Autoprefixer 6.1 is out with CSS-in-JS and :read-only support - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/postcss/autoprefixer/releases/tag/6.1.0 <comment><USER2> Autoprefixer is my favourite part of the build process (using Gulp). Makes life much easier. Would recommend.

<comment><USER3> Ditto. Just decided to start using it, decided a browser baseline (IE9 in my case) and used it. Have stopped writing prefixes and never had a problem with Autoprefixer, I've pretty much forgotten it's there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> "By the people and for the people"? What's up with the political message on top of this?

<comment><USER5> Do you have a problem with that?

<comment><USER4> No, I'm curious. Aren't you? Or does everyone besides me already know what it means and what the connection is to the software?

<comment><USER5> Yeah, I am curious, too. I misjudged the tone of your comment, bad assumption on my part.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The docs are not clear on one point: will it work correctly if I pass, say bootstrap.css through it? Or will it add duplicate prefixes?

<comment><USER7> It will actually remove prefixes that aren't needed, as well as not duplicating any existing ones that it intends to keep.

<comment><USER6> Fantastic, thank you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Interactive demo: [http://autoprefixer.github.io/](http://autoprefixer.github.io/) Autoprefixer works with Rails, too: [https://github.com/ai/autoprefixer- rails](https://github.com/ai/autoprefixer-rails)

</comment><comment><USER9> Autoprefixer is what made made me to ditch Compass a couple of years ago in favor of pure SCSS. Great work.

</comment><comment><USER10> hopefully autoprefixer-cli is fixed. My makefile builds have been failing randomly and unreproducably since they split it out of core.</comment>


Making a presentation with code snippets? Awesome. Wow - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/thejameskyle/spectacle-code-slide <comment><USER2> Do you guys think being able to talk through code, record and share in this kind of format would be useful?

Background: I'm the developer of a tool that makes it possible to record the audio of a more convention slides-based presentation. For example: [https://presentio.us/view/p1tcHs](https://presentio.us/view/p1tcHs)

I'm wondering if a version where the material is a class or github project that you then walk-through would be valuable, get used.</comment>


Choose the best urinal in the men's room – with math - <AUTHOR> http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2015/12/7/9864610/urinal-privacy-math <comment><USER2> This algorithm was documented over 23 years ago on Usenet:

[http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/90q3/urinals.html](http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/90q3/urinals.html)</comment>


Why do you grab your bag when running off a burning plane? - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/11/sunday-review/plane-accident-psychology.html <comment><USER3>
      Why would anyone evacuating a
      plane waste precious moments
      retrieving his Sudoku book

I think part of understanding this is replacing "Sudoku book" with "Passport, travel insurance documents, money, and return plane ticket"

Everyone's heard the Kafkaesque stories of people getting stuck living in airports for hundreds of days [1] or having to pay huge sums for hotels and different flights out of their own pockets. Not that I imagine that would happen if you fled a burning plane - but who'd be calm enough to reason that through while their plane was on fire?

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

<comment><USER4> When traveling, I keep those important and valuable belongings (identification, money, life sustaining meds) on my persons either on inside pockets or a holder on a lanyard tucked inside my clothes. The only time I might be separated from them is when going through airport security. Typically I'll hang onto my ID though and carry it through the body scanners (unless they tell me not to).

<comment><USER5> I don't do this anymore ever since my passport fell out of my pocket onto the airline seat after a long haul. I was able to get it back, but lesson learned: passport goes into my carryon after the secondary visa check before boarding.

<comment><USER6> People who don't check their pockets every time they get up blow my mind.

<comment><USER7> I check them every time I get up...

except for that one time I actually dropped something

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I used to think that if I was ever in a plane crash I'd want to save my laptop, so now I've gotten into the habit of carrying a small SSD drive with me whenever I travel. I use it to image the hard drive on my laptop. I keep it in a ziploc bag in my pocket. Other than that, I never take anything with me on a trip that I'm not willing to lose. That way if I am ever in a plane crash, the drive, already in my pocket, is all I need to save from among my belongings. Keeping it in a ziploc means it will be OK even if we go down over water. (And, of course, I've got backups at home too.)

<comment><USER9> Planning for a plane crash is probably the most ridiculous, insane thing one can do. There is a benefit trade-off of preparation time and being worried all the time. It bothers me when I see people always in "guarded" mode - <USER2> people seem to never live freely, enjoy the moment and they constantly worry about someone stealing their wallets or their car. I had a manager at work who would steering lock with a giant steel rod on his brand new Mercedes which has a number of safety/anti-theft systems.

I go to the other extreme which is probably also insane. I never use a phone case, put a leather cover on my passport or any of these things. I've realized that I have so many years to live and enjoy the products as they're designed. If I were to buy a Ferrari, you bet your bottom dollar I am driving the shit out of it.

Edit: I want to clarify: I wear seatbelts, safety glasses (even when frying something in the kitchen, yes your kitchen is essentially a chemical lab with a Bunsen burner), sunscreen, regular health screenings, go to the dentist, shower, etc. I think people are totally missing my point if your argument is about ignoring safety, sanitation, etc.

<comment><USER10> We plan for car crashes by wearing seatbelts, buying insurance and some even buy cars based on safety features. Carrying an SSD seems a little over the top to me when there's cloud backups, but perhaps there are reasons the poster doesn't trust cloud services.

And FWIW when I fly I keep my passport, phone and medicine on my body at all times. While the odds of a crash are low it's better to spend 15 seconds preparing (especially since there's barely anything else useful to be doing while in the terminal or airplane).

<comment><USER11> Carrying your passport on your person has nothing to do with planning for a plane crash. You probably carry your phone in your pocket walking down the street just in case of... meteor strike? Godzilla attack?

<comment><USER12> Correct but missing the point. Passport on your person is a small and easy precaution for tons of unknown unknowns while travelling. A plane crash being one of them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This probably has a large amount of 'survivorship bias' embedded in it (no pun intended).

People who are frantic, time-critical, but not immediate life-threatening situations probably grab their bag (ie. the landing gear on plane has failed, but plane has stopped on runway intact and not on fire).

This probably differs significantly if the plane was ripped in half, or people were choking from thick toxic smoke. Those people probably don't even think about grabbing their bag because they are in active severe pain / dying.

Point is, people are making a rational decision that "This is a dangerous situation and I need to get out of here, but I will probably survive", therefore they take their stuff with them.

<comment><USER14> I'm not sure humans are very rational while in a panic. You hear a lot of stories of people being in life threatening situations and make irrational decisions, and the ones who survived saying they cannot explain why, but this one stupid thing they focused on was somehow extremely important to them at the time.

<comment><USER15> Similarly, I find it odd in those "real life crime" TV shows when cops comment on how someone's affect and demeanor "aren't right" following a murder.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Because you don't act rationally in a disaster:

 _In moments of total disaster — plane crashes or terrorist attacks — something happens in our brains that affects the way we think. We behave differently, often irrationally. Consider the World Trade Center workers who, on Sept. 11, dithered at their desks, calling relatives, turning off computers and pondering which mementos to rescue from their desks even as the doomed jets burned above their heads.

In The Unthinkable, Ripley cites a National Institute of Standards and Technology study that showed that those who made it out of the WTC waited an average of six minutes after the plane hit their building before heading for the exit and walking slowly — not running — down the stairs.

Ripley searches for patterns in human behavior by interviewing hundreds of people who lived through catastrophes. Quick-witted survivors are surprisingly anomalous. One fellow who made it through a horrific aircraft disaster in 1977 happened to be sitting on the runway reading an in-flight safety instruction card when another plane crashed into his. He grabbed his wife, leapt through a hole in the fuselage, and turned to see his fellow passengers remaining docilely in their seats, immobile. Most of them died within minutes as fire swept through the wreckage.

The author concludes that all of us undergo a three-stage process when we find ourselves in mortal peril: denial, deliberation and the "decisive moment," during which the survivor buckles down and acts. The trick, she says, may be to understand our instincts, which, in a crisis, may betray us. Some people run toward infernos, not away, and even in the face of obvious impending disaster, some people just won't move._

[https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=930339...](https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93033947)

</comment><comment><USER17> When I am on a plane. Especially on foreign trips, quite a substantial amount of thoughts goes into not leaving anything behind, and thinking about scenarios what would happen if I lost or forgot something important. Of course everything of those items would be less important in a life and death situation but as my brain is already trained for holding onto my stuff I can understand why this happens.

I am not saying that this is a good thing but I think ingrained habits are hard to break.

