Fear of Macros - <AUTHOR> http://www.greghendershott.com/fear-of-macros/index.html <comment><USER3> For those who don't know, Hendershott wrote Cakewalk, the most popular music- creation software on the PC. He knows his stuff. It's also an engaging article, esp for us old C/C++ hacks who get nervous around Lispy things.

<comment><USER4> I saw Greg give a nice talk at Racket Con this year. He was really humble and talked about the challenges of writing a Markdown parser. Didn't know he wrote Cakewalk! Cool!

<comment><USER5> Don't forget that Cakewalk includes CAL - the Cakewalk Application Language, which is a bit Lisp'y, I have to say, as well as being a bit C'ish, to boot. ;)

<comment><USER6> Confession: I used s-expressions only because even I could figure out how to parse that. I didn't appreciate Lisp in any meaningful sense.

Fast forward to a few years ago. I wanted to learn a lisp, finally. I gravitated toward Scheme. PLT Scheme seemed like the best choice. Today it's known as Racket.

<comment><USER5> I remember putting Cakewalk through its paces in the late 80's/early 90's on my old DOS machine in the studio .. it was really a great way to get a lot of music written, and I really appreciate your aesthetics for how you managed that application over time - the arrival of CAL was a really interesting move, and as things moved so fast in the pro audio world in the 90's, it always sort of bothered me that more and more tools were not written with scripting - <USER2> the user - in mind.

My friends and I wrote all sorts of CAL scripts to 'funkify' our Drum/Rythmn tracks - I wish I still had a copy of funkify.cal around, it'd be nice to see it again.

I moved on from Cakewalk around the DOS/Windows migration, as I've never been a heavy fan of Windows, nor a real user, so I got set up with all kinds of other tools after we left the DOS machines alone .. mostly hardware sequencers.

What do you think about one day doing a hardware sequencer, Greg? With the way things are going, it seems like you could return to the world of music- composition, albeit with a hardware bent, and make some serious progress in that department .. as we know the music industry/market is heavily cyclic, soon enough there will be a return to hardware as a reliable, dependent way of composing music. Any plans in that regard? Imagine: a hardware MIDI/Audio sequencer .. with onboard SCRIPTING! :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> i don't fear macros, but i am wary of them: when there are only a few macros, it seems as though replacing them with functions makes more sense, even if the syntax is slightly messier. when there are so many macros that you've essentially made an entirely new language, writing a REPL feels like a cleaner separation, even if it is more work.

i would be interested to see links to libraries, particularly clojure libraries, that make heavy but judicious use of macros. it totally makes sense that macros are useful because they capture part of this "code as data" idea that's so central to, esp., lisps. but having more examples of actual problems that they solve would be helpful.

<comment><USER8> A good example, clojure logging. [https://github.com/clojure/tools.logging](https://github.com/clojure/tools.logging)

They look the same as normal logging function calls, but entirely avoid the issue of "logging guards."

I'll point you at a good link, but basically if you have a lot of calls to logger.debug, logger.trace, etc, and they involve a lot of string conversions, you pay the penalty for those string conversions all the time even when you're logging at warn or higher. This leads many java developers to do the following:

if (LOGGER.isDebugEnabled()) { LOGGER.debug("last node was: " \+ node); }

... which makes logging significantly heavier visually.

With a macro you are essentially adding syntax, so you can bake the guards into your log statements.

Logging guards: [http://www.kdgregory.com/index.php?page=java.logging](http://www.kdgregory.com/index.php?page=java.logging)

<comment><USER9> Although, for what it's worth, Java programmers solved this quite some time ago by allowing crude lazy evaluation of the string. Logging calls actually look like:

      LOGGER.debug("last node was: {}", node);

Where the parameters are a template string and a varargs of objects. The objects are stringified and substituted into the template only once the logging library determines that the message will actually be used.

In Scala, you just make the parameter to the call a lazy or call-by-name value, and then there's no need to write an explicit template, the language captures the expression which produces the string and defers its execution until it's needed.

Of course, there are many things macros can do which mechanisms like these can't. The choice in language design is between introducing macros, or introducing enough other mechanisms to make macros unnecessary. Introducing macros seems more parsimonious, but given the utter confusion that macros can be used to wreak, it's not a slam dunk.

And, of course, the Scala designers have introduced all these mechanisms and then added macros anyway, because they're crazy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I developed a fear of macros after realizing that they're not first-class, and you can't pass macros to functions as arguments for instance (instead you need to wrap them up in function, which doesn't work well with variadic forms).

An even more useful concept exists in J.Shutt's Kernel programming language[1] - that of first class operatives. Every entity becomes a first-class object, which can be an operative (like some special forms) or an applicative (a scheme function). operatives do not implicitly evaluate the operands, so you can easily create macro-like behavior by defining your own evaluation model. It's also trivial to convert between applicatives and operatives with wrap and unwrap (which are not special forms, they're defined in terms of vau and eval).

[1]:[http://web.cs.wpi.edu/~jshutt/kernel.html](http://web.cs.wpi.edu/~jshutt/kernel.html)

<comment><USER11> It turns out that fexprs, which is what Kernel provides, are widely considered a bad idea in the Lisp community, and were abandoned in favor of macros for a reason. The basic problem is that you can never tell whether your function call is really a function call or a macro application, until you run the program, and therefore you can't reason about your code at all. Incidentally, this also means that your compiler can't reason about your code, and thus optimization is basically impossible.

<comment><USER10> The fexprs provided by Kernel are not the same as the ones in traditional lisps which were abandoned - Shutt has developed a theory for reasoning about them in some ways (the vau-calculus, which is capable of defining the lambda calculus too). He describes pure and impure versions of the vau calculus in his dissertation.

Firstly, operatives are improved over the traditional ones by having lexical scoping - where the original lisps were dynamically scoped. The other main feature of operatives is that they gain access to the dynamic scope from where they were called - as this environment is passed implicitly to the operative when it is evaluated.

You're right that they do not allow us to reason inductively about code in the same way as the lambda calculus due to this, but it's a trade off for incredible flexibility. I think we can build alternative models to reason about them for purposes of optimisation and such. (Or alternatively, one can have operatives behave as compilers - in which you feed in type-tagged expressions, and your compiler-operatives can perform full type checking - then output an applicative which strips this type information). I see the possibilities as endless, because the model is extremely abstract.

Kernel choses not to enforce the static separation of operatives and applicatives for simplcity - instead, a convention based approach is used whereby operatives are prefixed with "$", (such as $vau, $lambda, $define!, $provide!). One can check them during runtime with the operative? and applicative? predicates too.

However, it would be perfectly possible to create a compiler which can know this difference, since the forms `($define! ($vau ...))` and `($define! ($lambda ...))` which distinguish them could be given special forms or special syntax in an alternative representation of this model, although you would not be able to tell whether an applicative uses some operatives internally - that's the idea of encapsulation - implementation information is meant to be hidden. (Even at the cost of performance, which often doesn't matter.)

Even if Kernel is not as widely practical as lambda-calculus based languages - Shutt's dissertation is definitely worth a read, and shouldn't be discarded because of a perception of bad fexprs from 40 years ago.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> before this article i didn't want to touch scheme macros.

he does a great job by introducing macros using basic syntax transformers, every other tutorial failed for me by introducing define-syntax-rule before explaining how it worked.

</comment><comment><USER13> EDIT: By browsing to the Github repo, I found the link to the One Big HTML page: [http://www.greghendershott.com/fear-of- macros/all.html](http://www.greghendershott.com/fear-of-macros/all.html)

Original post: I wish there was a single-page version of this that I could Pocket. Or an epub that I could put on my reading devices.

I don't tend to read multi-page things like this at my desk, not in this era of high-resolution lightweight portable screens.

</comment><comment><USER14> I have gone from Unix shell script to Perl to PHP to C to C++ to Java to Python. Most of them are a lot of the same Algol-descendant syntax: if/else, for loops, while loops, variable assignment etc.

Racket Lisp is a little more of a leap. Even something like the behavior of a for loop is conceptually different. When most of the languages you have been bouncing around are more Algol-like, Lisp is a bigger leap into a different programming paradigm.

<comment><USER15> I'm not quite sure I agree with the for loop example specifically for Racket.

See: [http://docs.racket-lang.org/guide/for.html](http://docs.racket- lang.org/guide/for.html)

At least conceptually, for loops work very much like that in the other languages. You might be referring to Lisp in the general sense. If that's the case, remove the "Racket" parts in your comment, refer specifically to the Lisp family, and then the comment should be ok.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I don't know what they authored the documentation, but I quite like what gitbook.io is doing in this space.

<comment><USER6> Racket has a documentation system called Scribble.

Which is actually one of the most interesting features of Racket -- that it lets you implement a `#lang scribble` which does not even use s-expression syntax, but you still have the full power of Racket if you need it.

The default `#lang racket` is a wonderful modern lisp, and you can use Racket as "only" that. But Racket is also a system for making languages.

<comment><USER17> More on Scribble:

Racketeer Mathew Flatt's video on Scribble's concept and the rationale for making it: [http://vimeo.com/6630691](http://vimeo.com/6630691)

<comment><USER18> Very interesting. Thanks for posting it.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


An exposed database tracked whether 1.8M Chinese women were "breed ready" - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/11/18260816/china-exposed-database-breedready-women <comment><USER2> >While it's a complete mystery what the database is being used for, some internet users suggested it could have been part of a government effort to keep track of fertile women as China's birth rates dip to a historic low</comment>


LLVM's Clang Successfully Self-Hosts - <AUTHOR> http://blog.llvm.org/2010/02/clang-successfully-self-hosts.html

<comment><USER2> So did the third compilation produce a binary identical to that of the second one?

