Google workers discussed tweaking search after travel ban - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-workers-discussed-tweaking-search-function-to-counter-travel-ban-1537488472 <comment><USER2> This is an absurdly inaccurate headline. From the article:

> The email traffic, reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, shows that employees > proposed ways to "leverage" search functions and take steps to counter what > they considered to be "islamophobic, algorithmically biased results from > search terms 'Islam', 'Muslim', 'Iran', etc." and "prejudiced, > algorithmically biased search results from search terms 'Mexico', > 'Hispanic', 'Latino', etc."

So, employees saw that the existing algorithm was inappropriately prioritising prejudiced results, and discussed tweaking the algorithm accordingly. I don't see what's controversial about that, unless your understanding of Google is so basic that you really think results are calculated by a magic computer program in the sky. It's always been programmed by humans, within various parameters. It isn't objective and it never has been.

Now, is it worth discussing the enormous power Google has over people's perceptions as a result of their market dominance? Absolutely. But using a headline like that just plays into conspiracy theory.

<comment><USER3> The end result still remains: introducing bias.

<comment><USER2> Google is nothing but a collection of biases. Even in the early days, PageRank meant that Google was biased towards sites that get linked to more than others. That was a value judgement they made about what best served their customers. This is no different.

<comment><USER4> This is a dangerous general-purpose justification which allows mega- corporations to manipulate global information flow in any way they like.

Now Google leadership doesn't just get to be wealthy, they get to manipulate how everyone else sees the world, with no limits or accountability, because hey everything is biased right?

It may sound good because they agree with you on this particular issue.

But this justification applies to any other government or corporation who can manage to seize the reins of technological power. You're making a memetic weapon that, soon, will be turned against you.

No. Neutrality is a real thing and it should be upheld as a serious goal and principle. Especially when we're taking about a group with such insane amounts of unjustified and undemocratic control over other people. We need to do everything we can culturally to make that influence less unequal.

<comment><USER5> I think this is a weird view of how bias works. statistical models are imperfect models and are always going to have lots of bias or variance. We typically want to bias models using domain expertise or other external factors.

This is like being mad at a company for using L1 regularization

<comment><USER6> These are different uses of the word "bias". In the statistical sense there is an objectively true right answer and "bias" refers to the difference between a model's average answer and the average true answer. It has little to do with the lay use of the word to mean the application of an inappropriate subjective value judgement in a situation with no one true answer (unless you take an extremely anthropomorphic view of statistical formulas).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It's bad enough to foster an echo chamber to your personal biases, as is currently standard operating procedure. But to actively engage in hidden manipulation of public views strikes at the very heart of democracy. Democracy only works because of the wisdom of crowds [1], and the wisdom of crowds only works if each participant has independent knowledge. The more people rely upon a shared source of knowledge and truth, the less accurate their collective wisdom becomes.

Practically, this means that anyone with wide enough influence can directly affect democratic outcomes, which defeats the entire purpose, and the level of influence possible these days is unprecedented.

So regardless of what actually did or did not happen, the fact that a few companies ARE in a position to wield this kind of influential power should strike fear into the heart of every free citizen of every democratic nation.

[1] [https://www.amazon.com/Wisdom-Crowds-James- Surowiecki/dp/038...](https://www.amazon.com/Wisdom-Crowds-James- Surowiecki/dp/0385721706)

<comment><USER8> > to actively engage in hidden manipulation of public views strikes at the > very heart of democracy.

Indeed, Fox News, Britebart, and friends are terrifying.

<comment><USER9> Let's be honest, all media organizations are biased. Be it Fox News, Britebart, or CNN. Heck even r/politics is biased af.

<comment><USER10> /r/politics is a subforum on a news aggregator. While media organizations definitely buy upvotes, as of yet there's no actual evidence of Reddit itself artificially promoting/demoting content _within a subreddit_

(Tweaking the algorithm to get bot-propogated t_d content off the front page doesn't count, it's a different subforum)

Brietbart is an entirely different category than Fox news. It will publish straight up conspiracy theories with no evidence. I'm talking "moon landing didn't happen" level shit. It's an insult to tabloids, to call it a tabloids.

Fox News is so comically biased to compare it to CNN is dishonest. CNN has liberal bias, sure, but it doesnt sink to the level of claiming Hillary Clinton had Seth rich assassinated ([https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/may/23...](https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/may/23/newt- gingrich/claim-slain-dnc-staffer-seth-rich-gave-emails-wiki/)) or completely makes shit up about supreme court candidates whole-cloth ([https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/mar/18...](https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/mar/18/bill- oreilly/bill-oreilly-wrongly-says-merrick-garland-voted-ba/)).

Sure, they're gonna spend a lot of airtime on the "kavanaugh allegedly raped a girl in high school" story, or when the president says some messed up ish they're gonna go ahead and play that clip again and again, but that is a far cry from outright lying, which fox news does again and again, and which Breitbart does every breath.

<comment><USER11> Unfortunately this is a false assessment. CNN has been caught plenty of times lying about stories and making up news, many examples on Youtube can bear this out, as well as recent stories they've had to retract. I'm no fan of Fox News, but CNN's hands are not clean, they are in fact one of the worst offenders out there.

<comment><USER10> CNN doesn't lie at anywhere near the level fox news does. Please take a look at a hard comparison of the times both organizations have been caught lying.

[https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/fox/](https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/fox/)

[https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/cnn/](https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/cnn/)

<comment><USER12> I don't think this is proof that Fox lies more than CNN unless you can prove this is the comprehensive list of all statements made on both networks.

Read about the leftward movement of Politifact here : [https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/politifact/](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/politifact/)

This does not mean Politifact cannot be trusted, but it potentually makes analysis like yours less accurate

<comment><USER10> Ah, I disagree. You've engaged in blanket ad hominem against politifact without analysing the contents of the two articles themselves.

I believe this is proof that CNN lies less than Fox.

To convince me otherwise, you'd need to put the work in that politifact has done here, and compile your own list of statements, analyzed for truthfulness, from each organization.

My email is in my profile if you ever do this work. I'm happy to be convinced.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> How many employees does Google have?

What precisely are a few emails from employees supposed to show about the company? I mean, seriously WSJ. What if some employees sent around emails saying they approved of cannibalism, would people be like "Google is about to start eating humans!"

<comment><USER14> Imagine there was an email thread on how to dampen search results for Chinese ops in Tibet or Xinjiang because to many staff from China this was offensive, would that just be swept aside? Oh, just a few employees and it never went into production...

<comment><USER10> Wait, I thought Google will comply with Chinese censorship rules? Isn't that what "Phoenix" was all about?

<comment><USER14> That's different. That's about tailoring results to conform with Chinese authorities in order to operate in China.

My hypothetical example was random employees at the MTV campus emailing ideas to influence US SERPs to propagate their PoV on a political issue they have an interest in.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I get the impression that this was just chatter on some internal mailing list, not anything that was seriously considered by Google management. Aside from the meta-questions of "Who gave the WSJ these emails and why?" this seems like a non-story.

</comment><comment><USER16> I remember there was some news at the time about Googlers rallying against the Muslim ban, in part because it directly impacted a couple hundred Googlers:

[https://www.recode.net/2017/1/30/14446690/google-rallying- se...](https://www.recode.net/2017/1/30/14446690/google-rallying-sergey-brin- trump-immigration-ban)

[https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/williamalden/nearly-200...](https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/williamalden/nearly-200-google- employees-are-affected-by-trumps-immigrati)

<comment><USER10> Yea I don't find it surprising at all that any company with technical employees was opposed to the Muslim ban, I specifically remember a bunch of high profile cases of engineers stuck after making the "mistake" of visiting home.

H1b and other travel is still a mess. My old recruiter friends back in Texas are just about as conservative as possible but they're still pissed off about all the random executive orders surrounding immigration, it's making their jobs a lot harder.