</comment><comment><USER18> What I'm wondering is how many of those people complaining on the Twitterverse did so while driving or otherwise putting others at risk.

We live to think we'd do otherwise, but if we are honest with ourselves, we know we'd do the same..

</comment><comment><USER19> What if my bag contains my identification, prescriptions, inhaler? there are a lot of reasons to want your bag. What if you are a parent who carries things to maintain the health/safety of a small child, does your 2 year old take responsibility for their asthma medication?

<comment><USER20> Then you can carry it on your body while being on a plane. Would that be worth the inconvenience to you?

<comment><USER21> An inhaler and other medication along with your wallet, phone, and passport would pretty much completely fill your pockets. Also, better hope that nobody pickpockets you because you can't get refills for certain medication.

<comment><USER20> So perhaps you can carry it only on takeoff and before landing, when there's a higher chance of survival/emergency evacuation anyway.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I think it reveals that we should relieve people of the choice.

If it's not feasible to train and educate people until the proper behaviour is a muscle memory, then maybe we need to find a way to eliminate choice.

<comment><USER23> what do you mean? like lock down the overhead bins so people can't get to their stuff?

<comment><USER24> Exactly. It could have saved someone's life.

<comment><USER25> I thought about this solution as well and I came to the conclusion that it might worsen the situation even more: people panicking trying to force the overhead compartment could slow the evacuation even more. You need just one panicked passenger trying to force the lock to block a whole plane.

It would also be a quite challenging technical problem: are compartments locked the whole flight? Are they locked only on emergencies? If so: who thinks of locking them when an emergency occurs? I admit I don't know much about emergency procedures for flight attendants.

<comment><USER22> It's far too premature and ill-prepared to armchair solution workshop. My point is that maybe the solution is to funnel humans towards a behaviour rather than hoping for rational behaviour

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Because it is not fined?

I mean, if the options are a 20k fine or leaving your bag, then for most people the choice is simple.

<comment><USER27> It'd probably work better as an incentive: $20k compensation for everyone who leaves _without_ a bag.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Article did not breach a few points.

First, why is there no law or clear punishment against grabbing your luggage in an emergency or otherwise obstructing the safe exit from the plane? If someone were intentionally obstructing others in this or in another situation (burning building) that would clearly be most likely seen as some type of crime. Why not here?

Why no announcement on the plane? (Back up by the 'federal crime' as they do with smoking in the lavatory).

> Psychologists caution, though, against being too quick to judge.

The fact that there should be no judgement or we should not think we would do different does not detract that people might have to get drilled into them not to follow some particular behavior. It's almost as if the psychologists and trying to give the behavior a pass.

> That passenger reaching for the bag with his favorite sweater or maybe a > present for his kid? He's probably just acting human.

Not really. What is human about prioritizing a 'present for your kid' or 'your favorite sweater'? That's irrational. Non adult. And actually child like. People should not get a pass for doing stupid things.

> grabbing for possessions is more common than one might think

Actually what is probably happening is people see other people grab things and then mimic that behavior. You see the same type of thing with traffic. One person does a u turn and then a bunch of people follow.

> "We have in the past publicly commented on the need for passengers to leave > carry-on items behind during an emergency," said Christopher O'Neil'

I wish there were no speeding laws and tickets and the state just gave that type of friendly reminder!

<comment><USER29> > The fact that there should be no judgement or we should not think we would > do different does not detract that people might have to get drilled into > them not to follow some particular behavior.

> I wish there were no speeding laws and tickets

I understand what you're saying, and as a driver and frequent flier, appreciate both points.

Unfortunately, the reality is in absolute numbers:

There are large numbers of people speeding daily, and large numbers of people dying on the roads daily, globally.

There are orders of magnitude fewer numbers of people flying on planes that perform emergency disembarking events, and more orders of magnitude fewer people dying in these instances.

Given the frequency of reminders getting drilled into drivers that speed kills, who continue to speed frequently, how frequent would reminders to not grab possessions in an emergency situation actually have to be in order to be effective?

The base premise of the point to not judge is that in an emergency situation, some people are acting on instinct.

Meanwhile people who speed are more often making a conscious decision to do so based on their own view of road conditions.

<comment><USER28> The main idea is law and punishment not just reminders. And the punishment needs to be done in a way that people take notice not slap on the wrist (because in some cases that can and would backfire). If it's important (and it is) it's important to insure a big enough punishment (at the discretion of a judge) to make people completely not even think of doing it.

<comment><USER29> > it's important to insure a big enough punishment (at the discretion of a > judge) to make people completely not even think of doing it

So what punishment would keep people from speeding? The best I can think of that would be effective on me would be to immediately suspend my license for some period of time, and potentially immediately impound my vehicle too. Maybe 1 week per % caught over the speed limit? The current system doesn't stop me speeding (as demonstrated earlier today) when there's a nice big gap between me and the car in front. Plus I'm gonna learn those repercussions faster than my car's going after that's impacted me, anyone I know, or even seen on the news that it's actually being enforced. It's in my interests to now learn this and stop misbehaving, as it's something that impacts my day to day life.

Meanwhile, how do you now find a way to educate people about a punishment that has a tiny percentage chance of being relevant to them twice a year? And how do you hold it up in court, when the entire defence is then predicated on "they weren't thinking, it wasn't a conscious decision, they were in a state of fear?"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> There are a lot of things that, if done individually, make sense, but if the whole group does it there is a problem. Leaving your bag behind means that you have to replace it later which costs a lot and takes time. So it makes sense to avoid this trouble. It also makes sense to rush to wards the exit if there is a fire but if everyone does it you have a problem.

</comment><comment><USER26> Perhaps the overhead bins should be lockable from the cockpit?

<comment><USER31> This is the same thought I had as well and when I thought about it a bit and although it does have some utility draw backs (have to ask the flight attendant to open the bin to get something from your bag) it seems like it would also have some other benefits for safety as well such as preventing people from opening the bins when the fasten seatbelts sign is on, or popping open during turbulence.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> I'm pretty forgetful, and so over the years I've trained myself to automatically keep a list of stuff I have on me, and do a quick check whenever I move from place to place to make sure I'm not leaving anything behind. Over the years, this has become an almost subconcious process.

So I suspect in a similar disaster I might be one of those people grabbing their luggage, just because in a panic I can see myself mindlessly "defaulting" to my usual routine as I get up to try and escape.

</comment><comment><USER33> Does the shift to charging for checked bags make this worse? I suspect this choice is new to most people since they used to have that stuff locked away from sight.

</comment><comment><USER34> Why? I can think of two reasons. Habit. This is pretty powerful. I've deplaned a normal plane at least a hundred times. I've deplaned from a burning plane zero times. Second is, especially in the digital age, my laptop, phone, go pro, all have digital data that is irreplaceable that I may not have backed up yet.

</comment><comment><USER35> Because I didn't push my code yet, obviously.

</comment><comment> a-b This is a well-known post ussr feature "do not give a #it about anyone but yourself".

<comment><USER21> I wonder why you're downvoted. I live in a former Soviet state and my impression is that the Soviet era taught people to always prioritize your own stuff, because nobody else will care about it.

<comment><USER23> I spent some time in Azerbaijan and I was amazed at how much the locals helped us out. We had a mechanical break down and random strangers stopped to help us out. They actually fixed our car and got us back on the road! It was mind- blowing, genuine love for fellow humans and it deeply affected me.

That said, of course that's a microscopic sample size in a vast empire. No doubt it's not representative.

<comment><USER36> That is very typical in the Caucasus. I have countless of stories of people going completely out of their way to help out and requesting nothing back in return, but instead maybe even invite you for a dinner with their family. Incredibly hospitable region.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I often have my backpack stowed under the seat in front of me. I could theoretically put it on while still seated. But I'm sure I'll be fractions faster if I'm not wearing it.

</comment><comment><USER38> i'm first aid / pre-hospital rescue trained and i carry a small first aid kit in my bag at all times.

I'm going to be more useful if I take my bag, and I can have it out from under the seat in front of me and around my body in seconds.

So yeah, I'm taking my bag.

</comment><comment><USER39> Paywall and outline doesn't seem to work with NYT.</comment>


We should have an email for each website - <AUTHOR> https://dev.to/sonnk/we-should-have-an-email-for-each-website-fhh <comment><USER2> Actually Yahoo has a similar feature (they call it "Disposable email address"), limited to 500 emails.

<comment><USER3> There are also many other disposable e-mail services. I used spamgourmet.com for many years, but now, unfortunately, they're shutting down. I'm currently using e4ward.com.