<comment><USER3> It would be awesome if there were some sort of Trusting-Trust-style "telomeres" encoded into the resultant binary, so that C and C' and C'' would all work identically, but C'''''''''' would suddenly produce different outputs.

<comment><USER4> And of course they should be invisible in the source after the first go.

<comment><USER5> He means taking the source code for the compiler and running it through the compiler, then taking the _same_ source code and running it through the resulting compiler, etc. Same source, new binaries every time.

<comment><USER4> Yes. I know "Trusting trust". And the backdoor will be in the original source code, and after it has passed into the binary you get rid of it in the source.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Wait does this mean that LLVM supports C++ well now? Last time I checked at WWDC, it had great C and Objective-C support, but C++ was hardly there. It would be great if Xcode can add support for all of the awesome refactoring and static analysis that Objective-C can currently do in C++ now!

<comment><USER7> Looks like there's still a lot of work to be done: <http://clang.llvm.org/cxx_status.html>

<comment><USER8> In my opinion, I believe llvm-g++ is a more promising approach to supporting C++. C++ is an incredibly difficult language to parse, so why not re-use work that has already been done?

<comment><USER9> Because g++ has its own problems that won't be solved by switching backends, like unclear diagnostics. Then there's the license issue, which can be important for some. Clang is also built as a library, so you can link to it and JIT c-code at runtime.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Big step, congratulations to everyone who worked on it. When I get some more time I need to look into the code in those projects. It's too bad that they chose to use C++ (as opposed to C) to implement it though (yech, personal preference).

<comment><USER11> It's truly excellently written C++ code, and they don't go nuts with fancy C++ voodoo template meta-trans-factory-programming tricks or whatnot. And have you seen what happens when you write a huge compiler in C? This: <http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/reload> And I don't think you can reasonably argue that GCC's hackers are sub-par either. ;-)

Language features for abstraction and encapsulation are pretty important for something that huge.

<comment><USER12> I'd argue that there is an age factor at play- GCC is older, designed under different (ie, much more stringent with regards to resources) constraints.

GCC also has a perennial problem attracting and managing developers, which LLVM seems to have avoided.

<comment><USER11> It's really not the age or resources that hamper it (from experience hacking it). Well, OK, the age _does_ matter -- but only because it's C. It wouldn't have been so bad if they didn't have to reinvent basic things. GCC has its own garbage collector, a set of bizzare hacks to replace inheritance, amongst other atrocities. None of these have to do with resource constraints, and nearly all have to do with the low-level nature of C.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Will someone please explain what this means.

<comment><USER2> Clang, a new compiler based on LLVM (<http://llvm.org/>), designed to be faster and more extensible than GCC, is now able to build its own source tree rather than relying on another compiler. This means that the compiler supports a sizable chunk of C/C++ language features.

<comment><USER14> Thank you. That was way too self-referential for me to follow, as well.

<comment><USER15> C programmers often use the free GCC (GNU compiler collection) to compile their programs. clang is a new open source C compiler that may be better for some people because it has a different licence, will be faster in certain circumstances and may give better error messages. The significant milestone the clang project has reached is the ability to sucessfully compile a very large quantity of C code.

(Edit: C++ as well as C)

<comment><USER16> > because it has a different licence

In which manner does the GCC license restrict the user in a problematic way? (well, except GPL's distribution restrictions I suppose.)

<comment><USER17> Clang and LLVM take a library based approach. They're designed so that tools that need to work with C/C++/Objective-C can simply link Clang.

GCC was never designed to do this, and even if it were, it's under the GPL and not the LGPL, which makes it unsuitable for linking as a library in non-GPL'd code. In contrast LLVM/Clang has a BSD-like licence.

<comment><USER18> To add, the use of the less restrictive license allows the creation of tools using clang like a library. For example, you can now use the same parser the compiler is using to do syntax highlighting or refactoring. This will allow both commercial / non-commercial interests to build tools that do interesting things without having to build a parallel infrastructure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Is it already imported into FreeBSD as a default system compiler? =)</comment>


Show HN: Build your first real world React.js application - <AUTHOR> http://academy.plot.ly/#react <comment><USER2> Nice tutorials. I've been playing around with React, and I like it overall... But I can't wrap my head around Redux. Could someone explain it to me so I might finally see the light?

My problem is this: I just can't understand why I'd want to manipulate state in an unsightly switch statement like this one from Chapter 4 of the original post:

      switch (action.type) {
        case 'CHANGE_LOCATION':
          return Object.assign({}, state, {
            location: action.location
          });
        case 'SET_SELECTED_TEMP':
          return Object.assign({}, state, {
            selected: {
              temp: action.temp,
              date: state.selected.date
            }
          });
        case 'SET_SELECTED_DATE':
          return Object.assign({}, state, {
            selected: {
              date: action.date,
              temp: state.selected.temp
            }
          });
        default:
          return state;
      }

This reminds me of Win32 event loops with their window message handler switches... And that's a scary association.

What's the point with dispatching these fragile "stringly-typed" selectors, when you can just have real functions doing setState() updates on the relevant component?

I'm not trying to be snarky -- I know I'm missing something major here.

<comment><USER3> I find this string pattern terrible as well. As the application grows, there are lots of reducers with lots of strings, and it gets really confusing. It feels like this is inherited from Flux ([https://facebook.github.io/flux/](https://facebook.github.io/flux/)), Facebook's initial solution to handling state.

On the other hand, you have all the state logic on reducers... If actions were to dispatch state-modifying functions, it wouldn't take long for the code to become really confusing.

<comment><USER4> I'm not sure why everyone is getting hung up on the fact that this is implemented with strings and a switch statement. Who cares? Use constants. If JS had enums we would use them, but it doesn't.

The point is that there are a finite, well-enumerated set of possible state changes, which are all localized in one place: the reducer. Whether you call them "DO_THING" vs. constants.actions.DO_THING (which could be an integer or whatever you want) or whether you use a switch statement vs. if block vs. dictionary lookup is entirely up to you.

<comment><USER5> I'm not sure why but a lot of developers think or are taught that switch statements are old fashioned or even bad.

<comment><USER6> Probably because programmers new to OO tend to use them when inheritance/interfaces would be cleaner (case cat, case dog, etc.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Surprisingly few comments so far. My take: Max Stoiber is a fantastic contributor to the React ecosystem. His React-Boilerplate project is a solid, well-designed starting point for production application development. This new tutorial is well written, makes good use of the new Create-React-App tool to simplify the learning curve, and covers several topics in good depth to get someone started.

</comment><comment><USER8> I find I am more productive with vue.js. It is much less intrusive on my coding style. I believe react.js is mainly popular because of FB's support. Much in the same way Angular became so widely used due to Google backing. I too have fallen for the myth that Open-Source projects backed by huge companies are always better. Do your homework. Don't believe the hype.

<comment><USER9> Would you mind sharing your rationale?

As someone approaching web front end development from a clean slate (es6 isn't the monster I though javascript to be, though there are some warts), can you tell me what vue does better than the alternatives (e.g., react)?

I'm building my first prototype of a web-based application right now, and sticking with raw ES6 to keep the cognitive load down (relative to javascript + a framework), but I'm likely to switch to one framework or another to get ride of some of the boilerplate I see happening.

<comment><USER8> You should try it out. There's no good way to answer the important questions with out putting in some effort. but... Vue.js is really fast. It does not require that you template your HTML in a special language like react. It works well with Jade and Stylus. It's really well documented. It's stable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I just went through the first tutorial and it's well written. However, I just had to try it with AngularJs and jQuery as well. Here are the results [http://goo.gl/V0NvkC](http://goo.gl/V0NvkC)

In such a simple example, I think jquery wins. However, more complicated solutions might be better suited towards frameworks like Angular and React.

<comment><USER11> The jQuery app may seem "the simplest", but it has no notion of components - [https://jsbin.com/jupagugofe/edit?html,js,output](https://jsbin.com/jupagugofe/edit?html,js,output), whereas the angular([https://jsbin.com/mepijibika/edit?html,js,output](https://jsbin.com/mepijibika/edit?html,js,output)) and react([http://jsbin.com/gijigiqecu/edit?js,output](http://jsbin.com/gijigiqecu/edit?js,output)) apps do.

<comment><USER12> If you ever find yourself in a codebase featuring a group of "full stack" enterprise developers, you'll find not a single component in an Angular codebase.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> What I like that you've done is that start CTA in the right nav menu. Not just that it's action oriented it just made me feel like I could start/play around post-login without having to deal with a lot of redtape just to start using it.

Which for any new tool is important. Good luck.</comment>


Hacking this weekend? Don't be alone - <AUTHOR> http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/6111/i-am-hacking-this-weekend

<comment><USER2> This is the opposite of what I expected from the title. (It's perfectly consistent with the title, of course; I ran with the wrong interpretation.) Different strokes for different folks, I guess. My _personal_ feelings about this are:

1) I'm still alone

2) I now have a new distraction from hacking

I prefer to go to a coffee shop and sit in silent solidarity with a bunch of other people who are trying to concentrate and get something done. (Even if they're just posting status updates to Facebook, they _look_ serious, and I can pretend they are are working hard.)

</comment><comment><USER3> I have reputation < 20 so I get "Welcome to The Stack Exchange Network chat! You'll need 20 reputation to talk here"...

</comment><comment><USER4> Good idea, but maybe we can move this to an IRC Channel and promote it on Reddit and other websites to get more attention.

</comment><comment><USER5> What's up with Stack Exchange's crazy password requirements? No repeating characters?

