Spain jails Catalan separatist leaders, protesters take to streets - <AUTHOR> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-spain-politics-catalonia/spain-jails-leaders-of-catalan-secession-bid-for-sedition-idUSKBN1WS0RX <comment><USER2> Secession should be a liberty afforded to all people. There is no excuse for forcing a group of people to live under a political system they disapprove of.

And in response to some of the commenters in this thread: of course an independence movement is going to be violent, especially when the state is trying to oppress it. The independence movements in the US, NI, and India were violent too, not because they were wrong but mostly because of mixed public opinion and an oppressive state.

Perhaps if we legally recognised the right to secession and offered citizens a democratic route to secession then violence wouldn't be necessary. Secession movements are going to happen regardless of their legal status.

<comment><USER3> That's just not possible though. Can I just secede all alone by myself?

<comment><USER4> Why make this argument, every time. Its not made in good faith and obviously nobody is discussing one-person states. Its always about a large group of people sharing an identity, without having their own country.

<comment><USER5> > Why make this argument, every time.

Because it underlines the fallacy of appealing to an alleged right to cecede.

> Its not made in good faith and obviously nobody is discussing one-person > states.

Strawman, and one that's based on a disingenuous premise. It's quite clear that the argument is on whether to draw the line of when a minority has your so called right to cecede. You already admit that your so called right to cecede is absurd and ridiculous if only one person wants out. How about two? Do you believe a couple has the right to cecede? How about two dozen persons? Two hundred? Do you believe a couple of appartment blocks have the right to cecede? Or is the whole idea and concept entirely absurd, and only pointed out as a self-serving tautology?

<comment><USER6> The right to secede is important because it's democratic by nature, the majority who runs the state has to arrange with the minorities to not lose them. And if this arrangement is successful there are no rational reasons to secede. I'd even say that countries that don't allow secessions aren't true democracies at the lowest level.

<comment><USER5> > The right to secede is important because it's democratic by nature

It really isn't, as it purposely excludes portions of the electorate that don't support the idea.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It's nearly 100 years since the matter of Catalan independence was first mooted and 80 years since the end of the Spanish Civil War and matters surrounding the formation of an autonomous Catalonian State remain far from any real resolution. This just isn't just a political dispute that if given sufficient time will eventually dissipate, rather it's a fundamental one of cultural and language differences and the heavy-handedness of the Spanish state is only making matters worse.

In a world where modern democracies everywhere are coming under increasing stress because state authorities are increasingly breaking the long-held covenants of trust that bind a state and its citizenry, these outrageous sentences only make a further mockery out of the law. Ultimately, cool heads soon need to resolve this stand-of or inevitably it will lead to further civil disobedience and possibly worse. And one must never forget that the last time this happened in 1936-'39 many hundreds of thousands died over the issue.

In the modern Europe of today, borne out of the horrific chaos of WWII (and its prelude the Spanish Civil War), there should be no place where people should be subject to such authoritarian rule as they have been subjected to here.

It's now time for Europe to pressure Spain to finally give the people of Catalonia both their autonomy and freedom. Catalonia has been in Spain's chains far long enough.

<comment><USER8> You have a point, but I think you miss when you say this was a product of authoritarian rule. Catalonia is basically like an US State. They have control of their education, healthcare, police etc, they have their own parliament, and so on. Catalonia already has autonomy.

There has been a lot of mistakes on how to handle this situation but Catalan leaders made a calculated decision and forced the situation. You can express any idea, demonstrate, make your own party, but you it's not reasonable to expect that, if you not only break the law, but try to seize a large portion of a country and its resources, and just ignore the will of about half of the population in that very region, the spanish state does nothing.

And I'm not even mentioning a shitload of things that are also going on in this issue that makes it way more complicated, typical in this multi-layered spanish power plays.

<comment><USER9> > You have a point, but I think you miss when you say this was a product of > authoritarian rule. Catalonia is basically like an US State. They have > control of their education, healthcare, police etc, they have their own > parliament, and so on. Catalonia already has autonomy.

It's wrong to say that Catalonia is basically a US state, since US is a federation while Spain is a unitary state. This means the central government can overrule whatever the communities decide on. They don't have the same authority over ruling, as the central power has in the case of Spain.

Then I suppose one of the bigger issues remain in answering "Is Catalonia autonomous enough?" and "Who decides how autonomous Catalonia should be?"

<comment><USER7> _" You can express any idea, demonstrate, make your own party, but you it's not reasonable to expect that, if you not only break the law, but try to seize a large portion of a country and its resources, and just ignore the will of about half of the population in that very region, the spanish state does nothing."_

I generally agree you in both practice and principle and in a democracy democratic processes say what laws or rules apply. And this is how things normally work in stable democracies. The trouble is that these days democracies are coming under considerable and increasing strain from various competing interests whose worldviews are essentially irreconcilable. Whilst this has always been so to some extent, in the past a 'reasonable' government could evaluate competing interests then come up with effective and acceptable laws based on utilitarian principles. Nowadays that's far from easy—and it's becoming increasingly so for many reasons that are too complex to detail here expect to say that attitudes and norms within societies have changed, and together with improved communications, internationalism and changes over the past 40 or so years in the way capitalism plays a role in society have had much to do with it.

At the risk of oversimplifying these complex issues, here's a few examples. Let's say a government is under pressure by a majority of citizens to regulate the bad behavior of certain types corporations but the corporations strenuously fight the proposal on the grounds of loss of jobs, loss of profits, interference in the free market and violations of international trade agreements, etc. so a stalemate ensues and thus nothing or little is done. In a previous era, the issues about 'free markets' and 'violations of international trade agreements' would have played a much lesser role and back then corporations effectively had less influence on government policy, thus governments would have found it easier to regulate. These days, there are so many instances where governments have failed to regulate that the citizenry has a justifiable right to be annoyed and to assume the democratic process has failed it. _[Incidentally, one such matter has again made it into today 's HN, that's the huge price Big Pharma is charging for drugs—that government has failed to act for so long is symptomatic of the problem: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21250491](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21250491)] _

Another is the rise of identity politics. Whatever one's views on this are it is hard to disagree with the fact that nowadays it is increasingly difficult to govern a country where its citizens hold so few views in common. Clearly, a society wherein a majority hold common views and interests makes governance easier but today this structure has broken down to the extent that governing for all is very difficult, especially so in a democracy. Once only four or five decades ago, those within a society were much more homogeneous in their views than they are today. Back then a majority of citizens held similar views as they were bound together by a common culture or race, or by religion and or by isolation from other societies any or all of which would have steered the society in certain directions. Today, the parallel between the governance of a democracy and the parable from Aesop's fable* _The Man, The Boy, and The Donkey_ of _' try to please all and you will please none'_ is truer than ever. I would add that in this era where one's rights and sense of entitlement trump the Rousseauian notion of the _General Will of the Citizenry_ then governments are damned if they do or they don't.

 _Quo vadis?_ We should look to history for examples of what happens when citizenries consider their governance has gone beyond the pale. All too often, we see that when a majority of citizens hold such high levels of mistrust in and discontent with their government then it often boils over into an uprising, insurrection or revolution, and inevitably, it does not end well—even for the 'winning' side. Moreover, we've many notable examples whose outcomes we actually accept (and often respect) as we live with and abide by the rules and laws they've since engendered, notably the French Revolution, English Civil War, American War of Independence and the Russian Revolutions of 1905 and 1917 just to name a few.