<comment><USER4> The story behind spamgourmet.com is actually heartbreaking [1]. Just tried out e4ward.com, I don't like the fact that the email subdomain is fixed -> easy to cross-reference users.

[1]: [https://bbs.spamgourmet.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1766&sid=250...](https://bbs.spamgourmet.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1766&sid=2506a90fa5b1d53b58adbf99f1b5f98f)</comment></comment></comment>


State of Web Inspector - <AUTHOR> https://www.webkit.org/blog/2518/state-of-web-inspector/ <comment><USER2>
        Last year, Safari 6 included a re-imagination
        of Web Inspector that aligned the design and
        user experience with Xcode 4. This design,
        while familiar to Mac and iOS developers,
        alienated some web developers familiar with
        the old Web Inspector. Over the last year we
        have listened and have taken all your
        feedback to heart.

You know, it's funny that they'd say this. I'm a Mac and iOS developer, and I _hate_ the design of Safari 6's web inspector. I find the iconography and general user experience inscrutable, I find the changes to View Source make it infuriatingly difficult to use, and the web inspector seems to hang a lot. I hope the new version improves this.

<comment><USER3> Safari 6 is useless for development and has made me move to chrome for anything more than console.log.

They're losing.

Firefox + Firebug pulled webdevs away from IE like honey. Chrome is doing the same.

<comment><USER4> Try the version in WebKit nightlies and the OS X Mavericks developer preview. It's much improved from Safari 6.

<comment><USER5> While being much improved over previous version of Safari 6, that's not saying anything. It's still abysmal, and Chrome and Firefox are still leaps and bounds ahead.

<comment><USER4> Do you have any specific feedback about things you have problems with?

<comment><USER5> I'm just now reading this but when I get a chance ill try to give a complete run down of issues I have.

<comment><USER6> Not even a few that come to mind immediately?

<comment><USER5> I was replying on an iPad, and wanted to give better information than merely what I remembered.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Is all this just because they "lost control" of the old inspector to Google (who invested heavily in it)?

The new one doesn't support the websocket protocol yet so I can't use it in my WK stuff anyway, but I don't know why they spent a bunch of time on a new one. I was also sad to see the "Native Memory Instrumentation" removed from WebKit, because I've always wanted to know "where the memory goes" on any given page.

<comment><USER8> File a bug on this, it does sound like it shouldn't have disappeared like that.

<comment><USER7> The comment was that it was hard to maintain the way that it was written, which is probably true (there were hooks everywhere!). I don't know if there are any clever allocator/macro tricks you can use to know how many of each kind of object is allocated without a big perf hit.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I primarily used Safari on the Mac for development and browsing up until Safari 6. After they crippled the web inspector by removing key features and adding the confusing design and layout I switched completely over to Chrome for browsing and dev.

I'll certainly give it another shot, but it'll be hard to give up Chrome as the primary browser.

</comment><comment><USER10> They added an option to use the old (same one chrome uses) inspector

[http://i.imgur.com/cgiAjhD.png](http://i.imgur.com/cgiAjhD.png)

<comment><USER11> That option is present only in WebKit nightly builds, and has been since when the new Web Inspector was introduced.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Looks interesting and it's Open Source, so yay. But than again, anything would be better than the unstable, incapable turd that was Safari 6's Web Inspector.

I used to love Safari, it's still my main browser and it was my web developing environment of choice. I really hope Apple can match Google's pace of development, but I think they have lost me for good on the development front.

Releasing that Web Inspector with such different interface, lacking basic features, with zero input from the community and closed source, shows a lack of respect for the developer that will be hard for me to overcome.

</comment><comment><USER13> Thank God! The current inspector is horrendous. I don't know how to find anything, and I use Xcode regularly.

<comment><USER5> It's still horrendous. It's better then the previous version, but it's still far behind.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Anyone know if Chrome is going to adopt this web inspector?

<comment><USER15> I'm pretty sure that the answer is no - considering that Chrome does not use Webkit anymore.

<comment><USER16> More precisely, they forked WebKit:

[http://www.chromium.org/blink](http://www.chromium.org/blink)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Good Job by the Apple Guys! Now just give us more features than Chrome's web inspector so I can get rid of Chrome.

</comment><comment><USER18> Has this been written in such a way that the Blink team will be able to adopt it?

<comment><USER19> Nope. Portions of the new WebInspectorUI are not even redistributable by third parties: [http://trac.webkit.org/browser/trunk/Source/WebInspectorUI/A...](http://trac.webkit.org/browser/trunk/Source/WebInspectorUI/APPLE_IMAGES_LICENSE.rtf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> It's already there in Mavericks by the way.

</comment><comment><USER21> When I read the title, for a moment I thought Google was retiring the Web Inspector from Chrome.</comment>


Why Amazon and other companies are trying 30-hour workweeks - <AUTHOR> http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/16/why-amazon-and-other-companies-are-trying-30-hour-workweeks.html <comment><USER2> This article is oddly silent as to whether dropping the number of hours frees these companies from having to provide health care.</comment>


Ning's Infinite Ambition - <AUTHOR> http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/125/nings-infinite-ambition.html <comment><USER2> I may not be correct about this, but here's the parallel that was running through my mind as I read this:

Ning is to social networks now as Movable Type was to blogs in, oh, say 2003. It's a private company that has found a way to make it dead simple for anyone to come along and make a social network of their own, what Movable Type did for blogging.

The article paints Ning as unstoppable, but if the parallel holds then the end I would foresee is the eventual arrival of an open source rival, a la what Wordpress brought to the blogging scene. (Whether that ends up being Buddypress or some other alternative I couldn't say.)

Thoughts?

</comment><comment><USER3> The article spends more time extolling the virtues of virality than actually speaking to what Ning does.

</comment><comment><USER4> I read page 1 and jumped to page 5 without reading 2-4 without a loss of continuity. Guess I saved myself some time.</comment>


Ask HN: How do you handle "you have reported this issue, so fix it " situations - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> See [https://michaelsamsel.com/Content/Individuals/problem- solvin...](https://michaelsamsel.com/Content/Individuals/problem-solving.html)</comment>


Show HN: Puppet-master, simple and scalable (programmatic) website interaction - <AUTHOR> Did you ever need to interact with a website, not only using plain http but a real browser? Have you ever felt the pain using selenium or struggled reading data from a rendered SPA website? We did, and we suffered. During development of a SaaS platform we built puppet-master, a scalable and flexible way of interacting with websites using well known and plain EcmaScript 6, wrapped in a simple API and thus usable by most programming languages. You can find the docs at https://docs.puppet-master.io/ and any feedback is greatly appreciated! <comment><USER2> [https://puppet-master.io/](https://puppet-master.io/)

</comment><comment><USER3> I am currently struggling a lot with puppeteer, I am gonna try puppet-master.

<comment><AUTHOR> Cool! If any problems occur or you got any questions feel free to ping me directly at email@example.com !

What issues do you have with puppeteer?</comment></comment>


Overcast trying ads, dark theme now free - <AUTHOR> https://marco.org/2016/09/09/overcast-ads <comment><USER2> They may want to update the FAQ which states "There's no venture capital, ads, or nebulous plan to "figure out monetization later" (which usually means ads)."

here: [https://overcast.fm/skeptics_faq](https://overcast.fm/skeptics_faq)

<comment><USER3> Yes...there is no "they" though, just a single person.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It's a shame it seems to be network ads (so far). I can't imagine they'll pay too well. It's a lot of effort to self-sell ads but it's rewarding, too. People using Overcast are interested in podcasts, and I'd bet there are hundreds of podcasts that would pay per subscriber they could obtain via ideal positioning like this. (Or even just paying to be shown as a "similar" podcast to others the user subscribes to.)

(Heck, let's start the bidding.. I'd pay $1 a subscriber for a podcast I have in the works and I know there are people & companies with far bigger plans and deeper pockets than me.)

<comment><USER3> He's a one man shop, and has said before he wants to keep it that way. I'd be very surprised if he wanted to take on the workload of selling ads...he's not that ambitious.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Apple really needs to get its act together and realize that, as far as indie developers are concerned, the App Store is Broken with a capital B. First Gruber bailed entirely, and now Marco has been forced by necessity to abandon (or at least weaken) his anti-ad stance. And these guys are two of the biggest supporters Apple has, with built-in customer bases to boot. If they can't make it work, no one can.

