discovered since emacs.

It allows me to easily and conveniently manage dozens of windows, and it's hard to describe how convenient that is until you get used to it.

I usually have around 10 workspaces open:

1\. Emacs with personal notes, goals, todo lists.

2\. Emacs windows I use for development and code.

3\. Terminals for all sorts of servers and processes running in the bg. Django, compass, webpack, stuff like that.

4\. Terminal for "practical" tasks - updating git, ssh, all sorts of commands I want to use.

5\. Nautilus.

8\. Video player with tutorials and courses I'm watching.

9\. Photoshop and other graphical/visual stuff.

10\. Chrome.

I can switch to any of those with one hotkey, and navigation is super easy and convenient. It is so awesome that I'm thinking that it's almost the main reason I'm not going back to mac.

Oh, and also Ubuntu 16 is fucking great. Everything works pretty much out of the box, everything is easy to install, just perfect.

The only drawback of linux is editing graphics and videos. At the moment I'm using Photoshop with wine for design and kdenlive for video editing. They are good enough to work, but do have bugs and inconveniences, not as great as you would want.

<comment><USER3> I spend most of me waking hours inside a tmux session, often with multiple split panes, so I really should be at home in a tiling WM. But everytime I've tried to make the switch I get annoyed and switch back to KDE. I've tried several different WMs and even started to hack my own one together using WinGo as a template. But in the end I find KDE to be what I feel most at home with.

The killer feature for KDE is the "konsole" (KDE terminal) integration in their GUI tools. Their file manager (Dolphin) and text editors (Kwrite and Kate) have a CLI built in so I can leverage the best of both paradigms from a single interface. Couple that with Krunner (I know every DE and OS has a runner these days) and Yakuake (a Quake-style drop down terminal) and KDE is actually a surprisingly productive desktop environment even for people who are command line orientated or running on platforms with limited screen real estate (eg laptop screen).

But as much as we might intellectualise the productivity of different desktop environments and window managers, our personal preferences often just boil down to old habits. I've been using KDE since version 1 so when migrating to a tiling WM I was as much frustrated by having to rewrite muscle memory as I was by any personal preference with the UI design.

<comment><USER4> I remember using KDE + bspwm for a short period of time before I decided to go without KDE.

It required a couple special rules in the bspwm config but it worked just fine.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I recently switched to using a Mac (for work) after 5-6 years only using Linux. Again and again the most painful aspect of the Apple ecosystem is that Apple have already decided what is going to be best for me.

By default, it's impossible to use workspaces without frequent switches to the trackpad, which wouldn't be so bad, but without installing third party software it's not really possible to create shortcuts or start remapping keys either. Even once you've installed and started Kwm, Karabiner and Seil, the botched keyboard layout renders the Alt key useless for wm shortcuts. There's not even a keyboard shortcut that makes a window fullscreen without removing it from its workspace!

So much of the system lives in this unconfigurable space. As a Linux user, if my window manager isn't working for me, then I just install another one and start again with a fresh _and customizable_ blank slate.

Ironically the things that don't frustrate me about the chance from Linux to Mac are the things the author identified in the article. My editor works just the same in both OSes and Homebrew could be a lot worse.

And I get it, the OSX experience is a system that is averaged out to be comfortable and intuitive for everyone from musicians to graphic designers to programmers and business people. As a result, the user experience punishes power users the most.

If you primarily identify as a programmer and use a Mac on a day-to-day basis, go pick up a cheap Chromebook, throw a linux distro on it, and see how it feels. If it's not quite right, tweak it. If you get it working, great - you've just saved yourself ~$1000 and a vendor lock-in. If not, all you've lost is $150 and a few hours of your life.

<comment><USER6> Chromebooks are interesting but the key concern with Linux + mobile hardware is "is it well tested?". The initial chromebooks had virtually no local storage. Has that changed? Another concern with Chrome is DRM. Also, there are so many potential driver hassles... wireless, touch, suspend, weird trackpads, brightness controls, power management efficacy in general, etc. Although an issue with mobile hardware review is that many issues appear only over time, and so are missed in reviews... is there a decent resource for Linux-oriented reviews of this class of hardware? I can't find one. Anyone want to start one? Random idea: We could take anonymized (eg. via proxy legal association) affiliate commissions on resulting sales so that editorial independence is maintained.

