Italy Wikipedia shuts down in protest at proposed EU copyright law - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44696302 <comment><USER2> > Mr Voss also rubbished claims of an "upload filter", saying the proposal > would only affect 1%-5% of the internet. He also said the rules would apply > to "only those that actually publish copyright protected content" and earn > money from it.

The rubbish I see here is a man who doesn't understand the laws he's trying to push forward. All websites (for the most part) are trying to make at least enough money to keep running via advertising. Any website with a comments section (hey, this one included) would need to extensively monitor all posts by the public to ensure no one posts anything copyrighted.

What it will effectively mean is that many websites won't bother allowing access from the EU anymore. Already, I have to screenshot and email my sister in Britain recipes from a Canadian website that doesn't want to deal with GDPR. Imagine how difficult it will be when there's copyright liabilities from content you didn't know you were 'publishing'.

<comment><USER3> > The rubbish I see here is a man who doesn't understand the laws he's trying > to push forward.

He fully understands what he wants, but he is a member of CDU, so he couldn't care less. This whole shit happened because German publishers got their beloved "Leistungsschutzrecht" kicked into the bin by the constitutional court. So, instead of accepting defeat they and their cronies started lobbying in the EU, so they can reintroduce it and say "Oh, we are so sorry, we didn't want to do this, but they FORCED US!" ... its an age old strategy.

<comment><USER4> This is one of the _real_ problems with EU policymaking: "policy laundering". National governments are often in on it as well. Because the process is slow, somewhat opaque, and badly covered in national press, lobbyists can get things passed without adequate public debate.

(It's not precisely a "democratic/undemocratic" thing either, because it can happen equally well at the national level.)

<comment><USER5> Isn't this in concept what contributed to Brexit?

<comment><USER4> Perhaps, but if anything the UK's own government and press were major offenders in this regard. A lot of incidents where the UK government _could_ have done something within the EU framework but chose not to are blamed on the EU by the press.

As we are now seeing on trade, immigration, agriculture, etc, having the UK government try to take responsibility for those areas means the controversy immediately blows up in their face as suddenly they can no longer say different things to different audiences.

<comment><USER6> > Perhaps, but if anything the UK's own government and press were major > offenders in this regard.

It's quite possible that this behaviour by the UK political classes is what hastened to movement towards Brexit. I personally think that many people in the UK were aware of the behaviour, by both major parties, of using the EU to impose laws for which they lacked democratic support technocratically. Since there was no electable party that stood in contrast to this, the electorate took its opportunity by evicting the EU instead. Seen in this light, Brexit is as much a reflection of a failure of national politics, as it is of continental politics.

The mantra 'taking back control' of many Brexit supporters is perhaps better seen as citizens wanting to stop their government from acting in ways they don't vote for, than as the government taking back control from the EU.

The dissembling (as I see it) of politicians from across the EU on this law (and others before it) indicates that this is not a problem that is restricted to the UK.

<comment><USER7> Brexit was about immigration. Nothing else comes close. I think you're right that this was in the mix, but so were a hundred other factors that might have got raised here or there, but they're all dwarfed by immigration.

Britain more than any other member has managed to get exclusion clauses from any EU regulations or rules we didn't want, so the argument that we couldn't do anything about rules imposed by Brussels is obviously untrue. We opted out of stuff all the time, it was routine. The irony is that if we end up in a soft Brexit situation with an open trade deal with the EU, we won't be able to negotiate any opt-outs anymore because we won't have any representation in Brussels. We'll have to take everything Brussels serves up, or crash out hard.

<comment><USER8> Not to deny that immigration was a major part, but the belief is more important than reality for both that and sovereignty. Yes, the UK had a great deal with loads of opt-outs, but that didn't stop the papers blaming the EU for everything — including immigration, which was mostly non-EU.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The web is becoming more and more fragmented. I wonder where this will lead to. Europe seems to fall behind the US at an accelerating pace.

During the last two decades, Europe already failed to take part in building the internet. Now Europeans all use US services. Amazon, Ebay, Facebook, Google, Dropbox, AirBnB, Uber...

This was due to the culture of Europes entrepreneurs which is often "bureaucracy first, product later".

Now lawmakers seem busy putting another burden on top of that. Laws that put Europe behind the rest of the world in how easy it is to build online services.

Where will Europe be in 20 years? Will it become a developing continent of the digital area? Or will German Engineers somehow make up for innovation via assiduous execution? I find it hard to see how that could work.

Politicians might think 'Now that we have the web, lets regulate it'. But I wonder: Now that we lost the web, how will we avoid the same with AI? AI will have orders of magnitude more impact on our lives then the web. How will we avoid losing crypto? In the age of crypto, people might freely chose what currency to use. Do we want the worlds currency to be owned by a US company? How will we avoid losing biotech? Will the same happen to our bodies that happened to our data? Will they be owned by a handful of US companies?

<comment><USER10> Europe is not falling behind the US. That's bullshit. I'm an American living in Amsterdam for a decade or so, so I have some perspective.

All those companies you mentioned are prominent, but they are only important because they are a few percent cheaper or more useful or have better marketing. But they come at a high cost to society.

European cultures are different. It moves slower. Rules are more acceptable. But the things it produces are more polished. Amsterdam is better than any US city, for example.

<comment><USER11> I'm a European (born and bred) who just renounced US citizenship (gained through parent) and I have to counter you. Yes Amsterdam is way better than any US city but that has nothing to do with internet entrepreneurship. The EU, European governments and European culture in general do not support entrepreneurs. I bootstrapped a company in Berlin and all the government did was try find ways to shut us down. Our main competitor (Rocket Internet company) had the means to deal with this BS but as we were a small scrappy bootstrapped company we were treated like dirt. The Stripe story is very telling in this regard. Before moving to SV they tried to launch with Irish banks as partners and were laughed at for being naive children. No one is laughing anymore.

<comment><USER10> That example isn't very convincing. I've only seen 1 or so service use stripe and their transaction costs are very high. You can't call it's existence positive without evoking some cultural values.

Plus, Europe is way ahead of the us in terms of banking convinence and efficiency.

<comment><USER11> Stripe is a multi-billion dollar company. It could have been Irish based for free. The Irish government spend billions to attract companies like Stripe. Also Stripe is a global brand now used by tens of thousands of businesses.

<comment><USER12> Wasn't Theranos multibillion valued at some point? Not trying to imply anything about Stripe being fraudulent, just evoking an extreme example of clear overvaluation to put such numbers into perspective. Stripe might also very well not have made much sense for Irish banks and a lot for US ones. Time will tell whether that was a mistake.

<comment><USER11> Nonsense on all counts.

<comment><USER12> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theranos](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theranos)

Ironically, your single statement was actually "nonsense on all accounts" as Theranos definitely was valued multiple billions at some point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I encourage everyone in the EU to reach out to their representatives by mail (or by phone, even better!) and let them know how you feel about the proposal. I have already sent mails to mine, and have at time of writing gotten two responses indicating a shared opposition of the proposal. I moreover asked whether they are experiencing any significant surge in comments compared to other controversial topics to which they, much to my disappointment, said they are not. Whilst this likely depends entirely on the representative in question, I was reassured that every comment was read and taken into consideration - if anything then in an aggregated manner.