<comment><USER17> I was travelling at the time of the ban. Thankfully I wasn't affected by it, but the laptop ban was even more boneheaded. No electronics larger than a cellphone. What does that even mean? Had to go thru another security check right at the gate. Everyone was annoyed, especially the airline staff. Got lucky because I had a check in and I heard about it beforehand. But what if I only had a carry on? My laptop would still be stuck in dubai.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Sounds like a couple employees wanted to add banner links to pro-immigration charities when someone searched for immigration-related terms, similar to donation links they add when a natural disaster hits. This is incredibly far from modifying the search algorithm.

Hard to even say what this means because WSJ is sitting on the actual email chain so they can editorialize it in any way they please.

</comment><comment><USER19> "Google has never manipulated its search results or modified any of its products to promote a particular political ideology." \-- "Our processes and policies would not have allowed for any manipulation of search results to promote political ideologies."

This is a carefully worded statement, because the fact is, Google does manipulate search results for its business purposes. I expect most companies to follow their corporate ethos and justify change as its expedient for their business. In Google's case, they may even feel a change is a moral imperative, without realizing how subjective that is. I think what people need to recognize is, that Google isn't above these problems, buyer beware.

</comment><comment><USER20> It's time to repeal Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Either internet companies can exert editorial control like this, or they can be free of the consequences of the libel, criminal threats, and intellectual property crimes they are party to. But not both.

<comment><USER21> Note that they didn't exert any control. It was discussed between colleagues. The email chain contained many warnings not to do this. Ultimately nothing came of it.

<comment><USER22> Is that considered conspiracy?

<comment><USER21> No. Why would it be? At an absolute minimum conspiracy requires some agreement. Which they didn't have here. This also seems to have been an open discussion so there was no secrecy amongst those who did agree.

<comment><USER22> IANAL, according to Section 1(1) in [1] for UK, the threshold is for two persons to agree to have the law applied to them. It doesn't require all to agree. And from 1(1)(b), it's not necessarily for the conspired act to be carried out under some circumstance.

For U.S. [2], the threshold for conspiracy against the U.S. government is similar or lower. Item (2) "they interfere or obstruct legitimate Government activity" sounds a lot like what the Google employees were doing.

[1] [https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1977/45/section/1](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1977/45/section/1)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_against_the_United_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_against_the_United_States)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Hmmm, a banner with a call to action does not seem out of the question on issues like this, tweaking the results not so much.

<comment><USER24> Where does one have a guarantee against unbiased internet search results?

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I see a lot of coordinated attacks against Google right before the elections.

</comment><comment><USER26> "Prejudice" and "Hate Speech" are necessarily subject to interpretation. Whoever gets to decide what is and isn't prejudice will necessarily inject their personal biases, political or otherwise, into the decision. Recognition of this during the Enlightenment fueled the political philosophy behind the First Amendment in the American Constitution.

It is a dangerous day when a monopolistic corporation like Google can casually insert their own biases into search results, because they feel they know best.

Is Google a private company, and do private companies have the freedom to do what they want? Generally yes, but in the case of companies like Google that act as the gatekeepers of information to billions of people, the values of free speech AND free thought must supercede the the freedom of private Enterprise.

</comment><comment><USER27> Maybe it's time to have a _politically_ safe search. I'm not interested in racist results. If I want them I'm pretty sure I'll know how to find them.

</comment><comment><USER28> Only Google doesn't want to admit that the search results are rigged and/or biased...

</comment><comment><USER29> Paywalled, does someone have a copy?

<comment><USER30> Just prepend "outline.com/" to the URL: [https://outline.com/https://www.wsj.com/articles/google- work...](https://outline.com/https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-workers- discussed-tweaking-search-function-to-counter-travel-ban-1537488472)

(For now. Why does this work, anyway?)

<comment><USER31> +1 This is so funny "[https://outline.com/[url]"](https://outline.com/\[url\]")

I'm guessing outline.com has a subscription to WSJ, and can therefore share the content?

<comment><USER32> Ha, no that's not the reason.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Too bad they weren't able to follow through.

</comment><comment><USER34> Regardless of whether this is a true story or not, Google needs to be regulated. I firmly believe that now. What's stoppimg them from tweaking algorithms 2 days before an election? If I search Trump and see 80 women accusing him of sexual assault as the first thing popping up or his $3B net worth and great business deals is a huge difference in results. I know it's not that simple at all but just making a general point how much power that is.

One counter example, every atttempt at censorship and media bias works oppositely. Look at yahoo article content, tilts quite a bit left and the comments are significantly right wing. Makes them more distrustful of true news.</comment>


My app has 5 to 10K sign ups. When do I start looking for investors? - <AUTHOR>

How do I know when I need investor money? I'm waiting (what feels like forever) for the first company to finish test-running it before deploying to 19 grocery stores and more. <comment><USER2> Wait until you have customers who will pay for the app, so that you have ongoing revenue to sustain your project as a business. Spend some on marketing. Once you reach up-to a 5-digit figure in monthly revenue (MRR), then try to hire one (or few) dev/devop people so that you can focus on other important areas like business development, sales, product development, customer support etc.

Investment makes sense (and you'll get a much better deal from investors) when you have recurring revenue AND you have to grow fast to the next stage (e.g. from a small team of 2 to a team of 5-10, from a few servers to many, from a local office to globally, from self-serve online sales to face-to-face B2B/Enterprise sales for which you need sales people etc.)

In short, evolve organically and delay outside investment until absolutely necessary for rapid growth.

</comment><comment><USER3> Microsoft basically bootstrapped for a decade before taking investment. It was in the form of an IPO and made 12,000 current [at the time] and former employees millionaires. It made the two founders and Balmer billionaires. Gates became the richest person.

Maybe you don't need investor money. If you don't need it, you probably don't really want it. The purpose of a business is not to raise money from investors...well maybe if you're running a con, but that's another story.

</comment><comment><USER4> Take as little as possible, as late as possible. Money comes with a cost (in terms of equity %, interest and/or liquidation preferences).

I suggest you create a simple financial plan. In Excel or Google Sheets, put months along the top, and each line item of expense along the left. Do it on a cash flow basis (i.e. book revenue in the month when you will receive the payment, not when you make the sale).

You can then total up each column to see your net cash in or out in the given month.

Then think about what could make you need more cash. Need to hire some sales people? Possible delays getting paid by customers? Need to scale up infrastructure before the related revenue will come in?

If you want to do this 'properly', all of the numbers in the main body of the table will be formulae, driven by a small set of assumptions (start dates and salaries of key employees, starting # customers, customer acquisition rate, monthly churn %). Then you can play with these assumptions to find your pessimistic and optimistic cash flow scenarios. This will tell you how much cash you need and when, for the most-cash-hungry scenario.

Then work backwards based on how much time you think it will take you to raise money, and when you can afford to spend the effort to do that.

If it's the first time you're putting together a monthly budget or financial model, then start simple. Don't worry about highlighting every input cell in yellow. Just make sure the big numbers make sense. Make 2-3 copies of the sheet (one for each scenario) and adjust manually to something that looks reasonable to you.

</comment><comment><USER5> You'll probably need investors when you need the money to scale (more servers, employees etc). Or when investor money will get you significant growth (even when you don't need the money). My personal opinion is that you start looking for investors a month (how however long you think will take for you to get the money) before you deploying it to the rest of the grocery stores. This will ensure that you won't run into shortages of money when you are scaling up.

</comment><comment><USER6> Taking no investments is the best investment you can make in your business.

I would recommend bootstrapping as long as you can. Then take investment in the future only when you really need it to scale things up, bring on employees, roll out version 2 of your app.

The longer you wait the more likely you are to maintain a larger percentage of the business when you do take funding.

Good luck in 2015, sounds like things are going well.

</comment><comment><USER7> How quickly is it growing month over month? You want to convey predictable growth over a period of time if you want investor just by sign ups. A lot more to it but if signups are your primary indicator of traction, it's more about what the future holds.

</comment><comment><USER8> When you start generating revenue. You'll need to provide a business plan that correlates sign-ups to revenue generated and some credible extrapolation based upon your market growth to date.