<comment><USER5> [https://galliumos.org/](https://galliumos.org/) has done a lot for this space. They're doing a great job at normalizing a *buntu distro across the various chromebook hardware.

<comment><USER6> Interesting. Support looks patchy, only about 50% of listed devices are fully supported. [https://wiki.galliumos.org/Hardware_Compatibility](https://wiki.galliumos.org/Hardware_Compatibility) I searched for fully functional 2016 models and found only Acer Chromebook 11. Closer inspection revealed their information was inconsistent and that only 2014-2015 models work - 2016 models apparently don't and use the unsupported NVIDIA Tegra K1 processor. [http://www.acer.com/ac/en/US/content/models/laptops/acer- chr...](http://www.acer.com/ac/en/US/content/models/laptops/acer-chromebook) Case in point: finding decent mobile Linux hardware is often a pain in the ass. Here is a frank discussion of Gentoo on Pixel Chromebook: [https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Google_Chromebook_Pixel_LTE](https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Google_Chromebook_Pixel_LTE)

<comment><USER7> The hardware list should be correct. The ARM machines you linked are Acer Chromebooks 13s (CB5-311), not Chromebook 11s. The 2016 11s are Intel Bay Trail, and supported.

GalliumOS has good-to-very-good support for almost all Intel Chromebooks, but does not support any ARM models yet.

GalliumOS works very well on the 2015 Pixels. It was a lot of work to get there.

And as with all Linux laptops throughout history, you should definitely check the hardware compatibility list _first_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The apt-get install for damn near anything is a big one (for Debian based distros obviously) in my opinion. I think the access to build tools and packages is big too. I had case recently where I needed to make a one line change to an Apache module; wget the source, make the change, configure, make, make install, exactly the same as on the prod server.

Unfortunately the author delves into text editors, which can be flame inducing.

<comment><USER9> Homebrew comes pretty close to apt-get on Mac. Of course the whole OS being open source & community driven (sans driver blobs) is nice thing, althought benefits are mostly idealogical than practical.

The argument "dev env == production env" is overrated IMO, because you typically want more conservative/controlled production environment anyway and/or you may prefer different distro for workstation use. For serious use you anyway need proper test environment etc.

Editors are editors. (Vim being slower on Mac is hard to buy, unless the author refers to some non-commandline variant.)

<comment><USER10> I ran a Macbook Pro for a while and found Homebrew to be a really poor imitation. I had a lot of issues with it (broken packages, manual intervention required, etc...), things didn't seem as up to date as I'd expect, and the range of packages was poor. It was also only usable for a small subset of the software I'd want.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It's no surprise that linux is by far the best development system for everything, since it is not a consumer product, but a collaborative meta tool.

</comment><comment><USER12> Interesingly, the "'apt-get install foo' and it just works!" aspect of Debian- like distros was what initially got me hooked, but has since become the bane of my existence.

Debian has a policy of shipping a sane default config, and generally enables/launches services for you. This is friggin awesome when you're experimenting and learning. apt-get install nginx, and bam, running webserver.

Unfortunately you then start automating processes, and it becomes quite painful. Wanna build a MySQL host with a non-default size innodb log? You get to install the package, stop the service, reconfigure mysql, blow away the log files created when the service was started by dpkg, then start the service back up. Compare this with RHEL/CentOS/Arch: Install package, configure service, start service. These are 3 discrete operations.

(Yes, there are workarounds for this, such as using policy-rc.d, but they bring their own complexity to the table.)

</comment><comment><USER13> Having the same environment on your local machine as on your target server is a real productivity saver and a good reason to use Linux.

Additionally I've recently started using elasticsearch docker containers and I found Linux is a far better host than Docker for Mac (as it still runs a tiny Linux vm with associated slower disk access).

<comment><USER14> > Having the same environment on your local machine as on your target server > is a real productivity saver and a good reason to use Linux.

And this is why MS has gotten all buddy buddy with Canonical.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Honestly, nice if that works easy for you when using just _developer tools_ on the terminal or a text editor. As a web developer, though, you might end up using more than that. A Mac offers so much more commercial applications that just do not exist on any Linux distribution.

Gimp is no replacement for Photoshop and Inkscape is not replacement for Illustrator, ...

Btw, mostly everything you install with `apt-get` can be installed with `brew` as well (MongoDB, Elastic, nvm, etc.).

