When the Guy Making Your Sandwich Has a Noncompete Clause - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/15/upshot/when-the-guy-making-your-sandwich-has-a-noncompete-clause.html <comment><USER2> Two models that make sense:

\- California, non-competes are not enforceable

\- Poland, you can make non-compete for the time you pay full salary (e.g. if company wants you to restrict employment for 3 months after leaving it, you will get your salary during that period)

<comment><USER3> My understanding of the CA model was that they are unenforceable except for when an employee has a controlling interest in the company. For example you could enforce a non-compete on a co-owner who tried to create a competing service. At least that's the way I interpreted it.

<comment><USER4> yeah my understanding is that it is very state-to-state - I think in TX they are unenforceable unless they are part of the sale of a business in which you are an owner and hence receive compensation as part of the sale...

<comment><USER5> This is slowly changing as the courts are starting to enforce non compete clauses they wouldn't enforce 5 years ago.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Non compete clauses do not make sense for employees that are not highly compensated. They are a violation of the 13th amendment and frequently unenforceable. This doesn't stop people from trying to use them as a tool to increase employee retention especially in the face of poor work conditions and bad management. If an employer insists on one, you should ask for compensation. Make sure they agree to pay you some amount greater than your equivalent total compensation with benefits for the entire duration of the non-compete period.

<comment><USER7> One of the problems with being poor is that you might not be able to afford lawyers to contest a suit over a non-compete. Therefore, we can't rely on _post hoc_ legal remedies. Companies need to be proactively prevented, via regulation, from trying to pull this kind of stuff.

<comment><USER8> As VLM notes elswhere in this thread, being poor also means you're usually "judgment proof" (i.e. too poor to be worth suing).

<comment><USER9> But it's often the next employer that is intimidated into not hiring you. So the poor person gets fucked.

<comment><USER10> Most employers don't waste time on references given the legal liabilities, references are only required as a tradition, to prove you know how to play the game, so I think they're safe... with the sole exception of the camp counselor. Given contact with kids, I'd like to at least imagine they would try to background check. Even then they probably don't and rely on 3rd party professionals.

You have to be realistic about these kind of things. If, under better economic conditions, adults would never work these jobs and it would all be "teens first job" then they're not going to be geared up to check references or prior employers and they're not going to care if you leave your previous employer section blank. You don't need a stellar resume to meet the minimum requirements to flip burgers and if you show up with a stellar resume it proves you don't know how to play the game and they will politely tell you you're overqualified, until you learn to play the game.

<comment><USER9> Your response is amazing.

Step 1 -- Let's ignore reality (low end jobs are not primarily teens anymore [1]); the _actual quoted experience in the article_

Step 2 -- now firmly in our fantasy land, this nasty action of employers definitely isn't a problem!

Step 3 -- therefore, nasty action isn't a problem!

Step 4 -- The aristocrats.

[1] [http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/08/08/2433601/fast- foo...](http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/08/08/2433601/fast-food-workers- young/)

<comment><USER7> Looks like a pretty accurate paraphrase, except that you left out the "well meaning advice" for people very unlike the GP to take risks the GP never would so that the system can right itself. That's a real gem of anti-empathy right there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Their food is disappointing and now their business practices are, too?

I'm really wishing the NYT had tried to get a comment from Jimmy John's corporate before publication. I'd _love_ to hear their justification for that.

<comment><USER12> Here's all I really need to know about the company:

[http://www.smilepolitely.com/splog/jimmy_john_is_a_big_man._...](http://www.smilepolitely.com/splog/jimmy_john_is_a_big_man._with_the_photos_to_prove_it/)

I used to eat there pretty regularly until I saw those photos. I haven't ate there since.

<comment><USER13> 0_0

Fuck...I've eaten there fairly regularly myself. No longer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I'm hoping that companies pushing non-competes to workers at this level causes some discussion around non-competes at national level. Hopefully, as a country, we will treat non-competes more like CA does.

</comment><comment><USER14> I've been under non-competes before. I've just ignored them. Most of them are unenforceable and in cases like Jimmy John's are just another form of harassment.

<comment><USER15> Hell, many places will release you from a non-complete if it gets you to fuck off faster after being let go. Non-competes aren't really about punishing after you leave, they are there to "encourage" you to stay.

<comment><USER3> I'm not at a high enough level that I think an employer would actually try to enforce a non-compete but the fact that I signed something that says they could still scares me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This got a little too typically NYT generic and preachy at the end -- I was expecting either an altar call or somebody to pass a collection plate -- but the specific case about non-competes deserves some attention.

For all the things California is doing to drive out businesses, one great thing about the state is that non-competes have very little weight. (In fact, this was what led Google and Apple to screw over the tech industry for many years, but I digress). The measures are very rarely enforced even in states that do support them. What with a new load of state legislators coming into office over the next few months, fixing non-competes in those other states is an easy win that could increase the state's competitiveness.

<comment><USER10> "The measures are very rarely enforced"

Don't get into an agreement you're not willing to enforce... lets be realistic, the victims are judgment proof, if they lose, the company might be able to repo their hat or apron, that's about it.

Most likely result is if you quit and tell your boss you're going to a competitor of any sort in the food service industry, you won't get your last pay check. It'll cost too much to get it, so corporate wide its free money for the company across the large set of all employees.

<comment><USER17> Attempting to withhold a paycheck for hours worked will get the Feds involved, for free, very quickly.

<comment><USER9> 1 - not so quickly as all that;

2 - particularly if you don't know how to work the system, where to file a complaint, or how to get help;

3 - still a problem if you don't have the money to wait for that paycheck to show up for months or years

<comment><USER18> It won't be "months or years." If you worked hours, the state will tell the company to pay you for that, _now_. Even if they are bankrupt.

<comment><USER9> To introduce some actual evidence: No.

In California, there's a fairly straightforward process, assuming you go through the CA Labor Commission instead of a lawsuit. If the employer contests your claim in any way, it basically takes at bare minimum 6 weeks to complete, and often longer. A normal timeline, in a contested case, would be bare minimum 8 weeks until cash in hand. Longer timelines are typical. You may read a description here: [http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/howtofilewageclaim.htm](http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/howtofilewageclaim.htm)

<comment><USER18> I missed the evidence.

California law provides for penalties payable to the employee, giving him his daily wage for each day the last payment is delayed. [http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_waitingtimepenalty.htm](http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_waitingtimepenalty.htm) It typically isn't worth trying to dick over your old employee.

<comment><USER9> experience and the timeline in the pdf I linked

You responded with the law, and a bunch of idiocy. Oh, it's against the law to dick over employees? Well then, it never happens -- case closed!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I wonder if this is related to companies' refusal to hire full-time employees. If you only hire an employee for 20 hours per week, obviously they're going to need two _other_ minimum-wage jobs... which may be at your competitors. I heard a story (which may or may not be true) about a guy who worked part time at Home Depot and part time Lowe's.

<comment><USER20> Could also be used prevent your competition form poaching your workers for the buck an hour more that you're not willing to pay.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Welcome to the Corporate Logocracy. Please enjoy your stay and note that by entering you agree to submit to mediation in the case of a dispute.

</comment><comment><USER22> I had a 6-month non-compete-ish agreement at a taco shop in 2007. I couldn't take the taco recipes to another taco shop within the nearest `n` miles. Kinda lulzy at the time...

</comment><comment><USER23> Its amazing how fast Jimmy John's has been expanding too. They seem to be popping up all over florida now.

</comment><comment><USER24> The article has a pretty obvious slant in one direction. A lot of times small businesses will require this of their entry level workers not because they are afraid of their workers going to a competitor, but don't want their employees to go and start a competing business, which in the small business world is a very real risk. It costs much less to start a small business, and in the local market many of these small businesses operate in, a new competitor can take away a big chunk of an already small pie. If that competitor did so by stealing your business practices, then congrats, you are putting yourself out of business. I'm not necessarily saying this is wrong or right, but it's the other side of the story the NYT didn't discuss.

Ironically, I worked for JJ in college, and never once did this ever concern me. This may be my personal bias, but I think the NYT is trying to make mountains out of molehills here. There are much bigger contributing factors to low wages for fast food restaurant workers, such as illegal immigrants depressing wages, limited ability for workers to organize, and perverse tax incentives that prevent profits from working their way down the economic ladder.

As a side note, JJ pays better than a vast majority of fast food restaurant chains. Their in-shop workers are paid above minimum wage (average around $8.50), and it's fairly easy to move into a delivery driver position where you can earn $25/hr on Fridays and Saturday nights.

<comment><USER25> I am confused by what appears to be an assertion that Jimmy John's has a legitimate concern that their minimum-wage-earning food service employees might leave to start a competing national sandwich chain.

<comment><USER26> Devil's Advocate:

It's certain that Jimmy John's line-worker can't start a 2,000 store chain, but they could run off with some of the catering business.

<comment><USER24> Jimmy John's competes with every local restaurant in every local market where it operates. Someone can easily start a local business that cuts into the market share of one of its local stores, although yes, it's very unlikely that restaurant is going to overtake Jimmy John's nationally. And yes, many local businesses, especially restaurant businesses, are started by former employees who enter a field to get training, but one day want to open their own business. It's obvious many of the comments (and my downvotes) here are from individuals who have never ran, nor worked in, a business that operates and competes on a local scale.