<comment><USER14> I've just put together a simple list of MEPs and their voting intentions (far from complete, it's only the few I've heard about more or less directly). It would be great if you can add what you've heard from MEPs you've spoken to. If anything, it may help focus efforts when speaking to MEPs. [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1A8H7OQfyjzdn8RhQ7ifw...](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1A8H7OQfyjzdn8RhQ7ifwMoKp8axVjjkEXRu4PJUY1zg/edit#gid=0)

<comment><USER15> One important aspect about this is that this week's vote is a simple yes/no matter. If the vote is yes, the proposal continues to the next stage unamended. If the vote is no, each specific part of the proposal will be subject to amendments, which can then be voted on in a separate session. So having this table divided by article is not very sensible.

I called a bunch of German MEPs over the past few weeks. I spoke to every parliamentary group except the far-right. The CDU and CSU are voting for this, which makes sense as it's their proposal. They had zero interest in talking about the actual contents, saying instead that Voss is their expert on the topic and they trust his opinion. Every other parliamentary group among the German MEPs is opposed. There is one person in the Green group that is an exception (Helga Trüpel). She is violently in support and doesn't seem to want to discuss the matter (when I called a staffer told me that they were overwhelmed with calls about this topic and I should call another time but her Twitter feed leaves zero doubts). Every other member of the Green group is against, as are all the FDP representatives, all the SDP representatives, and all the Linke representatives. I didn't feel comfortable speaking with any AfD and associated people. I spoke to a handful of CDU people who asked me to email with specific questions, and then replied to said email with a one-liner saying they fully support their colleague's proposal. It's still a good idea to call German representatives outside the CDU/CSU faction and ask them to please attend the vote - attendance is possibly going to be more important here than convincing them of a position because it appears the party lines are now clear.

It might be a good idea to NOT call EPP/CDU/CSU members because that might motivate them to attend and the lower their attendance the better.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> >Article 13 has been the most controversial, requiring websites to enforce copyright, _even on content uploaded by users._ (emphasis mine)

This is laughable. Laws like the aforementioned shows how disconnected the lawmakers and regulators in the European Union (not that they're unique) are from the tech/media industry and general internet-using public at large.

Regulations like these could backfire real bad even with best of intentions from folks at the helm of regulatory bodies, who -- more often than not -- have scanty, if any, understanding of the how online social platforms work.

<comment><USER17> It turns out that regulations are made largely by old lawyers, who are more connected and charismatic than smart and practical, and haven't operated in the real-world for decades.

<comment><USER18> "It turns out that regulations are made largely by old lawyers, who are more connected and charismatic than smart and practical, and haven't operated in the real-world for decades."

Maybe that's the career path for aging programmers. Get a law degree.

<comment><USER11> This is a fantastic idea. Perhaps HN community could start an initiative to support this. Ageism in tech is a huge problem that is widely discussed here as is the disconnect between technology and law makers. It is in fact the perfect intersection which will result in the maximum value add impact for ageing technologists.

I have created a post to discuss this further: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17455017](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17455017)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Since the companies who are advocating for economic censorship of the open web like lists so much, is there a github repo of all companies:products:services and associated lobbyists who are advocating for the proposed EU copyright law?

Such a list will be necessary for mass-market _boycott, divestment and sanction_ of the companies who killed the open web. Users will have lots of time available to focus and channel their energy, if these laws are passed, economically outlawing most user-generated content.

In the history of online and offline publishing, what have been the commercial and censorship consequences of centralized copyright registers/databases and pre/post publication filters?

<comment><USER20> Just some trivia, and I'm sorry if I get any details wrong;

a former colleague (who is now a PhD student at Northwestern, in the US) made a Chrome extension that used publicly available data to transform every mention of a politician or political party into a 'link'. By hovering the mouse, the extension showed you exactly who/what companies donated how much to that politican/party.

It was eye opening to read the news with that on. He even made national headlines here (not EU).

Eventually the project was canned because the public source was discontinued by the government.

<comment><USER21> I made something similar for Belgium a while back [0]. Unfortunately, all I had were the official resources. How much is earned for most of the positions is not public information (or is well hidden in opaque structures). This form of information augmentation has an enormous impact on how you can consume the news.

[0] [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/hoeveel- verdient-e...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/hoeveel-verdient-een- poli/fflfmdjmelaknahhfdfphpebpfjhlcid)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> The internet that we have now, wouldn't have been possible with laws like these in place. Remember that when you are trying to rationalise this and other overreaching laws like the GDPR. We will be destroying the future if we allow this.

<comment><USER23> What's wrong with GDPR?

<comment><USER24> It impacts the majority of the web and it's vague in a number of important places.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> It's worth pointing out the slight error in the article title here -- Wikipedia isn't organized by countries but by languages. Now granted, most Italian speakers are in Italy, so this isn't as bad of an error as conflating the Portuguese Wikipedia (most readers are Brazilian) with Portugal, or the English Wikipedia with England.

But Italian is also an official language of Switzerland, and fairly widely spoken in other countries like Slovenia and Croatia, and of course the whole expat Italian community in places like the US and Southern America.

And, most saliently, the Italian Wikipedia, like all Wikipedias, is run by a US-based organization, the Wikimedia Foundation. This affects the legal ramifications of this law on the Italian Wikipedia greatly.

<comment><USER26> Wikipedia _servers_ are run by The Wikimedia Foundation. The wikipedias themselves are run by their own communities

<comment><USER25> The local communities can be (and have been) overridden on policies by the WMF. They aren't sovereign. It all comes down to the WMF, ultimately. They have final say on everything. Local language communities are more like _users_ of the site, from a legal perspective.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> We need support to ensure that everybody in world understand that the web is in danger. Not the European web because there is nothing like that. Web is global. If this law will be approved, it will impact the whole web and create a precedent for other countries to approve similar regulations. All governments, even the Western ones, want to control the web. This is a first tragic step. So, please, shut down all Wikipedia in world for at least one day. It is a small sacrifice to obtain a great victory for freedom. An Italian Wikipedian

</comment><comment><USER28> I see the EC responded to Jimmy's tweet: [https://twitter.com/EU_Commission/status/1014131021137285127](https://twitter.com/EU_Commission/status/1014131021137285127)

<comment><USER29> The Wikimedia Foundation hosts collaborative projects which are not encyclopedias. WikiNews for instance cuts right into the heart of what EC is trying to stop. Really shows how much thought the EC put into their "arbitrary exceptions to appease powerful entities" strategy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I don't know if there is something more irritating than seeing people in power trying to regulate a field they have no idea about.

<comment><USER31> I would guess that more irritating than that, are ignorant people trying to discuss a field they have no idea about (I'm looking at you, antivaxxers)

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Funny that we heard so much about net neutrality, but no one seems to care about copyright laws or GDPR.

<comment><USER33> Funny how American dominated websites care more of American politics over European ones.