</comment><comment><USER6> Note that you need a Stack Exchange account with 20 reputation to participate. Not that hard, but personally I'd prefer IRC!

<comment><USER7> Sounds great! Does something like that exist?

<comment><USER8> There's plenty of dev channels here and there, or run a #letshacktoday channel (or something) and post it up in SO and here.</comment></comment></comment>


A short response to the Rebol vs Lisp macros article - <AUTHOR> https://gist.github.com/ejbs/813fa9db68dae598064037313323f3a3 <comment><USER2> An even briefer response:

        (defun greater10 (value code)
          (when (> value 10)
            (apply (car code)
                   (cdr code))))

        (let ((msg "Hello"))
          (greater10 20 `(format t "~a~%" ,msg)))

<comment><AUTHOR> That's not really equivalent to what Rebol does or what my stuff does. What do you do when you want to unbind msg? Or when you want to carry around your bindings with you and change them through function calls?

<comment><USER2> If you wanted to unbind msg, you wouldn't have bound it in a let block.

If you wanted to carry around your bindings with you and change them through function calls, you'd probably use a special variable.</comment></comment></comment>


China launches its carbon market - <AUTHOR> https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/stories/1062082281 <comment><USER2> Excellent news. Let's hope it actually makes a dent in China's emissions.

<comment><USER3> Sadly that's not what is really happening behind PR veil.

[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climate-change-china- coal...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climate-change-china-coal- idUSKBN1W40HS)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> You can tell you are in pretty bad shape when China demonstrates it is more progressive than you are.

</comment><comment><USER5> China is also on board for the post-dollar world order. Should be easy to see how carbon credits would replace the petro-dollar in this hypothetical.

<comment><USER6> Unless they also build a worldwide banking infrastructure, like the US has in the current inter-bank transfer infra (all centralized through NYC), the availability of a post-dollar currency is not enough. There are already a bunch. There's the euro-dollar, all the big reserve currencies. What's missing is that infra.</comment></comment>


Why Free Markets Make Fools of Us - <AUTHOR> http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2015/oct/22/why-free-markets-make-fools-us/ <comment><USER3> But what's the alternative? In many cases nobody really knows what's in our best interests. So with any protection from "phishermen", you'd suffer from other inefficiencies or harm caused by good opportunities being blocked. Just the fact that research is still ongoing as to the effects of alcohol says that nobody could really decide if it's a net positive or negative for each individual.

You only have to look at laws forbidding marijuana use or homosexual acts to realize that governments aren't competent to make these decisions since they just reflect what the popular opinion of the "phools" already is.

<comment><USER4> > _In many cases nobody really knows what 's in our best interests._

I may not know what is in my best interest, but I know what isn't - <USER2> else lying to me and cheating me to pursue their own interest. The problem is hard because perfect solution is AI-complete and pretty much requires mind- reading. But we can at least try and eliminate the obvious problems. We could, for instance, start punishing marketers and salesmen for lying.

<comment><USER3> I'm sure most developed countries do that by fining businesses for false advertising, which would incentivise the businesses to pass the punishment on to the staff who did it. Lies aren't really the problem though, fooling us with truths we don't understand is.

About tobacco causing lung cancer? That's been widely known for decades but rates of smoking are increasing globally so it's not just false information.

<comment><USER5> But smoking is increasing in countries where the health effects aren't as well known, and decreasing in countries where they are.

Also, smoking companies spent a very long time making sure that the now widely-known health effects weren't so widely known. Lies and confusion. Some of it still happens, especially in '3rd world' countries.

<comment><USER6> I work with a fair number of expensively-educated persons in their 20s. A surprising number of them smoke.

<comment><USER4> A surprising amount of doctors and paramedics smoke. It apparently helps them to deal with the stresses of the job.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I respect Robert Schiller a lot. And I think there are legitimate areas where people are being manipulated into buying expensive things (recent news on pharma companies are a good example of this). But the book (as presented in the article) is incredibly overreaching.

There is an easy solution to the phishermen/phools problem in many cases: _don 't buy what you are pushed by others to buy_. Combine that with the proverbial "there is no free lunch" and you are more or less safe.

I remember when I was a student during the heyday of the financial swing that led to the 2008 crash, I was walking thorough the Hamburg airport and a young representative of American Express caught me and tried to convince me to sign up for American Express Gold (afaik, a product tier two steps down from the mythical American Express Black).

"What is your income?" she asked me. "I don't know. I'm a student, I live off 400 Euros a month." "Alright, I'll write 40 000 EUR annual income in the form."

At that point not alarm bells, loud ass alarm sirens were going off in my head and I've politely disengaged and walked on. And that was the suprisingly easy way how I avoided crippling credit card debt.

The problem is really not in the free market per se, but industries that don't allow robust competition and that aren't scrutinized by consumers. The first part is achieved by regulation. When was the last time utilities, energy companies, banks, and pharmaceuticals were challenged by a newcomer? The second part is made possible by us not caring what we buy or _continuing_ buying something purely out of emotion. "What's that? Google now allows companies to directly put ultra-targeted adds in your inbox? That surely doesn't sound like legalized spam. And they say they're not evil."

<comment><USER8> I've been trying to live by the dictum "anything advertised is not worth buying," and I've rarely been forced to find exceptions. Buy what you need, and only what you need, and one can live very comfortably.

<comment><USER9> > "anything advertised is not worth buying,"

Then how do you find out about new products or services? Remember, reading about it in a news paper or a news site or even a blog is _also_ advertising. Paid for one way or another.

Basically any time you hear a brand name or see a brand name or read a brand name, that's an ad. A paid-for ad. Even your friends' t-shirts and computers and cars and stuff having their brand name on them ... that's an ad.

So if you never buy anything advertised, what then do you even buy?

<comment><USER4> This is not what GP meant and you know it, but I'll bite :).

Almost everything is advertised - you might not have seen the ad, but it was definitely somewhere at some point. The question is, whether or not you chose to buy things that you've seen advertised _based on_ the ad, even indirectly. Personally, I attach negative value to ads, i.e. every time I see the product advertised, I purposefully _lower_ my opinion of it.

(EDIT because of nitpicking - that's a heuristic and not the _only_ rule I use; e.g. some companies are extempt if they have earned my trust personally and their advertisement are honest. My rule, born of experience that includes working with marketers, is to assume advertising is purposefully dishonest unless I know otherwise.)

> _So if you never buy anything advertised, what then do you even buy?_

So I've seen the product as used by a friend. Is that advertising? I've heard my friends who use it talk about it - is that an ad? I read third party blogs and forums on which I find recommendations by people who are experienced with the whole classes of products (hint: non-profit forums and blogs are the best). Is that an ad?

If so, then the word 'advertisement' here has acquired too much meaning and we need to split it for the discussion.

I am totally fine with buying things that are "advertised" by trustworthy actors who wish me well or at least are neutral to me. I reject buying on messages sent by dishonest people or those who have interest in profiting at my expense (e.g. salesmen, advertisers).

<comment><USER10> So I'm guessing that your participation on HN means one of your most hated companies is ycombinator since HN as an ad for it

<comment><USER4> I understand the HN-YC dynamics and know enough about YC to have a specific opinion on them that overrides the herustic described above.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> On the silly "inequality is getting worse" claim:

"Contrary to the author's claim that the rich are getting richer, not due to underlying economic trends, but by using their power and influence to enrich themselves, I have in this column more than once suggested that the real reason is the enormous expansion of the world supply of unskilled and semi- skilled labour brought about by falling transport costs and trade barriers. With globalization, a billion or more rural people in Asia could be recruited into the urban industrial sector and produce the tradeable goods that undersell the goods hitherto produced in the United States and Europe. Until this new Asian labour is wholly absorbed and its wages rise to Western levels, U.S. and European unskilled wages will remain depressed and the share of profits in value added will rise. Ironically, while this sharpens inequality in the West, it promotes equality on a world scale as Asian and eventually also African peoples are lifted out of misery." [http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2012/Jasayinequality...](http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2012/Jasayinequality.html)

\+ Even if there exits market failures, we don't want to replace them with government failures, which are usually even worse.

<comment><USER12> Which is great for those Asian people, in the last 30 years alone around 500 million Chinese people have been lifted out of extreme poverty. Let that sink in, that's the entire population of present-day Europe.

But, as an Eastern European I'm of course biased. I grew up in the economy- controlled '80s when we were experiencing toilet paper shortages, among other things (question for the anti-free market people: how do you centralize the production of things like toilet paper? How do you decide how much toilet paper to make, in the absence of a free market?)

<comment><USER13> _> But, as an Eastern European I'm of course biased. I grew up in the economy- controlled '80s when we were experiencing toilet paper shortages, among other things (question for the anti-free market people: how do you centralize the production of things like toilet paper? How do you decide how much toilet paper to make, in the absence of a free market?)_

As Eastern Germany (where I grew up) was not experiencing toilet paper shortages in the '80s, I'd say the main source of the problem wasn't the planned economy per se, but other contributing factors.

Amartya Sen makes a strong case for _authoritarianism_ being the culprit, as there are numerous examples of famines and shortages in market-regulated, but authoritarian economies (like the 1943 Bengal famine, where millions of people died).

<comment><USER11> Nonsense, the entire era of Industrial Revolution happened during authoritarian governments. Not to mention the economic success of Hong Kong or Chile.

PS. Yes, there was huge shortage of toilet paper in Poland during 80's. Huge! My family was standing in the queues for 2-3h to get it.

<comment><USER13> _> Nonsense, the entire era of Industrial Revolution happened during authoritarian governments._

And whole generations lived in misery during that period. I thought that's exactly what we were talking about?