Sure, the outcome of every one of these social upheavals was political change but the cost in human terms was enormous: they were all brutal and bloody events that for many thousands of citizens ended in tragedy and or death. I would suggest that no reasonable person would ever recommend these ways of achieving change unless is was absolutely the last resort.

That leaves the issue of what do we do short of revolution when democracy breaks down to the point where effective governance is lost; for, as I see it, that's where those of us who live in democracies are headed right now. In almost every country, both democratic and totalitarian, we are seeing many laws enacted that are increasingly authoritarian by nature and in their extent, all of which inexorably result in fewer freedoms being available for individuals. Frankly, I consider that living in a state where every citizen, year after year, has less and less autonomy to act as very worrisome and quite frightening—especially so when there is seemingly no end in sight and where politicians consistently fail to provide both sufficient explanations and justifications of such laws.

It's in this light that I suggested that Catalonia be set free of its Spanish chains (irrespective of Spanish laws) as this is probably the most efficacious and pragmatic solution—at least in the short term. It too is likely to be the best solution when it comes to minimizing future violence and bloodshed, which as history amply demonstrates, is highly likely if the matter continues to fester. Essentially, in respect of Catalonia, Spain should collectively pull its head in and accept that it has lost some national sovereignty—after all; it's something Spain has had to do many times over the centuries as the Spanish Empire crumbled so by now it ought to know how to manage the loss successfully.

The matter of how we citizens should manage our democracies in the longer-term should be foremost in the thoughts of every citizen right now. We citizens not only must re-establish trust between those whom we elect to govern us but also forge new and effective covenants that will be the basis of all future and ongoing law. We should not expect this process to be easy or quick as entrenched power-hungry bureaucrats and implacable governments will no doubt fight us citizens every inch of the way.

-

* [https://fablesofaesop.com/the-man-the-boy-and-the-donkey.htm...](https://fablesofaesop.com/the-man-the-boy-and-the-donkey.html)

<comment><USER8> Look, I'm a sociologist so I totally get where you are coming from, but your thougts are mostly tangential.

Catalonia can enact his own laws, and it does so. There's very little substance if you say "being freed from the chains of Spain". There isn't any massive difference in the understanding of the world between catalans and the rest of the peninsula. You could pimpoint some laws here and there, and some simbols, but it's pretty much it. There's no systemic repression of Catalans of any sorts because of speaking or being Catalan. I know that an independence supporter will disagree and is willing to paste thousands of links here, but IMO from the big picture there's no much substance. They are not loosing autonomy as you said, as it's been happening quite the opposite.

There's a lot of stuff happening daily and a lot of propaganda going on. The Catalan government is very good at this, and it's difficult to make foreigners understand how much effort they actually put on this. To give you a glimpse, yesterday they sent their supporters to occupy the Barcelona airport. Politicians are not stupid, and they know that place is guarded by national police and the military. Some time later, as it seemed such actions wouldn't yield any PR material, they've sent their own police. That's the videos foreigners have seen in their media. Obviously, the majority of them don't have to know that Catalans have their own police, and they were sent there coordinated by their own government, that it wasn't spontaneous. And most media won't clarify it.

Today, their explanation for internal consumption is that they had to send the Mossos d'esquadra (Catalan police) because they had to "protect the demonstrators from themselves", they were afraid to be accused fo sedition again and some other BS, that of course will be noise tomorrow.

I know there's enough speculation in the last two paragraphs, but I worked for them for some time, so I know how they think. And that's my take on it because, if it wasn't for that, it would be absurd to send your people somewhere and then beat em just because.

And this stuff is happening on a Weekly basis.

Now, you think the most pragmatic solution would be just accept "the fact" that Spain lost Catalonia, and that it has to become another country. Now, what happens with half the catalans that want to remain spanish? Do we just forget about them? What if they become violent? What would do the Catalan Government if they become their own country and half its population does the same they have been doing? What if they win elections and want to rejoin? (I forgot, that wouldn't be possible under the new catalan law, they wanted to make parties against secession illegal), are we going to split and join multiple times because of this?

I mean, there's a lot to put in a cost/benefit analysis and from my POV is unclear at best. There's no clear solution to avoid conflict even if we splitted to day and we had it in good terms. And I'm not even mentioning that the most probably economic outcome for Catalonia would be to suffer massively due to loosing it's status with the EU, not being anymore the preferred port for trading with Spain and basically loosing it's status as an asset for Spain.

It's natural for everyone to try to frame events in a local setting, but take in account that you are not just witnessing two ants fighting for a piece a bread, but organizations with a lot of power and resources, that actively try to shape your opinion on the issue.

<comment><USER9> > Catalonia can enact his own laws, and it does so.

Sorry for just pointing out one thing, but it was what you started with so I feel the need to correct it.

Yes, Catalonia can enact their own laws. But even if they do, Spain reserve the right to override them, with what they feel like. Catalans I've spoken to, have expressed this to be a pain point, especially when the relations to Madrid are poor.

Madrid can always regain control over Catalonia according to it's laws, and them having this ability, makes peoples drive to independence stronger.

<comment><USER8> > with what they feel like.

Catalan (and other nationalists) are key to form governments on Spain, specially the last two or three legislatures, so this is highly debatable at best. Some laws that were not passed/revoked in the central parliament have been precisely because of the vote of such parties.

A party can be both in its autonomous and central parliament. And this has been the case for decades.

I know what independence supporters feel about, but there's no substance to an argument where Catalans are ignored or overruled from the central parliament because of any sort of authoritarian rule, because they are integral and important part of how power is distributed and managed in such institution.

<comment><USER9> I try to understand both sides without siding too much with either.

"there's no substance to an argument where Catalans are ignored or overruled from the central parliament because of any sort of authoritarian rule" leads me to believe that you're not thinking the same way as me regarding understanding both sides.

Image if the EU Council could, at any time, invoke a article to take control over what the member states themselves should decide over. This is what Catalans feel right now is happening.

Any autonomy that Catalans currently enjoy, is devolved power from Madrid. Just having the possibility for Madrid to at any time suspend the autonomy of (what they see as) their own state, makes them uneasy, and we're seeing the result of that uneasiness coming to the surface more and more recently.

<comment><USER8> > Image if the EU Council could, at any time, invoke a article to take control > over what the member states themselves should decide over. This is what > Catalans feel right now is happening.

Such thing has happened, but it's not the current state of affairs. The central state took control of the Catalan institutions until elections were held, not past that.

And of course such thing didn't happen in a vacuum. Not to mention that this is a pretty standard procedure in most countries.

> leads me to believe that you're not thinking the same way as me regarding > understanding both sides

I can understand why you think that. I have been following this issue for the last, maybe, ten years. I've worked for politicians in political marketing for a consultant company so I know how they think. I'm an "insider" to political propaganda if you like, so I'm not just sitting back watching events like am a neutral observer.

Thankfully I've moved to another totally different field, but it affected my ability to read the really deeply, I'd say.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Please remember that only part of the Catalan population participated in the referendum - mainly the ones that wanted to secede. The result was a huge majority according to Catalan authorities but turnout was merely 40-something percent. It's widely understood that voters that wanted to remain didn't participate.

It is highly questionable whether the independence movement has even 50 percent support. Indications are that the support hovers around 40-something percent. It was highest in 2013, where it reached 55 percent. Please notice that this is not close to the super majority which is normally required for constitutional changes in most democracies.

<comment><USER11> That's a pretty self-serving argument. Resorting to the 'silent majority' to justify disregarding democracy is not very...democratic.

The way Catalan folk showed what they think on this subject, was by voting. That's pretty fundamental.