</comment><comment><USER9> Care to share your app?

</comment><comment><USER10> why do you want investors ?</comment>


The Future of Meat Is Plant-Based Burgers - <AUTHOR> http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/culinary/Replacing-Meat-Plant-Based-Meats-Vegetarian.html <comment><USER2> Where I live, range cattle are everywhere. You go to the mountains and desert, just everywhere. Actually, we could raise a lot more here. What we can't raise easily is crops. There is too much rock in the ground, you can't plow without dynamite. Plus there is little water (that desert part). Pretty much every field with crops is irrigated -- constantly.

Yet, somehow, cows and sheep do just fine. Sometimes you have to bring in water, but that is NOTHING compared to what it takes to grow crops here.

I will also add one other item to the mix...don't call it burger. I will eat a vegetarian meal, it does not bother me at all. Just don't call it chicken or beef. In fact, don't try to be those things, just make good food without meat and I will eat it. But if you tell me it is beaf and it isn't, I WILL notice, and I won't be happy.

<comment><USER3> >But if you tell me it is beaf and it isn't, I WILL notice, and I won't be happy.

Seconding that. Also, I'm allergic to legumes but not real beef. So you could be putting me in danger by calling a legume patty a "burger" or "beaf".

<comment><USER4> Isn't "Beaf" supposed to be mash upbetween "Beef" and "Leaf" so you shouldn't expect "Beaf" to be "beef"

But a burger can be anything. Chicken burger, hamburger, pork burger, etc. So I wouldn't have a problem having a vegetarian burger. Since "burger" describes the delivery mechanism and not the contents.

But I do have a problem with things like "Chikin", "Beaf" and the like. Not because they are misleading, but because it is tacky. Just don't try to imitate real meat or at the very least make up a better description of the contents. "Legume burger" vs "Beaf burger". The deliberate misspellings of real food just make it "mystery meat". I've been looking at "veggie patties" on menus for years and still don't even know what the primary ingredient is. And that makes it harder for people to "trust".

People seem to blindly eat these patties and what not but it just seems really weird to me that you are eating unidentified goop of vegetables that they are trying to pass off as meat. I guess you could spend time looking it up, but eh.

We already have a problem where the majority of kids can't even connect that a chicken nugget comes out of a chicken. Calling it a "Legume burger" will seem kind of alien but in a few years it would help make the word "Legume" mainstream and familiar and everyone would be better off. I want to _easily_ identify what is in my food if we switch off of meat.

<comment><USER3> >Isn't "Beaf" supposed to be mash upbetween "Beef" and "Leaf" so you shouldn't expect "Beaf" to be "beef"

You can tell if you're reading the name, but not verbally. If I was at dinner party and someone asked me if I had tried the "Beaf," there's no way to know. Same with "Chik'n" or whatever it's called.

Naming products that way seems fairly irresponsible.

<comment><USER4> I'm sure in the context of the dinner party you would know ("hey did you try the beaf, hard to tell its vegetarian", or its a vegetarian dinner party, or usually at dinner parties there is ample notification for allergens if its catered or if it is home prepared, the host usually proudly tells everyone what he made).

Or in the context of giving an order you would know. No one is trying to pull a fast one on you. Granted non-english speakers would probably have a harder time figuring it out. Its a problem but not as big of one as you make out.

Rarely do you go into something completely blind and oblivious except for the punctuation of one word.

<comment><USER5> In my own personal experience with food sensitivities, it'll be the last thing that crosses their minds. It's not necessarily that the hosts in this case are intending to "pull a fast one" on a potentially allergic guest as much as they simply don't think of it. _Most_ people don't have food allergies, and unless you mention your own issues, it's not likely to come up in conversation because it's the absolute _last_ thing on their minds. This is especially true for rare and very uncommon allergies and sensitivities.

Now, granted, if you have such an allergy, it's important to make sure anyone preparing food for you is made aware--but in the context of this hypothetical dinner party, if someone is introducing a meat substitute, there's always the possibility that they're going to remain silent in order to gauge their guests' reactions. _That 's_ where the real danger is: Guest assumes meat is, in fact, meat; host wishes to see guest's reaction to meat substitute. In such circumstances, the guest isn't going to ask if it's made of a legume because he or she has already made the assumption that it's _meat_.

Alas, this illustrates that food sensitivities require those of us who suffer from them to remain vigilant.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> As a vegetarian, I'm looking forward to more products from Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods.

One of the criticisms people have is: it doesn't taste like real meat. To that, I'll say: tastes change. Sure, you (presumably of European descent) and your ancestors have been eating meat for 1000 years; but look at the spread of Indian/Chinese/Mexican places; your ancestors never had those foods! Heck, "chicken tikka" was voted as the 'national dish' of Britain, when a 100 years ago hardly anyone had heard of it!

More people would be vegetarian if restaurants had it as a decent option. Hopefully, these new products will encourage restaurants to expand their veggie menus.

<comment><USER7> I'm not sure what kind of strawman you are using as an argument here.

People complain it doesn't taste like meat because they like the taste of meat, and your answer for those people is saying that since some people like some things they never tasted before, _that_ specific food will grow on them?

How did you get from A to B?

(Edit: And obviously I have nothing against vegetarianism. I just don't like your argument here...)

Edit 2: Really with downvotes now? This logic is acceptable to you?

<comment><USER8> Tastes are very malleable.

Among people who have gone without meat products for a while, who then taste meat products, either accidentally or on purpose, it is common to be disgusted by the taste, and find it in no way resembles the one they remember.

I've had the same phenomenon related to me by people who radically alter their diet in other ways, such as body builders.

So, ultimately, clinging to meat 'because you prefer the taste' is more about avoiding temporary discomfort, rather than permanent dissatisfaction. Though, of course, it doesn't appear that way until after the fact.

<comment><USER7> I'm a huge Linux enthusiast.

Have you ever tried to put Linux on someone else's computer? Tell them that it's just _so much better_ than Windows, and that they can _do everything they currently do with it_ and that they _won 't even notice the difference!_?

Then you'd be a very dishonest person. Linux is not a drop-in replacement for Windows.

It is far superior, there's no contest there. And in my life, with my skills, I can use my linux systems to do all the things people do with windows, most often more efficiently. But never would I market Linux as a drop-in replacement because then, when I do drop it in, people would tell me they don't like it _because it doesn 't feel like Windows_.

Are you seeing the analogy yet? Let me help you...

I installed Linux on my mom's laptop. I told her it would be very different but that I'm sure she could adapt, and that I'd be able to help her if she runs into trouble. She never had problems with it and only ever needed my help to print things.

By contrast, had I told her it would "all be the same", she'd have been very upset, right?

So why are people trying to get meat-lovers to eat "veggie meat" by telling them it's a replacement for it? Here, just yesterday, in the "What to eat after the apocalypse?" article:

> "You would never know the difference between say, a sausage patty, a veggie > sausage patty, and an insect sausage patty. It's all the same! It's just the > spices."

WTF? Yes, I can taste the difference. Something is wrong with _your_ senses if you can't. That's not to say I _dislike_ the taste, but that you won't get people to eat these things by telling them "close your eyes, pinch your nose, and just imagine you're eating caviar".

I'm finding it very hard to explain my point further. It boggles my mind that people try to sell this stuff by ... lying.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The part about E.Coli in burger reminds me of a very unfortunate state of affair. I like my burgers rare, they just taste much better this way. I eat them that way because at my age (32) the risk isn't too great.

There is a way to make ground beef extremely safe for consumption, without cooking it to oblivion (a.k.a FDA guidelines). That technique is irradiation. Unfortunately, people are very squeamish about the idea of having their meat irradiated, and mandatory labeling laws mean that it's very hard to find irradiated meat.

As a result, people get into the habit of eating overcooked burgers, which further reduces the potential demand for irradiated meat, etc. Shame :(

<comment><USER10> Find a local farmer whose meat handling you trust to reduce the likelihood of contamination.