 _> Not to mention the economic success of Hong Kong or Chile._

I don't know about Hong Kong, but in Chile the Chicago school free market era under Pinochet ended in the collapse of the economy in 1982.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The way we accept this at the level of society is also worrying. See, if a friend tried to do to you the things advertisers do all the time, you'd punch him in the face. But somehow we have no problems being intentionally manipulated, lied to and deceived by companies every day. In fact, we turned it into a legitimate occupation.

<comment><USER14> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRzYJullFOs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRzYJullFOs)

Max Headroom, Season 2, Episode 13 "Lessons"

        Have you any idea how suc-suc-suc-cessful censorship is on TV?
        Don't know the answer?
        Hmm...
        Successful, isn't it!

Before something can be considered a threat (or even worthy of strong opinions), they must first realize it exists. Systems that depend on people forming such opinions - such as democracy and capitalism - should really consider anything that blocks or corrupts the dissemination of knowledge as an existential threat.

<comment><USER4> Indeed. Moreover, the fundamental glue of the society - the thing that enables a peaceful governance, whether democratic or not, and flourishing free trade is _trust_. Trust people have toward each other, trust they have in their companies and officials. Lying is an existential threat to society itself.

Many people are surprised by anti-vaccination movements, or anti-GMO and anti- nuclear crowds. One will say: "surely they must be stupid, they reject the science, the well-tested and replicated results of countless of studies". But they aren't, in fact, any more or less stupid than you and I. They had their trust in the system broken. They've seen enough shit pharma does to stop trusting doctors. They've witnessed enough scandals and have been victims of enough frauds to stop trusting the government or the big bio/tech businesses.

Those "anti-science" movements are only a symptom of the greater problem, of society losing trust in the authority. The trust that has been eroded by constant and countless lies. So yes, if you're a journalist or an editor who writes and publishes lies to "spice up the story", you're responsible. If you're a marketer or a salesman or a businessman who lies to people to get them to buy your product, you're responsible. If you're a scientist who manipulates results to get publications, you too are responsible. As much and as little as the system may have made you to do it, but you are responsible. Responsible for the blood and the deaths, and the fall of the civilization if it happens.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Despite this and all other evidence to the contrary, I don't understand how some people still stick to the idea of efficient markets and speak against government intervention. The market system must be our slave, not our master.

<comment><USER4> Indeed. There is this common meme among religious people that some men make money their god. Sometimes it's even illustrated with people worshipping riches. It always seemed to me to be a stretch. I've never seen anyone worshipping money like they would worship a god.

But what I am seeing every day is people worshipping Moloch[0]. Men and women so sure that The Market will save us if we only leave it alone. It's not the money that's the deity, it's the perfect, efficient Market that promises riches if only you could get that pesky government out of the way.

[0] - [http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on- moloch/](http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/)

<comment><USER14> You may be interested in Mark Blyth[1]'s take[2] on this, in which he also blames the seductive quality of mathematical models. Math can give an illusion of accuracy, when the real world is chaotic and often has far more confounding variables than you know about in something as complex as "the economy".

Treating "efficient markets" as if it was a law of nature is probably inevitable when you combine a trust of bad models with the greedy side of human nature (Moloch) that is biased to overlook the differences between reality and a model that tells you what you want to hear

[1] Prof. Econ. at Brown University, who is probably most well known these days for his warnings about the dangers of "austerity" (e.g. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6vV8_uQmxs#t=673](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6vV8_uQmxs#t=673) )

[2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmWbkPezgtU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmWbkPezgtU)

<comment><USER16> > Math can give an illusion of accuracy, when the real world is chaotic and > often has far more confounding variables than you know about in something as > complex as "the economy".

I don't know what you folks are talking about on this thread branch (what with "efficient markets") but Keynesian Economics is the "theory" that suffers from this "illusion of accuracy".

I don't believe in efficient anything, but I know Free Markets Theory involves no Math (only deductive methods like Praxeology).

<comment><USER4> > _I don 't believe in efficient anything, but I know Free Markets Theory > involves no Math_

That's actually _not a good sign_. Math is refined thinking. If your theory doesn't involve math, it's probably little more than handwaving and could be significantly improved by being formalized a little more.

There is always the risk that people confuse the map with the territory, but it's present regardless of whether you have a differential equation handy for everything or you're just sharing campfire stories.

<comment><USER16> The deductive process on which Austrian School theory is based, is itself based on Logic. That's as formal as you can get.

> Math is refined thinking.

No, Mr. Poet. Math is an abstract science that can be applied to concrete fields. So far no one has been able to meaningfully apply mathematics to economics, or we would have computers that can simulate markets like we can simulate tornadoes.

<comment><USER4> > _So far no one has been able to meaningfully apply mathematics to economics, > or we would have computers that can simulate markets like we can simulate > tornadoes._

That only proves those problems are incredibly hard - and require incredible resources and work to think about in a formal, precise way. It's also worth noting that you are therefore no more likely to be a good economist by guessing and waving hands than you're likely to be a good meteorologist by spinning make-believe stories about which way the weather should be. Failure to understand the meaning of this point is a source of tremendous amount of stupid decisions and pointless politics.

Also, don't confuse logic with math. The former is just a subset.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> "If a company can make money by deceiving or manipulating people, someone is going to create such a company, and it will prosper (unless the law regulates it). And if it prospers, companies that do not deceive or manipulate people may well be at a competitive disadvantage."

EDIT: I was just quoting the article for discussion purposes. There's no reason to down vote.

<comment><USER7> And if a law does regulate it, the bureaucrat enforcing said law will prosper.

<comment><USER17> How will he "prosper"? You mean he will have a "job" because he's preventing deception.

<comment><USER4> He may be well-compensated for _not_ enforcing the law in some cases.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> UK-AL I thought people were naturally pessimistic more than optimistic.

</comment><comment><USER18> Anything can make fools of gullible people. Free markets or oligarchies.

<comment><USER4> The key insight being, every single human being is gullible when you attack from the right angle.

<comment><USER18> Indeed. Everyone has their sensitivities, vulnerabilities and emotional/other needs. A company that has figured out how to push the right buttons in its sales pitch/ad has found its subset of "gullible people" \- who will be driven more by animal passions than by reason. Humans are very well capable of overlooking potential long term harm in favor of short term pleasure, or even convincing themselves that the ill effects won't apply to them.

That being said, I wouldn't agree that every single human being is gullible when attacked from the right angle. Example: there are many stressed out people who don't smoke, it doesn't matter how or how much you try to convince them. One can peddle snake-oil on the streets, but only a subset of passersby will stop by and an even smaller subset will buy it - this does not imply that only the most afflicted are the ones making the purchase.

<comment><USER4> > _Example: there are many stressed out people who don 't smoke, it doesn't > matter how or how much you try to convince them._

I wonder if it isn't because companies are severely restricted in their means of convincing people. Consider historical figures[0][1]. Between 1950s and today smoking rates in US dropped from around half of the population to around one in five person. Have the citizens of US suddenly became less gullible, or did their lives became less stressful? Or maybe as smoking changed from being a social custom to something despised (which can be partially attributed to regulations, though some would say[2] they were just following the social trend), 90% of smokers quit.

Manufacturing a social custom is hard, but if you can pull it off, it's basically a superweapon. People will buy not because it's good or needed, but because it's expected. De Beers has managed to do that for diamonds[3] decades ago, and guess what people are still buying for engagement rings.

That's only one, albeit an extremely effective way to trick people into parting with their money. There are others. Different people have different needs so if they avoid one trap, they'll trip on another. Sometimes the traps are less obvious. Let me give you an example.

I can honestly say there's no advertising that could convince me to chose the grocery store on my street over the one little further but much cheaper. And yet I often shop in the former one because they employ mostly nice, pretty students, and I love to chat with them. Simple as that. I've bought many things I didn't need only to have a pretext to go there and talk with the crew. I've made friends with the entire staff, hell, I met my SO there. But the point still stands that I've been tricked into economically worse option by a simple management decision of hiring nice girls. _Everyone_ has their weak spot.

[0] - [http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/tables/trends/cig...](http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/tables/trends/cig_smoking/)

[1] - [http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762370.html](http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762370.html)

[2] - [http://www.paulgraham.com/addiction.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/addiction.html)

[3] - [http://www.theatlantic.com/past/issues/82feb/8202diamond1.ht...](http://www.theatlantic.com/past/issues/82feb/8202diamond1.htm)

<comment><USER18> Agreed - everyone has their weak spot, but not for _everything_. Its like everyone has their price, but not the fellow considerably richer than you.

As for smoking, if companies were allowed to actually misstate it is good for you, there would be myriad other organizations working to prove it isn't. A reasonable person might well do his own/independent fact finding.

Someone can say eating an octopus is yucky [it is actually used with salad in many places] but for a large amount of money you can convince/bribe them to try it. But if Warren Buffet says no, good luck bribing him. You can try another [practical, not theoretical] incentive, but I'm sure he could buy that too. One can say rich people must live certain lifestyles, but Steve Jobs lived an almost monastic life [save the Mercedes and a couple of other things maybe].

That inherent need has to be present for an advertiser to target/exploit it. And the person has to actually buy the premise of the proposition. Many have the guts to go against the crowd and some even take it as a badge of honor.

Valentine's day is a manufactured custom too. Many are religious about it, many others abhor it - despite the concerted, and mostly successful, efforts to create a romantic custom out of the day. Diamonds, I agree - in many cultures, especially the US. But in many other cultures, such as the Nordic, it is less common [1 - a forum thread]. That doesn't mean de Beers doesn't try its level best to manufacture the same kind of social custom in Sweden. That need for extravagantly showing off a romantic pre-commitment just doesn't exist in that market.