<comment><USER3> I didn't up or downvote you but from my perspective I don't feel that employers deserve more protections. If I want to run off with the secret recipe it's already protected by IP laws. I think it should be illegal for an employer to limit your future employment in any way. I'm not saying the restaurant industry isn't competitive, it's probably one of the most competitive I can think of, but limiting employees rights is not the right way to handle that.

<comment><USER24> At JJ, it was more about operational secrets that can't be protected by law. However, I mentioned in my original post that I don't necessarily think it's right or wrong, it's just why JJ does it.

I generally agree with you that limiting future employment is generally not a good thing, although I'm not convinced getting rid of non-competes in minimum wage jobs would materially affect wages. At most, it might prevent someone from taking a manager position at Subway, but I don't think it is going to raise the overall wages of restaurant workers.

<comment><USER25> Jimmy Johns is a franchise operation with tens of thousands of employees. Their retail workers do not have access to meaningful "operational secrets". It wouldn't matter if they did, either: trade secrets can be protected directly without noncompetes.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


London black taxis plan congestion chaos to block Uber - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27317164

<comment><USER2> Luddism is an prime example of the master-slave morality, instead of the taxi drivers revolting to abolish the regulations, they want to make the innovation as bad as themselves.</comment>


With all else equal, which one do you most want to build a business around? - <AUTHOR>

You get to build a business around one of these.
Which do you pick?
1. Help me do something I couldn't before 2. Save me from doing something I hate 3. Help me become the person I want to be 4. Help me feel the way I want to feel <comment><USER2> Why can't you combine them? I can see all these (perhaps with the exception of 3) being perfectly blend-able.

</comment><comment><USER3> None of the above. Can't generalize it like that</comment>


Law of the hammer - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_instrument <comment><USER2> I love this quote. For computer scientists everything can be solved with an algorithm or AI. for lawyers everything is solved by talking about it in a court room.</comment>


Show HN: The React Handbook - <AUTHOR> https://reacthandbook.com <comment><USER2> I appreciate the effort you put into your work, and it certainly looks complete. Thanks for sharing it. But I hope you formatted the book so it's easier to read than your landing page. Center alignment is hard on the eyes.

<comment><AUTHOR> I will keep this in mind for my next "design", I'm not a designer and it shows! I can guarantee the ebook is left aligned though :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> \- The "Here is a 20-pages PDF preview" is too small. I had to scroll up and down twice to notice it actually.

\- The layout of the PDF file is awesome!

</comment><comment><USER4> Big fan of your work. Will definitely check this out!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you!</comment></comment>


Bang With Friends rebrands as 'Down' - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/25/bang-with-friends-down/

<comment><AUTHOR> Whatever the name, it may or may not get you laid, but if you're in NYC tonight you can find out about some of interesting graph theory allegedly behind it:

      http://www.meetup.com/nygraph/events/146849412/</comment>


NC Electric Car Drivers Begin Paying $100 Annual Fee - <AUTHOR> http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/01/10/3522102/in-place-of-gas-taxes-nc-electric.html <comment><USER2> What a great way to discourage people from engaging in a behavior that you want them to engage in.

Why not make up for the (arguably inconsequential) loss in revenue by making the people with the less desirable behavior (purchasing gas-guzzling, polluting vehicles) subsidize the desirable behavior? In other words, make up for lost revenues by increasing gasoline taxes. If it gets to the point where that's not enough, increase gasoline taxes again, and generally keep increasing them until people aren't driving ICE vehicles anymore.

When it gets to the point where even that doesn't cover it, charge vehicle registration fees based on vehicle weight, since that's the true measure of the vehicle's contribution to the wear and tear on the roadways.

<comment><USER3> Why do you care what kind of car someone else wants to drive? Is it this:

 _Among a few dozen who commented last spring when legislators were debating the fee, many cited the environmental benefits of cars that produce zero tailpipe emissions_

What's the environmental impact of a reasonably new gasoline car with catalytic converter and other emissions controls vs. the impact of coal- generated electric power for an EV? I don't know, but I would not be surprised if the EV was worse.

<comment><USER4> That's an interesting question, however there is no inherent need for the electric power to be generated via coal power, whereas the gas car cannot get away from burning said fossil fuels, even though it can be made more efficient.

I did some googling and there are a number of arguments on the internet about comparing a coal generated power plant's electricity emissions to a gas powered car's emissions, and I think depending on your average consumption either side could win that argument. However if the electricity was generated in not the dirtiest possible way we know how, gas car seems to lose every other time.

<comment><USER5> Not to mention electric drive motors are vastly more efficient than internal combustion. So much so that even line losses and other non-arguments often cited by anti-EV people wouldn't make up the difference.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car#Energy_efficiency](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car#Energy_efficiency)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> CO, Nebraska, Virgina, and Washington also have such fees.

The issue is basically that gasoline and diesel consumption was used as a proxy for travel miles in order to pay for road maintenance and the scale used to relate miles to gallons is no longer accurate even for gas-powered cars (as average economy has improved). Obviously electric cars are an easy first target, since passing a tax increase is much harder than targeting a small group.

<comment><USER7> Why do taxes have to be spread out everywhere?

Why not just have an income tax and sales tax, or maybe only one (I've heard arguments for both sides, but don't want to get into that debate) to cover all this?

It's the same thing with all the ridiculous fees governments charge for various things. For example, registering a vehicle at the DMV. Why does this cost anything? After all, your taxes already pay the salary of the person at the DMV, their office, etc. and the sales tax (in states that have it) paid on a vehicle purchase should take into account that the new owner will need to register it.

It's just a ridiculous way of "not really increasing" taxes.

<comment><USER8> One answer is that there is a philosophy that fees or taxes should only be levied on people who use them. Automobile ownership is a discretionary act that is already highly subsidized, so the government feels justified in levying specific fees against car owners.

Another answer is that user fees are politically expedient, as you point out -- it's a way to increase government revenue without increasing taxes per se.

In any case, if you buy a car, the DMV fees ARE generally rolled into the purchase, though as a separate item. Not to be too pedantic, but you can always buy a vehicle and not register it -- for example, if you are from out of state and plan to register it in your home state, or if you need to do some work on it before you put it on the road.

<comment><USER9> Still a third answer: unwanted behavior is sometimes taxed to deter it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The users of a resource should, of course, pay for that resource. And there's a compelling logic that the people who cause maintenance to be required should be the ones charged for it.

The issue is, Leaf drivers are very much not the people who damage roads: Leafs are somewhat light cars (a bit more than a Civic, substantially less than SUVs). Cumulative road damage is linear with the number of miles driven and quartic with vehicular weight. Gas taxes roughly capture the linearity from miles driven but only a fraction of the factor from vehicle weight.

If the Republican leader quoted in the article is actually interested in bridging the gap between gasoline tax revenues and expenditures on roads and ending the subsidy the public provides for expensive private decisions, he should look toward charging more of road users in general than a small minority of a couple thousand (it probably costs as much to implement and collect this tax as the revenue it brings). Instead of, you know, sticking taxes to the people whose consumption choices he finds so damn hippy and unpalatable.

(And, yes, I oppose government subsidies for electric vehicles too, whose environmental benefits should be captured by more efficient carbon taxes or permits.)

<comment><USER11> Where I'm from, most of the road damage happens because water expands when it freezes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> This was always on the cards, the only surprise to me is that someone has moved on it so fast.

The major problem facing governments over growth of electric cars is loss in tax revenue currently enjoyed from fuel taxes. In most places the amount of fuel tax collected far exceeds that which is spent on road infrastructure. Governments simply take activities with inelastic demand as the best place for collecting revenue. Because fuel was primarily used for transportation, which has a very inelastic curve, it always has been heavily taxed. Same goes for airline travel and smoking. Flying and tobacco taxes all normally bring in far more revenue than they cost the government - because taxes are levied on a basis of extract sufficient feathers from the goose with a minimum of hissing.

The problem with electric cars (as far as revenue collection goes) is that you can plug them in anywhere. But putting extra broad-based taxes on electricity consumption is electoral poison. So how to tax vehicle-destined electricity? If electric cars start to supplant liquid fuels in large numbers, governments are looking at a major revenue source drying up.

Adding a fixed charge seems like a simple but problem-ridden way of solving it, but makes more sense than trying to do things like have specially-taxed outlets for electric cars.

Personally I think a per-mile charge based on vehicle size is the correct way to go (regardless of fuel type or vehicle class). Drive less, pay less. Drive smaller vehicles, pay less. But doing so naturally attracts the ire of those with a problem being tracked. And so on we go. Taxation is imperfect.

My guess is that they are doing this before electric-car ownership becomes a big group. That way a smaller charge can be introduced and normalised before the group gets too large. It's always easier to incrementally creep up a tax rather than introduce a new one.

<comment><USER13> "In most places the amount of fuel tax collected far exceeds that which is spent on road infrastructure. "

Lol wut no. Were you talking about places other than USA? Because here in the USA, billions of dollars are transferred every year from general funds into the highway administration because the fuel tax is not even close to sufficient for maintenance of highways. This is also true at the state level, but to a much higher ratio.

"Nationwide in 2010, state and local governments raised $37 billion in motor fuel taxes and $12 billion in tolls and non-fuel taxes, but spent $155 billion on highways," writes the Tax Foundation's Joseph Henchman. Another $28 billion of that $155 billion comes from revenue from the federal gas tax.