Otherwise, get a steak, wipe it with an ammonia solution, rinse it, and grind it up yourself. The E.Coli, if it exists, is going to be on the outside of the steak; the ammonia wash will kill the vast majority of it, and you get the benefit of fresher hamburger.

Alternatively, freeze your steak by dipping it in liquid nitrogen. A normal freezer isn't sufficient to kill E.Coli, but a liquid nitrogen dip will do the job. :)

<comment><USER11> Amonia has a _very_ strong & bad smell though? Even if you wash off 99.9% it will still smell bad.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> It's a shame to see the conversation here bypassing the real issue, which isn't taste, technological wow-factor, production efficiency, environmentalism, or entrepreneur chic. The real issue is animal welfare.

Remember, every time you eat meat, you are actually eating the body of a former living creature, equipped with eyes, ears, a nose, a tongue, and a complex nervous system capable of integrating its sensations, of feeling pain, fear, and depression. Rememeber, you have no way of guaranteeing (and in fact can actually be almost always certain) that this animal's life wasn't short, miserable, and didn't culminate with an utterly barbaric episode of fear and torture - and then rapid, mechanical dissembly into anonymous pieces, shipped off to your local supermarket or burger shop, its brutal, dirty provenance hidden by a facde of bright and happy advertising. Remember, every time you eat eggs, eat dairy or buy leather, you are participating and endorsing the same thing: industrial scale mistreatment and torture of animals.

Watch the video linked in the article ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRS- kzgoRq0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRS-kzgoRq0)) and remember, if you live in the US, the USDA is a captured regulator, completely toothless to prevent animal torture in slaughterhouses - in fact it simply assists in declaring whatever practices the food industry wants to use as humane. Remember, the majority of states are busy passing laws to make it illegal to film undercover videos in CAFOs and abattoirs, so no one can see what is actually going on (because if people did really see it and really understood they would be disgusted to their core.)

If you live in any other country in the world, the situation is either much worse, or a little, but not much, better.

If you believe that humans should live compassionately and avoid inflicting unnecessary suffering on other feeling, emotional creatures, then go vegan. Not vegetarian, vegan. Don't wait - do it today, not tomorrow. It's the only way that a person can look themselves in the mirror and be truly proud of what they see.

<comment><USER13> This is one of the best comments I've read on HN. While I strongly agree with you, it's important to remember that even in what seem like brain-dead obvious cases, morality won't always be enough of a motivator to change people. What makes research and development like this important and exciting to me is that I believe it's the only way the world will ever really change on this issue. Convincing the entirety of the world that animal welfare is reason enough to go vegan is simply not going to happen. In the end, not eating meat needs to be 1) equal to or more satisfying than eating meat 2) equal or cheaper in cost 3) equal or more convenient.

<comment><USER12> Thanks for the positive feedback! For your other points, it's useful to draw a comparison with slavery here I think.

1) Our stable, successfully post-slavery world (which I would argue ours largely is) isn't a world where everyone plays slavery-reenactment videogames and has slave dolls while secretly wishing they could still own the real thing. It's a world where people overwhelmingly concur that slavery was a reprehensible practice, where people are happy that slavery is no longer mainstream, and where the wish to hold slaves is a tawdry, extremely minority desire held only in absolute secret.

Similarly, a stable, successful post-animal cruelty world isn't a world where everyone eats mock meat and secretly wishes they could still eat the real thing. It's a world where people overwhelmingly realise that eating meat was actually always a disgusting, barbaric practice, that lead to countless inhumanity and injustice, and where people are glad that humanity has outgrown it.

2) The abolition of slavery was achieved because a vocal minority of people who cared pushed for it - not because they took the easy, meek route and tried to design slave-replacing mimics - "So servile you won't even notice the difference! Just as beatable but he'll never try and run away!" Similarly, for progress on meat to occur, people need to be supported, encouraged, and pushed to realise when they are behaving badly. That includes pointing out that in encouraging convincing substitutes for barbaric products, you implicitly condone the normative value of consuming that product in the first place, and you don't push people to feel disgust at the idea of even eating animal body parts.

3) Fake meat burgers are to meat-eating what methadone is to heroin. An uncomfortable, temporary fix, undoubtedly necessary, but not admirable or desirable in the long or even mid-term.

People are capable of trying to achieve something because it is right, not because it is easy or more convenient. Pushing people to realise that their behaviour is wrong and needs to change is always going to be harder than saying "hey, just eat this burger, it'll satisfy your need to eat cooked dead bodies, but avoid all those nasty side-effects" \- but it's much, much more effective and important. And it does work, even if slowly. I turned vegan because I came across people speaking passionately for its necessity, and I hope everyone who believes in it as much I do has the courage to push equally as hard, even though it is always tempting to make concessions.

Edit: I'd also just like to say that living vegan is honestly not that hard. It's actually very fulfilling because you know that even as you're doing the right thing, you're also making it easier for others to do the right thing too, and as more people turn vegan, it becomes easier and easier for everyone. A nice positive feedback cycle.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I grew up hearing that a chicken nugget was filled with a lot of stuff you wouldn't expect it to be filled with. After seeing the 'pink slime' video, I often wonder why fast food chains wouldn't just use plant-based alternatives. Surely growing plants is cheaper than raising livestock. And if it's not, than it's at an enormous moral cost in how we treat our livestock.

At minimum, it's _crazy_ to me that McDonald's does not have a veggie burger on the menu. Why?

<comment><USER15> I would guess because the veggie burger market is basically nothing and McDonald's does not want the conversation to become "Is McDonald's going healthy?" before they are 100% invested into those new marketing avenues. The reality is the whole "fast food chains going healthy" hype has died down almost completely and those succeeding in fast food now are the gourmet fast food shops that focus on delivering quality food (but definitely not healthy).

IMO McDonalds have excelled when it comes to Coffee and marketing the McCafe brand and I don't doubt they could do the same thing with "healthy food choices" I just think the hype around healthy fast food has died for now and McDonalds is not willing to push it until the public demands it again.

<comment><USER7> Veggie Burgers are an option at virtually every fast food (including mcdonalds) here in europe -- or at least in France, the UK, Germany, Sweden and Spain; I don't know about any other country.

<comment><USER16> Also common in India.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I tried the product mentioned here "Beyond Meat". The texture was perfect. The taste was terrible - worse even than vegetarian meat alternatives (that don't have the right texture, but at least taste good).

I only tried it once.

I see they have some new products now, maybe I'll try those.

<comment><USER18> I've had Beyond Meat chicken. The texture is close but not nearly as close as the article makes it out to be. Some of the flavors are good up front, but sometimes it tastes like something close to playdough.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> No, the future of meat is... more meat.

Really, the Saul Alinsky-style, revolution talk and identity politics are simply not needed when you are making an alternative to a product.

</comment><comment><USER20> Reading this article made me think of Terry Bisson's "They're Made Out of Meat", particularly apropos the conversation earlier today about the Fermi Paradox.

[http://www.terrybisson.com/page6/page6.html](http://www.terrybisson.com/page6/page6.html)

</comment><comment><USER21> Rather than focus on 100% plant based burgers I think we could go a long way by replacing say 10% of the meat with plants and working your way up. The goal being a small enough change that you don't notice a difference.

<comment><USER22> You can change a nation's diet abruptly too. Young folks buy and eat whatever is convenient and cheap. They don't care that its different; they know no different.

<comment><USER23> I was going to mention that Taco Bell already does this...

<comment><USER18> It's been awhile but their alleged fillers probably make it healthier than it would be otherwise.

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/25/taco-bell-beef- laws...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/25/taco-bell-beef- lawsuit_n_813185.html)

<comment><USER22> My Mom's meatloaf also has other ingredients than beef. It's called 'cooking'.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> My girlfriend is vegetarian and she swears by Quorn. She had me convinced when I tried their [Quorn Roast]([http://www.quorn.us/products/44/turky- roast](http://www.quorn.us/products/44/turky-roast)). I wouldn't say its on par with real meat texture, but hell of a lot better than other veggie products.