<comment><USER10> An independence based on a referendum arranged by separatists and which almost only separatists participated in, is hardly "pretty fundamental".

Take a look at the support for independence: it's not a majority opinion and it's getting smaller:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_independence_movement#...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_independence_movement#2017_referendum,_Declaration_of_Independence_and_new_regional_elections)

<comment><USER12> Yeah tell that to brexiteers

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I spent some time in Catalonia last year and asked everybody I met (probably about 5 dozen in all) what they thought of the movement. Most were against it, and of those who were in favor, there were three distinct flavors:

* People who simply identified as Catalan and wanted to have their own language and culture as a separate political and social unit

* People who were wealthy and had assets to protect from real or perceived looming economic correction in Spain

* People who formerly opposed secession, but were pissed to live in a country with high-profile political prisoners.

It was hard to form a solid takeaway from all this; I'd need many more months to start to really understand the political dynamics at play.

One thing about which I feel strong and certain, though, is this:

The fact that something is a crime according to the entity claiming jurisdiction over a given landmass makes it neither right nor inevitable that people engaging in that thing.

The right to dissolve bonds that arbitrarily obligate people to the whims of a state to which they don't consent is a real and enduring right.

Whether or not the movement is righteous, it's not OK to jail people for peacefully (even if disruptively) trying to separate.

<comment><USER14> Peacefully breaking the law is still breaking the law. Disobeying direct orders from court can get you in jail, mishandling public funds can get you in jail, and making official declarations that go against the constitution can get you in jail. You have all the right to think this is not OK, but it is how it is.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> 12 accused:

* 4 are sentenced for sedition and embezzlement

* 5 for sedition

* 3 for disobedience

Their actions have been judged under the laws of a democratic state but of course Secessionist propaganda calls it 'Fascism'.

<comment><USER16> 0 people for "trying to vote"

0 people for "their ideas"

0 people for "peaceful demonstration"

Etc. Please read everything about this issue with a grain of salt in both sides, it is heavily politicized to the point of reality being sidetracked. Even the prime minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon, showed today grave misinformation on the ruling through a tweet.

<comment><USER17> So what do you think "sedition" means?

<comment><USER16> Public uprising against established order. Which is a) something any legal system prosecutes, and b) something these people did. There is also in Spain a aggravating case for doing this from a public role, which seems reasonable and also applies to some of these individuals.

<comment><USER17> Ok, but that's not generally what sedition means

<comment><USER16> Irrespective of the undertones that you read in the word, that is what they are being judged for. It has a precise technical meaning in the law. And I'd like to know if there is any country whatsoever in which public uprising against the state from a government official, using public funds, and in the manner carried out by them in this case, is not prosecuted.

<comment><USER18> You have to take into account that this is not a military uprising of a few people, its a pacific protest from politicians who represent almost half of the Catalan votes.

There are plenty of examples where people have been pardoned in Spain for more ethically questionable reasons [1]. This, in contrast, is a clear case where it should be resolved politically, not through the legal system.

[1] [https://civio.es/el-indultometro/2013/05/06/saenz/](https://civio.es/el- indultometro/2013/05/06/saenz/)

<comment><USER16> The political pardon must come after the judicial trial, and comes from different, independent, branches of government.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> It's quite hard to support freedom fighters around the globe while all along suppressing peaceful freedom fighters at home. Setting this verdict against what's happening in HK doesn't put Spain in a good light.

<comment><USER20> Are you really comparing a movement to secede from a militaristic communist dictatorship with no freedom of speech with a movement to secede from a EU member state with a full democracy? Which freedoms are these "freedom fighters" missing?

<comment><USER21> >Which freedoms are these "freedom fighters" missing?

Freedom of association?

<comment><USER20> What?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I think separatist movements will be the trend in an increasing number of regions. The reason many present nation-states exist is so that in the era of industrial war, outlying eras didn't get rolled by their more technologically advanced, more productive neighbors. Or alternatively, because they _did_ get rolled by their neighbors and are now part of the conquering nation-state.

With the world being unipolar for the last 30 years and that sole superpower being seemingly incapable of winning wars for the last 20, many minority groups are thinking that's a bad bargain and they'd rather trade security for self-determination.

<comment><USER23> > that sole superpower being seemingly incapable of winning wars for the last > 20

Is it not obvious, at this point, that "winning" the wars are not the goal? That the wars are used as pretense for endless military presence to serve geopolitical goals?

<comment><USER22> Obvious to me, irrelevant to the groups targeted by these wars.

In the WW2-era, the stakes were literal annihilation: a number of minority groups were specifically targeted for extermination by the belligerent powers, and many others were occupied under threat of extermination. Today, the stakes are that you face random drone strikes and your weddings get blown up. But there's nothing you can do about this: instead of "if you accept our rule, we'll let you live", it's "we're not interested in ruling you, die anyway". When wars are fought to make a point rather than to win, and that point has nothing to do with you, they're not going to change your behavior. So great powers and separatist/extremist groups exist in symbiosis, with each constructing and reinforcing the other in the absence of an external reason for their existence.

<comment><USER24> > _So great powers and separatist /extremist groups exist in symbiosis._

This theory reminds me of slatestarcodex's "The Toxoplasma of Rage," specifically section V. [https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma- of-rage...](https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I think peaceful secession laws should be codified internationally, it is ridiculous that people still need to take to violence in order to split a first world country since the act is illegal. As for size, many of the best places to live have around 5-10 million people, so I don't see any harm in splitting out populations of that size. For example, I don't believe that Norway would be better off today if they were forbidden from splitting from Sweden 100 years ago. Note that Norway hadn't been an independent country for 500 years at that point, so their situation was very similar to current Catalonia.

</comment><comment><USER26> I wonder how the comments would look if this were about China and Hong Kong instead of Spain and Catalonia.

<comment><USER14> I guess they would look totally different because both topics are totally different.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Since the state will try to thwart any physical referendum vote using violence, perhaps this could be a good use case for a blockchain election.

Secretly mail everyone a wallet address which they can use to vote on the blockchain.

Without the threat of violence from the state, more people will vote.

</comment><comment><USER28> The foundation of laws is coercive. It is one thing to sell the third world counties that countries like USA are based on rule of law.

Since laws are coercive, whoever has the power (both legal and police) can jail secession leaders.

</comment><comment><USER29> What a fascist state. Jailing for 9 years civilian leaders that organized peaceful protests. Shameful. A movement of more than 2 or 3 million of citizens, that's the way they handle political issues.

<comment><USER30> Peaceful protests? You have to be joking. Just look at all the articles of the violence that took place against the national police trying to maintain order.

<comment><USER31> You are either misinformed or lying.

[https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/861001/Catalan- referend...](https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/861001/Catalan-referendum- Spanish-police-violence-voters)

[https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/10/12/spain-police-used- excess...](https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/10/12/spain-police-used-excessive- force-catalonia)

[https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/10/catalan-vote- claims-s...](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/10/catalan-vote-claims- spanish-police-brutality-probed-171003122547459.html)

[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world- europe-41463955/cataloni...](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world- europe-41463955/catalonia-referendum-violence-as-police-block-voting)

[https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4586709/catalonia-won-right- in...](https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4586709/catalonia-won-right-independence- police-crackdown-protesters/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Political independence for a minority group will never be allowed. The political boundaries drawn 70-150 years ago must remain perpetually.

<comment><USER33> Montenegro, Slovakia and a long list of other countries would like a word with you[1].