[http://taxfoundation.org/article/gasoline-taxes-and-tolls- pa...](http://taxfoundation.org/article/gasoline-taxes-and-tolls-pay-only- third-state-local-road-spending)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Great idea, let's also tax: bicyclists, carpoolers, the unemployed (damn them for not commuting), and drivers of fuel-efficient cars of all kinds.

<comment><USER15> Bicyclists, carpoolers, and people who don't drive for whatever reason don't put as much strain on the road. Why would we tax them? Moreover, what is your point?

<comment><USER14> Point is, local governments see an existing source of revenue declining. They panic and go after the next ready target, forgetting about the incentives behind the original tax (to dissuade gasoline usage).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> They should have a "battery tax", given that someone has to recycle and dispose of the waste. For a car that lasts only 8 yrs, this is an $800 tax. The total cost[1] of a camry is about $8K a year, or $64K over the timeframe. With about $16K in petrol costs baked in, of which maybe 1/8 of the costs or about 2K would be inflated by petrol taxes. This makes the savings of driving an electric car still about 60% on just taxes/government fees if you lump them together. Its really netither here nor there in the big scheme of things and won't move the needle either way.

[1] ie. operating costs and depreciation, net basis.

<comment><USER2> > They should have a "battery tax", given that someone has to recycle and > dispose of the waste.

This is a total non-issue. The manufacturers will happily take those old batteries off your hands and recycle them free of charge.

<comment><USER16> _free of charge_

Not quite. The new, replacement battery is quite expesnive and sold at a high margin. So this is not "free", nor does it pay into the public good (domain) in any way to offset the carbon footprint of building the car (smelting steel, aluminum, mining etc), or the transportation damage to the road-system (a function of weight x miles, not emissions).

The good news is that current cells are highly recylable in the technological sense, so its not like they are hazardous spent fuel rods. But the usage (mileage) will be proportionate to battery life. So it makes sense to tax the fuel-supply of the electric car in the same way as the fuel tax. That is, if you believe in those things (public goods, etc).

<comment><USER2> > The new, replacement battery is quite expesnive and sold at a high margin.

That's beside the point. The battery recycling is free. Of course the battery replacement costs money, but the battery already comes with a fee: sales tax. The supply chain for producing the battery is likewise taxed in various ways.

> So it makes sense to tax the fuel-supply of the electric car in the same way > as the fuel tax.

Then why are you talking about taxing the battery? The battery is the _container_ , not the fuel. Electricity is already taxed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The point of taxing gasoline to pay for road upkeep is, from what I can tell, because it accurately reflects 'how much you drive' \-- sort of. Perhaps a shift needs to be made in what is taxed and how, in order to accommodate petrol-free vehicles.

One option is tolls. Nobody likes tolls.

Another option is this fee - but it doesn't accurately reflect the wear on a road generated by the car.

A tire tax? Higher inspection fees? The latter would discourage the cars that need inspections from getting inspections due to the cost.

Maybe we need to wholly rethink how we fund public transportation infrastructure - not just roads, but railways and bridges and aeronautics.

</comment><comment><USER18> Wow. That's absolutely disgusting.

"We're not getting our gas taxes and destroying the environment in the process, so guess what? You owe us the $100 we would have forced out of you annually had you of purchased an all gas vehicle for $10,000 less."

I thought property taxes were meant to pay for local roads?

</comment><comment><USER19> Yay red states.

</comment><comment><USER20> auto pay with bitcoin whenever you use a road. done.</comment>


Hilary Mason: How to Replace Yourself with a Very Small Shell Script - <AUTHOR> http://smarterware.org/6172/hilary-mason-how-to-replace-yourself-with-a-small-shell-script

<comment><USER2> Two months ago: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1192790>

Three months ago: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1102238>

This is a really cool presentation. The idea and technique have their flaws, as are pointed out here by several participants, but what bothers me most is that the last two times this was submitted it sank with no up-votes and no comments. Yet here it as (as I write this) 74 up-votes and 17 comments.

How many more brilliant things deserving of our attention do we miss on HN? Is this really a problem? Can it be fixed? Should it be fixed?

Hackers Unite! Don't let the good stuff escape you! Find a way to rid yourself of the dross and find the good stuff!

<comment><USER3> This link was more likely to be clicked because it appeared more relevant to the interests of HNers:

\- The previous two links were Youtube links. I can't click those during business hours so I rarely notice them. I am guessing that many HNers skip Youtube for similar reasons.

\- This submission had a better-targeted title: it led with a feminine name. This is good headline craft, especially if your target audience skews male.

\- Smarterware.org sounds like either a typo for HN-regular asmartbear.com or a noncommercial lifehacks site. Again, better targeted than Youtube and more likely (from a "should I click this?" heuristic perspective) to have a writeup and the possibility to research the author.

Edit: Just clicked through and noticed that smarterware.org is Gina Trapani's new shindig. This gives added cachet for lifehack enthusiasts.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This might be cool if you are a quasi web-celebrity, but in a business setting it would be downright dangerous. I can't imagine how terrible I would feel if something completely fell through the cracks OR did not receive an adequate response from me. I also can't imagine auto-nagging my boss about ANYTHING.

I guess the biggest problem I would have using this at work is that it is fundamentally based on the idea that people are contacting me about stupid stuff (generally not true) and that I'm way too busy/important to respond directly to somebody (also generally not true).

<comment><USER5> I put all of the auto-generated e-mails in my drafts folder, so I can edit, modify, or delete before I send on a case by case basis.

There's also a whitelist.

I'll release the code as soon as I disentangle my personal data from it. Patches welcome. :-)

<comment><USER4> That's cool. I got the impression that it was communicating with people on the fly with little/no oversight.

<comment><USER5> Initially it did, but that went wrong a few too many times. :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think the statistical importance is by far the most interesting feature. Our inboxes are really priority queues, but we are currently spending a great deal of time and energy doing the prioritization ourselves. The idea of seeing my inbox sorted by importance is game changing.

Hilary, what are the aspects of the email that influence importance? Is it mostly the text content of the email, or are there things like sender, number of emails in the chain, number of recipients, etc?

<comment><USER5> I agree. For example, why do we look at email ranked chronologically? I'd much rather rank it by relevance or importance (or my likelihood to actually answer it).

The feature set includes sender, recipients, whether I'm the only recipient, time of day, words in the subject, words in the body, and whether I've exchanged messages with the sender recently.

<comment><USER7> There are still another few days left to apply to YC...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I've always joked around my work that I can replace a certain manager with a shell script, kind of like this: [http://www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts- apparel/unisex/frustrations...](http://www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts- apparel/unisex/frustrations/374d/)

I kid of course but I've actually given it some thought and I think it could work very well in case of inefficient managers. A good manager does a lot beyond forwarding emails appropriately. However, I've seen many a bad manager simply forward and reply emails as the bulk of their job duties. Hilary's script could indeed work as an automated 'smart' bot if some politeness feature is added in. No need to save anything in drafts folder. Just send it out and have links (or bcc the smart bot) to flag incorrectly sent emails. This could train the filter better.

<comment><USER9> Bad managers are often such a drag that you could get rid of them _without_ replacing them with _anything_ and it would be a win.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> A few years ago I wanted to write a similar chat bot, which would answer questions of my mom in a IM conversation. It wouldn't be difficult at all, since she was asking always the same: did you eat something today? Do you feel good? How was your day? Etc.

But then I couldn't reconcile such solution with my conscience.

<comment><USER11> When you're a parent yourself you'll understand why your Mom asks you the _same_ _boring_ questions everyday. Count yourself lucky that she cares and that's she's savvy enough to use IM :)

<comment><USER12> Count yourself lucky that she's here. If life goes according to plan, one day she won't.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Site's down, but here's the original video: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoQ4tka1zNk>

<comment><USER14> It's also blogspam, thanks for the actual link.

<http://www.hilarymason.com/blog/ignitenyc-the-video/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I think I just found some ideas for projects to work on when I get bored. :-)

</comment><comment><USER16> When I worked for a "we'll all work from home" company we used to use IRC as our office. Saying hello to everyone every morning got a bit repetitive so I scripted some good mornings and when people arrived it got triggered to say hello for me.

Eventually though, our sales guy twigged that he was being fooled (as he saw it) and got annoyed about it. The tech side thought it was a cool script but to appease the guy I turned it off.

The irony is that he fucked the company by finding cheaper subcontractors to make more money for himself, a phenomena I've encountered quite a few times now.

<comment><USER17> > The irony is that he fucked the company by finding cheaper subcontractors to > make more money for himself

I can see how that would annoy you but it didn't actually fuck the company, the company could have found those subcontractors itself as well.

<comment><USER16> It all got a bit messy by that point, low cashflow, mortgages to be paid etc. The risk takers were using their house as collateral and decided to go safe. It was an amicable parting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Everyone can be replaced with a shell script. If you can describe what they do in language, then its just .. a few .. steps from that language to a shell script.</comment>


Explained: The Shannon Limit (2010) - <AUTHOR> http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/explained-shannon-0115.html <comment><USER2> This little article failed to say the really surprising thing about channel coding, which is that good channel codes exist at all. There's a simple argument that seems to indicate that they should not exist. If I remember correctly, this argument was commonly accepted by engineers at the time Shannon's paper came out.

The argument is: you have a communications channel that flips bits with some probability, say 1/4. Suppose you want to transmit one bit. The first bit might have an error, so you add a parity bit -- now P(error) is 1/16. But that parity bit might have an error, so you add a second parity bit, and you're down to P(error) of 1/64. So you are driving P(error) to zero, but at the expense of ever-increasing overhead.