To be glib about it, it also goes to show the demographics at work here. Even now, GDPR resulted in more of a pain for Europeans than Americans; it's quite common now to see comments about how this site is blocked in Europe or some bypass method to get to an article. This copyright law will very likely amount to the same deal, being a thorn in the side of Europeans but Americans couldn't care less.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Would Hacker News ([https://news.ycombinator.com](https://news.ycombinator.com)) suffer directly since it exists out of content generated by users (Article 13) ? And it links to other websites. (Article 11) ?

Who is behind the recent changes on the internet ?

Months ago Agit Pai(FCC) ended net neutrality.

Month ago, may 25th, GDPR initiated (except this benefits the individual).

Now there is a push for laws that defeat the basics of the internet, the hyperlink:

Article 11: requires online platforms to pay publishers a fee if they link to their news content.

Article 13: requiring websites to enforce copyright, even on content uploaded by users.

There is a bigger force behind those recent major changes that can break the internet as we know. But who ?

<comment><USER35> GDPR is for the people, was passed over a year ago.

Don't put all these things together.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> I believe I found the text of the proposed law, though this may be an older version: [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A...](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52016PC0593)

>Article 11 of the proposed law requires online platforms to pay publishers a fee if they link to their news content.

I don't see how the law does this. The proposal states, under section 33:

>This protection does not extend to acts of hyperlinking which do not constitute communication to the public.

This is the only mention of linking that I could find in the law.

As for article 13, it does seem far too broad. There needs to be explicit exemptions for what we call "fair use" in the US. Educational, research, transformative uses, parody, etc, must be preserved.

</comment><comment><USER9> There would be a simple solution to a law that forbids linking to content without consent of the author:

Only link to content where the author added a standardized 'You are free to link to this page.' meta tag.

In no time, every page on the net would carry that tag. Because authors _want_ to be linked to.

</comment><comment><USER37> Could this be the renaissance of RSS syndication?

The users autonomously aggregate the RSS published by the authors or the owners of the content an build their own personal aggregators at home.

You wanna share it?

Just share the links to the RSS (which are public and used exactly for that purpose)

The owner is in control of what's being distributed, the user is in control of what they are reading

Wikipedia itself is a form a centralization of data and content, which is undesirable anyway.

</comment><comment><USER38> Ha. The scope and enforcement of these actions and their predecessors make me want to write a new children's book entitled, "The Boy Who Cried 'Follow This Large Internet Law'".

</comment><comment><USER39> It is such bullshit to talk about "copyrighted content" as if there were special more important kinds that are protected. Even CC content is copyrighted

</comment><comment><USER40> I hope this law is used to rebalance how unfairly the US has treated the EU in services.

</comment><comment><USER41> EU policy lobbying at its finest

<comment><USER42> Over 50000 people work full time lobbying in EU

[http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/eu- affairs/2...](http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/eu- affairs/20180108STO91215/transparency-register-who-is-lobbying-the-eu- infographic)

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> Why Italy? Why not a country with more impact on EU laws, like Germany or France?

</comment><comment><USER44> So I imagine this would only apply to servers hosted in the EU, no?

<comment><USER42> And services that make money in EU. Technically your service won't be able sell or buy from EU companies without having this filter and respecting (another dead regulation) GDPR.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> This is just another shitshow driven by publishers, unions and music labels lobbying politicians in the attempt to make money given they have no clue how to innovate and make money anymore.

I wish people in the news would call this bs out for what it is but I doubt they ever will considered news publishers are among the ones lobbying. They'll be happy for us to be forced through their bs paywalls.

This is a very different matter from the GDPR, don't get fooled.

</comment><comment><USER46> Once more into the breach deer friends..

Again and again we are supposed to rally, infinite protest against rows and rows of copyright reform - this is a dead alley. No protest culture or NGO has ever sustained a movement as long as the market interests undermining the allmende and democracy.

The right to time wise inject laws similar in intention into the governing process- must be limited. Once a proposal has been voted for or against, it must be stable for 4 or 8 years. Stable being only open to more precise definition, but not intent inversion or redefinition.

</comment><comment><USER47> As Italian, I feel like this is gone completely out of hand.

Wikipedia content is licensed under CC license. There's no way their content could not be linked elsewhere.

Wikipedia also rises the question of the content they link, as, for example in the footnotes

In Italy it can be admitted under the "right to inform" (diritto di cronaca), it applies to everyone, not only to the press

Most of all the law only applies to content sharing providers, not to individuals

This is similar to what Xanadu envisioned, and could start a real fight back to fake news and the spreading of lies and online violence towards minorities

EU has a long history of being with the people of EU, not the corporations and I trust them

Besides, the law in Italy is being opposed by the worst kind of net abusers around, some of them are in charge thanks to the wave of fake news that started with Cambridge Analytica and some of them have been called out by CA itself (even though they didn't explicitly said the names, there are evidences that Matteo Salvini, leader of Lega, have been working with them)

</comment><comment><USER48> I thought that wikipedia was made for the use of the public, but it is using the public (denying access to the encyclopedia to it) to promote the political agenda of a smaller group (the wikipedia community) instead. If the role of the internet is to concentrate resources, to put out of business alternatives, to command and conquer the masses, it's better to legistlate it away. I want my encarta disks back.

<comment><USER49> You're either trolling or a russian bot. No sane person can believe that Wikipedia is pushing a political agenda ("using the public" !?) to "put out of business alternatives". Wikipedia is defending an idea on which the Internet and Wikipedia itself is build. And the smaller group you refer to is a group of hundreds of millions of daily users.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: If you started a website today, what framework? - <AUTHOR> If you started from scratch today, what web framework would you use?
There's just so many out-there that's it's difficult to decide..
Phoenix / Elixir has gotten my interest, but I don't know about authentication..
Ideas? <comment><USER2> As far as authentication for Elixir, have you seen Guardian or Coherence? [https://github.com/ueberauth/guardian](https://github.com/ueberauth/guardian) [https://github.com/smpallen99/coherence](https://github.com/smpallen99/coherence)

I vote Elixir and Phoenix.

<comment><USER3> Same here! I spent the past few months obsessively reading everything I can about Elixir and Phoenix, as well as exploring the state of the community. While I am still a bit worried about the relatively small size of the latter, even just studying and tinkering with the language and framework is very exciting to me. And it's been quite a while since I got so excited about something in my field.

For me the biggest hurdle was and still is wrapping my head around a language that is pretty seriously functional. I've been a huge fan of functional programming for a while, but I always worked in 'general-purpose' languages like Python, JavaScript and Ruby. While it can be frustrating, I feel this process of actually working functionally with less 'escape hatches' will be worthwhile even if I end up spending most of my time in the JS world.

But for anyone who is interested in functional programming, but never bothered to learn Haskell or the like, or anyone who feels Rails is not cutting it anymore, for whatever reason, I can highly recommend Elixir/Phoenix.

Furthermore, for me OTP is just awesome. I do not have the experience to make statements about whether OTP and the process-based approach to concurrency is better than alternatives, or even good in itself. But there's something about the relative simplicity, the idea of just processes communicating and some standardization of this, that tickles me in the same way functional programming tickled me when I was first introduced to it.