1\. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_da...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_date_of_formation)

<comment><USER34> One major difference between the former Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, is that in the latter I am led to believe that a majority of the public wanted to stay one country. The split seems to have been a way to create more posts for national elites. Ordinary Czechs and Slovaks who I have talked to (admittedly a very small and anecdotally collected group) don't seem to have had a problem with staying part of Czechoslovakia.

In the former Yugoslavia I have no direct knowledge of anyone's opinions on the matter, but I am led to believe that a majority of several of the new countries was solidly in favor of splitting up.

<comment><USER35> In former Yugoslavio the split is again "enforced" or "allowed" based on the arbitrary criteria from the past. The only "rule" here were "rule of armed force" and "interest of the mighty".

Some ethnic group were allowed to have their right to decide in which country they want to live, some never got that right. In the end that injustice is what led to the whole bloody conflict.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> English translation of the opinion on the case by the UN working group on arbitrary detention: [ [https://int.assemblea.cat/wp- content/uploads/2019/06/Working...](https://int.assemblea.cat/wp- content/uploads/2019/06/WorkingGroupOnArbitraryDetention.Opinion6.2019-1.pdf) ] (original at [https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Detention/Opinions/Se...](https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Detention/Opinions/Session84/A_HRC_WGAD_2019_6.pdf))

Summary: they deny the claims of violence, reject the preventive prison (~2 years for those being condemned to prison today) and denounce the lack of presumption of innocence and an impartial tribunal (119 to 124 and 132 and 133 if you want a quick look).

Violence by spanish police during the "independence referendum" [ [https://spanishpolice.github.io](https://spanishpolice.github.io) (a few hundred videos) ]. Violence by catalan people against spanish police on the same day: [ [https://youtu.be/8ak9224HG_E](https://youtu.be/8ak9224HG_E) (guy throwing a chair to a police entering a school) ], [ [https://youtu.be/DyE0DtVd4Q8](https://youtu.be/DyE0DtVd4Q8) (various people throwing portable fences to the police) ]

But the most blatant case if that of Jordi Cuixart and Jordi Sánchez. They are civilian leaders, not political authorities. They presided Òmnium Cultural (cultural association) and ANC (independentist association) respectively. Today condemned to 9 years each. For context, right before the "independence referendum" there were some searches to investigate the referendum and the people involved. One of them happened in the building of the regional ministry of economy (September 20th, 2017). There, a spontaneous rally started. A few hours later, Òmnium Cultural, even though they weren't the ones to start the rally, filled the documents to formally communicate it to the city hall. Some will say they were trying to obstaculize the judicial operation, and others that they were trying to keep the spontaneous rally under control. Well, one can take a look at the images:

\- Police car destroyed, one the most famous images when trying to show the violence of the independentists: [ [https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DKPUVBoW0AAa4aw?format=jpg](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DKPUVBoW0AAa4aw?format=jpg) ]. Police left the car parked there, with long guns still inside. Many demonstrators, reporters and photographers climbed on top of the car during the day. At least one of the windows was broken by one of the members of the police at the end of the day, as he himself admitted during the trial.

\- Jordi Cuixart and Jordi Sánchez climbed on top of the police car at the end of the day too in order to try to dissolve the rally (they also spoke for a couple minutes before this, with the usual "thanks for coming, we will continue rallying tomorrow, we will vote, don't be afraid, bla bla"): [ [https://youtu.be/23XrRpfMaw8](https://youtu.be/23XrRpfMaw8) ]. They literally say: "as much as possible and in a peaceful way, let's dissolve the demonstration for today". In the trial, Lluís Llach, a famous Catalan singer (temporarily involved in politics at that point), said that he was there and that they initially tried to dissolve the rally from a stage that the association set up on another point on the street, but he eventually suggested that people didn't hear them from that point (as the stage was intentionally at a certain distance from the building [they played some music during the day to distend the mood]), and that they should climb to the police car to speak from there. They _told the police_ that they were going to climb on their car, and they didn't receive a negative response, so they just went with it. During the day, they also set a small corridor [ [https://www.publico.es/uploads/2018/06/26/5b324d03dca57.jpg](https://www.publico.es/uploads/2018/06/26/5b324d03dca57.jpg) ] to try to assist the people who had to enter and leave the building. Arguably not a good guarantee for the judicial police (who were already inside), but it makes it very hard to argue that they weren't trying to collaborate.

For those rallies they get a sentence of 9 years of prison each.

This is only the tip of the iceberg. The historical and political context is much more complex, I only went over a few details. The independentist leaders were at the very least fools for saying they would achieve independence in a year and a half; they played too lose with parlamentary regulations, and they systematically failed to properly address half of the population that doesn't want independence. But none of that justifies a single year of prison. 2 have already passed. They had a parliamentary majority in catalonia and a clear mandate to organize a referendum. Both the regional opposition and the Spanish government attrociously defected from politics and pushed towards the judicialization of the whole process. The case of the Jordi's is just absurd. Carme Forcadell, the previous president of the catalan parliament, gets 11 years and a half of prison for basically allowing the debate about self- determination (well, this case, like many of the others, is way more complex juridically, so you are warned about my over-simplification here). Just because Spanish media says catalan independentists are violent, that doesn't make it true (even the sentence admits this). This is not even about self- determination, it's about basic democracy and the right to protest. Meanwhile, the arbitrary detentions continue.

I hope someone hears this guy in Europe: [ [https://twitter.com/yanisvaroufakis/status/11836594982270197...](https://twitter.com/yanisvaroufakis/status/1183659498227019778) ]

</comment><comment><USER37> A shameful moment in Spanish history.

</comment><comment><USER38> Please, if you dont know about the catalonia problem directly, beware of the separatist propaganda. Its known they spend a lot of public money in media.

For example, Julian Assange and Yoko Ono were paid to write some twits pro independence agenda.

(Just moving my comment from the dupe thread)

</comment><comment><USER39> Where is Calexit now btw?

<comment><USER40> Here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_California#Polling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_California#Polling)

Roughly 60% to 70% say "No". So, it's unlikely to happen any time soon.

<comment><USER41> Watch out for that assumption.

I believe at the end of 2015, a few months before the Brexit referendum, about 70% of people were indicating they'd vote remain in polls. That's the only reason Cameron and the rest of the Remain-supporting political class allowed a referendum at all: they were sure they were going to win.

Turns out that intense discussion, debate and political campaigning can change voter's minds. That's the point of it in fact. Who knew?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Just nuke the fucking thread.

</comment><comment><USER43> what does this have to do with hacker news, technology, computers, or science? these are off-topic political news.

edit to paste the relevant guidelines:

> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're > evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or > disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's > probably off-topic.

<comment><USER44> Politics and the world climate have no impact on technology, computers, or science?

<comment><USER45> One argument for keeping politics out is this: politics are way _more important_ than most of what we post here. If they allow it, it would dominate the site.

<comment><USER46> A very good point!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Barcelona airport is blocked! Finally we catalans seem to have found some blood in our veins! Sadly the catalan establishment will try to defuse the situation, they are quite a bunch of cowards. Hoping we can be as strong and deterimned as the hongkongers.

<comment><USER48> From a Spaniard who never understood the indepentist movement, and assuming you're in it by the tone of your message: Why this movement, what do you expect to happen if Catalonia becomes independent, and how would the whole mess of issues that, for example, Brexit is facing, get done in this case?

Before we make any assumptions, please consider that I'm asking this truly from an intention of learning, and not trying to bait any flames, or establishing my position. I've just never had the opportunity to talk to someone on "the other side".