<comment><USER6> What do you suggest they do to fix it?</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Would you run Sophos' free mal-ware removal tool on your Mac? - <AUTHOR>

I just read that Sophos is offering a free mal-ware checking/removal tool for Mac (http://www.9to5mac.com/33479/sophos-ships-free-anti-malware-tool-for-macs)
I've not run such a tool since the dark days of owning Windows boxes 4+ years ago, but I'm now seeing more discussion of such threats to Mac I'm wondering how concerned other fellow tech-orientated folks are about this.
Would you install this? <comment><AUTHOR> Link: [http://www.9to5mac.com/33479/sophos-ships-free-anti- malware-...](http://www.9to5mac.com/33479/sophos-ships-free-anti-malware-tool- for-macs)</comment>


Marketing Lessons from A/B Testing a Homeless Man's Sign  - <AUTHOR> http://dailyconversions.com/all-posts/always-split-test-literal-bum-marketing-example/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DailyConversions+%28Daily+Conversions%29)http://dailyconversions.com/all-posts/always-split-test-literal-bum-marketing-example/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DailyConversions+%28Daily+Conversions%29 <comment><USER3> I enjoyed this, but the title and concept are a bit misleading.

I was expecting something where he made iterative tweaks to the creative (i.e. the sign) and did continual comparisons of the success rate to see how different changes affected the result.

All this guy did was take a homeless guy's sign and add a really cool marketing idea to it, which increased the homeless guy's take. Yes, the results of his changes were awesome, but it really had nothing to do with "A/B testing" per se.

<comment><USER4> Would A/B testing encompass changes as large as what happened here? Having never done A/B testing, it sounds like an iterative process. Would continuous A/B testing ever converge on a solution like the one arrived here?

I guess what I'm asking is this: Is A/B testing an evolutionary approach to developing a product? Are "revolutionary" leaps possible if you strictly follow the A/B testing methodology? (My guess: probably not, which implies that most people don't follow A/B exclusively, which sounds like common sense).

<comment><USER5> Yes, but not encouraged. The literature, or most common applications of A/B testing, is about little improvements. Phrases being changed, picture alignment, that kinda of thing.

Of course, in theory, A/B as the name implies is about testing two different approaches, so again, in theory, any stuff completely different can be seen as an experiment for A/B. The problem is that humans have been trying different ways to do things for a loooooooooong time, and the whole point of trying to teach and learn A/B is to test things, measure, and walk towards your goal.

So yes, you can "A/B test" two completely different things, but it will be so. much. harder to actually know what it worked. For example, you're A/B testing a bicycle and a Ferrari Testarossa. D'uh... obviously they'll work differently, but what caused? Price, color, speed, brand?

That's why when A/B testing is mentioned it's about small, isolable, repeatable, incremental and evolutionary approach. Because it's a technique with this purpose in mind.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Nice story, but without any practical application to A/B Testing.

Focus was changed from "This is about me" to "This is about you." No need for A/B testing - this will almost always result in significant improvement.

<comment><USER7> I agree that the blog post could have contained more information, perhaps some pretty graphs on the conversions per hour with sign 1 vs sign 2. Maybe taking 2 different signs, one with a red cup, one with a blue cup and A/B testing.

But the underlying thesis is still valid. Testing multiple scenarios returns positive changes, and further showing an interesting application that I have never thought about -- helping the homeless with it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> The hand sanitizer is an added cost that should definitely be factored into the test. Also, this isn't a straight A/B, but an A/Incentivized-B.

</comment><comment><USER9> am i the only person that finds this creepy?

(yes, i understand that in some sense he's helping the homeless guy; no i cannot yet fully articulate why this bothers me).

<comment><USER10> "Before you get all 'ugh, you are mocking a homeless man' on me, realize this... This experiment improved this bums ROI"

I got the same feeling. It's because he doesn't treat the guy like a person; he never calls the homeless man by his name, Keith, but keeps referring to him as a bum.

<comment><USER11> I feel like he did more harm than good. Panhandling, unless extraordinarily effective and coupled with a lack of substance abuse problems (all too common with the homeless) will not pull this man out of poverty for good, or even in the medium-term.

Giving this man more money, but without coupling that with professional assistance, may do him a _lot_ more harm than good.

There's a reason why real academic studies have to pass through an ethics review, and I take issue with how cavalier this guy is about his study.

If the author of the blog has experience working with the homeless, then ignore all I've said above. But otherwise, he's operating _way_ outside his field of expertise involving people and situations he doesn't understand, and complexities he does not seem to be aware of. This is dangerous.

<comment><USER12> Giving poor people more money might hurt them? You're an asshole. I'm sure if someone gives YOU more money it'll be put to excellent use, right?

<comment><USER11> > _"You're an asshole."_

And you can't seem to make your point without name-calling. Kudos.

This is where even a cursory familiarity with the issues surrounding homelessness in your area would be greatly helpful. A huge portion of the homeless population has severe substance abuse problems and/or mental health issues. I highly doubt a bum is going to be spending his panhandling dollars on hookers, but alcohol and blow is more than likely. Given what I know of the proportions through volunteer work, it is entirely unsafe to by default assume a homeless person does not have significant substance abuse problems. Sadly, this is one part of the homeless stereotype that is rooted in reality.

This isn't to pass judgment, but rather to point out that if you really want to help people get off the streets for good, and bootstrap themselves out of poverty, you need to do a lot more than just give money. For a great many homeless people the cause of their homelessness is a lot more than just being down on their luck, it has to do with long-standing problems - <USER2> abuse, toxic environment, and other negative influences. Giving money without resolving these other external issues will just exacerbate the problem.

And note that we're not talking about _poor people_ , we're talking about the homeless. These are people who can't show up to an interview showered with a clean t-shirt - they are not at all like the "merely" poor. Do these guys make enough from panhandling to afford even a shitty room somewhere? Odds are, no, and that's pretty much a bare minimum requirement if your goal is to get off the streets, clean up, and get employed. I contribute to organizations that do this for this very reason - my money is doing much more good (heck, it's at least not doing bad) in the hands of professionals who are able to offer an environment where people have access to the help they need, and the stability to make lasting changes in their life.

And FYI, I'm contributing significant amounts of my money and time to this particular issue, a lot more than change most people give to the homeless in any given year. What are you doing about it?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I was disappointed not to be informed of the experimental method. Did he normalize the data for each time period? (Dollars/Person within 20 feet), or is it unnormalized and we could just be looking at a situation where more people came later. How long were the time periods of each trial? How much better did he do at each trial, in terms of percentages?

Also, since he apparently has the data, I'm dieing to know how much one of these guys does make per day.

</comment><comment><USER14> "The first thing we always do is make slight modifications to what we already have."

rather contrasts with

"The next big difference is that we changed colors and went from cardboard to white to spark the interest of people walking by instead of automatically having negative associations that they have with cardboard and homeless people."

The second can (and in the context of the article maybe should) be tested. The small change is to make exactly the same text on the different material.

</comment><comment><USER15> This is hardly A-B testing...this is more barely readable sign with hidden cup to VASTLY improved sign with prominent red cup and BRIBE!

</comment><comment><USER16> Forget the whole a/b testing thing. The real value of this blog post is that it shows a great way to utilize personal skills to help someone else. That's the real genius, out of the box thinking here.

</comment><comment><USER17> I often get too wrapped up in the idea of A/B testing as a digital concept. After reading I'm starting to think of all the "everyday" items that can be optimized with a little testing.

That said, I am now researching a way to add hand sanitizer to my website.

</comment><comment><USER18> One reason to do A/B testing is to collect data/facts. That article contains only opinions ie : "The biggest difference, is that we are now introducing a bribe" Trust data, not opinions.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> What I took away from this:

\- always be testing, even (especially?) offline

\- repackaging your offer can = drastic result

\- incentives work

Agree that lack of full data was disappointing.

</comment><comment><USER19> So basically:

A) Homeless man begging

B) Useful service with a variable price

</comment><comment><USER20> You will love this video about a businessman helping a homeless man by changing his sign. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNLmrv7-6OY>

On another note: Hilarious idea to try and A/B test on a sign of a homeless man ;-).

</comment><comment><USER21> when did max change his domain name?</comment>


JSAwesome : JSON to HTML markup quickly - <AUTHOR> http://vandev.com/2008/4/22/jsawesome

<comment><USER2> I was hoping this could be used for marking up return values to JSON callbacks that are so common in JS apis.

<comment><AUTHOR> ohh and I forgot about this <http://goessner.net/articles/jsont/>

<comment><USER2> That's cool, it wasn't what I was really looking for. I wrote something <http://nirmalpatel.com/json2html> that takes any random JSON object and turns it into semantically meaningful markup that's easy to style using CSS.