The idea that any approach to 'asynchronous programming' in Elixir really just boils down to a bag of functions running in one or multiple 'processes', and that this is the exact way I treat, say, bash scripting, is extremely exciting to me for some reason.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> [https://www.webtoolkit.eu/wt](https://www.webtoolkit.eu/wt)

</comment><comment><USER5> Spring MVC with my "template" framework that works on server-side DOM trees.

</comment><comment><USER6> +1 for Vue and Node. Being able to decouple the front-end and backend is fantastic. Although, the right tool for the right job. What type of websites / web apps are you looking to get into?

</comment><comment><USER7> Vue and node</comment>


Ask HN: Use experienced developer to oversee outsourcing?  - <AUTHOR>

I'm currently in the early phases of site development, working on a prototype for an innovative media sharing site, and would really appreciate the input of the Hacker News community.  If there's a better place to post this, please let me know and I will do so.
The site will provide two services:
	1) A community rated aggregation of the best media curation resources on the internet. 	2) A community driven recommendation database for movies, music, books, and self-improvement media.
The site is made to adapt to what works for its users, functioning by combining elements of Wikipedia's administrative curating with the user rating and ranking approach of Reddit.
There's a lot more I can tell anyone who is interested about how the site will work and the plan for how to develop its community and content, but, for these purposes, suffice to say it will involve a system of user generated links and pages, an ability to wiki-edit content on specific items, and a database that enables a functional filter system for users to determine what results they see.
Because I have a minimal development background and am financing the prototype on my own, I am planning to bring a detailed wireframe, design, and plan for a site to an outsourced development company.  But, I feel I ideally need someone with a strong background of relevant experience to oversee this, as the more difficult challenges of setting this up the right way on the back end will most likely be outside of both my and any inexpensive development team's skill sets.  It should be a minimal investment of time, as the primary role would be thinking it out in the right way for someone else to do the work, but I'm not sure if it's a realistic approach.
Let me know your thoughts on this process and idea, if you think there could be people with relevant skills interested in working this way and the best way to find someone.
I'm very interested to hear any thoughts or advice you may have to offer. <comment><USER2> I have played exactly that role before and I believe it is a smart way to go about it. You get the bulk of your development done for a lower price as well as a reviewer of sorts to verify the quality of the work.

I have been brought in more than once to pick up the pieces when a non- technical person simply sent their "plans" to an offshore developer. The communication gap can be too much to overcome. Not to say that all situations are bound to end up like that, but I have seen enough to think it happens with some regularity.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks redspark, any ideas on how to find the right person for that kind of arrangement?

Coming from the other side, what made it worthwhile for you, what would be the best way to go about the process to make it easiest and most efficient for the developer?

<comment><USER2> I know I was found by those particular customers asking their personal network for a project manager/developer. It is a bit of a unique skillset since it requires someone who has excellent communication and follow-up skills, as well as a very competent developer.

What made it worthwhile for me was working on something that I found interesting. Every situation is unique, so nothing just jumps out at me to make it easier or efficient.

For all intensive purposes, this developer is going to be kind of a co- founder. Make sure you keep that in the back of your head as you search. If at all possible I would suggest looking for someone local. Every degree of separation increases the chance of mis-communication.

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting, makes a lot of sense- Appreciate that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I've been a Project Manager/Developer on projects that involved outsourced labour for the last 5 years. My background is .NET. If you want to chat let me know.</comment>


Ask HN: Non-technical Opportunities in Orange County, CA? - <AUTHOR>

Long post - thanks in advance for reading!
I recently moved cities for a job in a Business Strategy role and after a month in the position, I am now no longer part of the company. My coworker with the same position has also left. Although not provided with a reason, I believe it is because the company had realized their growth objectives were not as aggressive as originally planned - thus not needing my position anymore. This a reasonable thing from a business standpoint, but it has put me in a very financially uncomfortable position.
This was my first full time position. For the couple of years post graduation, I had been doing web design; and although design is not the field I wanted to be in (or think I'm particularly best at), the money was good enough and I learned quite a lot about developing new clients and running my own small practice.
Now, I'm quite worried I've put myself in a bit of a hole as I have no "professional" in-office experience of note and have been let go from the first full time position I've ever had.
- What am I looking for? -
Ideally: A position with a startup or young business where I will have some degree of freedom and responsibility to play a noticeable role in the growth of the company. I think I do my best work in high responsibility/high pressure situations.
Realistically: A job. I'm pretty comfortable with a variety of tasks and the ones I'm not, I think I can learn pretty fast.
- What I come with -
Long term vision with a tactical mindset. Experience in advertising (specifically social media). Many good references. A very positive mindset and some quirky humor.
TL;DR: 2 years out of college, no "professional" experience, only 1 month in a full time position, new city, need a job, please help!
Also, email is in my profile if you wish to reach out in private. <comment><USER2> I don't have any opportunities, but just curious why you sell yourself as someone with no "professional" experience when you say you ran your own, small web design practice? Was that not "professional"?

<comment><AUTHOR> In my mind it is; I've certainly grown or developed skills that I strongly believe have great value... but in past interviews I've been on it's been made pretty clear that for experience to be considered professional - it must be with a formalized business. Hence why I've put professional in quotes.

<comment><USER3> the "" is confusing, explain what you've learned and why you would be an asset

<comment><AUTHOR> I suppose you're right that it's a bit unclear. The quotes are probably just a written expression at past frustrations from being told I don't have the right experience because nearly all of my skills haven't been developed in an office.

As for specific skillsets, I'm more than happy to get into details, but didn't feel the nitty gritty had a place in my post.

If I had to describe the ideal position (only so folks better understand me) I'd say the opportunity would have an emphasis on Partnerships. I am extremely good at identifying growth opportunities and think nearly all companies can benefit from strategic partnerships.

Anyone is totally welcome to send me an email asking for specifics though if they feel I might be a good fit for any opportunity they're aware of.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


What It's Like to Plummet to Earth at 834 Miles Per Hour - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/10/what-its-like-to-plummet-to-earth-at-834-miles-per-hour/280580/

<comment><USER2> > When the Austrian daredevil Felix Baumgartner made his great leap from space > last year...

It's a long way to space from where he jumped. The Karman line is at 100 km altitude.</comment>


'This Did Not Go Well': Inside PG&E's Blackout Control Room - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/12/business/pge-california-outage.html <comment><USER4> It will be interesting watching how all this plays out. As others have noted the liability math has certainly changed. Enough to bankrupt one of the largest utility companies in the country.

One the other hand this is _also_ a political statement. They are clearly signaling to the politicians that they better shield them from further liability or expect more of this behavior. Shut the power down when the wind blows, after each earthquake until the lines can be checked, etc. My money is the politicians fold. The stock rose 3% Friday.

<comment><USER5> My money is they get taken over by the state. Privatizing a utility was always a stupid move to begin with and they are finally proving it beyond any reasonable doubt. It's time we get to fixing all the damage Regan did to this country.