<comment><USER47> > From a Spaniard who never understood the indepentist movement, and assuming > you're in it by the tone of your message: Why this movement, what do you > expect to happen if Catalonia becomes independent

> Before we make any assumptions, please consider that I'm asking this truly > from an intention of learning, and not trying to bait any flames, or > establishing my position. I've just never had the opportunity to talk to > someone on "the other side".

Thank you for asking this so politely! I appreciate it very much. Really, thanks! It is very rare that Spaniards take this attitude, and it feels like a breath of fresh air.

Regarding your question, not all independence supporters share the same reasons. I think my particular reasons are not very representative, so do not take what I say as too relevant in the grand scheme of things. But I can only speak for myself.

My only reason for wanting a catalan state, separate from spain, is concern for the short-term existence of my language. I could not care less about the economic situation.

I have witnessed since my youth in the eighties the slow decline of catalan usage, and its replacement by spanish. I realize that this is not a very important concern; the world has far worse problems, but it is still a legitimate concern that merits political attention. I am anti-nationalist and internationalist, but this does not mean that all languages on Earth must disappear except one, and all cultures must be merged into a single one.

Most of my life I have not been pro-independence. I identified proudly as a catalan-speaking spaniard, and even had t-shirts with the spanish flag as I traveled around Europe. It was in 2003, on a summer travel in Portugal with people from Spain (spanish speakers), that I realized that they did not see the catalan culture as a legitimate part of the culture of their own country. Somehow, the catalan language was "less spanish" than the spanish language. I found this idea illogical, and the fact that they seriously espoused it was deeply outraging. Then they pointed me to the spanish constitution, that states clearly in its infamous Article 3, that spanish language is the preferred language in front of the other, lesser, local languages. This was clearly contrary to my view on how things should be, but it was just a law that could be changed if most people agreed, and it seemed logical than most people would.

I did not become separatist at this point. Instead, I embarked in a sort of personal crusade trying to convince all spanish people that I knew that they should accept the possibility of the catalan language being the sole official language in the catalan countries, lest it would disappear and they would lose an important part of the culture of their country. To no avail: the fact that a person from Valladolid who moved to Girona had to learn the local language was so foreign to _all_ castilians that it left me in sad despair.

But I did not become separatist at this point. Instead, I was moved by the enthusiasm around a new proposal for a local law ("estatut de Catalunya 2006"), that had the support of the spanish socialist party (then the main party in the state, thanks in part to its overwhelming support by catalans and andalusians), and also the support of all the parties in the catalan parliament except the spanish conservative party, which had a minor presence there. This new local law established the equality of the rights for the speakers of both languages in the territory of Catalonia. I did not agree with the form (both languages were to become equally official, and citizens had the right to communicate with the spanish administration in either language), because I really preferred a single official language, but still, it was a reasonable compromise. Then there was a referendum in Catalonia, under the auspices and support of the spanish state, and the new "estatut" was approved by an overwhelming majority. Once it was approved, the spanish parliament decided to "cut" it and remove some articles (notably that of the official languages) and the spanish constitutional court declared it "unconstitutional". I found this very disturbing, and the removal of the articles undemocratic and offensive.

But I did not become separatist at this point. It was just a shitty generation of spanish politicians, and in a few years we would get some fresh, young people who would be more tolerant than old dinosaurs like Alfonso Guerra and Manuel Fraga, the main figureheads of opposition to the catalan "estatut". No worry about that. After all, I was spanish, and catalan was just as spanish as the other official languages, and what I wanted to do was to change spanish law for a better fit with my concerns. Also, this view was shared by millions of people in Catalonia, so it would be just a question of time.

Why do I think the catalan language will disappear if it does not become the sole official language in at least a major part of its territory? Besides programming languages, I have a keen interest in human linguistics, and I have read a lot about its amazing possibilities, and the history and the evolution of languages. I have learned that diglossia (the simultaneous presence of two languages by the same people) is an unstable situation that invariably resolves in the slow disappearance of the least powerful language. A language that has no monolingual people seems to be doomed to disappear. This is clearly the case for the catalan language, and it is enforced explicitly by the spanish constitution. I understand that languages evolve and disappear, and it is ridiculous to feel sad about this natural evolution. But when this evolution is biased by a law with which I do not agree, and which the speakers of the more powerful language refuse absolutely to change, it becomes mildly infuriating.

But I did not become separatist at this point, yet. At the end of the day, my language would be alive as long as I was, so it was kind of a stupid concern to be worried by the disappearance of something that, by definition, I could never witness.

What triggered me was a very emotional situation. My grandmother--who did not speak spanish--had fallen and was spending a few weeks at the hospital. She could not communicate easily with the nurses, who were all foreigners and only spoke spanish. A quite correct spanish, by the way, due to the fact that you can only work in Spain if you speak spanish, regardless of whether you speak catalan or not. Seeing my dying nan struggle to communicate with their caretakers during the day (my family spent most of the nights there) was, to put it lightly, extremely enraging. Now it was not a rational decision; protecting the existence of my language became an emotional issue. A prioritary issue in my political criteria.

Now, I did not still became separatist, due to that problem. It was the result of a very rational argument. Now that the catalan language is a main priority, there are two possibilities.

1\. Change the laws of Spain so that Catalan becomes the sole official language in the catalan territories.

2\. Separate Catalonia from Spain, and change the catalan laws.

I disliked both alternatives. The first alternative is my preferred, but sadly it is utopical. If Spain could just accept that the spanish language is _not_ official in part of its territory, I would proudly wave a spanish flag again. The ideal example is Switzerland, where each language is official alone in its territory, all on equal grounds, and all the swiss people share a beautiful sense of unity. But any rational person agrees today that accepting such a thing is an impossible burden to impose to the majority of spaniards. Maybe I am wrong, but in that case it must be a majority of spaniards that convince me back.

The second possibility is awful also. For one, _all_ separatist parties have made a major point of their programs that the catalan republic must be bilingual, which in my view does not solve anything. I do not see the point of an independent spanish-speaking catalonia. Yet, I think that convincing the catalan parties that bilinguism must be catalan/english and not catalan/spanish is much less chimerical than convincing the spanish parties. So here we are.

In the end, whatever the reason, I think that the catalan-speaking people is, well, _a people_ , and it has the right to decide, alone, about its future. As a member of this people, I understand that I want to fight for the independence of my country.

Regarding your Brexit reference, I believe that brexiters are nuts and I identify with the scots, who want to escape the English crazyness and stay in the european union for good. I want to escape the Spanish craziness, which I deem impossible to reform. I actually find the idea of wanting to reform spain as abhorrent. As a catalan, I desire the well-being of my western neighbors, but they must sort out their problems themselves.

<comment><USER48> Great explanation, thanks! I would be pretty sad if the catalan language disappeared, because I've always liked its sound (my grandfather was from Mahon, so he'd speak it every now and then).

<comment><USER49> Note that catalan is not at risk of disappearing. It's not even possible to get education in spanish!

[http://www.catalannews.com/society-science/item/supreme- cour...](http://www.catalannews.com/society-science/item/supreme-court- imposes-25-of-school-subjects-to-be-taught-in-spanish-against-catalonia-s-own- model)

<comment><USER47> > Note that catalan is not at risk of disappearing.

Of course it isn't. The republic will be able to protect it!</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


This Is Why Employee Retention and Company Culture Is EVERYONE's Responsibility - <AUTHOR> https://www.cavantics.com/blogs/employee-retention-everyones-responsibility/ <comment><USER2> > Respect is EVERYONE's Responsibility!