Check it out, my site has an example of me styling my tweet list.</comment></comment></comment>


The War on Cash - <AUTHOR> http://thelongandshort.org/society/war-on-cash <comment><USER2> Banning cash is such a monumentally bad idea its a miracle of modern propaganda that a single person is willing to even consider it. From negative interest rates to ubiquitous tracking of your every move and purchase (by stores, banks, governments, and whoever else they choose to share the information with), to the total paralysis society would face from any sort of blackout or network disruption, to limitless technical vulnerability by hackers, eliminating cash is truly one of the worst ideas ever conceived. Its bad enough that the government enforces a legal monopoly on currency. Extending that monopoly to digital-only currency is a huge step in the wrong direction for business, commerce, and freedom.

<comment><USER3> Isn't tracking a good thing? This way the government can fight tax-evasion and the black market...

<comment><USER2> No tracking is a terrible thing. Freedom is important. Concerns about taxes and black markets are meaningless if they eliminate freedom.

<comment><USER4> i like cooking my friends and my family.

syntax is important! ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Cash is public, banks are private.

Half of the problem with cash could be solved by ending the war on drugs. The war on drugs has created a class of people whose main economic function is to transfer wealth from the public to the worst people in society. This is a many-headed monster that robs/burglarizes/steals money from average people, and vacuums it into a global system of money laundering. The cost is mostly absorbed through higher insurance premiums and more costly welfare schemes. The physical needs of this class of people are often carried by family and charity.

No cash could kill this, but so could treating drugs like simple agricultural and/or chemical products and regulate the distribution.

All costs of the war on drugs are covered by the public. All profit by heavy criminals.

Sort this first, and then get back to cash and its utility in evading taxes.

<comment><USER6> This is mixing up "cash". Cash is produced by your country's mint (a public body), and comprises around 3-5% of available on-demand "money".

Private banks produce electronic debt which is fungible with "cash". This is available "on demand" as cash but only if you wish to withdraw less than the 5% which has a physical representation. The rest is available on demand to transfer as electronic banker-debt/credit into another part of the banking system.

The vast majority of the private bank debt is issued via lending against land.

I don't take issue with the use of cash in the drug trade, I'm unconvinced removing cash would see this fixed, most likely barter would take place instead.

I just wished to take issue with the fast and loose "cash is public".

<comment><USER5> How currency comes into existence is a different topic.

I agree wholeheartedly that bartering is the logical continuation of the drug economy in a cash free world. Maybe some pseudo currencies would also arise, creating black market banks.

Money is power. We, the public, ought to stop propping up cartels and giving power to drug lords. My suggestion is to try that first, and then see what problems remain with cash.

<comment><USER6> We know what will happen. They will work around it because the root cause of the problem isn't "cash helps drugs".

We should look into the root causes like the vast siphoning money issuance allows which in turn creates poverty which then leads to drugs.

Visa and American Express aren't going into bat for the common good. The latter in particular is a vile company.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I've never heard a credible argument of how a fully cashless society could operate under conditions of natural (or man-made) disaster. The multi-day blackout in the Northeast US, flooding, tornado, earthquake recovery, targeted cyber attack, etc.

The idea that because the electronic payment system is readily available on all of the "good days" doesn't mean it will be available at a time of strife.

Cash works without electricity, without phones, and without network. That's a killer feature.

<comment><USER8> How much cash am I supposed to be keeping on hand in case there's a flood or tornado?

<comment><USER9> It depends. A couple hundred was sufficient for us when Hurricane Wilma knocked out power across most of South Florida in 2005, but we happened to be in a pocket that had power, were surrounded by family and friends with food and other resources, and didn't really have to go anywhere or do anything. YMMV, but be careful with the idea that you don't need any. The ATM's and card swipes work until they don't.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Once an intermediary feels secure in their position, the temptation to use the position to further other goals becomes pretty irresistable. Consider Square:

[http://dailysignal.com/2014/09/25/gun-shop-owners-longer- hip...](http://dailysignal.com/2014/09/25/gun-shop-owners-longer-hip-square/)

They are actively seeking to erode 2nd amendment rights. What other do-gooder impulses will Square pursue? Perhaps they'll next infringe on our 1st amendment rights by prohibiting payments to organizations they disagree with.

We see the same thing with speech brokers such as Facebook. Want to exercise your 1st amendment rights? Not on our platform!

<comment><USER11> >They are actively seeking to erode 2nd amendment rights.

1\. There are countries in the world that are better than USA on multiple metrics, and they don't have 2nd amendment rights at all. What say you?

2\. Your gun will avail you absolutely nothing when the government comes to you with a Predator drone. You will not "prevent dictatorship" by your gun.

<comment><USER12> That's a fantasy view of how military engagement works. The whole argument that the US military has advanced tech, particularly air power, therefore "your guns" are useless is demonstrably false. If it were true, you wouldn't have Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Having millions of people armed with things like AR-15 or AK-47 is an effective form of dictatorship prevention.

The problem, however, is that you have to have those people actually want to fight a dictatorship. I don't live in the US, so I might be wrong, but it seems to me that most people, not all, most, in the so called gun culture there are more than willing to bend over and be servile to authorities, with dictatorship prevention being just a noble sounding excuse to have fun shooting soda bottles in their backyards (nothing wrong with that).

<comment><USER13> The government _still_ does have better resources, though. Times have changes a bit from the 1700s in that the most modern things available to the two parties are not the same for both sides anymore.

<comment><USER12> Governments _always_ had better resources. Until they didn't. The only way a government has resources is by people providing the resources by doing work. Once people collectively deny work, it's game over for the government.

As for the 1700s, all of the wars I mentioned happened in the second half of 20th, and early 21st century, with a gigantic asymmetry in almost every relevant resource. Yet, in all three examples it took the US a whole decade of trying to win and then get a graceful exit, if that, against, basically, people with AK-47s and improvised bombs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> "There's huge interest in cryptocurrencies and what perhaps they can create in the market place. Now we at MasterCard are not completely comfortable with the idea of cryptocurrencies largely because they go against the whole principle that we've established our business on which is really moving to a world beyond cash and ensuring greater transparency.. If you think about it, cash is a problem for a number of countries. Cash really facilitates anonymity, it facilitates illegal activity, it facilitates tax avoidance and a range of other things that aren't going to drive efficiency in an economy"

-[https://youtu.be/bO4jHXjCXw8?t=2m57s](https://youtu.be/bO4jHXjCXw8?t=2m57s)

"If it's an anonymous transaction, that sounds like a suspicious transaction. Why does somebody need to be anonymous?"

-[http://youtu.be/bO4jHXjCXw8#t=4m12s](http://youtu.be/bO4jHXjCXw8#t=4m12s)

MasterCard SE Asia President on cryptocurrencies and cash

<comment><USER15> Says the guy who stands to make ~3% of every single transaction that is deanonymized. For more clarification of how cashless would save us, look into BofA & Wells Fargo's not so distant past laundering of illegal guns & drug monies from Mexico, sure they paid fines & _promise_ to be more diligent. Around the same time was the Wikileaks payments freeze across multi platforms(Guv mandated). Sounds fair & equitable for all who can _afford_ justice.

<comment><USER14> The destruction of privacy also means that the minority has zero protection against the majority. If the majority imposes an oppressive law, like prohibiting financial transactions with people of a certain nationality, or requiring people to hand over 1/3rd of their income for programs that enrich the political establishment and their donors, there is no way to circumvent the law.

<comment><USER16> This is not possible today. It is very easy as a government (often something bitcoin people rant about) to bulk transfer wealth from the population to a preferred group, since you have control of the mint. Which is why the mint (reserve bank) is, in all functional countries, a standalone entity with independent decision making power about currency creation.

The idea that digitally tampering with bank accounts would not be noticed or reacted to, but softer measures like inflation rate meddling, or stealth measures like doing a currency re-issuance and controlling how hard it is for people to exchange old money, is absurd.

Not to mention you've managed to ignore the fact that only a tiny fraction of circulating cash is physical cash anyway.

In terms of protecting rights, this is one of the worst, least effective ways to do so.

<comment><USER14> >The idea that digitally tampering with bank accounts would not be noticed or reacted to, but softer measures like inflation rate meddling, or stealth measures like doing a currency re-issuance and controlling how hard it is for people to exchange old money, is absurd.