<comment><USER16> > Gimp is no replacement for Photoshop and Inkscape is not replacement for > Illustrator

Nor is Photoshop a replacement for the Gimp, or Illustrator a replacement for Inkscape. They are not cheap clones forever playing catchup to the commercial packages, but mature tools in their own right. Sure, the FOSS tools might miss some of the advanced features the proprietary tools have, but _for web development_ both of them offer plenty of features — and they are free to boot!

Whether or not one can replace the other is mostly a matter of what you are used to. No alternative is going to satisfy you if you've intensively used Photoshop for a decade.

<comment><USER6> Definitely. I prefer Illustrator for multi-page documents requiring irritatingly precise typography, and Inkscape for SVGs. Although I pretty much mastered Photoshop perhaps 20 years ago, I've gradually come to loathe it and happily use GIMP or Darktable instead.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Is this post part of a series (intentionally short?) while I liked the post it wasn't long enough for me.

It was only:

1\. Apt-get is cool 2\. Vim 3\. Sublime 4\. Atom?

I felt a little more effort could have been put into this post (similar to a tutorial?)

</comment><comment><USER18> I use a Mac, but just as a terminal to a Linux workstation.

Unfortunately, I work in a place where we need access to Outlook (and its calendar), and Skype for Business / Lync. There is not really a good story for these things on Linux still (and I doubt we will ever see a Skype for Business for Linux), and even with Thunderbird + Exquilla, email is tough.

That said, my laptop mounts my workstations home dir, and then I use iTerm's fantastic tmux integration to connect to the shell.

(My personal PC at home is still Linux though :) )

<comment><USER19> I use Outlook's webmail which has improved vastly compared to earlier versions. I'm not sure if Skype of Business supports their web interface, but you could give it a try [https://web.skype.com](https://web.skype.com)

<comment><USER18> Yeah, I used to use the web interface, but found it lacking, especially with meeting invites.

Skype for Business has no web interface :( . I tried windows VMs, dialing in, mobile apps, 3rd party apps - but nothing was reliable / usable enough for daily use.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> The problem with most apt-based distributions is I've found that a lot of packages are out of date.

Try out a pacman-based distribution some time. The idea of a rolling distro is great in my mind and most of the packages in the repo are up to date. If something is missing there is usually an AUR.

If you use zsh with oh-my-zsh then you're going to have a much easier time finding whatever you need to install. Pacman has an autocomplete written up for it.

Also, everything is near-perfectly documented in the arch wiki.

<comment><USER21> > The problem with most apt-based distributions is I've found that a lot of > packages are out of date.

If you want APT based distro + rolling update, Debian testing is what you need.

(Obviously if you're satisfied with Arch, there is no need to change.)

<comment><USER20> There is still an issue of youtube-dl being out of date. Even in testing from what I've heard.

You also don't have an AUR for Debian and there are many things that just aren't in the repos. Teamspeak 3, for example, is completely absent.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> As someone else mentioned, linux (Ubuntu) + i3wm is perfect for most development needs (sure, still need a mac for iOS/OS X/tvOS apps) but if the following apps or feature complete alternatives were on linux...it's be near perfect

1\. GUI git client (yes, i know how to use a terminal, but at times, you just wanna get work done and not google a command - I used to use sourcetree, and now Tower but there's nothing great on linux. The best I could find is Smartgit which is ok at best - but not on par with the others I have mentioned).

2\. UI development - Sketch/XD etc.

3\. Adobe Suite

I want to add games to that list, but we have recently got Rocket League so that and along with various valve games and Minecraft seems to be enough for casual gaming right now.

</comment><comment><USER23> Well TBH, I did go the other way around and I have to say that the advantages of MacOS are for me much more worth it.

All what the articles says I do achieve simply by using docker and I have all the nice integrations around. I can have any target environment setup and switch between them in seconds. And since I can mount my code directories directly into the docker containers I don't need to do any complicated scp like deployments.

Well, but in the end it's a matter of personal taste. I am happy where I am :-)

</comment><comment><USER24> This kind of crap on HN? Srsly? The problem with desktop Linux is poor hardware support. I have Ubuntu on a desktop and on a relatively recent HP laptop. Here's a short list of problems I've experienced - incorrect Nvidia drivers installed by default, random crashes after screen lock, brightness controls don't work out-of-the-box, Wi-Fi dies after waking up, fingerprint scanner doesn't work and never will. I never had to deal with such crap on a Mac.