If you keep on adding parity bits, it's not clear that you can ever make the error probability arbitrarily small, while still transmitting some information.

That is, in the simple approach above, P(error) -> 0, but Overhead -> Infinity.

It is "intuitively obvious" that's a fundamental problem, or at least it was, until Shannon's results showed that intuition was wrong, or at least needed correction. In fact, the amount of overhead-per-bit is not infinite, but is a finite number related to channel capacity.

<comment><USER3> Maybe it's because of the way you put it, but I can't help but see an algorithm that exponentially increases the reliability of the message by linearily adding bits. 1 bit for an error rate of 1/4, 2 bits for 1/16, 3 bits for 1/64. Am I wrong or was this really lost on everyone, back in the day?

<comment><USER2> But then, to decrease error probability arbitrarily close to zero, you need arbitrarily many parity bits. That is undesirable.

Shannon showed you can decrease it arbitrarily close to zero using a finite number of parity bits. Surprised?

Not content with that, Shannon showed how to compute the ratio of overhead you needed. He also showed that, if you used slightly less overhead than his formula, no matter how clever your code was, your error probability would be rather large.

Then, the reader felt humble and rather amazed.

About fifty years later, people started to figure out how to make codes (in general situations) that got very close to the best-possible ratio Shannon found.

<comment><USER4> It took me a minute to digest this, but I see where the problem was. It's not exactly a finite number of parity bits, but a finite percentage of parity bits. The first step is to calculate the parity:data ratio needed to just barely overwhelm the effect of noise. Then to increase reliability you combine messages, costing no additional bits. Combining messages dilutes spikes in noise so that the parity is not overwhelmed, to an arbitrary certainty.

This also goes to show that the direction you approach a problem from makes a big difference.

It's easy to get the impression that you can't make efficient very-low-error codes by looking at the effect/cost of parity bits.

But it's _also_ easy to realize that fusing messages can provide statistical certainty that noise levels don't spike above redundancy levels.

-

-

Also, in a completely different point:

Adding standard parity technically consumes arbitrarily many bits, but log(n) is a very small number. This has to be considered along with the fact that Shannon pulled a bit of a hat trick. To make an efficient code safer you have to increase the block size and therefore the latency. You can't get these improvements for free.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Since we're talking about the Shannon limit, why does a 56 Kbps modem not violate it?

The common wisdom in the early '90s was that the fastest possible modem for a dial-up connection would be ~35 Kbps. I even remember reading this "fact" in a communications theory book from that era. Analog modems could _never_ be faster. (It's assumed that US and Canadian analog telephones have a 3 kHz channel.)

Then why does a 56 Kbps modem not violate the Shannon limit for data transmission on a 3 kHz channel? How is it possible to break a fundamental principle of information theory?

This question has bugged me a lot. Based on some research on web, I tried to put together an intuitive answer to what happened. Here's my answer, but I welcome insight or corrections from people knowledgeable in telephony or information theory.

At the time the book was written--when people believed that dial-up modems could never be faster than 35 Kbps--the telephone network was _perceived_ as being analog end to end (though lots of it was already becoming digital), like this:

        User<</comment><comment></comment><comment>{ telco network }</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>>ISP
               (analog)        (analog)      (analog)

A critical assumption in calculating the Shannon limit was the noise floor of the network, which was taken to be 35 dB, a figure based on an all-analog network. (A higher dB number is better for transmission quality.) The Shannon limit would be 35 Kbps based on a 3 kHz bandwidth and that particular signal to noise ratio of 35 dB. ( bps = BW log2 (1 + P/N) = 3000 log2 (1 + 10^(35/10)) = 34881 bps )

However, by the mid-'90s, most of the telco network became digital. Only the customer loop--the connection between the user and the telephone company-- remained analog. So now, with respect to the Shannon limit, only the noise floor of the customer loop matters, since the rest is digital:

        User<</comment><comment></comment><comment>{ telco network }</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>>ISP
               (analog)        (digital)     (also digital)

It turns out that it is possible to achieve a much better S/N ratio when only the customer loop is analog. The Shannon limit would be based on a 3 kHz bandwidth (the same bandwidth as before) and but a much higher noise floor of 98 dB for the customer loop. The Shannon limit would now be ~97 Kbps. ( bps = BW log2 (1 + P/N) = 3000 log2 (1 + 10^(98/10)) = 97664 bps )

The Shannon limit _still_ exists, but other factors related to the network would limit the data rate before this bigger Shannon limit takes effect.

So the key thing that the experts and the communications theory book got wrong was to neglect the hidden assumption about S/N ratio. The bandwidth matters, but the S/N ratio matters too.

<comment><USER6> this buggs me too. They used to say that ADSL mas max speed of 8mbps, now there are faster ADSL all around the world.

<comment><USER5> When they used to say that 35 Kbps was the maximum for a analog modem, it was purportedly due to a _fundamental principle_ of information theory.

When they used to say that ADSL had a maximum of 8 Mbps, it might be just because the spec for the first version of ADSL was written in that way. It's probably not due to any limits of physics or math.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The codes which the article hints at near the end are LDPC[1] codes, which are being rapidly deployed in nearly anything requiring storing or transmission of information. I recall speaking to a grad student working on integrating them into flash memory to reduce its cost.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-density_parity-check_code>

<comment><USER8> In addition to being discovered twice, by Gallagher and Glavieux & Berrou, LDPC codes have deep connections to the belief propagation algorithm, which was discovered in machine learning, and algorithms for spin glasses which were discovered in physics.

There's a great temptation going here to say that this type of algorithm is at a sweet spot for understanding communication, learning, and some physical systems. The behavior of belief propagation at state transitions is quite fascinating, and it really feels as though there is a great discovery to be made there.

I have the utmost respect for coding researchers; every time I read their papers I get new ideas. If you're a programmer interested in writing fast code or coming up with new algorithms, I'd recommend occasionally slipping a coding paper into your reading list.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Some of the best known codes that approach the Shannon Limit are the Gallager, or Low-density parity-check, Codes [1], invented by Robert G. Gallager at MIT in 1960.

The article goes on to mention Gallager, but doesn't provide many references. It's pretty interesting work so check it out!

[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Density_Parity_Check_Codes>

[2] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_G._Gallager>

</comment><comment><USER10> It's been linked to many times on HN, but not yet in these comments: An accessible textbook (free online) on information theory, and its links to machine learning: <http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/mackay/itila/book.html>

Recently video lectures that go with that book also went online: <http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/itprnn_lectures/>

</comment><comment><USER11> The resemblance between Claude Shannon and Thomas Vidick (off to the left) is positively uncanny. They're nearly indistinguishable.</comment>


Literal Ask HN: What Is the Cost of Running Hacker News? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> I'd guess: dangs salary, and some rounding error for hosting (afaik it's still just on a single server, so even if that's some managed offering somewhere it won't be that much)

</comment><comment><USER3> Hacker News pays close attention to the content on the main page. They purge anything that doesn't trend left leaning or counters the standard left's corporate interests.

For example, I posted a link to Michael Moore's film in which he eviscerates bio-fuels. This post was mysteriously removed. It was also removed the second time I posted it. This was despite the link the "A year wearing shorts to work" as another HN article link at the time continued to exist.

<comment><AUTHOR> I get you! It is even harder for a few of us who are leaning down in the political graph. Atleast the political right gets an acknowledgement of existence. The political down are accused as outright quacks.

<comment><USER4> The 0,0 (owl eyes) party gets ignored by all the eigenparties who can't seem to find any alignment</comment></comment></comment>


Tim Cook, Making Apple His Own - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/15/technology/tim-cook-making-apple-his-own.html <comment><USER2> I appreciate that Cook shares the personal story of encountering clansmen, challenging them (at such a young age), but man there are some serious stretches of truths in the rest of the video. At 4:12 he says he found Apple and Steve Jobs to believe advancing humanity through the equality of all its employees. Is he serious? Not even any sign of cognitive dissonance while he says it? He was the COO, he had to have known _something_ about the terrible things that were going on. It wasn't over nothing that nytimes pondered the question that if Jobs were alive today, whether he would be in jail or not ( [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/03/business/steve-jobs-a- geni...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/03/business/steve-jobs-a-genius-at- pushing-boundaries-too.html) ).

As a tech person I'm excited and impressed by Apple products, but let's not forget the serious wrongs they have done and continue to do. I personally choose to vote with my dollars and stay away from Apple for this and other reasons.

<comment><USER3> > At 4:12 he says he found Apple and Steve Jobs to believe advancing humanity > through the equality of all its employees.

Yes, it's clear revisionism.

For example, Jobs didn't believe in donating to charities. The first thing he did when he rejoined Apple after the NeXt debacle is to cancel all charity donations. After his death, restoring charities was one of the first things that Tim Cook did.

There's also ample evidence that Apple treated its employees very poorly, especially compared to the other Silicon Valley companies (for example, Jobs refused for years to provide commuting shuttles to its employees despite heavy complaints and internal petitions).

There is a reason why Apple has never been even in the top 100 companies to work for.

<comment><USER4> Apple pays well.

Shuttles on the other hand, are a controversial elitist perk.

<comment><USER5> > Apple pays well.