Who said anything about "digitally tampering with bank accounts"? The situation today, where the bulk of transactions are done through large trusted third parties, which act as deputies for state regulatory organs, means that there is no expectation of privacy in most financial transactions, which increases the power of governments (meaning the political majority of countries) to enforce majority-supported laws that restrict voluntary exchange.

It's certainly true that physical cash does not protect against inflation, but the idea this is the only major method by which governments redistribute wealth is false. Taxation is the main way in which governments raise revenues, and destroying privacy increases the ability of governments to tax.

>"In terms of protecting rights, this is one of the worst, least effective ways to do so."

It is the absolute most effective way to protect rights. Furthering financial privacy increases the protection that the politically disenfranchised have against those with political power more than anything else. Money is power, and having privacy in your usage of money means your power is protected.

<comment><USER16> > Furthering financial privacy increases the protection that the politically > disenfranchised

 _Wow_. This isn't even supported by any of America's notable civil rights successes of years gone by, whereas the entire history of political corruption is enabled by the wealthy's use and access to opaque financial instruments.

<comment><USER14> I guess you don't consider economically inhibiting regulatory prohibitions, in place in countries all over the world, that funnel economic activity through politically connected gatekeepers - at massive economic cost to the politically disenfranchised masses, or trillions of dollars in taxation to enrich the political class, or sanctions targeting every person of a particular nationality, or the multitude of market prohibitions, like those on drugs, or socialist policies put in place in countries like Cuba and Venzuela - to be forms of oppression inflicted by those with power on those without.

You don't seem to appreciate that it is the ability to transact privately that enables people to circumvent all of the above-mentioned laws.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> > He (Kenneth Rogoff) argues that, apart from facilitating crime and tax > evasion, cash hampers central banks from setting negative interest rates.

I think a lot of the "war on cash" boils down to this. Central Banks want to impose negative rates on us to try and get us out of the mess of having too much debt in the system. Cash makes this difficult.

<comment><USER18> Two points: First, the economic logic of negative rates is actually to try to incentivize the private sector to create _more_ debt.

This isn't completely absurd. Slow economic growth quite often boils down to a lack of spending. One way to get more spending is by having the private sector take on more debt.

I think this is a bad idea, considering how the global financial crisis was caused by too much private debt in the first place. It would be better to increase _public_ debt, at least in countries with monetarily sovereign governments, since there is no risk of default and the financial chaos that goes with it.

Second point: I've been hearing voices against cash since before negative rates became a thing. So while they're certainly a factor, they're far from the only one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I wish I could upvote this ten times. This is the clearest and best written exposition of what cash really is and why it matters that I have ever seen. Well worth taking the time to read the whole thing.

</comment><comment><USER20> > We are fighting a broader battle to maintain alternatives to the growing > digital panopticon that is emerging all around us.

This is just one of the aspects that support stronger governments and corporates that put the interests of themselves and a tiny section of the population (those who help these get even stronger) above everything else. While some people discuss about this or mass surveillance or tracking, most of the populace isn't even aware how liberties are being lost and how "the power of the people" is becoming more of a carefully constructed mirage. Things seem to be moving in the direction of a dystopian society where appearances mask reality and common people are kept complacent with entertainment and other things to keep them occupied.

I don't see a cashless world happening in the next few decades, because it will take a lot of work to get people out of poverty first while some entities focus on removing cash. Even if it were to happen, a cashless society would still have many different pseudo-currencies and barter systems (like those that exist in different contexts and systems today). What's worrying though is that in the future many goods and services may become inaccessible (if one wants to avoid electronic transactions) unless one resorts to the black/gray/underground markets.

<comment><USER21> here are the alternatives to the new status quo of totalitarian democracy:

1\. leave 2\. revolt

seriously, that's it. we lost the first dozen encounters with totalitarianism, so now options are limited and undesirable. widespread witholding of labor/ consent to be governed is the next step if we are serious about change.

politically, we're on the downward slope for at least another 8 years...

<comment><USER22> "Revolt" doesn't work because democracy provides a pressure relief valve that prevents any significant mass of people from wanting to revolt. Notice how the "hopeful" prepper culture is based around _passively_ waiting for things to "inevitably" fall apart rather than actively forming a militia.

"Leave" doesn't work because there's no place to go. The US empire is nearly everywhere, the best you can do is escape to the different monetary spheres of Russia/China and buy some time.

IMHO our two options are 1. digital freedom through cryptography, or 2. become slave cells of a larger organism.

The first is a fucking long shot, but I don't see any other possibility for individualism.

Then again as I get older, I can't help but shake the feeling we're really just observing bog-standard societal collapse.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Currently down. Mirror:

[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?site=&source=hp...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?site=&source=hp&ei=njm4V6TuJorKmwGIsJaoBQ&q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fthelongandshort.org%2Fsociety%2Fwar- on-cash&oq=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fthelongandshort.org%2Fsociety%2Fwar-on- cash&gs_l=mobile-gws- hp.3...11998.19363.0.20220.127.116.11.220.127.116.11.755.4j4.8.0....0...1c.1j2.64.mobile- gws-hp..0.7.373.3..0j41j46j0i131k1j0i46k1j0i3k1.As2uiZpw-U8)

</comment><comment><USER24> I was expecting yet another puff piece on the advantages of some app-based alternative. A good exploration of some of the disadvantages of cashless society.

Only thing they have missed is the indirection of cashless - the further you are from actual money, the more you're likely to spend, especially impulsively. Works for credit cards, game currencies, and undoubtedly for cashless apps.

<comment><USER25> I agree with you, but in not sure I'm right in that. Chances are that, centuries ago, people used to say "further you are from actual _gold_ , the more you're likely to spend, especially impulsively". So, people could/might become used to currencies that are even less physical.

Also, before banks provided credit, people used to run up bar tabs not only at bars but also at their grocer. Maybe, the thing to fear is credit, not money being virtualized?

<comment><USER24> "Chances are that, centuries ago, people used to say "further you are from actual gold..."

I've never considered that angle, and you may be right, but centuries ago 9 out of 10 or more spent to survive rather than consumerism. We may become used to them, but I'm not sure how comparable the two eras can ever be.

I've also seen enough reports on the topic to see that paying via plastic (both debit and credit) leads to higher overall spending. There's countless gamasutra type articles explaining the income benefits of tiers of virtual currencies. Game monetisation seems to have been researched well enough that most freemium have ended up with a combination of soft and hard currrencies, with deliberately unusual prices, and a remarkably similar set of price points for a bucket of gems. They're not all ending up there as customers spend _less._

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I hereby resolve to use cash as often as I possibly can, to show in my own small way that "the market" still demands the cash option.

The small inconvenience of carrying around a few bits of paper and metal is worth it to protect the rights of those outside the banking system.

<comment><USER22> _In_ convenience?

I once got into a car accident on a friday afternoon. It was on a highway, so my car was towed by scumbags who insisted on bringing it all the way back to their facility rather than anywhere useful. Obviously they wanted to require me to come back later, store it all weekend, and rake in more ill-gotten gains.

I demanded my car be released as soon as possible, to which they tried to dissuade me that it would be a lot of money, they didn't take credit cards, they were technically closed so if I went to an ATM they wouldn't be there when I got back, etc. I stood firm since none of this was a problem, bailed my car out, and successfully avoided being further gouged by their racket.

If you don't see the utility in carrying cash you're basically asking to be taken advantage of, in both the immediate and long term.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This article fails to touch on who issues the money. In particular in the example of the Rai stones it fails to ask what if the ledger keeper could magic up stones all over the island to capture labour by eroding the value of the current stones.

Really for me this is one turtle down the stack and he needs to ask who creates credits and what that means.

edit: and right on queue in my twitter feed an article on money creation as theft:

[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-17/meet- the-m...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-17/meet-the-man-who- d-revolutionize-money-from-the-inside-out)

edit2: and every single time I submit to a post on money on HN "you're submitting too fast please slow down"! What a surprise...

</comment><comment><USER6> Tracking isn't the problem to prevent tax avoidance at the point where avoidance becomes immoral.

UK last month: Grosvenor dies leaving 9bn GBP in land to his son. We have inheritance tax in the UK, the son should have received a bill of several billion which would fund our health service.

They know where all the assets are, but the UK govt has a special loophole for rich people: trusts. The son inherits the full 9bn GBP.

It's all tracked but the UK is totally corrupt.

Given the above example how will the state act against the rich when all "money" is tracked because it's electronic? They won't touch them.

<comment><USER27> Who controls the trusts?

<comment><USER6> The land owners have full effective access to all funds just as if they owned them. The uk is a total sham.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> This is why Bitcoin is such an exciting concept: digital cash which can function without any central authority.