<comment> vladimir-y Apple has a predefined and very limited line of hardware, so it's obvious that Mac OS is well integrated with Apple devices.

<comment><USER24> I'm talking about end result here, developing on Linux requires delving into stuff I don't really care about.

<comment> vladimir-y All new dev tools do come from the Linux first, I think it has a reason. I'm personally fine do software development using Linux based laptop. I confirm Linux has some issues with hardware support, but nonetheless I'm still not ready to switch to the glossy Macbook screens.

<comment><USER24> Of course there's a reason, that's because people deploy production systems on Linux servers. As far as overall experience goes, I'm ok with Linux as DE because I don't really need much - as long as it runs terminal, editor (with not completely horrible fonts) and browser it's fine.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> You can see the differences between linux and macOS when you consider your environment as a _desktop workstation_ rather than a simple dev machine. I've switched from linux to macOS after 13+ years because, IMHO, the linux desktop overall experience sucks for everyday use.

<comment><USER26> That's interesting; what challenges did you run into most often?

<comment><USER25> 1) overall integration between desktop apps

1b) desktop apps availability/quality

2) drivers and support

3) With mac, I open my laptop and I can use it like a toaster, without thinking how to fix this or that issue after a software update

bonus) iphone/appletv/ipad smooth integration

PS (especially for downvoters): I've used linux since 1999, I have a sysadmin background, I used to build my desktop/servers from scratch or by using gentoo (that is _almost_ the same), I wrote kernel modules. So I'm not afraid to tinker with a linux system down to the kernel details. Again I switched to macOS because I was tired of all those little issues that made my daily work a crappy experience (eg: why my Bluetooth device doesn't work today?)

<comment><USER10> It's funny, because I tried going the other way when I picked up a Retina Macbook Pro (because the screen was amazing), which I dropped about 3 years back after chafing on OS X a lot and deciding to switch back as I transitioned to a desktop machine again.

Homebrew felt really clunky (broken/missing/out of date packages, manual intervention needed, etc...) and so dev tools were a pain. The OS X experience also didn't offer me room to change things to suit my needs, and the OS X apps all felt really lacking. I didn't find a file manager that could touch Dolphin, for example.

I also found that any decent OS X tool was going to cost me £20, mostly for really small applications that did specific things, so I'd want tons of them. By contrast, I never had to search hard for the Linux tooling, and it was always FOSS.

More specifically when comparing to Arch Linux, OS X suffered from the same magic problem as Ubuntu, Windows and anything else where the system is set up for you. The back end was all magic, so when something went wrong, I had no idea why or where to fix it. When you use it like a toaster, it's also pretty impenetrable. (Fine when your problem is common, less so when it isn't).

It's probably a difference between how we use our devices (I never needed to try and use bluetooth, for example).

OS X is still, after three years, the only OS that does multi-monitor with different densities well though, I'll give it that. Hoping that will get sorted soon in my Linux environment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> So what is so much better on Linux than Mac? You can use nvm, etc

<comment><USER28> Using the same OS that you deploy to

<comment><USER29> To be honest - kernel will be the same (some times not though). OS will be most likely different.

Better say that environment will be the same, I guess.

That being said - as an ex-Linux user (for about 10 years) I see now real reason for this kind of switch. You can have the same (or almost the same) env on you macOS.

<comment><USER30> If we take the most popular linux choice for servers and desktop - Ubuntu as an example - that means using identical kernel/packages/libraries for your development and production. You cannot achieve that with MacOS as your dev OS.

<comment><USER31> That doesn't matter at all when using programming languages with OS agnostic runtimes[0].

Also, unless IT agrees to put beefy machines under each one's desk, the server is quite different from what developers can use anyway.

Finally if there is any issue that really needs testing on the server, that is what remote connections (including remote debugging) are for.

[0] We usually develop on Windows and deploy on UNIX.

<comment><USER18> You would be surprised what can happen with "agnostic runtimes"

Running the same libraries, on the same base OS is invaluable to me - but that can depend on what you are developing.

> Also, unless IT agrees to put beefy machines under each one's desk, the > server is quite different from what developers can use anyway.