A company requires more than 'pays well' to be a great company to work for, if that's what you're suggesting.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> >Last year, Apple for the first time introduced two new iPhones instead of just one: the high-end iPhone 5S, which sold like gangbusters, and the lower- cost, plastic-covered iPhone 5C, which disappointed.

So disappointing it was the second best selling smartphone in the US! Is it a law that every article about Apple must adhere to a certain number of press- created fictions?

<comment><USER7> I'm not sure about that law but it is a law that someone must always attack the press if they say something less than flowery about Apple somewhere. I don't think many people inside or outside of Apple are arguing that the 5C was a disappointment sales wise. This though was just one small point in a very lengthy, balanced article.

<comment><USER8> I think Jim Dalrymple aptly phrases it in his comment to the linked article: "I found this profile frustrating, vexing. The tone is objective, but the prose manages to be damning at the same time, working in all the standard, shopworn stereotypes the Apple community has gotten used to having thrown their way."

[http://www.loopinsight.com/2014/06/15/the-new-york-times- sun...](http://www.loopinsight.com/2014/06/15/the-new-york-times-sunday- profile-of-tim-cook/)

<comment><USER7> Hey Udo. Thanks for that. Quoting Gruber at the end though seemed like the final nail in the coffin to me. Jim appears to be in the same category as the original comment above. He's just too overly sensitive. I found the empty shirt comment up front particularly strange. It seems more than fair to state that Jobs is to Apple what only a handful of other iconic business leaders were to their company. That's just contextualizing the challenge Cook has vs saying he's an empty shirt. You could even argue that's the author trying to give Tim some breathing room by pointing out what he's following. But then that would be personal interpretation to the positive which makes me the same as the other folks (who are heading to the negative)

<comment><USER8> I know that Gruber is pro Apple. But what I like about his comments is that he has got his facts straight. Like in real hard numbers and statistics. Whereas the NYTs writing about Apple in the last years smells like hit pieces and/or click bait.

For another totally unbalanced and very hard to dismiss comment (because he's got his facts straight) I'll quote Mr. Dilgers latest piece:

"Unsurprisingly, the article's authors Matt Richtel and Brian X. Chen have to admit early on that Cook "declined to be interviewed for this article." It's not hard to understand why.

Richtel may be best known for his bizarre hit piece castigating Apple for working to sell iPads to schools in 2011.

Chen even more famously skewered Apple for even attempting to sell its iPhone in Japan, where he assured his Wired readers that the nation hated it. He even crafted quotes from people in Japan saying how "lame" the iPhone was, even if those quotes were actually completely fabricated.

Then of course, there's the New York Times itself, the publication Richtel and Chen are currently writing for, which printed its "iEconomy" series exclusively blaming Apple for everything wrong in the industry."

[http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/06/15/new-york-times- see...](http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/06/15/new-york-times-seeks-to- profile-tim-cook-after-getting-shut-out-by-apple)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I thought this piece was fabulous and a great insight to a man who is finally turning around the company from being completely oblivious to helping the world into a company that cares about the mark it leaves on the world and the actions it can choose to make with its money.

Instead of sitting on its money, Cook is choosing to use some of Apple's cash stockpile for good such as by building 100% clean energy datacenters and beginning to open up to donation to charity/education as well as working to force its supply chain to be more fair on the humans it relies on.

It's a great new direction for Apple; critics could say it's not enough, but it's better than the company was under Jobs in terms of philanthropy.

<comment><USER10> I thought the most interesting leak from the Apple-FDA meeting notes was the expression that Apple going into health is a "moral obligation".

<comment><USER11> Seems egotistical as well as self-serving. "Health" is one of the few industries that will continue to provide solid revenues until the penultimate human perishes from this earth. And I'm not sure what Apple will bring to the table that noone else on earth can bring, other than Apple-branded products.

But that's just like my opinion, man.

<comment><USER12> Actually revenues in the "health" industry aren't necessarily solid; there's a huge survivor bias and tons of companies making cures for rare diseases and _not_raking it in. (Note: I have a drug I worked on in clinical trials so I'm not simply pulling these claims out of my backside).

But what can Apple "bring to the table?" Well, to quote the variably- attributed saying, "quantity has a quality all its own." Apple can produce something compatible with an ENORMOUS installed base of active users, and can make a difference. Just getting people to exercise more would be great. By the end of the year they could have 10X the number of users fitbit does. Nobody else can do that.

Note I'm not trying at all to claim they are angels: they are definitely out to make a buck. And they can make a great product or they could make a lousy one. They've done both. However I think, based on where they are right now, they will try to make something actually useful and beneficial.

<comment><USER11> These are great points but I would point out that "solid revenues" and "not raking it in" are not necessarily incongruous or exclusionary. What's wrong with steady and consistent revenues? It's not going to turn you into Mark Zuckerberg but it will sustain a business, employ people usefully, and provide a steady financial base to take chances from.

<comment><USER10> The point is that even for Apple, engaging on healthcare is risky. Yes, margins are available at volume, but it's not their standard modus operandi given the costs of regulation and reimbursement.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is a great example of PR and "business journalism" playing out at the highest levels, and yet another example of why the NYT is the last of a dying breed, and not the future. Not one skeptical, much less difficult <cough>wage collusion</cough> question.

You could do much much worse than to keep the distinctiveness and high standards of Jobs's Apple while weeding out the bad idiosyncrasies a tyrant can leave behind. And doing that while preventing the oversize egos of a bunch of 3/4-scale Jobs wannabes from exploding over each other. Tim Cook's Apple is less random, but otherwise much the same as Jobs's, and that's good.

Isn't it enough to be the competent keeper of a visionary's flame without turning a business into a museum, or a self-parody? Eventually Apple will need to be really different from Jobs's Apple. But not for a while.

</comment><comment><USER14> Apple has a simple and transparent strategy that is good for its customers: pay a premium and get a premium product. They don't violate your privacy, they don't usually show you ads (although they do have an ad network, limited to mobile apps, iTunes and the Mac app store I'd think).

They have a limited number of SKUs. Apple makes a few good products, each one representing the Apple brand in all its glory. The vertical integration from hardware, to software and cloud is something nobody else can do except maybe if Microsoft if it gets serious about the Surface (despite the poor sales).

It might be true that we see less of the innovation that the Steve Jobs era was known for, but they haven't changed at the heart. They're keeping their design quality, their finish, and the vertical integration. Apple isn't making any junk and exploiting its brand and deceiving its customers with shitty products.

Having said that, it doesn't mean that Apple's products are for everyone. I don't like iCloud and I don't particular like iOS, but even so I can see the value in what they're doing.

<comment><USER15> "Don't violate your privacy" \--- what?

As compared to...who, exactly? They _have_ an ad network, and they _have_ a cloud product - by definition they're holding onto as much of _your_ data as any other company in those businesses.

<comment><USER16> They have an ad network but it doesn't necessarily mean they are good at the ad business

[http://www.macrumors.com/2014/02/18/apple-iad- stingy/](http://www.macrumors.com/2014/02/18/apple-iad-stingy/)

"Apple's unwillingness to share large amounts of consumer data is hurting its iAd business, according to Madison Avenue media buyers that spoke with AdAge. The company is said to be "downright stingy" with the information it shares, too slow at developing ad products, and "too reticent to foster relationships." "

<comment><USER17> You seem to be using a strange definition of the word "good". Are the ads you see on the internet (based on datamining your personal information) better than the ads you see in magazines and TV (which are based only on very coarse aggregate statistics)? Are today's TV ads significantly better than those of the 1980, when demographic information was far coarser still?

For all the promises of "only seeing ads for things you're interested in", data-mining based advertising has been a colossal flop from my perspective as a consumer. We've surrendered a tremendous amount of personal information and gotten hamfisted targeting attempts and obnoxious "viral" campaigns in exchange. It makes me nostalgic for the stupid but well executed beer commercials of the 1980s. Not giving away all your personal information is not the same as not being good at advertising.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Is this the final piece in the soft PR work rattling through "journalism" this week? Daring Fireball did a piece not wholly unlike this as well. The timing is a bit odd for there to be this meta discussion that is pivoting Cook and Apple from the post-Jobsian "rudderlessness" to a New-New-Apple Cookian era that is both highly positive and would have been, to paraphrase, impossible with Jobs at the helm.

I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'.

<comment><USER19> And by coincidence WWDC just happened recently where many interesting things were announced.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I wish Tim would actually do things like reduce Apple's secrecy. For example, technically Mac OS X prerelease seeds are under NDA, but how often does this actually get enforced? And I have wished for a Mac version of [http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing](http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing) for a while now.

<comment><USER21> Ask and ye shall receive:

"Apple has graciously relaxed its NDA for new technologies, meaning that we don't have to wait to talk about all of the shiny new toys we have to play with."

[http://nshipster.com/ios8/](http://nshipster.com/ios8/)

<comment><USER20> Thanks, didn't know they just did it recently.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I slogged through the article hoping to see mention of the no-poaching shenanigans. Disappointing.</comment>


Experimental evidence for tipping points in social convention - ezequiel-garzon http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6393/1116 <comment><AUTHOR> There was a pretty cool demo of change flowing through networks posted on here a while back. Wish I remembered the name.</comment>


StartCom charges for reissuing SSL certs due to Heartbleed - <AUTHOR> https://cv.exbit.io/emails/startssl_heartbeat.txt

<comment><USER2> I wish someone could do a genuinely free SSL CA with "reasonable" procedures, just to disrupt the industry. Charging $19 to 500/yr for something which is fundamentally non-rival (unlike, say, a domain name) with very minimal marginal cost is basically bullshit rent-seeking.