Uhm, no. Respect is something you _earn_ , not something that you're _entitled to_.

> Career Path / Advancement is EVERYONE's Responsibility!

Well, yes, because nobody gives a sh&t about your career. Though creating appropriate and attractive _career prospects_ is in management's jurisdiction.

> Professional Growth is EVERYONE's Responsibility!

Again, yes, because nobody gives a sh&t about your professional growth. Though the growth doesn't happen on trainings and courses, but in the daily job, and allowing employees to work on something to learn new skills is again _in management 's jurisdiction_. Employees can only do so much to learn on their own in the work time.

> Money Earned is EVERYONE's Responsibility!

WHAT!?! Except the fact that you can negotiate before accepting the job offer, all the rest (raises) is _management 's jurisdiction_.

> Personal Growth is EVERYONE's Responsibility!

What's the difference between "personal growth" and "professional growth"?

> Everyone is responsible for seeing to it that they are challenged. If > employees do the same thing day in and day out, they will get bored.

It's mainly _management 's jurisdiction_ to assign people to tasks.

> Time and Flexibility is EVERYONE's Responsibility!

WHAT!?!

> Co-workers – Socializing Outside of Work

Obviously, though it's completely employees' choice to socialize or not. Management has no say in this matter.

> Commute – How Easy it is to Get to the Office / Meeting

Ever heard of this ridiculous idea called "remote work"? This is very much in _management 's jurisdiction_.</comment>


Ask HN: Can Bitcoin (or Blockchain) ever achieve 1M transactions per second? - <AUTHOR> Is this possible? And I'm talking about results/experiments/systems that have actually shown this, and not just made claims of "scalability" without presenting any results? <comment><USER2> In theory, Ethereum's scaling plan let's it reach 1 million transactions per second: [https://www.ccn.com/vitalik-buterin-ethereum-will- eventually...](https://www.ccn.com/vitalik-buterin-ethereum-will-eventually- achieve-1-million-transactions-per-second/)

How that works out in practice remains to be seen.

Recent developments are encouraging for scalability. For example Roll Up is a plan to use zk-SNARKs to create very secure sidechains that would increase the total capacity of a single Ethereum chain to 17,000 tps or more. With sharding, where Ethereum operates 100 chains at once, that would mean Ethereum would be able to achieve 1.7 million transactions per second.

</comment><comment><USER3> The Gigablock Testnet (a tweaked version of Bitcoin) hit 1,000 tx/s and they believe more tweaks can get them to 10,000 tx/s: [https://scalingbitcoin.org/stanford2017/Day1/Stanford_2017.p...](https://scalingbitcoin.org/stanford2017/Day1/Stanford_2017.pptx.pdf)

Avalanche has done over 1,500 tx/s: [https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmUy4jh5mGNZvLkjies1RWM4YuvJh5o2FYopNPV...](https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmUy4jh5mGNZvLkjies1RWM4YuvJh5o2FYopNPVYwrRVGV)

</comment><comment><USER4> I think it would require significant architectural changes. As far as I know, the replication and consensus protocol are just too slow.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> The only thing I can find here is Teechain: [https://lsds.doc.ic.ac.uk/content/achieving-1-million- bitcoi...](https://lsds.doc.ic.ac.uk/content/achieving-1-million-bitcoin- transactions-second)

</comment><comment><USER5> Are there any traditional payments systems which do 1m trx / second?

<comment><USER5> VISA averages 1,750 TPS with bursts up to 24k TPS. Alipay did a burst of 256,000 trx / sec last year. [1]

1\. [https://thenextweb.com/asia/2017/03/06/largest-payments- comp...](https://thenextweb.com/asia/2017/03/06/largest-payments-company- world-people-never-heard/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Bitcoin not likely, but in my personal opinion EOS[1] (as of today) might be the first. I think we're currently on 2nd gen blockchain, and if we stay here (and Moore's Law continuing), then I think EOS will be the first to reach that feat.

But seeing how fast the space is moving, another platform might come along in a few years that has a better implementation than EOS (thus leading to more TPS).

[1] [https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-ab&q=eos+tr...](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-ab&q=eos+transactions+per+second+live&spell=1&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjlqbWcyKfeAhWDDiwKHT5-DiwQBQgrKAA&biw=1418&bih=715)

</comment><comment><USER7> BTC not likely... other protocols are more than likely.

</comment><comment><USER8> There are some "layer 2" protocols which could allow Bitcoin to achieve that scale. Most notably [https://lightning.network](https://lightning.network).

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting.. but there's no concrete numbers/results for performance anywhere, right?</comment></comment>


Mercedes-Benz unveils new all-electric race car prototype – Electrek - <AUTHOR> https://electrek.co/2018/08/25/mercedes-benz-eq-all-electric-race-car-prototype/ <comment><USER2> TLDR its basically just a concept car. Still years behind Tesla. Where is their billion-dollar battery factory?</comment>


N. Korea hacked Korean online shopping site for Bitcoin - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/r-south-korea-says-north-hacked-online-shopping-site-2016-7 <comment><USER2> So they hacked one of their own sites? Title needs just one extra letter of clarification.</comment>


Slated aims to disrupt Hollywood as the AngelList for film funding - <AUTHOR> http://venturebeat.com/2012/01/25/stephan-paternots-slated-aims-to-disrupt-hollywood-as-the-angellist-for-film-funding/

<comment><USER2> _"A good example of "Hollywood accounting" would be "Harry Potter and The Order of the Phoenix", which took in $938 million in revenue, yet still produced a $167 million loss. In cases like this the distributor, Warner Bros., still makes a bundle, but the film and its backers, set up as a independent corporation, wind up in debt. How is this possible? You can get a more detailed picture in this episode of Planet Money, which details how Disney paid itself more than $200 million in distribution fees on the Nicholas Cage vehicle "Gone in 60 Seconds." The film made a lot of money for Disney, even while the corporation created to produce "Gone In 60 Seconds" was a loser on the official accounting."_

Now I understand why Hollywood does not want simplified and efficient distribution. It has nothing to do with ignorance and everything to do with greed and avoiding all risk. They overcharge for complicated distribution and DRM, and pass all the risk of to the film and its backers.

<comment><USER3> If by 'film backers' you're referring to the executive producers that pay money for the movie, I highly doubt they're stupid enough to fall for hollywood accounting and actually lose money. Their fee is in that $938 million somewhere.

More likely, the losses are probably for tax reasons or to screw over anyone involved in the film that signed a 'percent of net' rather than a 'percent of gross' deal.

EDIT: See link below for how wealthy individuals finance films because they WANT the film to lose money on paper. This gives them large tax deductions.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_finance#Tax_schemes>

<comment><USER4> This.

The smart money involved in film financing wets its beak before the accounting actually begins. Gross percentage points, hefty producers' fees on top of those gross points, salaries on top of those fees, generous slices of ancillary revenue streams and foreign territory sales, and so forth. A Hollywood film is basically a vehicle designed to enrich its participants, _and_ allow them tax deductions on the nominal loss after everyone's taken a taste of the profits.

If you're someone with _net_ points in a movie -- the screenwriter, say -- good luck ever seeing a dime. You're at the bottom of a pretty big pyramid.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm probably way off, but this is my understanding of this whole "kill Hollywood campaign" that we've got ourselves into.

Step 1) Create a company that _destroys_ Hollywood. Stick it to Studio X by way of Y tech advantage.

Step 2) Become a profitable company, maybe even a titan in the industry.

Step 3) Watch as others see your service as a threat, build their own competing tech.