With "the cloud", these days that is not necessarily true. a t2.large / m2.large are 2 cores, 8GB RAM. - well within the reach of a basic laptop.

> Finally if there is any issue that really needs testing on the server, that > is what remote connections (including remote debugging) are for.

Never debug in production. No developer should have access to production.

<comment><USER31> > With "the cloud", these days that is not necessarily true. a t2.large / > m2.large are 2 cores, 8GB RAM. - well within the reach of a basic laptop.

Which is why we just connect to "cloud" and clone our own instance from a production server, if we really need to.

> Never debug in production. No developer should have access to production.

Maybe in a perfect world.

On real life I have been in projects where developers were exchanging dlls and jar files on them.

<comment><USER18> OK, the problems seem more culture based then.

All of these issues tie together.

Developers can't access production, so they start using production like environments, which allows for proper Ops work (Infrastructure as code - e.g. config management), which allows for easier setup of production like environments for developers ... and continue cycle.

Its hard to move to that, and takes time, but it really helps. I know it can seem overkill, especially for small teams, but the tech debt paydown that happens when you end up doing it in the future can be huge, and massively disruptive.

<comment><USER31> I kind of agree, but to be honest I have been on and off of server side projects since the mid-90's, and can count up to five the amount of projects "done the right way".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> gm-conspiracy Anybody have success with Linux on a Surface Pro 3 or 4?

I am considering the purchase of a Surface Pro 3 i7 w/ 512GB for Linux web- dev.

<comment><USER20> [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Microsoft_Surface_Pro_3](https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Microsoft_Surface_Pro_3)

Follow these steps and you should have at least moderate success. Check out Manjaro, it's an easier to use arch-based distro.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Whilst I work with Linux on a daily basis and understand that `apt-get install {package}` is really handy, how does this change from a brew install? (granted brew is 2 commands extra to install if you include the xcode installation)

Also, given the prevalence of various types of virtualisation - is this still overly relevant to the developer? (Genuine question, keen to understand how people work)

I'm writing this now on a mac running vms for ubuntu (14/16.04) as well as OpenBSD. I don't necessarily feel like it's a blocker but understand we all work differently.</comment>


Functional linked lists in Python - <AUTHOR> http://dbader.org/blog/functional-linked-lists-in-python <comment><USER2> Instead of a linked list, why not a Huet Zipper? It's generalizable from a linked list to a tree.</comment>


What issues do you have with chat apps? - <AUTHOR>

Whether it's Skype, IRC, etc many people utilize chat clients for instant communication. I'm trying to get a feel for issues or desires people have with the currently available tools. These could be small; like the ability to use markup or displaying animated gifs, or much larger; the way conversations flow or ability/inability to easily reference chat history and utilize instant messaging as a source for tracking problems and solutions. <comment><USER2> Once you figure out the interface, leave it alone. Too many chat clients get all loopy by constantly messing with their look and feel, adding and dropping things. Get it working and then leave it alone.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'd love to see better video quality especially on low bandwidth connections.</comment>


Wikipedia not actually blacking out its pages - <AUTHOR>

Wikipedia didn't do too well in "blacking out" the pages, a simple bookmarklet like this can show the contents:
javascript:function%20showArticle(){$("body%20div:hidden").show();$("#mw-sopaOverlay").hide();};%20showArticle();
Of course, the point was to spread knowledge about SOPA and its problems, but I would have hoped a real blackout, not serving the content hidden. <comment><USER2> Considering that the point of the blackout is to raise attention, hiding is already enough. Anyone who gets to the content will be aware of the SOPA this way. I guess anyone can just use non-US proxy to get to the content anyway.

<comment><USER3> non-US proxy doesn't do the trick. The en.wikipedia.org pages are blacked out. I'm from Macedonia and when browsing the English pages get the blackout page too.

<comment><USER2> You seem to be right, I only checked the main-page and Finnish pages and they were open, so I thought all of them were.

I'm sure there will be many non-US people wondering why their page is blocked just because there is some upcoming law in the US. Its not like they can pick up the phone and call their representative to affect the matter in any way.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> And all the people releasing workarounds are not helping the cause at all.

<comment><USER5> What about people who have already signed the petition and want to continue using a great service?