SSL certs are an utter commodity, and generally the CA system is a broken system, but we'd be a lot better off with free "real" SSL certs everywhere rather than a bunch of self signed stuff. The loss here is the large number of applications with self-signed certs on the Internet, as well as the general hassle involved in purchasing and renewing certs for everyone who does.

The cost of having a well-run base CA is small number of millions to set up and maybe $1-2mm/yr. It would do a lot more good than many other charities. The marginal costs to do mail-from auth S/MIME and domain-verify certs would be limited.

I used to think StartCom was a good solution for this, but after recent staff departures, and their shortsighted-at-best policy here, I can't recommend them.

With commercial CAs, people use wildcard certs in a lot of places where they should be using distinct other certs. It's maybe not an issue for https for main company websites ($49/yr isn't too big a deal), but I want people to use real certs for START TLS email, client certs, etc. I also want one CA to be really popular, or at least one simple cert-issuance protocol to be popular, so "automatically generate a cert and CSR and get the cert loaded" becomes an automatic part of software setup.

I'm kind of surprised Google hasn't done this, in exchange for people proving ownership of a Google+ account or something. FB, Twitter, etc. could all easily bury the costs of a genuinely free CA.

<comment><USER3> Why does it have to be free? 5 bucks a year for an SSL cert is peanuts.

If you want free, push for killing CAs :)

<comment><USER4> > 5 bucks a year for an SSL cert is peanuts.

'per year' pricing is one of the most insidious aspects of the current CA system.

Certificates don't rot.

They claim that annual renewal is necessay to protect us from a rogue but unrevoked certificate; however any malicious activities would be quite profitable well within a year.

So why not set renewal to be monthly, just to be extra-safe? Weekly? Perhaps I should suggest that to them. The resulting outcry from users might be the only way we can disrupt the CA situation.

<comment><USER3> I think the billing interval is relatively unimportant.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I use StartCom, and I revoked and re-keyed yesterday. In the revocation reason, I linked to the CVE. They waived the fee, citing "exceptional circumstances." It could be that they're waiving fees only for paying users. My certs with them are all class 2 wildcards; definitely _not_ free. Or it could just be inconsistency during a very hectic time for them.

I've used several CAs and StartCom is the one I dislike the least. I wish Amazon would become a registrar and CA. Then AWS would really be one-stop shopping.

<comment><USER6> I have free Class 1 certs, and had to pay for all revocations. They did ask me first and pointed out that upgrading to Class 2 would be cheaper, and suggested that reissueing at Class 2 would be sufficient. However, they admitted it would create more latency. I bit the bullet and went ahead with the revocations.

My wallet is unhappy, and I do feel like charging for revocations is a bit odd, since revocations usually happen for security reasons and this deincentivizes good security. OTOH, they do run a business and I've created work for them at no charge previously, so I'm not mad.

<comment><USER7> It's not unreasonable to charge a little bit for a revocation. They require more work than a cert itself (updating and hosting the revokes list etc.) and a fee prevents unneccesary revokations from taking place.

<comment><USER6> Yeah, I'm not really mad. Every time I have interacted with StartCom personnel they've been fast, courteous and competent, and their style is enjoyably direct and goal-focused (plain email, no boiler plate, no patronizing). I like the idea of competent people getting paid well, so that soothes my hurting wallet a bit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The title is misleading. StartCom is asking for its fee for revoking, that's all. Not making revocation free of cost isn't refusal to reissue cert.

<comment><USER7> With startcom you cannot request a cert for the same (sub)domain until the current certificate expires in 2 weeks or less

<comment><USER8> But you CAN revoke the current one.

<comment><USER9> for which you pay dearly.

<comment><USER8> Yes, 25 USD. I wasn't arguing that, though. My point was: the original title to the tune of "StartCom is refusing to reissue certs" was misleading.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I can understand if they want to charge for revocations, fine, but their attitude here is horrible. The customer wasn't demanding free revocation, he was politely asking if they would offer free revocations. StartCom jumped straight to quoting "Subscriber Obligations". Wow.

<comment><USER11> I'm curious though. What part of the obligations quoted was the subscriber violating?

<comment><USER12> None.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Who wants to file the bug for removal from Mozilla?

[http://www.mozilla.org/en- US/about/governance/policies/secur...](http://www.mozilla.org/en- US/about/governance/policies/security-group/certs/policy/maintenance/)

Section 2, dot 2.

CAs must revoke Certificates that they have issued upon the occurrence of any of the following events:

the CA obtains reasonable evidence that the subscriber's private key (corresponding to the public key in the certificate) has been compromised or is suspected of compromise (e.g. Debian weak keys), or that the certificate has otherwise been misused;

<comment><USER13> Done,

[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=994478](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=994478)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> "We do understand the situation very well, thanks."

Really? Then why does he quote the following policy:

        Never share private keys with any third party and use adequate
        protection and best security practices to secure private keys in
        order prevent losses and compromises thereof.

If he grasps the situation, what part of that policy would apply?!?

</comment><comment><USER14> Every CA that motivates cert owners to rather not revoke certs if they get compromised, should not be a trusted CA by anybody. It's that simple.

StartCom's been doing this for a long time. This is what makes them dangerous. It does not make them any more dangerous now than before.

Even if StartCom made an exception in this case, it should not change anything. Because even without hearbleed, certs still get compromised and StartCom's standard practice is to motivate owners to keep using known compromised certs.

Why does anybody trust a CA with this policy? Why is StartCom included in browsers and OSes? Why isn't anybody removing StartCom and CAs with similar policies from trusted CAs?

</comment><comment><USER15> Also, you can't issue a new cert for a domain until the old one is revoked.

<comment><USER16> Yes you can (technically at-least)

<comment><USER17> well, not with their webui.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I got an eMail from a certmaster denying me a free rekey, for a soon-to-be tax-exempt non-profit society of public utility (so there is no money here, and we do not even process credit card data or anything). And that after someone else _did_ get a free rekey citing this vulnerability. Clearly, Startcom is either swimming in money today and losing their status as trusted Root CA very soon, or they got to change their attitude RSN, pronto.

<comment><USER19> For what its' worth, they have finally released a statement:-

[https://www.startssl.com/?app=43](https://www.startssl.com/?app=43)

This claims that CRLs and OCSP would then be expensive / lots of downloads....

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> cached: [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:_g-9Lnd...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:_g-9LndhkJAJ:https://cv.exbit.io/emails/startssl_heartbeat.txt+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=pl)</comment>


Europe has a plan to break Google and Amazon's cloud dominance - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.co.uk/article/europe-gaia-x-cloud-amazon-google <comment><AUTHOR> This has failure written all over it. There is no way government can out innovate either Google or Amazon. Or quite frankly Sears ;<).</comment>


Going to syndicate winners of Launch Hackathon to my AngelList syndicate - <AUTHOR>

I'm hosting our second hackathon (http://hackathon.launch.co) in three weeks in SF. Last year's winner was accepted to YC and invested.
This year we're going to invest $50k in each of the two winners and then syndicate to my angellist syndicate (which is now $775k) if the founders want to do that.
any thoughts/questions? <comment><USER2> I'm looking forward to this hackathon. Way to raise the bar, Jason!

I feel you'll have to be careful around folks bringing in products they've already been working on and trying to pass them off as weekend hacks. But I'm sure you and the other judges will be smart enough to tell the difference. :)

</comment><comment><USER3> Jason, love the podcast. Thanks for all your hard work and dedication to helping startups. I just have one favor to ask: I'm dying to know what Inside.com is all about. C'mon man, give me a sneak peek. I can't sleep at night.

</comment><comment><USER4> This is unreal. With syndicates, you can pretty much close a Series A round of investing in one shot. Looking forward to seeing how this changes the game.</comment>


Starbucks reveals $1 reusable cup to curb trash - <AUTHOR> http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/02/starbucks-reusable-cup-trash/1804095/ <comment><USER2> How about they just switch to biodegradable cups? Or even ones that you can actually recycle?</comment>


GNU refuses to let go of libreboot - <AUTHOR> https://libreboot.org/gnu-insult/ <comment><USER2> You know you're in for a perfectly rational discussion when someone uses the phrase "cis gendered white men" to discredit them.

</comment><comment><USER3> This whole thing explains why things like trademark law exists: It codifies who "owns" a thing, and who is merely a derivative of it. If someone owned the libreboot trademark, there could not exist a state where GNU claims it owns libreboot, and Leah claims she owns libreboot. It would simply be whoever owned it, and then the other party would be free to fork.

</comment><comment><USER4> Why would they "let go" of libreboot over this sort of behavior?

</comment><comment><USER5> And here i always had relativley decent views of GNU/FSF but their douchey white boy shit has outgrown it's place. Perhaps GNU/FSF needs new administration!