Now let's reasonably assume your SO is well aware of the hiring-pretty-girls- policy, and does not prefer you buying from that store given that there are better economic alternatives, and add in a touch of reasonable jealousy. Do you still frequent that store, given that you are happy with your SO?

Could I sell you an extravagant snake-oil panacea if I were a hot bird?

[1] [http://www.thelocal.se/discuss/index.php?showtopic=32620](http://www.thelocal.se/discuss/index.php?showtopic=32620)

<comment><USER4> I don't think people like Warren Buffet or Steve Jobs are safe from being manipulated. As you say:

> _That inherent need has to be present for an advertiser to target /exploit > it. And the person has to actually buy the premise of the proposition._

The needs of people safe in monetary ways are often more nuanced and complex, but they are there. Some rich people are still insecure about status, and you can attack that. Others want to do good for the world, so they're perfect targets for various "charitable" organizations (thankfully, GiveWell / Effective Altruist movement tries to do something about that).

> _Many have the guts to go against the crowd and some even take it as a badge > of honor._

Yeah, I know. But you know how nonconformists strangely look alike? Capitalism has managed to go meta - being anti-capitalist has also been packaged and shipped to stores.

> _Now let 's reasonably assume your SO is well aware of the hiring-pretty- > girls-policy, and does not prefer you buying from that store given that > there are better economic alternatives, and add in a touch of reasonable > jealousy. Do you still frequent that store, given that you are happy with > your SO?_

You got me here :). Now that my SO no longer works there, I neither feel the need to visit the store that often (though I still pop in from time to time, because I like buying in a place that is friendly to me, but not for extended chats), nor would I like to give her reasons for being jealous :).

I guess we're still dancing around the point, so let me restate my assertion. You say:

> _everyone has their weak spot, but not for everything. Its like everyone has > their price, but not the fellow considerably richer than you._

I say: everyone may have a different set of weak spots, but everyone has them and market economy does and will exploit _all_ of them. By saying "everyone is gullible if you attack from the right angle" I didn't mean that angle is universal for everyone. Different people respond to different strategies, but there is a way to get to everyone.

> _Could I sell you an extravagant snake-oil panacea if I were a hot bird?_

If you were and I wasn't in a relationship, I'd encourage you to try :). Hell, I might buy if it would make you talk some more :).

<comment><USER18> The idea of selling to people based on their needs _assumes_ that everyone has needs/insecurities which, if correctly targeted, will result in a successful sale.

To this extent, we're fully aligned. Take a step back. To the _theory of needs_ , one of the earliest and best known variants of which was proposed by Maslow. (There have been numerous updates to Maslow over the years [1]. A common theme in all variants of the theory of motivation/needs is the concept of self-actualization.)

If individuals' needs are the foundation of selling to them, someone motivated by love and belongingness needs ought to be motivated by things that will help him feel closer to others. Indeed, this is the base of the couple of examples we discussed (pretty girl selling snake oil, and the supermarket with good looking sales girls). Similar arguments can easily be put forward for each and every kind of need - doesn't matter what the actual product is, what matters is what the buyer thinks/believes it will help him achieve, ergo, what need(s) will it is perceived to fulfill.

The crux of my counter-argument is based on the exceptions - the self- actualized individuals, who admittedly form a very small fraction of the population. You're right in the general case, of course. I'm saying there is a proper subset which is an exception to the rule. Going by the theories of motivation/needs, the self actualized people are driven solely by what they believe their "purpose" in life to be. It is also supposed, in these theories, that self actualized individuals either do not have needs (what you rightly phrased as insecurities), or aren't driven/motivated by them.

In the general case: As long as there is an illusion that need x will be met by a product y, people who are motivated by x can be sold y. In the case of self-actualized individuals, it is harder to sell an illusion - which won't be sustained in the face a logical/rational analysis. Since there is no underlying need/insecurity to target, all that remains is a factual analysis of what material benefits the product confers vis-a-vis what the self- actualized individual's goals are.

So I guess it boils down to: what's your take on the theories of motivation and the notion of self-actualized individuals?

[1] I found a good summary + a new approach at a Medium blog post, which seems reasonably well researched and presented. [https://medium.com/@faracrosstherubicon/rethinking- maslow-a-...](https://medium.com/@faracrosstherubicon/rethinking-maslow-a- postmodern-theory-of-motivation-b6e36ecf5795)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Trump campaign's mobile app collecting huge amount of data - <AUTHOR> https://www.newyorker.com/news/campaign-chronicles/the-trump-campaigns-mobile-app-is-collecting-massive-amounts-of-voter-data <comment><USER2> Apps require the user to provide permissions. It seems like a non-story unless the app is hacking your phone for permissions you didn't explicitly grant during install.

<comment><USER3> Users trust apps. Could apps ask user's consent for x,y attributes & collect data for a,b...z attributes? would apple/google allow that?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I dont understand the mindset of anyone who would install a campaign mobile app on their phone. Maybe I'm missing something but what could possibly be gained?

<comment><USER3> Basically the app provides schedules, agenda etc.,

<comment><USER5> ...All the tweets that Twitter Inc. determines to be too sensitive for your delicate eyes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Is there an issue with the New Yorker's mobile site? This article shows up as only a paragraph long for me and doesn't even mention data collecting.

<comment><USER3> If you use ios this gets it - [https://apple.news/A4nS32jtOSd-V5o7UFvn4vg](https://apple.news/A4nS32jtOSd-V5o7UFvn4vg)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Wouldn't Apple or Google review apps before they get published? Dont they have some responsibility?

<comment><USER7> According to the Ad I've just seen on television: they have.

That's why you won't see any comment about it here ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> isn't this literally a plot point from House of Cards</comment>


Objects larger than the wavelength of sound in an acoustic tractor beam - <AUTHOR> https://phys.org/news/2018-01-world-powerful-acoustic-tractor-pave.html <comment><USER2> Do lifted objects exert a force back on the hardware producing the sounds?

What happens if we aim these downwards and put a board on top? :-)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1ZdMOMUgXE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1ZdMOMUgXE)

<comment><USER3> I wondered about that too. The professor at Bristol has the following tweet - [https://twitter.com/sonic_bruce/status/669560944234774528](https://twitter.com/sonic_bruce/status/669560944234774528)

It says you need ~7.6kW of sound power to levitate a human.

That's sound power, so I'm not sure what electrical power you'd need too, I'm not sure how efficient the transducers are.

<comment><USER4> Hmm. 7.6 kW for a human of something around 76 kg (makes calculating easier, reality should be 80-85). That means you'd need about 100W/kg... or, to lift a car of 1t, 100 kW. Should be do-able with a modern biturbo engine and by cutting some weight.

Am I the only one thinking of a Star Wars repulsorlift?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This project reminded me of Pixie Dust, a 2014 Siggraph project that produced a screen out of suspended particles.

[https://youtu.be/NLgD3EtxwdY](https://youtu.be/NLgD3EtxwdY)

</comment><comment><USER6> Wouldn't it be more accurate to call this an acoustic suspension beam? Calling it a tractor beam implies that it can be mounted on the ceiling and pull an object off the floor. Hence the name (at)tractor beam.

<comment><USER7> Not named after farm tractors then which I'd always assumed had gained their name from the term traction engine.

<comment><USER8> Well yes and no, traction is the act of "tirer" in French, that is the act of pulling. So a farm tractor is named as such because it pulls some (usually plowing) equipment behind it, and a tractor beam because it pulls some stuff at a distance.

<comment><USER9> Also reminds me of an interesting lesson we had in flying school, where our CFI was explaining that the "propeller" on an airplane should really be called a "tractor" because it is technically pulling the aircraft along, whereas an actual "propeller" would push the aircraft along (much as a ship's propeller does at the stern).

<comment><USER10> A propeller propels air behind it. The traction is a side effect by Newton's third law.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Can this tractor beam approach be used to gently push a finger in mid-air? Or create the illusion of a solid object where there's none? I'm wondering about applications to virtual reality.

<comment><USER12> There's this company using ultrasound for touchless haptic feedback: [https://www.ultrahaptics.com/](https://www.ultrahaptics.com/)

<comment><USER13> This is awesome! Any further info / alternatives / etc. that you have time to provide would be greatly appreciated.

found: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11025820](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11025820)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Study: Acoustic Virtual Vortices with Tunable Orbital Angular Momentum for Trapping of Mie Particles

Citation: Asier Marzo, Mihai Caleap, Bruce W. Drinkwater. Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 044301 – Published 22 January 2018.

Link: [https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.044301](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.044301)

DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.044301

Abstract: Acoustic vortices can transfer angular momentum and trap particles. Here, we show that particles trapped in airborne acoustic vortices orbit at high speeds, leading to dynamic instability and ejection. We demonstrate stable trapping inside acoustic vortices by generating sequences of short- pulsed vortices of equal helicity but opposite chirality. This produces a "virtual vortex" with an orbital angular momentum that can be tuned independently of the trapping force. We use this method to adjust the rotational speed of particles inside a vortex beam and, for the first time, create three-dimensional acoustics traps for particles of wavelength order (i.e., Mie particles).

</comment><comment><USER15> What's the "loudness" of speakers like these? I see that they're ultrasound, so we wouldn't be able to hear them anyways, but are they something a human can safely be around without suffering hearing loss?

</comment><comment><USER16> Would this work in space?

<comment><USER9> I don't think it would without some sort of medium to suspend the end target in. I am presuming that the articles in the video 'hover' there because they are caught in an air pressure pocket where multiple opposing waves essentially phase cancel each other out.

In space, it would mean no air, therefore no medium in which to suspend the target.