<comment><USER29> I don't really get the "anonymity" claims of Bitcoin when there is a central, permanent ledger of every transaction ever made in it.

<comment><USER28> It's not anonymous. It's pseudonymous, there is a ledger of transactions but you have to still link an address with a person's ID.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I am 100% more concerned about the negative interest rates motive than the dependence on financial institutions for payment (which is also worrying)

Having said that, yes, cash sucks. Small coins suck even more and I rejoiced when countries started rounding prices to 5c on cash payments

<comment><USER31> Here is a tip, anytime you a filling up on petrol check your pockets first if you find some coins as you are bound to have some, then add them up

For example last time if filled up I had a 10euro note in wallet and had about €5.60 in coin change so I just filled up petrol for €15.60 since its not hard to fill up down to a cent amount

Most small shops love coins as added bonus

<comment><USER32> This works much better in Europe or Canada than in the US... US pocket change is effectively worthless, since the largest denomination coin in wide circulation is the quarter. Unless you are carrying around (physical) pounds of change, using it for anything beyond laundry, vending machines, or parking meters is impractical.

1 & 2 euro coins, on the other hand, are pretty convenient for small purchases.

<comment><USER33> Though that's also somewhat of a feature with respect to US change. I can just dump it in a bucket at home to get turned into "real money" with a coin counting machine someday.

Quarters are also sometimes still useful for parking.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> What stops banks from implementing a negative interest rate today? Practically nobody keeps a large amount of savings in cash. Such a policy would be really lousy in a society where retirement planning is largely a private affair, though.

<comment><USER34> It could be that, faced with a -ve rate, account holders can simply withdraw everything from their account, thus no revenue is generated for the banks and no guarantee that account holders aren't hoarding their cash instead of spending it.

<comment><USER29> Yeah, but how many people with significant savings are going to do that?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> This might be a naive question, but has there ever been a successful non- profit bank-like financial institution?

As I was reading this article I thought of iPredator.se, which provides a non- tracked VPN service. Their USP is "We don't track anything you do". I wonder whether there could ever be a cashless option that offers a similar service. This of course would only address the concerns of privacy and profit-driven interests, and not the other serious concerns raised in the article.

Has there been/could there ever be a bank like that?

<comment><USER36> > This might be a naive question, but has there ever been a successful non- > profit bank-like financial institution?

Credit unions are not-for-profit institutions, member-owned, and are very successful.

But they don't satisfy the second part of your post. Tracking and auditing transactions is kind of built into the idea of modern banking.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Well if someone comes up with, and popularizes a system that can actually replace cash then we should consider it. I would be thrilled to use something like bitcoin or taler to pay for my groceries. In the mean time we are stuck with physical cash. Credit and debit systems are good for some stuff but are simply not technologically advanced enough to replace cash. In fact, actual electronic cash would to some extent make credit and debit obsolete, as well as causing a great many other changes.

</comment><comment><USER38> "Much fintech 'disruption'..." revolves around eliminating slack and incompetence of the low grade employees. Once you've tried services of an average investment banker, and paid 1% entry fee,1% exit fee, and 1% annual maintenance fee, you'd see fintech needs in a different light.

</comment><comment><USER39> I love being able to throw some cash at a taxi driver, or to use cash at a grocery store and just get out of there.

As it is lineups at stores are really really slow since every single person has to fiddle with a card and a PIN to pay for their coke and chips.

<comment><USER27> This is temporary. Contactless payments will change that so that electronic payment becomes faster than cash for small transactions (as is already happening in many places).

<comment><USER39> Even if that is the case, then I don't like the privacy implications.

I don't feel great about the Eye of Sauron seeing every single thing I do with my money.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I like cash too. I'd like to see a smart start up do for cash what Square did for credit card payment. A super simple way for a small store to manage it.

</comment><comment><USER41> So what are you going to do when they freeze your bank account because you won't submit to a Zika vaccination?

We are so fucking doomed.

</comment><comment><USER42> More symptoms of Terminal-Stage Keynesianism.

</comment><comment><USER43> The cashless society is hugely convenient though. Wouldn't it be better to accept that it's inevitable, and solve the privacy issues?

For the year 2016, and excluding rent, 3.1% of my expenditure has been cash. I've used an ATM five times. [More-or-less; foreign spending isn't on this statement. In Germany I use more cash, in Norway I didn't use cash at all.]

<comment><USER44> The convenience argument is complete nonsense. Personally I hate dealing with physical things like writing a letter, buy an envelope (well, buy 20 when I need one) and a stamp and mail it, but cash is really the _single most easy_ physical thing to deal with that I know of.

<comment><USER18> It depends on the cash. I suspect that a lot of the cash-hate is supported by experiences in countries with badly designed cash. Compare e.g. the US$ and the Euro - the latter one is well designed, the former isn't.

Other cultural factors come into play, again the US comes to mind as negative example due to the way prices are usually displayed without sales tax, which makes it hard to have the correct change in hand quickly.

<comment><USER45> What makes the Dollar worse than the Euro?

<comment><USER46> I'm European and recently visited the US, so I'll describe what bugged me about dollars. All bills are the same size and color, making them Very hard to distinguish at a glance. The coins are mostly useless, as the largest commonly used denomination is the quarter. The five cent coins is also ridiculously large (but nothing compared to the British 2p coin...)

In contrast, Euro bills' size increases with value (easy access in the wallet if you keep them in sorted order) and they are easily distinguished by colour. The largest commonly used coin is 2€ ($2.25), which is actually worth something and doesn't jut clog pockets/wallets. I do wish we'd get rid of the 1c and 2c coins, though.

<comment><USER47> >All bills are the same size and color, making them Very hard to distinguish at a glance

Well, they do have different numbers on them. Different pictures too. I find them easy to distinguish at a glance.

<comment><USER43> Compare American banknotes to other countries.

Take British banknotes for example: [http://www.atsnotes.com/catalog/banknotes-pictures/great- bri...](http://www.atsnotes.com/catalog/banknotes-pictures/great- britain/great-britain-389.JPG)

These have clearly been designed to be distinguished. They're different sizes and different colours. One side has a bold number and a bold shape (circle/diamond/square). The other has a monochrome (but not black!) portrait, plus a picture with reasonable contrast.

The Danish notes have the same features, but with brighter colours and a less ornate design: [http://www.atsnotes.com/catalog/banknotes- pictures/denmark/d...](http://www.atsnotes.com/catalog/banknotes- pictures/denmark/denmark-65.JPG)

By comparison, the American notes all look very similar. A black-and-white portrait of a man, centred, with a black circle to the left and a green circle to the right, with dark borders to the top and bottom. Numbers are in a traditional, unclear font. Slight colouring exists on some values, but only in the background, and the colours aren't far from a green-brown. [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/64/USDnotes...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/64/USDnotes.png)

Pick random countries from here: [http://www.atsnotes.com/catalog/catalog.html](http://www.atsnotes.com/catalog/catalog.html)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Obtaining Loyal Customers with a Sub-Par Product - <AUTHOR> https://austingwalters.com/obtaining-loyal-customers-with-a-sub-par-product/ <comment><USER2> This seems to be a simple article but it touches a very specific, usually forgotten lesson: no company was big from the beginning. And it had to make money at some point, or at least be so viable that people would throw money expecting returns.

And they don't have a full, complete product for the first 100 consumers.</comment>


MarineTraffic.com - Live Ships Map - <AUTHOR> http://www.marinetraffic.com/

<comment><USER2> Note the hundreds of ships parked off the coast of Singapore. That's the US economy anchored out there.

[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1212013/Reve...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1212013/Revealed- The-ghost-fleet-recession-anchored-just-east-Singapore.html)</comment>


Mars Mission May Use 'Poop Shield' to Block Cosmic Rays - <AUTHOR> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2416220,00.asp

<comment><USER2> Discussion: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5314643></comment>


How is OnLive Desktop legal? - <AUTHOR> http://desktop.onlive.com/plans

<comment><USER2> What do you mean? Obviously that are paying for various Microsoft licenses. Although it works differently, it's just like any other virtualized service.</comment>


Amazon rolls out world's first cloud-browser: Silk - <AUTHOR> http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/28/live-from-amazons-tablet-event-in-nyc/

<comment><USER2> I'm not convinced by this and it might put me off the Kindle Fire altogether.

Distributing the processing just seems like it's ripe for introducing problems. One of the best things about modern mobile devices is that their web browsers behave just like standard browsers. Is this reverting back to the Opera Mini model?