What about the people outside the US that can't sign the petition?</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Is there a site like unsplash but for fantasy/science fiction art? - <AUTHOR> Most of you probably know unsplash, its a site that has high quality photography images that you can use for free.<p>Im looking for an equivalent, but for digital art. <comment><USER2> I don't know about dedicated ones, but I would explore here:

Flickr: [https://www.flickr.com/search/advanced/](https://www.flickr.com/search/advanced/) (turn on CC image search)

[http://creative-commons.deviantart.com/](http://creative- commons.deviantart.com/)

[http://source.pixite.co/](http://source.pixite.co/)

[http://allthefreestock.com/](http://allthefreestock.com/)

</comment><comment><USER3> Desktoppr is a nice wallpaper app that puts images in your dropbox. A lot of fantasy and sf art in the mix but not exclusively

Are you thinking of building something? I'd say there's a market for it (though no obvious monetization strategy I can think of)

</comment><comment><USER4> There are tons of sites that let you download tons of 3D models for free. The problem is that the majority of those models were ripped off out of commercial games and projects and there is no hint of a valid Creative Commons or any other kind of license to use those items.

<comment><USER3> I don't think he means 3d models so much as digital paintings - fantasy art for background wallpaper

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> [http://deviantart.com](http://deviantart.com)

<comment><USER3> Some great stuff on DA but you have to wade through an awful lot of muck to find it

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> #payyourartists !

There's artstation, you could look around and commission/buy rights to images from there.</comment>


BitTorrent Sync security and privacy analysis - <AUTHOR> http://2014.hackitoergosum.org/bittorrentsync-security-privacy-analysis-hackito-session-results/ <comment><USER2> So if I understand this right, there's probably a backdoor in it? Honestly though, I doubt that you can keep the NSA and FBI out of your system. If they want in, they'll get in, and there's nothing* you can do about it.

Having said that, we do need these kinds of solutions without the back doors. Why aren't any software developers from countries where mandatory backdoors aren't a thing building stuff like BTSync? And does anyone know which countries those are? For example, i live in Belgium. Were I to build such a thing, would someone show up on my doorstep and force me to backdoor it?

(*) nothing that is reasonable, only paranoia and extreme lengths will suffice.

<comment><USER3> "Having said that, we do need these kinds of solutions without the back doors."

You do have that. Further, you've had it since 2006.

Point duplicity[1] to rsync.net[2].

Cheers!

[1] [http://duplicity.nongnu.org/](http://duplicity.nongnu.org/)

[2] [http://www.rsync.net/resources/notices/canary.txt](http://www.rsync.net/resources/notices/canary.txt)

<comment><USER4> Those are not the same as BTsync.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> From the "Conclusions" section:

> Change of sharing paradigm that introduced this vulnerability happened after > the first releases. This may be the result of NSL (National Security > Letters, from US Government to businesses to pressure them in giving out the > keys or introducing vulnerabilities to compromise previously secure systems) > that could have been received by BitTorrent Inc and/or developers.

IF that's true, then it's extremely alarming. I wouldn't use their software to share sensitive files.

<comment><USER6> I'm no security expert, but when I saw they did that whole "easier sharing" thing over e-mail that raised a _major_ red flag for me. It seemed quite obvious that many of the previously secure systems would now be broken by that insecure e-mail sharing system.

<comment><USER7> I disagree... My guess is that if you choose to enable features like that you're most likely opening a door, but if you don't it won't compromise anything.

At least, that's how any competent developer would code it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Also, not open sourced.

Bottom line: do not use for sensitive data.

</comment><comment><USER9> I don't use it for sensitive information BUT for my needs this is a great solution that is MUCH better then a cloud based file system. I have my media files for my Phone just BTSync them when I need them and it works like a charm. Also works great for syncing my photos between my computers like photos.

<comment><USER10> It would be perfect if only they open-sourced it.

<comment><USER6> There's Syncthing, but I'm not a big fan of the whole "server"-like interface. They've improved it recently, but it still seems quite non-consumer-friendly.

[http://syncthing.net/](http://syncthing.net/)

<comment><USER11> Why don't you suggest some good changes? The issues page on github seems quite active and quick to fix stuff.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Has Pulse/Synching protocol been reviewed?