I do wonder about suspending nano particles using light waves though... conceivably that might work in space?!?

<comment><USER17> Not quite what your talking about, but yes we can manipulate small (very!) objects today with light, using a technique / setup known as "Optical Tweezers"

[https://blocklab.stanford.edu/optical_tweezers.html](https://blocklab.stanford.edu/optical_tweezers.html)</comment></comment></comment>


Amazon launches Amazon Care, a virtual medical clinic for employees - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/24/amazon-launches-employee-health-clinic-amazon-care.html <comment><USER2> So far, the comments here are seriously misunderstanding what Amazon is doing here, and are getting unnecessarily inflammatory just because it's Big Bad Amazon.

It's just a remote care benefit. My current employer offers it, administered by a vendor, and it's separate from your actual insurance. You can call or video chat, send pictures, and even get prescriptions filled off-hours. It comes in handy for a lot of common quick scenarios.

The only news is that Amazon is big enough to self administer it.

It's pretty much inevitable that companies of that immense size save money by self-administering or self-insuring many benefits like this.

<comment><USER3> Much as I think this is a job for the state and not private sector, America has a long history of employers providing healthcare. Kaiser started out as a shipbuilding company with in-house medical clinic, and eventually the shipbuilding arm folded and the medical arm opened up to all comers, yielding today's KP.

What's old is new again, as they say.

<comment><USER4> Without judging the quality of Kaiser's care, consider that it makes about as much sense that a shipbuilding company is now a healthcare insurer as the fact that General Electric was a finance firm.

This is the root of the newsworthiness of Amazon's entries into new businesses.

<comment><USER5> To judge the quality of Kaiser's care, they're best in class. Several studies and reports show that Kaiser delivers some of the best care you can get.

([https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3383159/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3383159/), [https://www.bmj.com/content/324/7330/135.short](https://www.bmj.com/content/324/7330/135.short), [https://about.kaiserpermanente.org/our- story/news/accolades-...](https://about.kaiserpermanente.org/our- story/news/accolades-and-awards/kaiser-permanente-earns-californias-highest- ratings-clinical-car), [https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/pdf/10.1377/hlthaff.19.2.1...](https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/pdf/10.1377/hlthaff.19.2.185))

<comment><USER6> A note for the healthcare shopper - I can testify firsthand and from doctor friends that their general healthcare is spectacular, but their mental healthcare system is in crisis. The state has repeatedly fined them for failing to provide "timely access" to mental health care ([https://californiahealthline.org/news/kaiser-permanente- cite...](https://californiahealthline.org/news/kaiser-permanente-cited-again- for-mental-health-access-problems/)), and their mental health care workers are going on strike not for better pay/benefits but for higher staffing and shorter patient wait times ([https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/california- kaiser-menta...](https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/california-kaiser- mental-health-clinicians-in-fight-for-patient-care/)).

<comment><USER7> As a previous user of their mental health system I can agree from personal accounts. The system is a disaster and has been for over a decade.

Want to see a therapist? Wait is two months but we can prescribe you some drugs within a week if you'd prefer that. Feeling a potential serious adverse reaction to those drugs? We'll call you back in a month, maybe, or enjoy your ER visit. First time patient needing some new medications? Here is a three month supply, see you again in three months, hope they work out and you don't need any adjustments.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Amazon employee here that used this service or it's immediate predecessor. It's just a branded third party teledoc service for internal employees.

I described very clearly that I needed a refill of a common non-scheduled medication. They took my credit card info and charged me $50, transferred me to the NP who immediately told me they could not prescribe it.

A waste of time and money. I went to the NP at the local CVS MinuteClinuc and had the bottle of pills in 30 minutes.

<comment><USER9> What's an NP? Wouldn't the minute clinic charge just as much?

<comment><USER10> Nurse Practitioner

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> As somebody with complex health problems: These sort of telemedicine/urgent care arrangements, where one visits with a random nurse practitioner or doctor, without near complete access to your medical record and without proper follow up, can be disastrous.

I am not blaming Amazon for anything. I am pointing out that your health problems need to be followed up, with your general practitioner (GP), if you have to visit an urgent care, even if you are "healthy". In many cases, all you really need to do is have the urgent care medical records transferred to your GP--and confirm that the GP office got them.

Considering that the third leading cause of death in the US is preventable medical errors [1], complete and accurate health records are important. In fact, this was how I was properly diagnosed with a very rare disease. I am now in remission and I get a second chance to live my life.

[1] [https://www.npr.org/sections/health- shots/2016/05/03/4766361...](https://www.npr.org/sections/health- shots/2016/05/03/476636183/death-certificates-undercount-toll-of-medical- errors)

<comment><USER12> For someone like me who gets really bad poison ivy about once every 2 years these appointments are amazing. I get to tell the doctor exactly what is wrong with me and what protocol works best. I don't have to miss work (remote) and it only costs me 30 min of time. If these types of visits are not right for your situation don't use them.

<comment><USER11> I agree with you 100%. But it is still very important that your GP gets the records from the service, and to use a service that can do this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> White-labeling telemedicine benefits could be a novel retention play for companies, but I think that only works if:

a. the benefit is obviously superior (better care than you'd get from a PCP or national telemedicine brand like Teladoc)

and/or

b. the benefit is emulsified with covered perks like gym memberships, wellness programming, etc.

It's interesting that this is a story though. It's either a recruiting tactic or they're floating it as something they might sell outwardly later. It's also potentially a way to control coverage costs for employees.

</comment><comment><USER14> I love that Amazon is moving in this direction.

Employer-provided health insurance is a total racket. I would love to see Medicare-for-all in the US, and support that. But we also need a plan B.

But how do you break a racket? You can't just built a startup, because the market is fucked: everyone with money already gets care for free. Most of the people who need care are broke.

And there are so many layers of indirection: patient -> employer -> insurer -> provider.... that you're not just dealing with a single racket, you have layers of protectorates that are milking people at every stage.

Plus there's the scale issue, with a pool of 100 patient-customers, a few bad years can sink your startup. Yes you can buy specialty insurance, but it would need to be a very complex product and you need scale to make that appealing to an underwriter.

Which brings me to why I am excited about Amazon trying this:

A big employer seems like the only party other than the state who can break the racket.

Amazon is more or less bearing the full cost of their employees care, and they have the scale to act as their own insurer. They also have the software and data science teeth needed to build the backoffice.

Medicare for all is what we need, but I support Amazon because I believe in the diversity of tactics.

</comment><comment><USER15> > Employees will have an option to see a health provider via a mobile app or > website, and they can text a nurse on any health topic in minutes. If an > employee needs follow-up care, Amazon Care can arrange for a nurse to pay a > visit at home.

Have fun trying to get hold of an actual doctor. I understand that nurses are more than capable of handling lots of issues, but I doubt Amazon will publish a breakdown of the doctor:nurse ratio for this initiative.

<comment><USER16> Nurse Practitioners can handle a good bit of every day things. If that's who shows up, the article is being disingenuous.

<comment><USER17> I came here to say that Nurse Practitioners are the ones who can do perscriptions. Not regular Registered Nurses. For anybody who might not already know. And correct it is only a doctor who can prescribe certain types of medications, likely stronger medications.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Neofeudalism intensifies.

</comment><comment><USER19> That's pure dystopia.

</comment><comment><USER20> The naming is horrible, because 'Amazon Care' is an oxymoron (sorry, couldn't help it).

This is crap. It's basically streamlined McMedicine. Any ailment which steps out of the ordinary will be deferred or ignored. This is vaporware. Its goal is to save Bezos money for employee health insurance and using it's gimmicks to advertise it as a 'benefit'

> Health care represents a $3.5 trillion sector for Amazon

This is the problem right here. As long as medical care is a business, it's gonna be run like a business and trust me, you don't want Amazon running anything medical for you.

<comment><USER21> What's your solution non-profits, how well are those working for you now? If anything the utter bureaucracy and malfeasance under guise of charity has destroyed countless American lives with bizarre practices such as surprise billing, preferential rates. If anything there is a need for vertical integration in healthcare, to save it from disaster that is pharma/insurance/hospitals.

Healthcare is as toxic as Taxi industry pre Uber and if it takes Amazon or Apple similar what Uber/Lyft did to destroy the current state so be it. it will still be a net positive.

<comment><USER20> Proud to see someone making an account to respond to my comment.

My solution is government-run single payer health insurance, separated from employers. It doesn't need 'disruption' or 'innovation' or any other Silicon Valley band-aid. It just needs to drop the cancerous insurers from the market completely and separate profits from healthcare.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What is your startup's marketing stack? (March 2017) - <AUTHOR> I am launching a startup which is currently a one-man operation. I am planning to develop content to drive inbound marketing. I have both Highrise and Hubspot trial/free accounts for CRM and am considering Wix for my web presence based on some of the great looking templates they have available. Curious to know what products & integrations others are using to get their marketing efforts off the ground? <comment><USER4> You seem to be discussing tooling rather than channels.

Appropriate marketing channels vary distinctly by business type, development level and market positioning. Service vs. product, physical vs. digital, popular vs. specialist, early stage vs. validating vs. growth-phrase vs. stable, desired audience, phase of moon, etc.

In general tooling should be determined by the channel, not the other way around.