<comment><USER6> Private utilites work just fine in every other state. Maybe this just a California being California issue again.

No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater...

<comment><USER7> > Maybe this just a California being California issue again.

California is a high fire risk state regardless of whether the utility is publicly owned or investor (aka privately) owned. The risk is on a level that doesn't occur in many other states.

If the costs of fires are going to be socialized anyways (by immunizing utility from the liability, hence putting the burden on the ratepayers), the question of whether the utility should be publicly owned in order to reduce the obligation to shareholders is a valid one.

Either that or PGE will have to dramatically increase it's expenditures on maintenance to reduce the fire risk, which will have to come from shareholders' and ratepayers' pockets (the latter of which is not permitted under current PUC rules, IIUC).

<comment><USER8> > _...or PGE will have to [...] which is not permitted under current PUC > rules_

Sounds a lot like California being California to me...

<comment><USER9> Your "[...]" skips over the option where they have smaller immediate profits in exchange for securing the future of the company. Is that a bad option for some reason?

<comment><USER10> A company selling shares to raise capital is an alternative to other methods of raising capital, like taking out a loan. Asking why they don't just make smaller profits is like asking why they don't just pay a lower interest rate on their loans. It presumes that someone exists who is willing to lend them the money at the lower rate of return.

Companies have the option of shutting down operations and selling off their assets. PG&E presumably has a fleet of trucks and equipment, land rights etc., which were paid for with investors' money. If their profits fall below the level that could be achieved by selling off those assets and then investing the money at the market rate of return, it becomes profitable for raiders to come in and buy the company and do that with it, so the company has to stay more profitable than that in order to prevent that from happening.

<comment><USER9> > A company selling shares to raise capital is an alternative to other methods > of raising capital, like taking out a loan.

Not selling shares. _Having smaller dividends_. That doesn't assume anyone is willing to loan them money.

> If their profits fall below the level that could be achieved by selling off > those assets and then investing the money at the market rate of return, it > becomes profitable for raiders to come in and buy the company and do that > with it, so the company has to stay more profitable than that in order to > prevent that from happening.

Ugh. I'm not sure via what mechanism, exactly, but it should not be possible for a monopoly power company to just dissolve and sell off the trucks for a tiny quick profit.

<comment><USER10> > Not selling shares. _Having smaller dividends_. That doesn't assume anyone > is willing to loan them money.

They already sold the shares and used the money to buy trucks and stuff. The dividends are effectively the interest on that money.

Suppose (made up numbers) that they have ten billion dollars in assets, but a twelve billion dollar market cap because of the expectation that those assets will be used to make future profits. Now you say "just make smaller profits" which means their market cap falls to eight billion dollars because of the expectation of smaller dividends.

Someone on Wall St then notices that they can make two billion dollars by buying them for eight billion and selling their assets for ten.

> I'm not sure via what mechanism, exactly, but it should not be possible for > a monopoly power company to just dissolve and sell off the trucks for a tiny > quick profit.

The government always has the option to be the buyer itself, or find one that wants to continue operating as a power company. But then it either has to raise its own capital or bring about a regulatory environment that allows a private company to meet the market rate of return and thereby raise a sufficient amount of private capital.

<comment><USER9> For a utility, "keep being a utility" needs to be above "larger profits" on the list of core objectives, and shareholders need to accept that before buying in.

Whether that's just by writing it down, or having 30 billion in penalties if they stop delivering power, or by making dividends vest over 20 years...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Judge William Alsup (remember him?) who is overseeing the PG&E case in San Francisco said about shutoffs;

"The prudent thing to do when you're uncertain is to turn the power off," he said. "When the public complains that everything in the refrigerator is bad and the ice cream melted, then you could blame the judge. I'm willing to take the heat."

[1] - [https://www.kqed.org/news/11737336/judge-pge-paid-out- stock-...](https://www.kqed.org/news/11737336/judge-pge-paid-out-stock- dividends-instead-of-trimming-trees)

<comment><USER12> Alsup is my favorite jurist. He's 74; may he preside forever.

The above quote benefits from a little more context. Alsup's point is that PG&E paid dividends while slashing the maintenance budget — and as a judge, he's willing to step in and say "that's not right".

<comment><USER11> He _also_ made that point.

But his point here is that if we're willing to assign liability to PG&E for damages from a brushfire sparked tomorrow... if in your mind PG&E is truly _responsible_ for any resulting death or destruction if a tree falls on their transmission lines during a time of critical fire risk and sparks a blaze.... then it is not only prudent, but it would be morally and economically imperative to shut down the lines during those critical risk periods.

There are several competing theories of liability and responsibility. Under strict liability, a fire happens, the root cause was an electrical spark, the utility is liable. You can't operate a grid across all of California during 55mph winds at the end of the hot dry summer under those terms, and not go bankrupt.

From PG&E;

"California is one of the only states in the country in which courts have applied inverse condemnation to events caused by utility equipment. This means that if a utility's equipment is found to have been a substantial cause of the damage in an event such as a wildfire – even if the utility has followed established inspection and safety rules – the utility may still be liable for property damages and attorneys' fees associated with that event."

There are a lot of variables in how damaging a wildfire may be. What _sparked_ the fire is only one small variable in the chain of events. Forest management, building zones encroaching on forested areas, presence of fire brakes, disaster preparedness and response, emergency alerts all play a significant role, and those are just the factors CA can directly control. The weather, the climate is another matter.

"But for the spark" is a reductionist way to lay the blame for a multi-billion dollar fire. CA wildfires _will_ burn every single year. The sparks are _inevitable_. The amount of preventative maintenance that theoretically can be done amounts to hundreds of billions of dollars.

It doesn't serve CA's common interest for electricity to cost $1/kWh. Risk mitigation is a statistical analysis, not an absolute. At some point you've invested enough that the risk is "mitigated" even if it isn't "eliminated" and we accept this type of risk mitigation everywhere in modern life, the electrical grid should be no different.

How many people die driving on CA's highways every year? How many could be saved with $100 billion of safety improvements? Do you shut them down until you can be _certain_ no one else will die due to a deficient design or, perhaps, due to a gore point impact attenuator that hasn't been reset?

A cursory look at PG&E financials shows that on ~$17b in revenue they spend ~$5b on supply and ~$7b on maintenance. They had been running $1-$1.5b surpluses the last few years. I wonder looking at other utilities how those ratios would stack up.

Would $1b more maintenance have prevented the Camp Fire? Entirely impossible to say. We do know that the full maintenance list runs into the $10s if not $100s of billions.

<comment><USER13> While I think everyone agrees that PG&E has been somewhat negligent in maintaining its network - as someone who works with utilities, I agree with you - I think its absurd to try to bill all the costs of every fire to the utility that may have sparked it - it's exceedingly irrational to do so.

PG&E has no control over the weather, winds, firefighting budgets, or forest policy, yet it alone is now to be held in total responsibility for all fires that originate with its equipment? thats absurd.

<comment><USER14> > I think its absurd to try to bill all the costs of every fire to the utility > that may have sparked it ... PG&E has no control over the weather, winds, > firefighting budgets, or forest policy, yet it alone is now to be held in > total responsibility for all fires that originate with its equipment? thats > absurd.