Step 4) Fight to keep your stake in the market, or exit. Fighting leads to bullshit tactics. Exit eventually gives your company to the very studios you were against.

Step 5) Studio X acquires your company in an attempt to compete with the "new way of doing things". Your research & development goes into their melting pot and the cycle repeats _OR_ Studio X acquires one of your aforementioned competition, leaving you no choice but to resort to bullshit tactics to survive (after all, you're huge at this point).

To me, the problem isn't Hollywood. It's the laws that surround and re-enforce it. Locking up an industry in a closet full of weapons is asinine and the end result is obvious.

<comment><USER6> And you could substitute "Hollywood" for any other industry out there. Isn't this just how the business world rolls?

<comment><USER5> Sure, but we're not all about taking out the industry. The raison d'etre is undignified by the motivation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This idea has been kicking around since the late 90's. The difference is that production costs have (in theory) gone way down since then. The flip side of that is everyone with a Mac and a Canon 5D thinks he's Stanley Kubrick, so it's harder to spot real talent. Either way, it's an inevitability that the market for financing feature films and "television" series will spread horizontally as the costs keep coming down.

I wonder how many people realize that Hollywood Studios are basically financed by major banks. It's the talent pooling and fairly consistent ROI that keeps the lenders coming back.

<comment><USER8> >The flip side of that is everyone with a Mac and a Canon 5D thinks he's Stanley Kubrick, so it's harder to spot real talent.

This is the only point I disagree with. I don't care how much more accessible the tech gets it's still about te storyline, the acting and cinematography.

<comment><USER9> I assume sunchild called it "harder" to spot talent simply because the increased accessibility of tech means there's now more crap to wade through.

<comment><USER8> I can't make that assumption. Any one of these crafts: direction, acting, editing, cinematography and soundtracking is always hard to find. You always had to wade through a mountain of garbage. The way most execs did it previously is through word of mouth. I don't believe that's changed today.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> AngelList's peg / competitive advantage is Venture Hacks / Nivi and Naval. It sounds like this guy is a technology insider (investing in SecondMarket) not a Hollywood insider. That makes me think it's going to be more difficult for the winner investors to get on-board... and I don't know about you, but if AngelList just had random investors from podunk nowhere, it'd definitely not have the cred it has.

Do people producing movies care about who their investors are? Do film investors have the same relationship with their producers as startup founders do with their investors?

(Aside about AngelList: Some people I've talked to still feel like asking money on an open platform such as AngelList is something you do if you're not going to have a brand name investor. That means it's a backup or round-filler strategy for the hottest startups, which lessens its utility compared to traditional strategies of generating dealflow.)

<comment><AUTHOR> Paternot has worked in the film industry for the last 8 years and definitely acknowledged that the biggest challenge was getting the social proof in place to ensure that investors and talent feel comfortable listing on Slated.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I've thought about doing something similar in the past. While researching it I noticed that there are not a lot of "insider" blogs like we see in the tech/VC world. In fact, I briefly thought about getting into film production and using blogging as a way to document the process and create a brand. (I ultimately decided I like my current career better.)

I think someone will eventually do this and build a huge name for themselves. I asked this question on Quora but didn't get any response: [http://www.quora.com/Why-arent-there-more-movie-TV- finance-a...](http://www.quora.com/Why-arent-there-more-movie-TV-finance-and- production-blogs)

</comment><comment> brown9-2 The article, and idea behind the startup, seems to be that the studios are screwing over the backers and the funding corporation.

But if this is so, why do people continue to invest in these vehicles? Don't the backers of these movies, especially a blockbuster like Harry Potter, _know_ that this accounting is going to happen?

It seems to me like there must be another explanation at work here - such as the funding corporations being set up as losers purposefully for the purposes of taxes. Otherwise, if the studios were screwing their funders so much, wouldn't they have run out of suckers by now?

<comment><USER12> I don't have a citation for this because it's from memory, but I believe that a lot of the companies that go under in debt are actually subsidiaries of the studios themselves. It works out as a tax/debt write-off.

<comment><USER13> Just curious, how is this different from what Enron was doing? They are basically setting up shell companies to hide their losses right?

<comment><USER14> The shell companies are to hide the profits and maximize the studio's gain.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> FTA:

>In response Paul Graham, the Svengali of of the startup community, posted an essay calling for ideas that would kill Hollywood.

From Wikipedia:

>The word "svengali", has come to be used as a common noun referring to a person who, with evil intent, controls another person by persuasion or deceit. The Svengali may use pseudo-kindness and manipulation to get the other person to turn over their autonomy.

How, exactly, is this an apt description of pg?

</comment><comment><USER16> Hallelujah!

Once Stephen Paternot orchestrates this coup d'état of Hollywood, its new motto will be: "Got the girl. Got the money. Now I'm ready to live a disgusting, frivolous life."

My apologies that this comment is very un-HN like.

</comment><comment><USER17> So in reality, Hollywood profits are decreasing due to unintentionally-on- purpose losing more money to studios such as Disney, rather than actual pirates.

Make sure to share this information with anyone you know when discussing SOPA.

</comment><comment><USER18> This has been done before. But, as we know, being early is the same as being wrong.</comment>


Gates: Asia to spawn tech breakthroughs - <AUTHOR> http://news.com.com/Gates+Asia+to+spawn+tech+breakthroughs/2100-1008_3-6178194.html?tag=nefd.top <comment><AUTHOR> What scares me is how the Chinese government will manipulate and use the MS workforce to help control the ideas reaching the Chinese Populace. Wouldn't it be that much more efficient to build censorship right into the OS? I would never want to make money this way.</comment>


Tony Brooker dead at 94, author of the first high level language - <AUTHOR> Https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/dec/05/tony-brooker-obituary <comment><USER2> Rest in peace.

However, I believe he did not design the first high-level language: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plankalk%C3%BCl](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plankalk%C3%BCl)

<comment><USER3> Well the first Plankalkül compiler was implemented in 1975 by Joachim Hohmann. So Manchester Autocode by Tony Brooker was the first high-level language that was actually used i suppose.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Autocode page in WIkipedia (with code sample): [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocode](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocode)

</comment><comment><USER5> Lisp it isn't, but that's super-cool!

</comment><comment><USER6> Can we get a black bar for this guy?</comment>


Ask HN: Startup life: Working hard to enrich other people? - <AUTHOR>

It has sort of dawned on me that working as a non-founding employee in a startup is like working hard to enrich other people (the founders, some investors, etc).
In a big company, things are a bit more "spread out". It's very unlikely that your work may catapult your big company into stratospheric valuation levels. At most, you will help improve the product line and increase profits, which are enjoyed by all employees via stock options.
In a startup, the work of some key employees may make the difference between a viable/successful product and a failed product, and in turn may make the difference between a huge exit and complete failure.
The thing is, though, that those key employees are unlikely to see much of a return on their hard work. From all the horror stories we have been reading about on HN lately (about preferred stock, etc) there are many ways in which employees end up with a pittance. The people who end up with the most money are the investors, the founders and maybe some high-level executives that were brought in.
It seems very demotivating to me to think that my work is basically just a pursuit of making other people rich.
Big company life may not be as 'exciting' as startup life, but it seems more motivating to do your share and get your share in return.
Even in big companies, I can see that executives make far more when the stock goes up than regular employees, but it's not like those executives will make zero without you. You are a small piece of the big picture and are rewarded accordingly (with a good salary, usually great benefits, and stock options). In a startup you could be a big piece of the puzzle and still not make much, even if your contributions result in others making millions instead of zero.
Of course, a lot of people are in it for more than just the money, but still when I recently saw all those higher-ups together and realized that my team and I are working hard to essentially enrich others, it has been very demotivating.
What do you guys think? <comment><USER2> "It has sort of dawned on me that working as a non-founding employee in a startup is like working hard to enrich other people (the founders, some investors, etc)."