<comment><AUTHOR> I guess yes.</comment></comment>


Give more meaningful type names to raw C++ pointers - <AUTHOR> http://www.clemens-sielaff.com/c-typedef-pointer-template/

<comment><AUTHOR> I generally agree. However, smart pointers imply ownership of the object, especially unique_ptr. Using shared_ptr is a good solution to ensure that the object is both alive when needed and deleted when not - but for the reader it is still not clear whether the instance pointed to will be available after the returned shared_ptr has fallen out of scope. That said, I will definitely not argue against the use of smart pointers wherever possible :) cheers!

</comment><comment><USER2> Why not just use smart pointers like unique_ptr and shared_ptr and call it a day? Dealing with raw pointers that require manual management is like running with scissors.</comment>


Ask HN : What killed ICQ? - <AUTHOR>

When I was young, I used ICQ and it was the coolest thing ever. One day, it was gone and now, it's often remembered in a sarcastic way.<p>I was too young to care/remember so I'm asking you : What killed ICQ? <comment><USER2> I think it was a combination of things. If I remember correctly, AIM was an AOL subscription exclusive in the beginning so only the dopes on there were using it. The cool kids were on ICQ and I think there were very few AOL users willing or able to use a separate chat client.

Anyway, AOL eventually opened up AIM to everyone and people started using it. It was easier. AIM used screennames. ICQ was cool because you could use any name you wanted but the actual user id was an 8 or 9 digit number (mine was 36915037- not sure why I remember that). It was a total pain in the ass when you wanted to add people to your friend list. Plus, on ICQ you had to receive approval from a user to add them to your buddy list and on AIM you could just add people. Sometimes, you'd sit there in pending approval purgatory wondering if you added the right person with those crazy user id's. AIM was just plain easier.

ICQ had more features and more users, but it was just easier for a lot of them to use AIM so they could chat with their dopey friends who were still using AOL. Meanwhile, AIM was updated with new features frequently and marketed heavily. ICQ still remained relatively popular, but they really sat on their asses over there. After a while AIM caught up and even experimented with video and voice chat while ICQ stayed the same for years.

Eventually, AOL purchased ICQ and basically put it out to pasture. Still, it managed to stick around for a long time. I'm not sure they were expecting that. It's the technology that just won't die.

<comment><USER3> I know why you remember that. Because you have a "eight" digit ICQ number. People at that time used to think that shorter ICQ ID was cooler.

<comment><USER4> 6 digits and still using it: 666778 ;-P

<comment><USER5> missed by 1?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I stopped using ICQ when it started to get way too slow for my computer at the time. I remember the first versions were snappy and quick, then they started adding more and more stuff, and it got too bloated for me. ICQ Lite was too stripped down for me, so I looked for alternatives.

Also, all my friends were jumping on the MSN bandwagon (mostly due to MSN being bundled with Windows), so if I wanted to chat with them, I had to jump along with them. Peer pressure can be a bitch sometimes.

</comment><comment><USER7> As a German, I would not call it killed. It's very poplar here.

But I think most of my friends use things like Miranda or Gaim/Pidgin and not the bloat-client. Even the lesser tech-savy ones. They got it installed by the nerds ;)

<comment><USER8> In Russia too, ICQ is the dominant IM protocol. Many geeks use jabber though (together with ICQ).

And Livejournal is the dominant blog platform. I guess the network effect (resulting from being first to market?) has something to do with it.

And, BTW - 282192658. And I used to remember my first cell phone number too for a long time. That's probably because it was so cool to be able to chat / call for the first time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I stopped using it because nearly everyone I knew switched to AIM which I also did eventually.

As common as IM is now, I recall being amazed at the concept of not having to sit on IRC all day to talk to my friends.

And just to brag, my number was 522621

</comment><comment><USER10> Just figured I'd mention that ICQ never died for me and mine. It was the first IM service I joined (I still use my original 6-digit UIN), and I just never understood why I should change to MSN or any of the others. I long ago started using all-in-one clients so I could talk to people on MSN, AIM, Google, etc but my core group of friends never saw a reason to leave ICQ's network. ICQ actually had a ton of features no one else did for quite a while. The big one for me: it always saved your chat history (and I love to go back and look at my conversations from ten years ago), while MSN and AIM didn't do this at first.

As I type this, I have MirandaIM open and 5 of my close friends going back 8 years are online via ICQ. I will consider it a great shame if it ever really dies.

</comment><comment><USER11> The numbers.

<comment><USER12> I thought the numbers were one of the things that made it fun. Having a low ICQ number showed you were an early adopter, much like having a short URL or twitter name.

<comment><USER13> Yeah, fun for the million or so first users, not so much for the next 2 billion.

I specifically remember hating those numbers (because I always forgot mine) and being spitefully relieved to switch to MSN Messenger when that came out.

<comment><USER14> just like giving out an old compuserve e-mail address.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Two things killed ICQ

1) Usability - when you do a product for the masses usability and simlicity matters a lot.

2) Marketing - when you're up against Microsoft and AOL you are in trouble unless you have an excellent product (see point 1)

There's a good lesson to be learnt here for entrepreneurs.

<comment><AUTHOR> What I learn : it's not because you're the first player in a field AND used widespead that your product will live forever.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> A.O.L.

(what killed mapquest? netscape? ...)

</comment><comment><USER17> About 3 years ago, my 6-digit ICQ number got hijacked without any way of getting it back (I had created it with a geocities.com email address). That was when I stopped using it.

<comment><USER7> Funny. Maybe about two years ago, I could not login to my "first" ICQ account either. Never knew why that happened.

Also, none of my buddies complained about getting weird messages from that account. Was that the case with your account?

<comment><USER17> My friends has simply notified me that my account was hijacked, as I rarely actually logged in anymore. My friends said that they would IM my account, and get a response either in russian, or in very broken English, informing them that this is a russian now.

Upon which they called me to ask if I was pretending to be russian.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Mine was 299961. I still remember it despite having forgotten the password several lifetimes ago.

<comment><AUTHOR> So many people remember their ICQ number, it's frightening. Do they remember their phone number at that time?

<comment><USER19> I remember my number, but not any of my old phone numbers or addresses. Sometimes I forget my own birthday.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> All I remember is that one day, it was all ICQ and the next day, it was all MSN.

</comment><comment><USER20> I think it was mostly multi-protocol clients, which are not limited to one network, and products that one-upped IM like Skype or gTalk. Other than that, is ICQ more dead than MSN messenger or Yahoo's IM or AIM?

</comment><comment><USER21> ICQ is still very widely used among people in the internet porn business.

</comment><comment><USER22> I still log into both my AIM acct and my 6 digit ICQ acct. I have no friends on ICQ any more, but I refuse to let it go.

</comment><comment><USER23> Hi, this is my first post here. Couldn't resist it when people were rattling off their ICQ number. Mine's 1010378.

</comment><comment><USER24> \- Windows MSN Messenger \- Network effects \- Hesitation to adapt the product

</comment><comment><USER25> MSN Messenger pre-installed in Windows.

</comment><comment><USER26> The default audible keyboard...

<comment><AUTHOR> Now I remember... all the sounds were ON by default. The "oh-oh" everytime someone sent you a message... so agressing...

<comment><USER27> I'm totally going to set that as all the default windows sounds on my coworker's computer who used to be my ICQ contact years ago.

<comment><USER28> I made that my sound in Trillian too. Except, I had to edit it in audio editor Cooledit to compress it, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> 114248050

</comment><comment><USER30> their gawd-ugly homepage.</comment>


Combo Select: Convert select into searchable list - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/PebbleRoad/combo-select

<comment><USER2> What is difference with chosen and select2?

<comment><AUTHOR> Chosen and Select2 didnt match our need as we were looking for a different interaction.

1\. The whole select box needs to behave like an input field with a controlled list. 2\. Fully mobile/tablet compatible

The need grew from long date input selectbox. Year ranges start from 1900 - 2014 and we wanted a fast way of entering it.</comment></comment>


Is Fancy Mineral Water Any Better for You Than Tap Water? - <AUTHOR> https://www.insidehook.com/article/health-and-fitness/mineral-water-better-tap-water-analysis <comment><USER2> Depends on which minerals you fancy.</comment>


Cocoa for Scientists (XXXI): All Aboard Grand Central - <AUTHOR> http://www.macresearch.org/cocoa-scientists-xxxi-all-aboard-grand-central

<comment><USER2> Sexy.

<comment><USER3> Even more sexy when Larrabee arrives.</comment></comment>