There are two reasons why you're wrong.

First, PG&E can't control the weather but did have control over its operations, e.g., how it maintained its equipment, how much it prepared for problems, how it managed risk. It may be tricky to determine if it's truly at fault, but it's equally tricky to determine that it's in the clear.

Second, a large utility is not like a private company. We cannot let a large utility fail, and therefore they are more like a government organization than a private company. When they mess up and hurt people, everyone needs to pitch in and help, not just those that are affected, as everyone shares the benefits and responsibilities of keeping them afloat.

<comment><USER15> The law is strict liability, meaning it doesn't matter whether there was a good-faith effort to prevent the problem or not.

<comment><USER14> > The law is strict liability, meaning it doesn't matter whether there was a > good-faith effort to prevent the problem or not.

I'm not advocating strict liability here. I'm arguing that when a large company has a history of negligence that gave rise to similar incidents, the burden should shift to them to prove they were not the cause of the accident.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> IMHO finding problems with how PG&E handled this will be much like looking through your graphs and logs after an outage. When you go looking for trouble, you find it, but most of what you see, despite being true and bad, is just red-herrings and statistical noise. The real causal factors are systemic and so deeply baked in that its very important we find scape goats lest we have to come to grips with what a 2C future means to electrical distribution across a vast sprawl spread through rapidly drying forest.

<comment><USER17> Completely agree. It is very unlikely that a utility will step in to fill PG&E's shoes. Infrastructure, generally speaking, is more expensive to maintain than we realize.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> What I strongly believe is being overlooked here is _not_ the fact that their 'liability math' has changed but the fact that this is the result of regional utility monopolies.

The entire energy sector are allowed to operate in these terrible ways because they have local governments supporting their terrible business models.

Price of energy hasn't gone down because there is no actual competition. Without these large government subsidies, there'd be little to no action to "be green" Even though Nuclear is the greenest (taken every factor in and equalizing the playing field). But I digress.

PG&E isn't the only problem. Atlanta had a blackout recently. NY had one. This issue isn't isolated. It's central planning at it's worst.

<comment><USER19> And yet when you try deregulating it, you wind up with Enron.

In my opinion, electricity needs to now become a government function. The more people install solar panels and batteries, the less profitable electricity is going to be.

It's a death spiral eventually completely dominated by the fixed costs of keeping the network connected and enough electricity production in reserve rather than the variable costs of baseline consumption.

<comment><USER20> The CA-Enron fiasco was not "deregulation", it was "reregulation". CA said that utilities could not purchase power on the futures market, but had to buy it on the spot market. Enron, by some strange coincidence, always had to take plants off line during peak hours, leading to high spot prices.

There's nothing deregulated about forbidding futures contracts.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> If you are trying to cut California's wildfire risk, increasing legal liability of its electric utility is about the dumbest place to put your leverage that anyone could imagine. California could turn its power grid off entirely and only make a small dent in overall fire risk over time. All that dry brush has to go away somehow, and nature has historically done it with fires (no PG&E necessary).

Despite massive wealth, the California government's slide into 3rd-world standards has been pretty fast.

<comment><USER22> If you are trying to reduce the risk of wildfires caused by PG&Es negligence, increasing its legal liability is the best place to push.

<comment><USER21> No, I'm afraid that you can't materially reduce the fires by preventing some (small) number of ignitions. The problem is the dry brush buildup. Something will spark it eventually.

Having someone to blame is fun politics, but it's not going to get California out of the mess. It's not even a fire management problem. California covers a region of the world that has been having decades or centuries-long drought phases for millennia. The last few decades were built up during the good times. It's getting dryer now, and there will be more fires throughout this dry phase, however many years or decades it lasts.

<comment><USER22> I didn't say you could materially reduce fires, only the ones caused by PG&Es negligence. There will still be fires, but maybe they won't be caused-in-fact by lack of reasonable maintenance of power lines.

<comment><USER23> Ok so? Wild fires keep happening. When will the state take responsibility for what they own instead of trying to pawn it off on the utility?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Just to provide some context, there was a pretty big fire in Southern California[1] the same week as the PG&E blackouts. The humidity across CA was really low, which is just as much as a factor as the wind. On one hand, the blackouts were probably excessive, and possibly politically motivated. On the other, no major wildfires occurred in PG&E territory, but a fairly large one happened in LADWP territory[1]. PG&E is in tough spot, no one will know for certain if the blackouts actually accomplished anything, but if a wildfire occurs and they don't cut the power, then they hold the liability.

[https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/10/11/photos-saddleridge- fi...](https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/10/11/photos-saddleridge-fire- kills-2-displaces-100000/)

<comment><USER25> > nursing homes and other critical services scrambled to find backup power and > even government agencies calling the company were put on hold for hours

I would say they accomplished a whole damn lot. People are going to be a million times more prepared for the next one.

Nursing homes being without a power backup is an unnaceptable state of affairs.

The amount of people that seemed utterly lost about what to do without power is disturbing. People should be more prepared. Especially given last year's events.

It's rediculous people are blaming PG&E for this. I think they're an awful company but they made the right call here and seem to be acting amicably.

A short notice and smooth event was basically impossible given that even government agencies don't know the right numbers to call.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I used to think power outages we're mainly a developing country problem, this definitely changes my understanding of the tiers of maturity of countries.

<comment><USER27> Many aspects of PG&E should bring to mind developing countries: corruption, graft, incompetent management, etc. It's an embarrassing situation to be in, and both PG&E and the state government are culpable.

<comment><USER28> So it's the state's fault that PG&E is corrupt? Please.

<comment><USER27> No, they're independently corrupt, and have overlapping interests.

<comment><USER28> So how is the state culpable for PG&E's corrupt behavior?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Honest question here: I'm from Italy and here we have problems with fires as well. However, here power lines and district transformers are placed underground except high voltage and ultra high voltage ones, but those are above tree height and rely on much sturdier metal structures.

My understanding is that burying power lines is cheaper in the long run and less prone to failures (trees falling, cars smashing the utility poles, ...). Therefore, why can't this be done in the US and especially California? Or is it already done for new developments? If no, is it because of regulations?

<comment><USER30> I believe it's solely a cost issue, as California is very large.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Public utilities should not be for profit companies, especially public listed companies. They shouldn't aim to maximize profits. If they were to instead maximize utility, they may re-invest in infrastructure more heavily and put power lines under ground. Maybe I am missing something and someone can offer a counter argument.

<comment><USER32> You'll say that until the company is full of public service workers who dont care and electricity costs 3x as much. Pretty much every developed country has privatized electricity generation to keep prices down.

<comment><USER33> This isn't accurate. In the Bay Area some cities have decided to run their own public utilities instead of relying on PG&E.

For example, Santa Clara runs their own public utility[2]. The average resident pays about 10.4 cents per KWh. That's about 30 percent less than rates PG&E charges.

Also, their energy is greener and their infrastructure is better maintained.