<comment><USER18> I've had a couple Chik'n products and the beef crumble from Quorn and so far it's been the best substitute as far as flavor/texture combination. Making spaghetti with meat sauce was actually a little hard to tell the difference. I think the only turn off is that it barely seems to be made out of food.

<comment><USER11> Quorn tastes pretty good, though in my opinion it's over flavored and it doesn't taste like meat and doesn't have the texture of meat either. I'm sure most people would be able to taste the difference in a spaghetti bolognese. The thing is though, it doesn't have to be like meat, it just needs to taste good and have good texture.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> What kind of impact would fully switching to this kind of meat would have on hypertrophy?

<comment><USER8> There's evidence that a vegan diet increases testosterone, by providing more of the precursors.

There's actual proof that it can make no difference either way in terms of protein quality.

<comment><USER26> The statement "there's evidence that a vegan diet increases testosterone, by providing more of the precursors" could use one, or better, two, supporting citations: one, to the evidence that a vegan diet increases testosterone, and two, to the evidence that consumption of precursors is sufficient to cause increases of the desired substance (and particularly in the case of testosterone). I'm aware of at least some dispute about the effectiveness of increasing consumption of precursors.

I don't have any emotional attachment to eating meat, and have eaten raw vegan and vegetarian diets before (and found most vegetarian dishes to be tastier than meat-based ones). One of the reasons I don't go in for any special diets anymore is that the health assertions in support of them often end up falling short of supporting evidence.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Why not just skip burgers? There's no way this can be healthier or more delicious than fresh vegetables.

<comment><USER28> As far as I know, people can't synthesise the needed amino-acids just from plants, but can from this products. So it is more healthy.

<comment><USER29> Being vegan makes it a bit of a challenge to get enough of the right sort of vitamins but it certainly is possible. And if you're willing to consume dairy it's actually pretty easy. You can't quite survive on milk and potatoes alone but it's close.

<comment><USER16> I'm not a nutritionist, so take this with a grain of salt (pun intended :) - just adding my 2c about what I've read:

I've read that vegetarian food (with the right combination of veg. items) can supply all the nutrients that humans need, except for vitamin B12. For B12 you need dairy or meat products, IIRC.

About amino acids and a vegetarian diet: I had read long ago in a book about nutrition, that diets like the staple Indian diet of cereals and pulses (and vegetables too, of course) can supply all the needed amino acids, if the ratio is around 3:1 for cereal:pulse (where pulse == legume (seeds), like dals / beans / lentils / chickpeas / etc.). And that ratio is roughly what people use when eating rice with dal, or rotis/chapatis with dal, for example. This works because the cereals and pulses are both deficient in certain amino acids that humans need, but different ones, so combining them works to give enough of all of them, in the right proportions.

Coincidentally, just today I was reading up on Chinese cuisine, and one link led to another and I looked up Legume in Google and then in Wikipedia:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legume](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legume)

See under the section Nutrition Facts on that page. Interestingly, the article also says that that theory of protein combining - [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_combining](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_combining) \- is now out of favor, but still says that that ratio works, and gives examples of people in India and other countries eating foods that give that combo - e.g. "Mexican beans with corn tortillas, and the Middle Eastern Hummus (Chickpea spread commonly served with Pita bread) and Mujaddara (A dish consisting mainly of rice and lentils).[7]"

In this connection, the story of Alain Bombard, which I read as a kid, is interesting too - he sailed across the Atlantic in a small boat, with no provisions, catching fish and plankton to survive. I think I read that he researched nutrition needs and decided to get plankton too, because meat / fish do not contain Vitamin C.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_Bombard](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_Bombard)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I had the worst burger I've ever had about a month ago... It was a delivery place via grubhub and was only up a couple of weeks... I'm fairly certain it was at least part vegetable protein, and was horrible. "Garden Burgers" are way better than what this was.

I don't know if it was genuine or a sad experiment... beef wasn't actually mentioned anywhere so I don't know. The texture was weird and the taste was way off.

\---

edit: Wow, voted down because I had a bad veggie burger experience? For the record, here it is..

[https://www.grubhub.com/phoenix/chef-efes- burgers/](https://www.grubhub.com/phoenix/chef-efes-burgers/)

<comment><USER30> You probably got downvoted because "I once had a yucky burger" really isn't all that relevant to the discussion.

<comment><USER23> I'm pretty sure it was a TVP meatloaf/burger... that it was veggie and the worst I'd ever had, thought it may be relevant... or at least a comment on taste.

I know that they can be better, but sometimes people will attribute better taste to something by its' nature, not that it actually tastes better.

<comment><USER31> Nope, still not relevant.

I'm a vegetarian, quite a fan of Beyond Meat's "chicken" strips, and very much looking forward to trying a Beast Burger. I've had some shit veggie burgers, too, but if Beyond Meat can do with "beef" anything like what they've done with "chicken", this won't be among them.

<comment><USER32> How do you prepare the Beyond Meat Chicken Strips? I've tried them a few times and (as I mentioned above in another comment) the flavor seemed too strong, like they were trying to cover something up. I've been veg for a while so I'm always looking out for new alternatives, and this company intrigues me.

<comment><USER31> I usually stir-fry them, though granted often with things that tend to have strong-ish flavors of their own (green onion, garlic, asparagus, miso paste, and cayenne are regulars in my Beyond Meat stir-fry). I think they got the flavor less right than they did the texture, but texture seems to be the bigger source of complaint meat eaters have regarding meat substitutes (and rightly so, IMO).</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Latvia resists US call to extradite 'virus maker' - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23546186

<comment><USER2> _In a message posted to the website of Latvia 's Foreign Ministry, minister Edgars Rinkevics said Latvian law guaranteed that people who broke the law suffered only "proportionate punishment"._

 _Mr Rinkevics said the US sought a jail term for Mr Calovskis that exceeded 60 years._

 _" In my view, such a penalty is disproportionate to the amount, and so far no-one has been able to conclusively dispel my fears that it might be otherwise," he said._

Sanity and a spine from a politician ... now that is surprising. And refreshing. Also with US max sentences gone berserk it could be seen as a human rights issue.

<comment><USER3> It's nice to see US way too long max sentences backfire a bit.</comment></comment>


AP Doesn't Know Its Protection Tech Doesn't Protect | Epicenter | Wired.com - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/07/ap-doesnt-know-its-protection-tech-doesnt-protect/ <comment><USER2> "DMCA".

Much as I'd like to just leave it there: Step 2 of this plan would be to sue people for circumvention. The DMCA contains a clause that copy protection must be "effective", but "effective" is not itself defined. This could go either way, although personally I'd argue the people "penetrating" the DRM would be the online newspapers that publish the articles in HTML without being protected, rather than the readers, since that is the point where the DRM is actually getting stripped off, not by the users copying and pasting.</comment>


The Sports Startup Being Sued for Nearly $500,000 by Its Former Employees - <AUTHOR> https://sports.vice.com/article/sport195-lawsuit-backpay-lost-wages

<comment><USER2> _" After not being paid for almost two months, one employee pushed him on details about the bridge loan holdup..."_

Hard to imagine why an employee would work for two months without getting a paycheck. A company missing payroll is generally a sign that its finances are so screwed up that they're not likely to recover. (Any responsible company would lay off employees that it couldn't afford to pay.) When that first paycheck fails to arrive, it's time to walk out the door and start looking for a new job (and file a wage theft complaint for the last unpaid paycheck).

<comment><USER3> Further down the article talks about some of the employees staying on for the health insurance...

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This part:

"The checks that did clear were thanks to the small fortune Petty made co- founding Roo Group, a video distribution firm."