<comment><USER13> They do recommend it as an alternative here and it certainly avoids many of the mentioned issues (relying on other people's architecture, leaking hashes of your data and probably much of the exploitability due to the use of a memory-safe language), though I do not believe there has been a formal review.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Something to keep BT on its edge, but this is hardly a "security analysis" in an established conventional sense. It's a semi-random collection of surface observations from half-a-day of poking around. Sure, some of these may be indicative of serious underlying issues, but they may also be not. E.g. -

> [MEDIUM] Attack vector potentiel : mise à jour automatique (silent update) > du client en HTTP sur > [http://update.utorrent.com](http://update.utorrent.com)

If they check the digital signature on an update package, this is not an issue. If they don't, it is.

<comment><USER15> Even signed automatic security updates, where the vendor runs the update server, still allow the vendor to inject targeted attacks in your binary.

There are ways to mitigate this, but not well given the design constraints of closed-source software.

<comment><USER14> Well, if you are pulling down a vendor's binary, they can "inject" whatever they want in it :)

If you meant that a _man in the middle_ can do that, then if things are implemented correctly on the app's end and if an attacker doesn't have vendor's private key, then - no, of course, they cannot inject anything that way.

<comment><USER15> > Well, if you are pulling down a vendor's binary, they can "inject" whatever > they want in it :)

Why does this have to be the case? Here are two specific alternative deployment models that protect you from this attack:

1\. The update is signed at rest (e.g., PGP), instead of the update traffic being signed in motion (e.g., SSL), and the update and signature are widely mirrored or distributed through a third party. The vendor can still inject malicious code, but everyone has the same code: they can't easily introduce targeted attacks against a specific person.

This is the security model of Chrome or Firefox extensions, and it's one of the reasons there are vague security advantages in distributing an app that way instead of directly via a website. It's also the security model of the Apple App Store, the Play Store, almost all Linux distros (kinda), etc., sometimes with the addition that there's a human reviewer at the third party.

2\. Same as 1, but the code is open source and reproducibly built, such that anyone can audit (possibly even automatically!) that the sources match the binaries. Or the code is open source and not in a compiled language. At that point, any injected crap is visible to the world.

(This design has the secondary advantage that it disincentivizes the government from compelling the software author to add a hidden backdoor, but that's for the same reasons it makes it hard for the software author to add a hidden backdoor of their own volition.)

My point is that we shouldn't settle for a bad threat model just because a for-profit vendor tells us it's the threat model.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> If I am correct, the article suggests a deliberate bug that I s attackers view information that can be used as a backdoor. Does this mean to abandon BTSync completely?

</comment><comment><USER17> I've been waiting for a LONG time for an analysis of BTSync. While reading the analysis, I can only imagine what this spells for similar closed-source (yet purportedly "secure") file storage sites such as SpiderOak and MEGA. Thoughts?

</comment><comment><USER18> [http://forum.bittorrent.com/topic/32575-multiple-massive- sec...](http://forum.bittorrent.com/topic/32575-multiple-massive-security- flaws-discovered-bittorrent-sync-is-totally-insecured/)

</comment><comment><USER7> What else is there? I personally don't like the idea of not having a two- factor authentication given that someone could theoretically "brute force" the keys... although extremely unlikely in a non-LAN context.

<comment><USER19> Syncthing is the other option I've used. Setup isn't as easy as Bittorrent Sync though (each computer has to have the node IDs for other computers added manually). And last I checked, there's not a convenient "run in the background" checkbox, so it's not well suited to non-techies yet. But it's got open source going for it. Don't know if it's been subjected to any security audits, but the fact that it eventually _could_ be puts it ahead of Bittorrent.

[http://syncthing.net/](http://syncthing.net/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> What's wrong with using http instead of https on the localhost web server?

<comment><USER21> I assume you refer to this:

> [LOW] confirmed: When registering, http traffic for creating new user on > loopback [http://127.0.0.1:8888](http://127.0.0.1:8888)

And I wonder the same. Didn't really get that one, but yeah you may be right that they mean it should be https. I guess the risk is when an application can monitor loopback traffic, but you can only do that with special permissions or if you're root. The former case is exceptional, in the latter case you're pwned anyway and your keystrokes aren't safe either. So yeah, I don't know. Https might do a _little_ bit extra... but I don't know.

<comment><USER22> keep on reading...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> There's a lot of people saying "don't use btsync for sensitive data" and rightfully so. What are some alternatives that are considered more secure?

<comment><USER24> Pulse ([https://ind.ie/pulse/](https://ind.ie/pulse/)) is the main one I'm aware of.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> How would this compare to DropBox and other alternatives?