The problem with for profit utilities is that they are incentivized to keep things as lean as possible. They neglect maintenance of their infrastructure and use that money for bonuses and dividends. You can see that played out here [1].

[1] [https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/PG-E-diverted- safety-...](https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/PG-E-diverted-safety-money- for-profit-bonuses-2500175.php)

[2] [http://www.siliconvalleypower.com/](http://www.siliconvalleypower.com/)

<comment><USER34> > The problem with for profit utilities is that they are incentivized to keep > things as lean as possible. They neglect maintenance of their infrastructure > and use that money for bonuses and dividends.

They aren't incentivised to be excessively lean. The incentive structure for someone who has spent a fortune on expensive capital investment is to maintain it.

There is no point incentive to build a vast system of poles and wires then letting it degrade over time.

Anyway, it won't be capitalist incentives at work; it will be something in the details of the regulations. In Australia, due to poor market regulations, we have the opposite problem where our utilities spend far too much on grid maintenance.

<comment><USER28> _There is no point incentive to build a vast system of poles and wires then letting it degrade over time._

Sure there is: short-term profit.

<comment><USER34> That isn't an incentive, that is just greed. And not actual "make the most money" greed, but stupid greed where that is the choice that they would make if they don't think at all and nobody points out the obvious to them.

Making a long-term investment to squeeze it for unsustainable short term profits is genuinely stupid. There is no incentive to do that. They would make more money milking the grid for long-term profits.

<comment><USER28> _Making a long-term investment to squeeze it for unsustainable short term profits is genuinely stupid._

If you've got a better name for it I'm all ears. But PG&E has been neglecting their infrastructure at least since the early 90s when their lackadaisical approach to clearing brush led to the Sierra Fire in '94.

Keep in mind that PG&E's record keeping was so lax that they blew up a neighborhood in San Bruno after increasing the pressure on a gas pipeline without knowing if the line could support such pressure. Apparently PG&E also got sued a couple years ago by shareholders alleging gross mismanagement and demanding safety reforms. I'd say there's plenty of stupid and greed at PG&E to go around.

<comment><USER34> > If you've got a better name for it I'm all ears.

'Incompetence' would be the normal choice. And standard run-of-the mill incompetence has nothing to do with profit motives or incentives.

You can get incompetence with any governance structure; it isn't related to profit motives. If they are being sued by their own shareholders that is quite solid evidence that it isn't capitalist incentives that are the problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I'm genuinely confused over just how heavily regulated PG&E really is. Some people are saying it's basically an unregulated monopoly that does whatever it wants. That in the course of trying to make lots of money they screwed over the state.

Other people are saying it's a heavily regulated utility. The state of California is saying how much it can make and what it can do with the money it makes. They point to how much it's invested in solar power. They'd also claim the state didn't mandate work on power infrastructure maintenance - indeed it made it harder to cut back trees. It made it harder for residence to clear trees but still allowed them to build amidst a large amount of fuel. That the state basically used PG&E as a cut out for it's own ends - i.e. we're not raising taxes we're just allowing PG&E to raise rates and then mandating what PG&E has to build out.

One of those two stories has to be wrong, correct?

<comment><USER36> If PG&E were not heavily regulated, why wouldn't they have even just one private competitor? I mean, how hard of a sell is it: knock on door and say, "We're not PG&E." I'm pretty sure 60% of prospects would sign up right away. I've lived 30+ years in California and everybody hates PG&E. I've never talked to someone who had a different opinion.

<comment><USER28> _If PG &E were not heavily regulated, why wouldn't they have even just one private competitor? I mean, how hard of a sell is it: knock on door and say, "We're not PG&E." I'm pretty sure 60% of prospects would sign up right away. I've lived 30+ years in California and everybody hates PG&E. I've never talked to someone who had a different opinion. _

Why? Because PG&E has fought long and hard to keep their monopoly. They've gone so far as to keep the Ayatollah of the Assembly on their payroll. Marin got a very neutered version of Marin Clean Energy as a result of PG&E and San Francisco still hasn't been able to sneak public power legislation past PG&E.

<comment><USER36> It seems you may be misreading my comment or I am misreading yours. It is the regulation that PG&E is paying for. That is how they keep the competition out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Wildfires were prevented in the North of California where this occurred. The South of California was not spared and the Saddleridge wildfire still rages. I think yes more backup power and staffers are needed at community centers but these black outs are an important way to save lives.

<comment><USER38> Cal Fire investigators said they spoke with two different witnesses who said they saw someone who may have started one of the fires. The other fire near Redlands was started from a garbage truck dumping its load in an emergency to put out a fire inside of its haul. Which fire are you referring to that started from SoCal Edison?

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Electric cars have the potential to act as a backup power supply for your home to help mitigate power outages like these. The CCS and CHAdeMO standards are working on vehicle-to-home (and vehicle-to-grid) protocols:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x78XGElU2I0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x78XGElU2I0)

[https://www.chademo.com/technology/v2x/](https://www.chademo.com/technology/v2x/)

[https://insideevs.com/news/342354/charin-ccs-combo- standard-...](https://insideevs.com/news/342354/charin-ccs-combo-standard-to- offer-v2g-by-2025/)

<comment><USER40> My EV (a leaf) has a built in DC-DC converter to power the 12 volt system and charge the 12 volt battery - it will supply a kilowatt when the car is turned on.

In previous blackouts I have connected a kilowatt inverter to the car and used it to power stuff. It worked great and it was very useful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> This was a haphazard, poorly planned outage. Similarly to planning for an outage on a website used by millions of people and businesses, communication, status updates and minimizing disruptions are key. I'm surprised no one at PGE thought about making sure their site could handle the extra traffic. Not staffing community resource centers is akin to telling people to check Twitter for information but not bringing in anyone to field DMs from customers.

California pays a much higher $ per kwh of electricity compared to many other states in the US, and I'm guessing 'you get what you pay for' doesn't apply when in this case.

</comment><comment><USER42> Natural monopolies should not be private.

<comment><USER35> At some point - and I suspect PG&E has reached this point but I'm not sure - <USER2> regulated monopoly is the same thing as a public utility.

If you tell someone what they have to do, what they can charge and how much they can make then what's the distinction but that entity and part of the government?

<comment><USER43> Budgets; and this is the argument, the natural monopoly parts, like the roads we drive on, should be owned by the people, not a company.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Is there not a technical solution to this? A side effect here will be people creating their own power systems. I have already had my power go off 4 times this year and now I am looking at solar panels, batteries, and a natural gas generator.

<comment><USER45> The solution is maintaining residential power lines well enough so they can't start fires. (But how much are people willing to pay for that?)

Or, yes, buying a generator. Looks like Home Depot has a good selection.

<comment><USER44> So I did a bunch of research and the best generators of these types are the Winco and Cummins ones. The ones they sell at Home Depot are not meant to run more than a couple hours at a time.

If you want a generator that will run for weeks on its own you need to look for "off grid".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> For years and years and years, there was a scrappy little newspaper in San Francisco that warned (very much obnoxiously at times) about PG&E's continuing private control of energy and power in the Bay Area and Northern California.