Stood out for me and set the tone for the rest of the piece. Investors love to believe that success breeds success, but are there indicators for lightning striking versus a sustained success?</comment>


Malaria vaccine gets 'green light' - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-33641939

<comment><USER2> Progress, perhaps. I really, really hope this doesn't end up having the unintended consequence of people coming to believe (consciously or unconsciously) that bed nets are no longer required. Maybe we should wait until we have something more effective. Does anyone know: are malaria vaccines not interesting for drug companies because there's no money in them?

<comment><USER3> > are malaria vaccines not interesting for drug companies because there's no > money in them

Considering the nature of market economies and how the wealth is distributed in the world, it is not particularly surprising that most most medical research is aiming to cure ailments that affect white western men.

This is why the huge commitment from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is such a huge boon. We see progress in the fight against malaria in the developing world for the first time in many decades.

<comment><USER4> I agree with melling's comment here, and I wanted to add that malaria has been a difficult disease. Attempts to create a vaccine for it have been going on for decades. It is a disease caused by a parasite, not a virus nor a bacteria. No other parasitic disease has ever had a successful vaccine created for it.

Malaria lingers in infected people for their entire lives with periodic disabling relapses. The malaria antigens, that trigger the antibody response, are extremely variable and allow the malaria parasites to evade the body's immune system. It is surprising to me that any vaccine can be developed which is effective against it.

<comment><USER5> I was researching stuff for another post I was going to make (didn't end up making it), but I think it's worth adding an caveat to your point re parasitic vaccines, namely that we do have anti-parasitic vaccines for livestock [0]. This is not an attempt to down play the general difficulty of anti-parasitic vaccines in general, or of malaria especially. My understanding is that malaria is sufficiently nasty that even repeated childhood exposure typically only grants partial immunity - as opposed to say some other nasty like smallpox or measles which grants much fuller acquired immunity.

[0] [http://www.oie.int/doc/ged/d4014.pdf](http://www.oie.int/doc/ged/d4014.pdf)

<comment><USER4> Oh, you're right. Thanks for the correction.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I was excited then read this:

"A bed net is more effective than this vaccine, but nonetheless it is a very significant scientific achievement... "

Seems like like I will still be taking that damned medicine when I visit materia regions.

<comment><USER7> Twist: you are actually visiting the region and you're currently dreaming vividly.

<comment><USER7> (for those who do not get it, a side effect of many Malaria medications are extremely vivid and realistic dreams)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Why not sales to travelers? Is there no extra productive capacity or is it because the not for profit statement?

<comment><USER9> I can't say any of this for certain, and I have no qualifications to back it up, but I would assume that any or all of the following may apply:

1) Cost - if a you only visit an area with a risk of malaria for two weeks every year (which is far more often than most holiday makers), then taking a short course of pills that cost pennies a dose will be cheaper than receiving a vaccine that requires three doses and a booster.

2) Malaria strains - if you've been to multiple places in the world with malaria risk, you may have been given different medication. The first time I went to Cambodia/Vietnam I was given Larium, but the most recent time I took Doxycycline because the NHS no longer recommends Larium for the region. For Iran they recommended Cloroquine, which was significantly cheaper. This vaccine may only fight one strain, leaving you to have to take pills for other destinations anyway.

3) Effectiveness in adults - The article suggests that the vaccine was most effective in children within a given age range, so it may be the case that it simple doesn't work on adults. I have no idea if this is likely or even possible, but it certainly seems plausible to me.

I don't know anything about fighting malaria, but it looks to me like they are giving these vaccines to children to get them through the time when they are most vulnerable, rather than giving them lifelong protection.

<comment><USER10> I don't think (1) really applies. It sounds like the vaccine is very cheap ($20) and you simply don't take the boosters if you're not returning. At that price, the significant side-effects of most antimalarials are more important considerations.

<comment><USER9> I think you make a valid point, although I was able to acquire a course of Chloroquine to cover me for a couple of months at one week's notice, for <£10, whereas the vaccine would need two months for the three initial doses. So maybe it's a practicality argument that I'm making, rather than a financial one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Sounds awesome. Malaria seems like it has the capacity to really ruin someone's life.

<comment><USER12> > Malaria seems like it has the capacity to really ruin someone's life.

I contracted a unknown variant of malaria when I was a kid. It really wasn't a pleasant experience. There's sickness; then on a _completely_ different level there's malaria.

It won't ruin your life - if you survive you'll be left as healthy as you were before. However, that's _IF_ you survive.

<comment><USER13> It can leave you slightly more stupid, though: [http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....](http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0124005), [http://www.malariajournal.com/content/9/1/366](http://www.malariajournal.com/content/9/1/366), [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167629612...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167629612000896)

<comment><USER12> > It can leave you slightly more stupid, though

That explains a lot ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> "Malaria kills around 584,000 people a year worldwide..."

Consider that's more _per year_ than the number of people the United States lost during _all_ of World War II.

"...most of them children under five in sub-Saharan Africa."

Ugh, that's a gut punch.

I have this image of young children storming the beaches of Normandy and how we celebrate as a country when the madness was finally over & our children were no longer being slaughtered.

Science is truly awesome.</comment>


Fairchild Datasheet  - <AUTHOR> http://datasheet.emcelettronica.com/fairchild <comment><AUTHOR> Fairchild Semiconductors is the most important global supplier of power, power discrete and optoelectronics components.</comment>


Python vs Haskell : An unsatisfying exercise in comparative code linguistics - <AUTHOR> http://sandersn.com/blog//index.php/2010/01/05/python-vs-haskell-an-unsatisfying-exerci

<comment><USER2> Adding type constraint checks to dynamic languages is not "horrifying". It's merely using the language to extend the language; where you want type checks, you can have type checks.

<comment><USER3> It's pretty horrifying from a performance perspective.

<comment><USER2> It's pretty nice from a correctness perspective. If you cared about performance, you would not be using Python (or Ruby, or Perl).

<comment><USER4> If you cared about type constraints you would not be using Python (or Ruby, or Perl).

<comment><USER5> Far more interesting (IMO), would be a constrains based library based on predicates (iterable, hashable, arithmatic-able?)

<comment><USER4> In ruby you can ensure this by calling responds_to?(:method).

So for example to see if some object is iterable, you just check if it responds to each.

       obj.responds_to?(:each)

<comment><USER2> That doesn't guarantee that "each" is actually the right "each".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This was interesting to me. I'm learning Haskell right now, after using Python as my main prototyping / glue / tools language (I get paid to write in C++ and Objective-C).

The horrifyingly broken performance of the Python Global Interpreter Lock (GIL) on multi-core has me looking for an alternative for performance- sensitive higher-level code.

Typically I experiment with a new higher-level language, and then fall back on "I'll meta-program in the high-level language, and emit portable C code." Sigh.</comment>


Psychedelic Update - <AUTHOR> https://tinyletter.com/psychedelic-update <comment><AUTHOR> I've been writing this newsletter about psychedelics & psychedelia for about the last year. Recently have been looking to grow the audience a bit while staying in integrity. Thought it might be interesting to HN!

Here's an attempt at describing the motivation:

1\. Reintegrating psychedelics into our culture is a big deal

1a. Psychedelics can help us surface shadowed material, help us work with trauma & old patterns that are no longer serving us, help us become more trustworthy / cooperative / compassionate / less zero-sum

1b. Flow-through effects from doing this right could be huge; there's massive upside here

2\. We don't really know how to do this reintegration, very much figuring it out as we go

3\. I write to explore this, both trying to understanding the mechanisms of action better and to figure out which models are working as psychedelics come more & more into the mainstream

<comment><AUTHOR> And here's an essay that makes this same argument with a lot more detail: [https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/zwno3Gxb8p6DmfadP/...](https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/zwno3Gxb8p6DmfadP/cash- prizes-for-the-best-arguments-against-psychedelics)</comment></comment>


Senators to Debate Patent Bill - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/business/28patent.html

<comment><USER2> I'm not generally a negative person but given recent circumstances, I've got to ask _"Is this how it goes now?! Does every meaningful reform get hijacked by special interests so that instead of fixing the suck, we get more of what made us need reform in the first place? Seriously?!"_

Sorry for that rant, it just seems so damn frustrating what with the health- care debacle and now this.