</comment><comment><USER6> Current discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12669086](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12669086) (9 hours ago, 37 comments)

<comment><USER7> This is not a link to the dupe. The submission is about the blog post and this linked url and the discussion is about the project.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Thanks, GNU.</comment>


Firefox Web Extensions APIS for Multiple Monitor and Full Screen - <AUTHOR> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/47303083/firefox-web-extensions-apis-for-multiple-monitor-and-full-screen <comment><USER2> Neat</comment>


Stack Overflow comment congratulates dev on wedding - <AUTHOR> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9012008/pythons-re-return-true-if-regex-contains-in-the-string

<comment><AUTHOR> Saw this while reminding myself about regex in python: One dev congratulates the other on their wedding in a SO comment. I found that just a little adorable.</comment>


SpaceX's Falcon Heavy rocket sets up at Cape Canaveral ahead of launch - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/20/spacexs-falcon-heavy-rocket-sets-up-at-cape-canaveral-ahead-of-launch/ <comment><USER2> I am so much excited about this upcoming launch. If they get the F9Heavy to work like the F9, this opens up entirely new possibilities in space. With the F9Heavy, not only very heavy loads can be put into orbit, but both the Moon and the Mars can be reached at a much lower cost than any previous system.

Beyond being just a cool new rocket, what faszinates me most about the F9Heavy, is the clever system approach by SpaceX. They are not only reusing the F9 design, but two of the three first stage cores alreay had launched cargo into the orbit. This is just mindblowing.

<comment><USER3> It was my understanding that the F9H components cannot be recycled F9 units, despite me Musk's best efforts at engineering a solution.

<comment><USER4> Both the side boosters on the F9H inaugural flight will be reused boosters. The center boosters are only able to fly on F9H but are planned to be reusable.

Here are both the landing videos of the side cores that will be flying on the F9H [https://youtu.be/4jEz03Z8azc](https://youtu.be/4jEz03Z8azc) [https://youtu.be/DKqY8sy3nkM?t=55s](https://youtu.be/DKqY8sy3nkM?t=55s)

<comment><USER5> are they landing all 3 first stages - that would be so cool

<comment><USER6> It would be EPIC to see it

<comment><USER3> Go see it!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Regards to comments mentioning that this is three F9s strapped together: While this is somewhat true, the development of this program was apparently lot more difficult than just tying them together. I remember Musk mentioning that they had underestimated the problem, the two additional boosters changed the dynamics significantly, and the core booster had to be redesigned to accommodate the new load parameters.

Needless to say, I'm extremely excited to even see a static fire of this monster. Re-using boosters for your early development is pretty nice and efficient too I imagine.

<comment><USER8> > Re-using boosters for your early development is pretty nice and efficient > too I imagine.

It sounds good on paper but it's not easy in practice, see: the Russian N-1 moon rocket, which basically just took the R7 rocket and scaled it up with more engines. Turns out too many engines means too many points of failure, and the rocket never worked.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_(rocket)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_\(rocket\))

Much like in computing, you can't substitute one oxen with a thousand chickens and expect the same outcome when you plow your field.

<comment><USER9> The N-1 failed for lots of reasons besides having so many engines. It's designer died before it was completed. It's primitive control systems were inadequate. It's funding was inadequate.

SpaceX has already shown that with modern control systems, you can bundle a bunch of chickens together to plow a field. Having 9 engines has already helped them complete missions where one failed. The Falcon Heavy problem isn't scaling from 9 to 27 per se, it's building a new structure to handle all the new stresses that will occur, from the launch sequence to aerodynamic.

<comment><USER10> And even the seemingly small things; like how to detach the side boosters, how to handle the vastly different aerodynamics when you don't have an interstage (nosecone instead), etc.

It uses the same engines and very similar hardware, but there are so many new/not-flight-proven things on this rocket that it will be exciting, one way or another!

<comment><USER11> Although, Boeing has proven the concept with Delta IV heavy, (and, I think there are a few other precursors, as well, including STS). So this isn't completely new territory.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Worth mentioning: this isn't even the biggest rocket that's ever flown! The Saturn V that took man to the moon was a _monster_.

[https://i.redd.it/whrexuerscpz.png](https://i.redd.it/whrexuerscpz.png)

Of the rockets in that photo however, everything other than the Falcon 9 either isn't in production yet, or isn't anymore.

<comment><USER13> I can highly recommend a visit to the Saturn V center[1] at Kennedy Space Center, where you can begin to truly appreciate the immense scale of the Saturn V rocket. I've been several times at this point and it still blows my mind just how huge that thing is. If you think of going, and have a flexible schedule, I can definitely recommend planning a trip to see a rocket launch on site. It's a fantastic experience, but be prepared to come back several days in a row in that case, if they scrub the launch.

[1]: [https://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/explore- attractions/race-...](https://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/explore- attractions/race-to-the-moon)

<comment><USER14> I will never forget the feeling of awe when I entered that hanger and saw the butt end of the Saturn V. It is really is something that needs to be seen to be appreciated.

And then, after walking quite a distance down the length of the rocket, realising they've left out the middle stage because it doesn't fit in the vast building it is in. I laughed in disbelief.

<comment><USER15> The 1st stage of the Saturn V alone is enough to debunk the moon hoaxers. Hundreds of thousands of people saw a whole bunch of those things launch, and they were tracked by astronomers. Just what is faking the last part of the mission supposed to "save?"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I got curious how it compares to Saturn V.

Low Earth Orbit Payload: Falcon Heavy: 140,000lb, Saturn V: 260,000lb

Launch cost: Falcon Heavy: ~$140M, Saturn V: $185M ($1B+ in 2016 dollars)

It blows my mind how crazy Saturn V was and it was 50 years ago.

<comment><USER17> It blows my mind that SpaceX's BFR project plans to send more payload in reusable mode than Saturn V did in full expendable mode (150,000 kg vs 140,000 kg).

<comment><USER18> This capacity is only for a fully expendable vehicle (See [http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities](http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities)). Reusable payload is subtantially less, although not specified on their website.

Also it's 140000 lbs, or 63800kg.

<comment><USER19> The poster you are replying to was talking about the BFR not the Falcon Heavy

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I recently took a tour of SpaceX due to a friend and learned that their rockets, unlike most others, are constructed horizontally. This makes logistics for getting them upright an engineering feat, but it also makes construction and maintenance easier for crew - you can rotate the rocket and access almost any part of the rocket from ground level.

I'm curious to know more about the engineering constraints/trade-offs this puts the rockets under, so if anyone knows more I'd love to hear it!

<comment><USER21> Some good discussion here: [https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/3922/what-are- the-...](https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/3922/what-are-the- consequences-of-vertical-vs-horizontal-integration-for-spacex)

Essentially it boils down to what g-forces your rocket components and payload are able to withstand. Designing for zero (in orbit) and high vertical (during liftoff) is tough enough, but a rocket that's horizontally built/integrated _also_ needs to withstand ~1G laterally. It may not sound like a big deal, but when every kg counts, I believe it adds up to a bunch of additional strengthening parts, plus a lot more FEA at design time.

<comment><USER22> Space X has regularly focused on lower costs at the expense of payload. Their rockets get significantly less to orbit, but the price saving ends up being huge which more than offsets the loss.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Yes! Fingers crossed, and can't wait for the actual launch!

Photos from Elon Musk, mentioned in the Techcrunch article:

[https://www.instagram.com/p/Bc62hfJgf8K/](https://www.instagram.com/p/Bc62hfJgf8K/)

Looking at the last one... that's an amount of engine nozzles I've never seen together before, beyond works of sci-fi and (obviously) Kerbal Space Program.

<comment><USER24> Is there any way to see something posted on Instagram without an account?

Edit: still had the app installed. Nothing to see here....

<comment><USER25> Yes, click the link.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> The thought of lighting up 27 rocket engines in unison is absolutely crazy. Then again, SpaceX thrives on crazy ideas like reusing rockets, which are now the norm.

Good luck to them. Will be interesting to watch this beast launch!

<comment><USER27> It's not exactly "unison" (it is indeed very tightly coordinated though). The engines will be lit in pairs, with a couple dozen milliseconds between each set starting up.

<comment><USER28> How on earth are all your answers so informative and authoritative? Do you work in the industry? SpaceX employee? Enthusiast?

Honestly; thank you for taking the time to spread the knowledge.

<comment><USER27> Just a passionate enthusiast with some friends in the industry.

Here's a source on the engines being started in pairs: [https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/11/spacex-aims- december...](https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/11/spacex-aims-december- launch-falcon-heavy/)

<comment><USER29> Relevant quote from that link:

"Instead, Falcon Heavy will take a page from the Space Shuttle's book and will employ a staggered start sequence – like main engine start on Shuttle where each main engine started 120 milliseconds after the previous.

For Falcon Heavy, it is understood that two engines will be lit simultaneously followed by the next two… and so on until all 27 are up and running."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I am super excited about this. It would have the capability to throw some pretty useful chunks of hardware into orbit and beyond.

And of course Blue Origin has a lot riding on this as well :-) If SpaceX can get the heavy operational before BO gets the New Glenn operational, its going to be that much harder for Bezos to find any customers left for his rocket.

<comment><USER31> Or it will give investors confidence that private space flight is viable?

<comment><USER30> I think it will open up additional customers. So perhaps Apple will build and launch a couple of imagery satellites to augment their maps effort, or something like the old Teledesic concept will be launched (SpaceX has suggested they would do that).

Given the lower costs of the re-usable platform one would hope we could effectively address some of the space junk issues.

But that isn't really "private space flight" where I imagine tourists flying up to Bigelow inflated habititats for a three day stay where couples can experiment with zero g sex after getting over their motion sickness issues. That market seems a bit fanciful yet.