The advice given to me by a very successful CFO (many $Ms personal exit, multi-decade angel, now running an accelerator) on my first business was: "test each channel". That means: marketing spend per new prospect, conversion percentage, repeat customer percentage, customer lifetime or fixed-period value estimate, and maybe other channel properties like responsiveness, customer demographic or other data available, markets served, total available inbound volume. Try to keep the building of this data for objective channel- vs-channel analysis as your focus, and don't get distracted. Remember, you're being marketed to. ;)

If you're lucky, you'll find a strong channel. In most cases, you simply need to sink a certain minimum amount of capital to get your customer base large enough to get in the black. Take it from me - not having this war-chest can cost you the business (as it did my first). If you find yourself in that position, workarounds can include partnerships with established networks, acquisitions, pivots to SaaS-conversions ... but again it depends on the business. Good luck out there :)

<comment><USER5> That's awesome advice, thanks for sharing. I'm in a similar position to the OP as a one man band, can you recommend any books or blogs on exactly how to start testing each channel? A lot of the advice I've come across only mentions it in broad strokes. Maybe there's some foundation level knowledge I'm missing but I don't know where to look next to get up to speed. :)

<comment><USER6> Traction [1] is the book I can unreservedly recommend as it both lays out more channels than you were probably aware of, it also has a nice crisp framework for trying a few at a time and folding that knowledge back into your operations.

It's also very applicable for people where we're at (fellow one person SAAS founder here), which many other marketing books are decidedly not. This is important as now is not the time to be worrying about the proper branding position of your superbowl ad, etc.

One last thing: there have a Slideshare[2] that moves through most of the book content which is a great resource as well.

1 - [https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00TY3ZOMS/](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00TY3ZOMS/)

2 - [https://www.slideshare.net/jwmares/traction-trumps- everythin...](https://www.slideshare.net/jwmares/traction-trumps-everything)

<comment><USER5> Fantastic, thank you so much

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I've been using pipedrive.com for deal flow.

And checkout Segment.io

Also, I've got triggers in my app that spawn Trello cards. I feed Trello, then manually do stuff in the other systems. Ugly but I can switch out other tools easier. This lets me try new tools faster, and switch back too.

</comment><comment><USER8> Vocus.io (I'm the founder but also happen to rely heavily on it for our own growth). Great for outreach and customer support.

Others:

      - <USER2>

      - Pipedrive

      - <USER3>

<comment><USER9> looks like a really good tool...do you have a FF extension or plans for standalone / web app?

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Crm - streak crm ([http://www.streak.crm](http://www.streak.crm)), nice crm that integrates with gmail. Used to categorize email communication. Email marketing - listshine ([http://www.listshine.com](http://www.listshine.com)) cheap alternative to mailchimp, used to regularly email new and existing customers.

</comment><comment><USER11> Simple is better. Start with the minimum and as you build demand introduce tools.

</comment><comment><USER9> Basecamp (project management)$

Skype(chat/collab)

Piwik (analytics)free

Ahrefs (SEO)$

Google Mail (email)$

Google Cloud (hosting)$

Amazon S3 (backup)$

WordPress (CMS)free

Prosperworks (CRM)$

Hootsuite (social)$

AdEspresso (social ppc)

</comment><comment><USER12> If you think chat is relevant to your business I suggest you'd give drift.com a spin.</comment>


Decentralized Options Trading using smart contracts [Velocity.technology] - <AUTHOR> https://demo.velocity.technology/?referred=hackernews <comment><USER2> Cool, the demo looks good and I really like that it links to a real transaction when used with metamask. How is this different than BitSquare? Do you plan to compete?</comment>


Ask HN: Client wants contract enforcement in their state. Red flag? - <AUTHOR> Hi guys,
I'm in the negotiation stages with a freelance client for a sizable job. I presented a contract to them in which one of the terms is that the agreement shall be interpreted and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California (my state). They asked me to make a few changes in the contract, one of them being changing the state where the agreement is enforced to Florida, which is the state where they are and their new company is incorporated. I'm not a lawyer and don't think it's worth paying one to figure this out (I'd rather walk away at this point). Do you think this is a red flag? Or is it customary to ask for this? Do I have to go to Florida if there's any sort of dispute?
Thanks! <comment><USER2> Personally, I've never regretted walking away from a deal I didn't feel good about and have regretted not walking away from several that I took...though I'll admit there is selection bias inherent.

My gut is that it's a red flag. Partly because your intuition is that it might be one and you're ready to walk away. Partly because moving the venue to Florida signals that the _potential_ client (they're not an actual client until they write you a check) is more concerned with you enforcing the terms of the contract against them [a Florida venue is an impediment] versus a concern about having to enforce a contract against you [a Florida venue is an impediment]. To put it another way, a Florida venue hedges their non-payment over their enforcement. It's a bet that it's more likely they won't perform than you.

My experience is that people are able to live with not paying because they give warnings up front. That's why I like retainers. If a _potential_ client balks over paying a retainer, then the odds are higher they will balk over paying an invoice. Anyway, there's only two reasons that a client would balk over paying a retainer: they don't trust me in which case I don't want them as a client; or they don't have the money in which case I don't want them as a client.

Good luck.

</comment><comment><USER3> IANAL, but I wouldn't necessarily consider it a "red flag". They are more or less trying to put the burden on you by having to travel to, or obtain counsel in Florida, should there be an issue. In my experience it is not a common request, as most contracts state that the terms are interpreted based on the laws of the state the contractor is located in. This is more common because you otherwise you would have to have contracts written for every state or area you have customers in. I can't imagine that any of their service providers would agree to those terms. For example, if they agree to the terms with a hosting provider or email service, those companies are not going to change their terms if they are not located in Florida.

I would ask an attorney for their opinion. It's not worth the hassle though, and if this is an absolute sticking point for the client, it may end up being a red flag and time to walk away. A couple options you may have would be to agree to arbitration or mediation in lieu of court. Another option would be to require a "legal deposit" that would put an attorney in Florida on retainer for the length of the contract. The deposit would either be applied to a final invoice or refunded at the term of the contract. This would discourage them from doing something frivolous down the road hoping you won't travel to Florida to enforce the agreement.

Again though, I would talk with an attorney before proceeding.

</comment><comment><USER4> I wouldn't walk away from the deal. They're just concerned you'll fail to deliver and also don't want extra hassles dealing with attorneys, just like you. And you're concerned about not being paid. Ask for a deposit, do a great job, and don't worry about it.

You're both in different states. Each of you want litigation/contracts resolved in your own states. One of you must budge. How's this a red flag?

</comment><comment><USER5> You can politely say no and explain why. You have many clients and can't account for all the laws in each state, you'd rather deal with local laws you are familiar with and certainly abide by.

Furthermore, you can also show past works, references, etc. to support that point and convey that you like to stand by your word. Writing a contract where you're not fully familiar with the laws of the state means it makes it harder to deliver the work and experience you are known for.

When they say they want to amend the contract, what they are really saying is that they feel uncertain about certain things and feel there's a higher level of risk.

And at the very end of the day if they still insist on the changes, tell them you're willing to do that and explain to them that you will need to change the quote because of the extra legal fees.

Source: years of working with clients and making them happy

</comment><comment><USER6> They may be doing it just because it's easier for them to get legal counsel in their own state. I wouldn't call it a red flag but they are definitely trying to tilt the balance on their side.

If you don't have the resources to get legal advice I would walk away. Not worth the trouble.

<comment><USER7> Although I've never been in a situation like you describe, this seems like sound advice:

> If you don't have the resources to get legal advice I would walk away

If there is no way that you could afford to get a consultation for, don't know, 100-300 USD range?, then how much are you willing to risk in case you sign the contract and something bad happens?

I would guess that just flying from Cali to Florida would trump those 100-300 attorney fee, even if it's just flying to sign some paper and end the issue.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thank you all for your thoughtful responses! Considering the potential client has also asked for some other contract changes that would increase my liability to them, I've decided to stand firm and not give in to any of their contract change requests. We've been working on getting a deal together for 6 weeks now and I've found them quite inexperienced with technical matters so far. I think this translates into a lack of trust towards me, though I don't get the feeling there's any malice or ill-will behind it. So if they insist on their proposed changes to the contract, I will happily walk away. Thanks again for your thoughts!</comment>


Synthesising Elisp Code - <AUTHOR> http://www.wilfred.me.uk/blog/2017/07/02/synthesising-elisp-code/ <comment><USER2> Looks a lot like this:

[https://youtu.be/OyfBQmvr2Hc?t=1h6m35s](https://youtu.be/OyfBQmvr2Hc?t=1h6m35s)

<comment><USER3> My first thought. I wonder how much logic programming is in suggest.el .. if it's full fledge then I'll be damned.

<comment><USER4> Sounds like it's brute forcing elisp fns.

<comment><USER3> Well prolog is a kind of brute force too

<comment><USER5> A major attraction of (pure) Prolog is that you can easily reorder goals and use all-solutions predicates to try different search strategies. Further, _constraints_ like dif/2 help considerably to prune the search space. So yes, it can be brute force, but is often better than that.

<comment><USER3> Sure, but there's no magic here when you want to explore the space of all possibilities. I'm a prolog noob and barely new about dif

<comment><USER5> Yes I agree. Still, the key insight of constraints like dif/2 may also be applicable in this concrete case to limit the candidates already before and even during the search. It is this automatic pruning that makes logic programming with constraints so fast for many combinatorial applications. You are right of course that it may end up in brute force though, if there is nothing to prune.

<comment><USER3> I have yet to read about CLP, I'm eager now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Related;

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

Popular field when I was in uni. IFP was popular-ish 10 years later. Not sure if anyone is still doing much now that computers are much faster, but I always liked it.

</comment><comment><USER7> Are there any practical uses for something like this?