<comment><USER3> "Is this how it goes now?! Does every meaningful reform get hijacked by special interests so that instead of fixing the suck, we get more of what made us need reform in the first place? Seriously?!"

Yes, thanks to basic economic incentives. You'd think we would start to figure this pattern out eventually, but nope, we just keep asking for new programs and committees and regulations and laws and create juicy target after juicy target and then we're _shocked_ when corporations and politicians join forces to pick them off one by one.

Even if we go for something like national healthcare due to pragmatism and expediency, we should do so with the full knowledge that the best we can get out of it is a corporate crony controlled nation healthcare system--it may be significantly better than what we have, but it will still be sucky and corrupt because we aren't going to make structural progress until we face the structural flaws, both in our particular model of government and in government as an institution.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> ""The current system is just bizarre," he said of the first-to-invent rule. "Imagine parking your car in a metered space, then someone else comes up and says they had priority for that space and they have your car towed. Under the new system, if you are the first to pull in and pay your fee, you can park there and no one else can claim it's their space." "

Wow. What a horrible analogy. Completely off base.

This bill is very radical, but there has been a call for reform for some time. I think this is the wrong way to go. The first person to reduce an idea to practice should still be the first person to get a patent. Making a mad dash to file @ the USPTO shouldn't be the way you decide who gets the rights to an _idea_. The decision should turn on who came up with that idea first.

My 2 cents.

<comment><USER5> But if multiple people (or groups) actually come up with it around the same time, shouldn't that demonstrate rather clearly that it's too obvious to go handing out a monopoly on?

<comment><USER6> I wish more people would remember that a patent is supposed to be compensation for publishing, because that's supposed to be a win for society over having an invention live and die as a trade secret. But there is no market force ensuring the price of licensing a patent is less than the cost of having each competitor in the industry independently re-create the invention. Too often it's just rent-seeking on the straightforward solution any skilled practitioner would have reached, once they got around to considering the problem.

<comment><USER4> How is it compensation for publishing? Publishing what? you mean the actual patent?

<comment><USER6> Yeah, the patent itself is _quid pro quo_ , not just a windfall for the patentee. That's why it (theoretically) has to describe the best mode for practicing the invention, in enough detail that anyone skilled in the art can understand and use it. It's also why prior art only counts if it was published somewhere.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> If you thought our patent system couldn't get any worse especially when it comes to software patents, we get this...

The wrong kind of reform. As the article indicates, it's clear that it makes a deeply flawed system in favor of large companies and patent trolls even more so.

<comment><USER8> I am concerned that this will give large companies with experience filing patents a big advantage over small businesses and independent inventors, but naively this seems like it _suppresses_ patent trolling. Right now, if A invents an idea before B, A can wait until B files the patent, develops a product, and then A can file. Since A invented before, he trumps B's patent, and now can extort money from B (since B has invested in product development which is dependent on the patent). In a first-to-file scheme, patent-holders can be confident that their intellectual property won't be taken.

<comment><USER2> The real question is this in "first to file": How does this affect so called intellectual "property" entering the public domain by choice of the inventor?

If inventor A invents something useful and foundational and open-sources it because he feels it benefits all mankind, can some greedy turd patent it later and yank it back out of the public domain because he was "first to file"?

Currently all I have to do is invent the thing and publish it and it becomes prior art, no need to file anything because I'm first to invent and I proved it by publishing. Under this new system do I have to file first and pay for it before I can declare it public domain?

<comment><USER9> I doubt the prior art requirements would change. Today, you can't (in theory) get a patent if prior art exists. If Inventor A open sources the invention, prior art is pretty easy to prove.

The bigger issue is that, unless the patent office happens to notice Inventor A's work while process the patent, which, of course, is no different than it is today.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> There's actually a whole lot more to this patent reform bill than the article lets on. Here is an article listing the proposals:

[http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2011/02/patent-reform-act- of...](http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2011/02/patent-reform-act-of-2011-an- overview.html)

I'm particularly interested in the new third-party challenge procedures, which would let people submit arguments during patent examination and then oppose patents on any grounds after they issue (for example, you could contest the patent at the Patent Office for being vague; right now you can only do that in court).

<comment><USER4> Yes, that is also huge. Overall I am so disappointed with this attempt that will likely become law.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> If the bill was just what the Times is portraying it to be, it does sound terrible. However, the poorly-written article seems to grossly misrepresent the bill in favor of a scare story. Reading the bill summary and Patently-O's run-down, there are some points of concern, but in general it looks like a net positive. Simplified and enhanced third-party prior art and review procedures sound like a huge win.

Bill summary here: <http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-23>

</comment><comment><USER12> vote up if you want to live in a world with no patents whatsoever.

<comment><USER13> Oh, is that how we're setting policy now?

<comment><USER14> You mean, by voting and manifesting support or opposition to bill proposals?</comment></comment></comment>


Why Groupon is not in Australia (domain squatter) - <AUTHOR> http://www.groupon.com/blog/cities/why-groupon-isnt-in-australia/ <comment><USER2> Karma?

From Andrew's Mixergy interview, <http://mixergy.com/andrew-mason-groupon- interview/> -

Talking in regards to the original British owner of Groupon: "...We're doing something somewhat similar to that in the United States, so, maybe we can work together on this. We can take this to Europe.' He said, 'No way.' We said, 'Okay. 'We continued operating. Then we had a trademark for Groupon. That trademark extended to England. We contact him and say, 'Hey, you can launch that thing, but you can't use the name Groupon because we have a trademark on it.' So then, he decided he wanted to sell. I think we bought it in May 2009 or something like that for maybe $250,000, which seemed like a lot at the time and now it seems cheap."

</comment><comment><USER3> I wonder why they think a local domain is necessary for their business (and is it really). For example, Facebook doesn't use local domains - it uses .com for everything.

<comment><USER4> It's probably more about the trademark than the domain. The other company _applied for the Groupon trademark_ as well, so trading under that name until the trademark dispute is settled could be quite problematic and using a different name wouldn't be able to leverage the Groupon brand.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I don't have a side to take in this, but I think it should be pointed out that scoopon have a real business that's been going some time and seems to be reasonably profitable.

The name thing seems a bit underhanded, but I think it's disingenuous to simply label them domain squatters

[Edit: I think I may have a bias against US companies intruding on Australian turf. The whole ugg boot saga has left a pretty sour taste]

<comment><USER6> Agreed. My wife's business recently did a deal on Scoopon and they were great to deal with. What a pity that they've resorted to gazumping a competitor for their trademark and domain here. Totally unnecessary and disappointing.

<comment><USER7> Tangentially, I was astounded and gratified to find out that "gazumping" is a real word: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazumping>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is an interesting can of worms and a lesson in being proactive about securing your trademarks and domain names in other jurisdictions whether you intend to launch there or not.

Despite the fact that Scoopon is arguably a real business this really is a domain squatting case. After all Groupon has nothing to do with their business or branding. Registering the trademark and the domain name was preemptive and is leverage to get bought out. I don't really care if they are a real business or not.

Speaking as an Australian, it is important that companies that operate in Australia have a .com.au domain. It's not uncommon for me to tell someone my address (gmail.com) and then find out later they'd tried to send it to gmail.com.au.

I always thought it was a mistake by the UK to use .co.uk instead of .com.uk for consistency reasons but having thought about it, I think it may make the distinction clearer.

So what should Groupon do? Basically they should do what Google did in the UK. For years Google didn't own the gmail name there so branded themselves as googlemail.

By pressing on you're telling the other side that you're not reliant on them giving up the name. It gives you bargaining power.

Suing them is a good idea too. It bleeds money they probably don't have (which clearly Groupon does).

The worst thing Groupon could do is stall their activities waiting for a resolution. Groupon is a time-sensitive business. There's nothing magical about what they do and someone else can replicate it (as happened in Germany I believe).