Exactly my thoughts. You put as much effort as a founder with a payout many times less. You even might get shown the door when it gets bought out.

This is why I won't ever work for a startup..unless it's my own.

<comment><USER3> So you're just dismissing all the things you could learn in an early stage startup?

<comment><USER2> "So you're just dismissing all the things you could learn in an early stage startup?"

If you want to break your back for little to no payout and high risk, go for it. However, I feel you can learn just as much if you own your own startup and the risk/reward ratio is much better.

<comment><USER4> I agree. You can learn just as much doing it all by yourself.. and even more. Even in a startup, you're shielded from other areas like marketing or business development.

<comment><USER2> Very true. I worked for a startup before and although I did get some experience out of it, I was there to do my one job, which was development. I didn't really learn much about the business because I wasn't given the opportunity.

I learned more in 4 months running my own startup and it feels more rewarding to me..even if I fail.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is why I found my own companies instead of joining startups. I don't mind financial or business risk, but I do mind risking my time on behalf of someone else.

I think it's reasonable for a startup founder to get rich off of the efforts of employees, provided he treats them well and offers pay comparable to the amount of work expected.

However, if an employee is supposed to work 60+ hour weeks because "we're in a startup," then I have a serious problem.

Given I have 60/hours a week to work, I can work at big company for 40 of them (same salary) and spend 20 on my own business.

</comment><comment><USER6> Here's the perspective of a founder who has worked for big companies. I don't like the "Us vs Them" logic applied to startups - whether it's employees vs founders or founders vs VCs. Everyone is trying to make money and the reason why the upside is bigger for some is the same as in any other business - because they take more risk.

The founders should get the biggest upside, then investors (and among those the early investors more), then early employees, then all other employees. The founders risk their reputation, personal life, money and often friends' money to start a company. Investors put their money at risk at a stage when it's not clear if the company is going to succeed. And early employees put a bet on a company that can be gone in less than a year.

If you're not an early employee, you shouldn't bear with any corporate risk, which means that you should earn your market salary, no discounts. Because of that, the equity share can't be high because you're not really taking much risk.

Some people are more aggressive taking risks then others and that's why the market works

You say "why enrich other people?". Well, everyone is enriching someone else. If you own resources so valuable that others are willing to pay lots of money for, someone will make you rich. Find a way to make yourself indispensable, as a founder, investor or employee, and someone will make you rich.

</comment><comment><USER7> I don't think that's the right way to look at it. You doing your work isn't about just making someone else rich. It's about doing your job and hopefully doing something you enjoy or love. Building something you believe in, working with people you enjoy being around, and getting paid an amount you're happy with, among other things.

It shouldn't matter whether or not your work is making someone else richer or not. Just because you believe in a corporate environment it has less influence than a startup doesn't change the equation. You're there to do a job and paid to do just that. If you don't enjoy your work, don't feel you're getting paid what you're worth, or feel dissatisfied in any other way, find another job, start your own company, or do something that will make you happy about what you do and how much you earn.

The fact that someone is successful base on you doing your job should never be a reason to be demotivated, especially if you did the exact same job in a big company or elsewhere and don't feel the same way. It's like getting jealous over someone elses' success rather than focusing on your own success, whatever that means to you. I would suggest finding your own happiness, and pursuing that, rather than focus on things that don't matter.

<comment><AUTHOR> > The fact that someone is successful base on you doing your job should never > be a reason to be demotivated, especially if you did the exact same job in a > big company or elsewhere and don't feel the same way.

In theory, what you say is correct. In practice, when you're face-to-face with these people, chatting and munching on crackers at the holiday party, and you know that you are working hard to make that guy right in front of you rich, it starts to be disconcerting.

Sometimes, even if we are OK doing job X for $Y, we can stop being OK with it if new facts emerge. There is an interesting study with monkeys (<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3116678.stm>) where monkeys who would otherwise be OK with completing a task if the reward was a cucumber, got angry and refused to complete the task when they saw other monkeys getting a grape (a better treat for monkeys) for the same task.

Yes, rationally, if you are happy doing job X for $Y, what others get out of your work should not matter, but sometimes our primitive brain objects.

<comment><USER7> Agreed, however, I think that just means either adjust your mindset or as I originally proposed, find what makes you happy. At the end of the day, there's no good reason to continue doing something that makes you unhappy, especially if you have options.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Even as a startup founder you are working to enrich other people: venture capitalists. VCs are able to diversify themselves by investing in multiple startups, knowing that most of them will fail, but that 1 or 2 will make the investments worth it. For the average startup founder the expected utility of founding a startup is negative dollars.</comment>


Poll: Do you have Javascript disabled when you browse? - <AUTHOR>

I know a few top notch hackers who keep Javascript disabled when they browse. Is it common practice? <comment><USER2> I use NoScript and enable JavaScript only on sites that it's needed or actually helpful. It's partly a security measure and partly to make sites load quicker on a slow connection by avoiding a bunch of analytics and other bits that do nothing useful for me. After an initial breaking in period of whitelisting common sites, I rarely even notice the difference.

Also, I like your method of making a "poll" by commenting with the answers, so you get karma for every "vote" cast. I'd accuse you of being a karma whore, but your join data and karma pretty clearly prove otherwise, so I'll just call it a clever hack and leave it at that.

<comment><AUTHOR> I thought polls like these were pretty common on HN!

<comment><USER2> You can make real polls with a built-in voting system once you get to some karma threshold (I don't know what). Or you could make a general "Ask HN" type post and have people leave responses.

Your way (as I interpreted it) was to leave "yes" and "no" comments to be voted up, which would get you a karma boost for each vote. I don't think I've seen that before. I'd normally assume that was someone trying to cheat the system, both for making polls and gaining karma. But after checking your profile, seeing that you've been here a few years and obviously haven't been worried about karma, I just take it as a clever workaround without any bad intent.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. I really had no evil intentions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Yes. I enable it when needed.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Yes

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> No</comment>


On Consulting and Consultants - <AUTHOR> http://tony.pitluga.com/2012/01/03/on-consulting-and-consultants.html

<comment><USER2> Nice article.

I've found too many companies lack the ability to setup a proper team in house which uses consultants beneficially to retain their intellectual capital in house.

Fun example:

I've had a recent project where I have been hired as an outsider to develop and run the core of the software to the company. At that time the customer saved money because they were only paying a part of a yearly salary to me.

As the business grew, and fast forward 5 years later, I'm still the core developer. Our relationship has matured to the point where I'm kind of an inside-outsider.

Lately they're doing a lot more work with me. They're growing. The 5 years I've invested and billed honestly through has paid them dividends.

What happens? They want to save money by bringing in a developer in house. Someone's been calculatoring a little much. The most interesting part, they want me to manage (but not manage) that person.

I let them know that I can't run a second off-site daycare because I have to be on call 8 hours a day for someone outside my office. If they choose to transition to an internal team and no longer use my services, I'm happy to do the knowledge transfer and training as they would like, but I can't change my business.

A lot of companies are in this boat -- quite often getting into custom software development, not knowing the first thing about software. I believe this partly happens because there's a lot of business problems people are trying to solve with technology, without understanding how technology is built or maintained.</comment>