<comment><USER8> Smalltalk environments have used this as a fancy docsearch for ages now, I believe - Pharo has one. It's actually pretty nice for beginners to help them learn a standard library. It's unfortunate that the search space is probably to big for some of the less trivial examples you'd want (e.g. the trickier Clojure collection functions).</comment></comment>


Show HN: Blop – Game I've made while I was learning Swift (iteration #2) - <AUTHOR> http://playblop.com In previous series: https://medium.com/@ivanpashenko/how-one-designer-was-learning-swift-cc2d99658895 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8556056
I've got very useful feedback from HN community previous time. Thanks a lot guys!
What was done:
- Changed the name (now it is searchable in the App Store by the name)
- Slowmo action to slow the game down for 15 sec
- In app purchase (slowmos)
- Pause button works now as it suppose to work
- Location achievements (Don't forget to allow location service)
- Bugfixes <comment><AUTHOR> In previous series: [https://medium.com/@ivanpashenko/how-one-designer-was- learni...](https://medium.com/@ivanpashenko/how-one-designer-was-learning- swift-cc2d99658895) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8556056](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8556056)

I've got very useful feedback from HN community previous time. Thanks a lot guys!

What was done:

\- Changed the name (now it is searchable in the App Store by the name)

\- Slowmo action to slow the game down for 15 sec

\- In app purchase (slowmos)

\- Pause button works now as it suppose to work

\- Location achievements (Don't forget to allow location service)

\- Bugfixes</comment>


Heroku REALLY screwed up today - <AUTHOR>

Heroku's penchant for scheduling maintenance for US customers smack-dab in the middle of the US day is bad enough.
Today, predictably enough, they broker the ability to restart jobs, then they started having elevated dyno errors.
But today they really screwed up by ALSO making it impossible to scale down worker jobs to ensure no background process (like emailing) get fired off until the dust settles.
We shut down all our worker processes, the heroku console confirmed it, but then we watched the (supposedly off) delayed_job workers blithely keep firing off jobs...
Downtime is one thing, it just comes with the Heroku gig.
But Heroku need to cease the irresponsible practice of scheduling routine maintenance during peak hours now that they've proven they are unable to ensure apps can do an orderly wind-down if/when teh inevitable breakage results. <comment><USER2> If they schedule work out of hours they will need to pay staff over time which costs money. Much cheaper to inconvenience customers.

</comment><comment><USER3> It's been a real bad month for Heroku.

</comment><comment><USER4> Why do people keep using this crap?</comment>


DC faces Silicon Valley's riches and ever-growing power - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/17/zuckerberg-trump-silicon-valley-power-gilded-age <comment><USER2> I feel like these kinds of Valley-flattering articles can only continue as long as the Department of Justice and Department of Labor continue to enforce antitrust and labor laws leniently. Google and Facebook are monopolies, Uber's profit margins shrink whenever the drivers decide to stick up for themselves and demand legal rights and status as employees, and a who's-who list of tech companies have been declared guilty in court of colluding to suppress engineers' salaries and bargaining power.

I look forward to seeing the interesting technologies the tech sector will concoct and market when the strong arm of the law finally forces it to _concoct and market technologies_ rather than collecting monopoly rents or exploiting disadvantaged labor.

[http://thebaffler.com/videos/graeber- thiel#.VxPmqyZyhyQ](http://thebaffler.com/videos/graeber-thiel#.VxPmqyZyhyQ)

<comment><USER3> Are you advocating making the US government larger in order to force the US private sector to shrink?

<comment><USER2> Heretical though it may be, _yes_ , I am in fact suggesting that the US government enforce its existing competition laws, which are already on the books, in order to force a few megacorps down to a size where they will be subject to fair market competition and will have to come up with a business model besides monopoly rent.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This article seemed rather inane to me, complaining about Cook's standing up for privacy and Zuckerberg's anti-Trump speech or his new foundation, while ignoring the $900 million that the Koch brothers are pouring into down-ticket campaigns or hundreds of millions more from Sheldon Adelson. Somehow the emphasis on political influence got misplaced.

</comment><comment><USER5> Remarkably, as American, Russian, and Chinese Entrepreneurs amass these giant amounts of wealth, Europe is largely left out and remains more of a middle class society. Will this in the long run be beneficial or not?

<comment><USER6> People in America, India and China are pushing technology forward. We've gotten GOOG/FB/Uber/Tesla from the US; WeChat/WePay/mobile stuff + Shenzen ecosystem from China; Infosys, Oyo (and hopefully smart cities) from India, etc.

Imagine what we might have gotten from Europe if they weren't held back by bureaucracy, fear of failure, egalitarianism, and whatever else prevents Europe from competing with the valley. (It's certainly not a lack of smart people - see all the Europeans who do well in the Valley.)

It's hard to see how holding Europe back could possibly be beneficial (of course I'm not a mercantilist).

<comment><USER7> Can you expand a bit on the bureaucracy in Europe? Do you think it's hard to create a limited responsibility company in Europe? Is it better in China?

<comment><USER8> Have you seen that law about taxes for ecommerce in Europe? In the US, the shop collects tax for the country the shop is based in. In Europe, the shop has to pay taxes related to the country the people buying the products are in. This significantly increases the complexity of running an ecommerce business in Europe.

[https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/vat-supplying- dig...](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/vat-supplying-digital- services-to-private-consumers/vat-businesses-supplying-digital-services-to- private-consumers#eu-vat-rule-change)

It was an idea with some logic behind it, but it basically cripples European internet businesses compared to US ones by making taxes that much complicated to calculate.

<comment><USER2> > In the US, the shop collects tax for the country the shop is based in.

Legally, Americans are obligated to pay sales tax for internet purchases in the state where we live. There's a form for it, every year.

The American move is to shift the burden of tax collection _onto the customer_ , thus ensuring that the taxes are evaded rather than paid. I don't really see moving bureaucracy onto customers rather than businesses - thus increasing the total amount of records that must be kept and paperwork that must be filed to abide perfectly by the law and pay one's taxes - as a _good_ thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > _Mark Zuckerberg and Tim Cook wield influence comparable to that of Andrew > Carnegie and John Rockefeller_

Can anyone point to any influence these people are _actually_ having on American politics?

I mean, according to the tinfoil hat brigade, the Rockefellers are behind every second conspiracy on the planet. How will these other obscenely rich folk get a pass? I think the political tides have already shifted. The 1% are the 1%, regardless of whether we think iPhones are cool. I'll bet on Tim Cook and Mark Zuckerberg having less influence going forward.

<comment><USER10> That's the tragedy of Citizens United. They would have less influence if they couldn't turn dollars into votes.

Unfortunately, they can, and so a few billion dollars buys a fair amount of political support.

<comment><USER11> Have you paid any attention to the news lately? The number 1 and number 2 candidates of the republican and democrat parties are small money candidates that are embarrassing the shit out of both national parties. The GOP golden boy, Jeb Bush, has had to bow out. Even with a $100mm war chest voters still weren't buying it.

The only thing CU has done is put into law what everyone kind of already knew.

<comment><USER10> Trump is a populist running on his party base's concerns after they've been whipped up for the past decade about how evil everyone else is. And reaping the long-term consequences of the Southern Strategy of the 1950s/60s Republican party.

Also, he's #121 on the Forbes 400 richest Americans.

Sanders is funding from small donors, but he's #2 in a two person Democratic primary race.

I'm not seeing an explanation here that consoles me about money not having an oversized impact on American democracy.

And "what everyone kind of knew" (but was illegal) is far different from 'explicitly condoned by the Supreme Court.'

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The 'robber barons' had enough power to get the police and national guard deployed to violently put down strikes and to protect employees working during strikes. None of these CEOs have anywhere near that kind of influence.

They have lobbied quite a bit, but quite a few of those lobbying efforts have failed.

<comment><USER13> In the late 1800s there wasn't any legal support for organized labor. Companies had the right to simply fire everyone who went on strike. After that it's just a question of moving squatters off your property, and for that you go to the police. That's not a question of CEO political influence - the laws unions needed to survive hadn't been passed yet.

<comment><USER12> No, they also got the police to deploy to remove them from public places, which was clearly protected speech. Violence by their hired security against employees, clearly illegal, was politely ignored. They rather blatantly controlled the police in some cases.

<comment><USER13> Well, sure, if you're going to throw in the qualifier "in some cases" you can make the case for anything. The _normal_ state of affairs was for the workers to refuse to leave the factory, illegally, and for the local authorities to give them a lot of slack, because there were far more workers than owners. Look at the Homestead Mill strike, for example. The reason the battle itself and the eventual intervention of state militia was the local cops refused to do anything.

<comment><USER12> My point was that these tech CEOs don't have that kind of influence, and they don't. End of story.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Mother of All Demos - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mother_of_All_Demos

<comment><AUTHOR> Here's a 24 minute highlight reel of the actual demo from '68 of NLS: [https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCGFadV4FqU2yAqCzKaxn...](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCGFadV4FqU2yAqCzKaxnKKXgnJBUrKTE)

<comment><AUTHOR> Teleconferenced Paired-programming (!): [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI8r8D46JOY&list=PLCGFadV4Fq...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI8r8D46JOY&list=PLCGFadV4FqU2yAqCzKaxnKKXgnJBUrKTE&index=8)</comment></comment>


Show HN: Hyper Func, Docker serverless platform, any language, no max runtime - <AUTHOR> https://docs.hyper.sh/Feature/container/func.html <comment><USER2> This looks great, I'm a bit surprised there aren't more questions here as it seems to solve a couple of the more awkward parts of lambda:

* No restriction on language or program size

* No runtime restrictions

> The maximum number of concurrent functions is subject to the user's quota, > which can be upgraded on request. When the quota limit is reached subsequent > functions are queued until a slot becomes available.

What are the defaults for this, and sensible possible requests?

</comment><comment><USER3> How do you handle errors when a function does not work correctly?</comment>