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

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> They have 27 engines, but the Soviet N1 still holds the record at 30[1]. For comparison the Saturn V first stage had 5.

1\. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_(rocket)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_\(rocket\))

<comment><USER33> It holds the record for the number of engines but it never successfully flew more than about a minute and three of them blew up on the pad. Hopefully that will be different for FH.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m79UO4HOQmc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m79UO4HOQmc)

<comment><USER34> Only 1 failed due to some engine issue though. The rest was guidance related I think.*

Tell you what why don't I actually read the wiki

1\. Electronics issue

2\. turbo pump exploded - material science

3\. aerodynamics

4\. blew the plumbing when 6 engines were planned shut down at higher altitude. I'd argue that's a control issue.

<comment><USER33> 1.

The first launch did not fail due to that electronics issue though that was one of the first things to go wrong.

The propellant leak caused by Engine #2 issues is what caused the rocket to fail.

4.

Maybe if they had not shut them down that abruptly they could have avoided that particular failure mode.

All in all a pity that that program got cancelled, I still think it is one of the most beautiful rockets ever built.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Sticking a car in the payload is funny.

But this thing is going further from the earth than all but a few dozen man- made things in history. I have to wonder if some scientist has been waiting their entire life for an opportunity like this, and we're blowing it on a Tesla Roadster?

<comment><USER36> If it blows up on launch, losing a Roadster is less painful than what that scientist poured years of his/her life into.

<comment><USER35> The cost of launching something into low earth orbit is about 50K per pound (before spaceX) so I can imagine an interplanetary trajectory is quite a lot more. At this rate there are probably a lot of science projects that will never be funded, so if I had a less popular proposal I might take those odds.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I note the 'fins' at the top of the outside rockets are black, whereas on the middle one are white. Is that purely cosmetic?

<comment><USER38> The grid fins on the side boosters are made from titanium (and are larger), while the center core's ones are made from aluminum with an ablative paint. The titanium grid fins have a better heat resistance.

<comment><USER39> The titanium grid fins are also larger, which gives them better control authority. The center booster (like regular Falcon 9s) carries the interstage. This is light weight, but has significant aerodynamic effect when re-entering engines first for landing, like the feathers on an arrow. The side boosters lack this - the nose coses are much smaller - so are less stable aerodynamically. The likely reason for using the titanium fins is to give better control. They don't need the extra heat resistance for the side boosters - the center booster will have a toastier reentry as it's going much faster when it shuts down.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> According to this[0] there is still a Falcon 9 Zuma launch scheduled for 2017. Anyone know if that is still happening? I ask because it happens that I'll be in the Canaveral area right after Christmas and would love to see the launch in person!

[0] [https://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/launches-and- events/event...](https://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/launches-and- events/events-calendar?pageindex=1&categories=Rocket%20Launches)

<comment><USER41> I have a sudden desire for a $10/year SaaS that will send you SMS or other push notifications as soon as rocket launch dates (ones with public viewing allowed) are formally announced, so that you can quickly make plans to go. Maybe the app could even make some extra cash by linking to available hotel deals in the area in the notifications, and then taking a cut of the reservations through click-through tracking.

<comment><USER42> You can sync this Google Calendar if you want. It has up to date info about all space events (Dockings, Landings, EVAs)

[http://bit.ly/SpaceEventCalendar](http://bit.ly/SpaceEventCalendar)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> If I was Elon Musk, and launching something like this, the reason my Roadster would be the payload is because I would be attempting to land it on the Moon or Mars. It's electric, so it should be able to drive around :)

I wonder if that is possible. The weight of the car is much less than the 140,000 pound payload it could carry, so it could be sent much further if they wanted to.

<comment> hi-im-mi-ih They're not going to try to land the car and drive it - The car is going to be put into orbit around mars indefinitely, so that one day an alien species can find it, long after we're gone.

<comment><USER43> It won't be orbiting Mars, it will pass by Mars.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Anyone know the logistics of watching the launch? Is there a public viewing spot? Do you need to get tickets? Where to park?

<comment><USER13> Check out the Kennedy Space Center website, they always post viewing options in advance. Typically the most intense viewing experience (i.e. the closest, the LC39 viewing gantry for instance) will be of limited quantity, but you can also just watch from the KSC visitor complex although in that case you won't be able to see the rocket on the launch pad, only once it's airborne.

I can highly recommend going. I saw a launch in January, from the LC39 gantry, and it was truly stunning. Be prepared to go several days in a row though, in case of scrubbed launches. You'll need to buy a new ticket if the launch gets scrubbed as well, they don't issue refunds once you've left on the shuttle bus I think, so it's worth thinking about when budgeting the trip.

Also, pro-tip: get a yearly pass. Gets you in to the visitor complex as much as you want for a year, and becomes economical after two or three admission tickets, and also includes parking which is $10 or so otherwise I think. I got a yearly pass, and saved on admission and parking a fair bit since I went back probably 5-6 times. The launch I saw was scrubbed once. The other times I just geeked out. ;o)

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> Can anyone say what they will do during the first real launch? Where would they be trying to go to? How does a test like that work? I love space, I just have no idea how they actually would do a test of that magnitude.

<comment><USER12> They're going to launch Elon Musk's Telsa Roadster into orbit of the sun, possibly to Mars orbit.

I'm not even joking. That's the goal.

<comment><USER46> Yep. He said "Mars transfer orbit."

I find it disappointing, however, that a worthy scientific payload isn't being launched. There was a late cancellation of a moon orbiter mission a few years back because of European Space Agency budget concerns ([http://www.esa.int/Education/ESA_concludes_student_ESMO_Moon...](http://www.esa.int/Education/ESA_concludes_student_ESMO_Moon_orbiter_project)). Could they not have adapted something for a Mars mission?

Seems a waste to send an automobile advertisement into orbit around Mars for eternity.

<comment><USER47> Considering the risk with this initial launch, short of a very low budget package, I think most researchers would prefer to wait for a safer launch.

<comment><USER48> Prudence from greedo on the topic of first shots?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Can anyone explain why SpaceX is not going to invest in falcon heavy long run (switching to BFR instead)?

A recent video of Elon mentioned that it was really hard to strap them together, but if they've overcome that, why build BFR?

<comment><USER24> What's BFR?

<comment><USER23> Big F..alcon Rocket.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Is the Falcon one of their recycled rockets. SpaceX launched the Bulgarian satellite using a recycled rocket and is using recycled rocket more and more but I can't find any information on Falcon as to whether it's a recycled rocket or not. [https://latechnews.org/spacex-launches- bulgariasat-1-recycle...](https://latechnews.org/spacex-launches- bulgariasat-1-recycled-rocket/)

<comment><USER51> It so happens that the first Falcon Heavy will use recycled rockets for the 2 side cores.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> I find it interesting that not only is this rocket literally three Falcon 9s strapped together (including two that are reused) but they've not even taken the legs off. They don't look like they're going to unfold very well, though.

<comment><USER53> They haven't taken the legs off because they're going to attempt to land all 3 cores, probably 2 at the launch site and 1 on the drone ship

<comment><USER52> That's extra-impressive, then.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> Can anyone comment on the rationale behind having 27 engines? IIRC this was a fundamental reason why the Soviet N1 was so consistently unreliable. It seems like probability is kind of a pain in the ass here, no?

<comment><USER55> Falcon 9 does have engine out capability and that's been proven in the past on CRS-1. In theory even if one of the engines were to rupture the shrapnel should be contained by walls between the engines. Having less engines per core would mean an engine out condition is much harder to recover from as you would lose more thrust. If an engine goes out you don't just lose that single engine, you need to make sure that the thrust vector is still pointed straight at the center of mass. If you don't, then you'll get torque on the vehicle that will make the flight end sooner rather than later. If you plan for engine failure to not kill your primary payload you need to be able to use a combination of thrust vectoring and gimbaling engines and still be able to get the payload to an acceptable orbit with the reduced capacity. More engines means more chances that one of them will fail but less severe consequences when that failure occurs.

</comment></comment><comment> le-mark Any odds makers taking bets on this, I wonder? I'd put down $100 on the off chance it actually works the first time!

<comment><USER56> [https://www.reddit.com/r/HighStakesSpaceX/](https://www.reddit.com/r/HighStakesSpaceX/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> The shot of the engines looks like an awesome screencap from KSP. Can't wait to see this thing head to space.</comment>


Starlight: Run python dialect, Starlark, safely from go - <AUTHOR> https://npf.io/2018/12/starlight/ <comment><USER2> Looks great, thanks!

— There's a typo/bug in the example code:

if not r.URL.Query().get("repeat") and not r.URL.Query().get("repeat"):

Should of course read:

if not r.URL.Query().get("repeat") and not r.URL.Query().get("name"):</comment>


We Compared Bitcoin Adoption Rates 2020 vs. 2017 – Are Boomers Waking Up? - <AUTHOR> https://thetokenist.io/bitcoin-survey-2017-vs-2020/ <comment><USER2> Pretty crazy results, also a super bullish signal with Tutor + recent JP morgan banking news

</comment><comment><USER3> I suppose it's like how many millennials will never have cable. There's definitely a cultural distinction between Boomers and Millennials that's playing out in a number of ways and this is probably another indication of that trend

</comment><comment><USER4> Good news for BTC, although not altogether surprising given the current state of affairs. Interesting that people opt for BTC over real estate.

Overall nice study, would like to see the same conducted on a state by state basis in the US only.</comment>