<comment><USER26> Well, you're setting a low bar. DropBox is not secure from the government in any way. BTSync is better.

If I understood the article correctly, an MITM attacker (or federal agency) could in theory know that you have a copy of a file only after they have a copy of the same file themselves, by comparing hashes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> [https://github.com/syncthing/syncthing](https://github.com/syncthing/syncthing)

</comment><comment><USER28> Say I encrypt a folder with my own encryption then BitTorrent Sync it, would it then be safe?

</comment><comment><USER18> They are working on a detailed answer...

</comment><comment><USER29> with the new UI version, some "enable tracker" option appeared.

I thought everything happened with a DHT ?</comment>


AI and the Future of Civilization: A Conversation With Stephen Wolfram - <AUTHOR> https://edge.org/conversation/stephen_wolfram-ai-the-future-of-civilization <comment><AUTHOR> quote: "What makes us different from all these things? What makes us different is the particulars of our history, which gives us our notions of purpose and goals. That's a long way of saying when we have the box on the desk that thinks as well as any brain does, the thing it doesn't have, intrinsically, is the goals and purposes that we have. Those are defined by our particulars—our particular biology, our particular psychology, our particular cultural history."</comment>


Slim your wallet. Slide your favorite card. The MostRad Minimalist Wallet - <AUTHOR> http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2137162749/the-mostradtm-minimalist-wallet-integrated-rfid-pr

<comment><USER2> The only thing that bothers me about the wallets I got, they break over too much change.</comment>


One-Nanometer Gate Dimensions for Transistors Have Been Achieved - <AUTHOR> http://spectrum.ieee.org/nanoclast/semiconductors/materials/onenanometer-gate-dimensions-for-transistors-have-been-achieved <comment><USER2> Previous discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12657336](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12657336)</comment>


Android bug reports are bugs themselves - <AUTHOR>

I hit the sleep button on my Galaxy Nexus, but right before I put it in my pocket I felt the phone buzz.
I turned it back on to see what it was, and saw that the gmail app had been opened, and was in the process of sending a bug report to Google.
Being curious, I inspected the contents of the bug report.  It contained a screenshot and a system dump inside a txt file.  So far so good, until I noticed the size of the e-mail.  Between the two attachments, the e-mail was 7MB.
Firing up the 4G radio and sending off 7MB comes at a cost.  I have trouble keeping my phone charged all day if I use it a lot.  The biggest offender here is the system dump, which is 5MB.
A simple solution to this is to throw the bug reports into a queue, and only send them when the phone is plugged in and fully charged. <comment><USER2> For what it's worth, I've been recently finding this same thing lately when turning on my Galaxy Nexus' screen. I've searched through these dumps a couple times trying to find what might be causing them, thinking I have a misbehaving app. It's interesting to know that someone else is seeing this.</comment>


FCC Paving the Way to "Wifi on Steroids"   - <AUTHOR> http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/205332/fcc_paving_the_way_to_wifi_on_steroids.html?tk=hp_new

<comment><USER2> I can see problems with this. First of all, if this is a product generally available to consumers, then with massively increased distance comes the problem of massively compounded saturation. We already have this problem with the current generation of Wifi. In a dense neighborhood, you cannot find any clear channels, and since adjacent channels interfere with one another, transmission speed can degrade extensively.

Now imagine if a WiFi signal could easily travel several miles. Yes, in the TV whitespace you have much more bandwidth available, but you simultaneously have many more base-stations sharing the same channel. The better the range, the worse the potential for extensive interference, and a degradation in transmission speed.</comment>


Hexing the technical interview - <AUTHOR> https://aphyr.com/posts/341-hexing-the-technical-interview <comment><USER2> [http://www.metafilter.com/166166/Og-to-til- javanissen#698551...](http://www.metafilter.com/166166/Og-to-til- javanissen#6985515)

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't know any Clojure, but I absolutely loved the writing. An entertaining read.

</comment><comment><USER4> This is my favorite blog.

Acing the technical interview is great, but this is beautiful.

</comment><comment><USER5> "Perhaps winter has come, and his coat is changing."

Comedy gold...

</comment><comment><USER6> This is my new favourite thing, want more of this :)

</comment><comment><USER7> Good thing he wasn't using clojure in anger...</comment>