It would be risky to proceed under the brand name of Groupon however because the trademark muddies the waters. There is the possibility that if Scoopon successfully defend the trademark, Groupon will then be liable for damages for infringing upon it.

Best bet: pick a new brand name, register the trademark and domain name and proceed. Make the other side an offer with a time limit. If they decline, stop talking to them. While this is happening simply proceed. There is infrastructure that needs to be built regardless of the brand name (finding offices, hiring salespeople and copy editors and so forth).

As you gain traction occasionally make them an offer for the name. As time goes on LOWER the offer because by this point you've invested in your new brand so the old one has less value.

At some point the squatters will either give up and sell or it simply won't matter because you'll have built your business on a new brand.

</comment><comment><USER9> If Groupon is heavily localised, what benefit is there to consumer if it's the official Groupon, the fake Groupon or another clone that's offering the deal, other than the clones not being a "brand name"?

I'm assuming that any Groupon clones would be able to sell to businesses just as well as the real Groupon.

<comment><USER10> The merchants in AU benefit from Groupon's worldwide brand and popularity. The customers benefit from having the best merchants doing well-structured deals. 500 cities into their worldwide expansion, Groupon has done this better than anyone.

Remember, the product being sold to businesses is a _large quantity_ of new customers. Anyone can sell deals, but it takes a lot of money and organization to move the needle. If Scoopon thinks they can do this, then more power to them. But play fair.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Note to self: If I ever start a company that secures significant VC funding, immediately buy domains related to my company in all major markets and begin securing trademarks as well.

<comment><USER9> It's not always as simple as registering a domain name on GoDaddy or a local registrar though.

To register a .com.au domain name, you're required to have an Australian Business Number (i.e. incorporate locally). It's easy to get one, but how many other international domain names do you want to register that require extra work?

<comment><USER12> Some registrars specialize in this, SafeNames for example.

<comment><USER9> A company such as SafeNames is no guarantee though. They've been in trouble in Australia before for registering domain names on behalf of foreign entities that would not have been able to do so normally. In turn, any domains that weren't compliant were deleted.

<http://www.auda.org.au/news-archive/auda-06122009/>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> While I don't know all the details, it looks as if Groupon has gone about this the wrong way.

auDA have a very clear stance against this kind of squatting (from <http://www.auda.org.au/policies/auda-2010-05/>);

 _a. Applicable Disputes. You are required to submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding in the event that a third party (a "complainant") asserts to the applicable Provider, in compliance with the Rules of Procedure that:

(i) your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name [Note 1], trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and

(ii) you have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name [Note 2]; and

(iii) your domain name has been registered or subsequently used in bad faith._

<comment><USER14> Ok, do tell: Please describe the name (Australian personal or business name) that Groupon USA has rights in, to which the groupon.com.au domain is confusingly similar.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Domain squatters may not be OK, but identical business models are just another legitimate challenge (business models can't be patented). They need boots on the ground and it may not be possible for Groupon to physically get there before the competition. Either way, it's good for the end user, who will go from zero to several choices practically over night. It also prevents Groupon from becoming a monopoly.

<comment><USER16> There are multiple Groupon "clones" on the ground in Australia, a few doing some fairly big numbers. Groupon have acquired one of the biggest (if my sources are correct) in JumpOnIt.com.au.

Scoopons behaviour is pretty low IMHO. Registering not only the domain name groupon.com.au but also the company name and the trademark?

<comment><USER17> No. It was LivingSocial who invested $5 million on JumpOnIt, which is one of the larger group buy site. LivingSocial themselves took funding from Amazon.

Scoopon (and the guys behind Scoopon and CatchOfTheDays.com.au) also registered other domain names such as Woot.com.au and DealExtreme.com.au. So I think it's a pretty trivial squatting case.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> $286,000 bucks for registering a domain name, I'd so take it. In fact, that makes me want to start up domain squatting... but that's a dick move.

</comment><comment><USER19> _none being more sinister than Nopuorg_

If they think Nopuorg is sinister, why give them a direct link and not even include rel="nofollow" Seems like it would help Nopuorg more than it hurts.

Edit: Have you read Nopuorg's About page? It's ridiculous <http://www.nopuorg.com/about>

_Nopuorg was effectively launched in 1981 when its visionary founder, Mason Andrews, was fetally conceived._

and

 _Realizing at a young age that he was a Social Media Prodigy, Mason further self-initiated his education by achieving a Bachelor of Arts Degree from Basilisk-Online Preparatory Web-Academy._

Edit 2: Reading more based on ceejayoz's reply I see the whole site is an awful spoof on the daily deals concept. When you try and buy it asks for your SS#. Makes sense now why they link directly to it.

Am I the only one that thinks it's a lame joke?

<comment><USER10> It is one of the joke sites Groupon has made. Andrew Mason, and Groupon as a whole, loves jokes and pranks.

Two of my favorite Groupon jokes:

Groupoupon (<http://www.groupoupon.com/>), a tease at the Gilt Group luxury sales. NOTE: you MUST try to buy one of the items. Hilarity will ensue.

The monkey rental deal ([http://www.groupon.com/chicago/deals/rent-a-monkey- for-a-wee...](http://www.groupon.com/chicago/deals/rent-a-monkey-for-a- week-49)). NOTE: you MUST watch the video. Hilarity will ensue.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> There's a comment which suggested that this happened in "England" (the UK, grrr) but the roles were reversed and Groupon did this to a local competitor. Does anyone know anything about this?

Quote: "and this was after you did the same thing to some poor guy in england."

<comment><USER21> He's probably referring at the technique they've used to get the groupon.com domain from a guy living up in UK. This guy bought groupon.com with the intention of building a group coupon business. While he was sitting on it, the real groupon guys built the real thing and registered the trademark in US (which, somehow, extends to the UK) and told the poor english guy to either take 250k for the domain or prepare to be sued. He accepted the money and everyone was happy.

<comment><USER22> If only he had taken Groupon equity; he'd be a multi-millionaire. Does anyone know if the owner of the groupon.com domain had such an offer?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Pretty sad. I have enjoyed using Scoopon for the past few months and I'm disappointed by their behavior here. Though I'm not justifying their behavior with this statement, it's understandable that 300k isn't biting. I have no doubt that they'll be much happier with you out as long as possible.

Another competitor, and one I've been even more impressed by, is ourdeal.com.au. You've definitely got some competition here. Good luck!

</comment><comment><USER24> 9MSN and Microsoft are partnering to launch Cudo:

<http://cudo.com.au/ConfirmUser>

<comment><USER5> which has one of the most annoying entry screens ever. It forces to you create an account before you can even see what the site it about

<comment><USER25> Really, I was able to click on the cudo logo and it redirected me to today's deal in sydney at <http://cudo.com.au/sydney> . I guess you can try entering other cities names and it should redirect to deals in those cities. This is very similar to Groupon (and infact a tad easier)

<comment><USER26> I couldn't. It wanted my email address to go any further. I quit then.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> So, maybe the name doesn't matter so much as long as it's distinct per-market? It's happened long before the internet and probably has nothing to do with trademarks, and more to do with local marketing.

Case in point: "groupon" wouldn't work as well here in AU because "coupons" aren't a big thing. (The concept maybe, the word, no).

</comment><comment><USER28> What's wrong with using au.groupon.com?

<comment><USER17> It's much more than just the domain name in this case, but also trademark and registered business name. Basically Groupon might not be able to operate as "Groupon" in Australia, regardless whichever domain name it uses.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> As an Australian all I want to say is... just use the .com address. Call the company 'groupon.com' Advertise the .com. It will work!

<comment><USER30> Australians are pretty apt to type <business>.com.au - it'd be a risky trading environment when that address belonged to one of your competitors and seemed legitimate.

<comment><USER31> Apt to type .com.au - Really? As a red-blooded Australian I can't recall the last time I typed .com.au. Sometimes I look at it as an indicator for e-commerce purposes, but it doesn't count for much, at least to me.</comment></comment></comment>