That newspaper no longer exists. During my three years as a reporter there, I carefully avoided ever having to write PG&E stories, which were a near-fetish for the publisher, Bruce Brugmann.

But maybe he was right about giving public ownership a real shot in the Bay Area, even if he was annoying as shit about it at times. (It should also be noted that he was from a heartland state where public power is common.)

<comment><USER36> Why does it seem like there are popularly presented the following two options:

1\. A single government-mandated monopoly provider everywhere with no competition.

2\. Government provider.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> > The company, which is facing $30 billion in liabilities from recent > wildfires started by its equipment

Conspiracy theory (which is shared by everyone I've talked to): PG&E turned off the power to make a political statement that they shouldn't be liable for wildfires.

Edit: by "not be liable", I mean passing legislation to achieve this.

<comment><USER16> That is pointlessly over-dramatizing a clear and obvious fact. They went from risk tolerant to risk averse because the liability math changed. There's no conspiracy, its the simple difference between "not my problem" and "cover your ass".

<comment><USER48> The liability math didn't change.

Decades of pretending that liability didn't exist just caught up with them.

<comment><USER49> the math changed because they were sued for something that should've been acceptable risk. So now it's unacceptable risk. What goes around, comes around.

<comment><USER50> They didn't wind-up liable because arcing electricity just happens to sometimes 'cause fire.

They wound-up liable because they gutted their tree-trimming operations and paid the difference in dividends. That is something that definitely makes you liable regardless of whether the original thing is an acceptable risk.

Now, it's hard to if this is indeed a "bail us out or we'll shut down at every strong breeze" statement or whether they are legitimately worried the lines they neglected actually now ignite at every strong breeze.

Either way, I think the average Californian justifiably hates this company. But it seems unlikely things will change.

<comment><USER51> The Camp Fire, which is the one that looks likely to bankrupt them, probably wasn't even caused by inadequate tree trimming. Apparently one of their power lines had a weak, defective fixing which failed due to the same high winds that caused the fire to spread so rapidly and uncontrollably.

<comment><USER50> Uh, it seems obvious that the question is not tree trimming in particular but maintenance generally. The gas explosion the killed thirty people might hypothetically have been just an accident but logic, rules-of-thumb and actual evidence available all pointed to it being a problem of inadequate PG&E maintenance. Assuming the cause was a defective power line, maybe it was totally an accident but it seems unlikely in the scheme of things - <USER3> likely it was part of their pattern of negligence.

Edit: Note, the Camp Fire has bankrupted them. They are bankrupt, in bankruptcy proceedings. They are also on criminal (not civil) probation. None of this stopped their stock from rising after the recent events - where a more naive me might expect their stock holders' money would be forfeit once they reached the level of bankruptcy (unsecured debtors and all).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> I came to first world country from 3rd world country only to end up in same blackout situations.

</comment><comment><USER53> "as climate change makes wildfires more frequent and intense." That's reporter bias. I'm not saying it's right or wrong but to throw that in there is clear bias.

<comment><USER54> Nytimes does this bias every article post 2017

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> PG&E is the worst power company in the western hemisphere. First in 2000 they had massive power outages due to early deregulation which led to the impeachment of governor Gray Davis. In 2017 the company killed thousands of customers and billions in property because of fires they caused! Now in 2019 they are doing massive shutdowns and directly killing their customers on life support! We have the highest prices (.22c a kilowatt hour) despite having lots of of green power generators who get half that rate based on a crooked "wholesale" reimbursement scheme! California could do better with any 3rd world power company, PG&E is always horribly run ..

<comment><USER56> PG&E is a terrible company, but spewing a bunch of nonsense hyperbole isn't helpful.

Someone else pointed out that your statements about deaths are false. So I'll point out that California's electricity isn't 22¢/kWh. The California average is 16.06¢.

[https://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/](https://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/)

States that have it worse:

      Hawaii: 26.05¢
      Alaska: 19.10¢
      Connecticut: 17.55¢
      Massachusetts: 17.12¢
      Rhode Island: 16.42¢
      New Hampshire: 16.17¢

<comment><USER57> > California average is 16.06¢

Not sure how they come up with such a number, but California is large and has many electricity providers.

But for PG&E in the Bay Area, let me quote from my PG&E electric bill here in hand:

Daytime: $0.53476 (delivery) + $0.25069 (generation) = $0.785/kWh

Part-peak: $0.28917 (delivery) + $0.10643 (generation) = $0.396/kWh

Night: $0.13578 (delivery) + $0.03968 (generation) = $0.175/kWh

The cheapest rate is 17.5 cents per kWh, that is late at night (currently after 11pm, soon to be changed to be after midnight).

Daytime rate is 78.5 cents per kWh! This is PG&E in the Bay Area.

<comment><USER58> Oof, that's awful. I just got a bill recently here in seattle and got a $10.67 base charge and an additional $0.0902 charge per KWH for a total price of $48.50 dollars for 415 KWHs used in a 68 day period.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> Is there no technical solution here? They were fined 30 billion, surely that could pay for some sort of fancy lower-risk transmission mechanism?

<comment><USER60> Very roughly, transmission line costs range from $2,500 - $16,000/mi.

[https://sites.utexas.edu/energyinstitute/files/2016/11/UTAus...](https://sites.utexas.edu/energyinstitute/files/2016/11/UTAustin_FCe_TransmissionCosts_2016.pdf)

PG&E has 106,000 miles of total distribution:

[https://www.pge.com/en_US/about-pge/company- information/prof...](https://www.pge.com/en_US/about-pge/company- information/profile/profile.page)

Which works out to less than $2 billion, so the $30 billion would account for at least an _alternate_ (if not necessarily safer) system.

<comment><USER61> The numbers you've quoted, from page 7, are per MW mile, not per mile.

<comment><USER60> Thanks, that was a really quick check. And yeah, that would increase the costs markedly.

(My initial thought on posting was that $30 billion would _not_ be enough, though the first read of actual per-mile costs, neglecting per MW-mile, seemed to suggest otherwise.)

<comment><USER61> This PDF from Wisconsin puts the cost at $280k-390k/mi depending on the voltage of the line. They put the cost of underground transmission lines at $1.5M-2M/mi for the same voltages.

[https://psc.wi.gov/Documents/Brochures/Under%20Ground%20Tran...](https://psc.wi.gov/Documents/Brochures/Under%20Ground%20Transmission.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> PG&E failed to keep the grid energized.

They have abdicated their responsibility.

They even blame it on climate change, which shows they are controlled by left- wing political zealots.

Glad I'm not in California!

<comment><USER63> Please don't take HN threads further into political, regional, or ideological flamewar.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> A good article but the reporter is throwing in a lot of things that shows their bias

</comment><comment><USER65> Controversial, I realize, but perhaps we should talk seriously about nationalizing the grid. Hold a competition between the best engineering schools. Design a grid that can distribute zero carbon energy, and intelligently cut power in emergency situations.

</comment><comment><USER49> The wildfire situation in CA was not helped by all those houses so darn close to each other.

<comment><USER66> > _[In Paradise, California] There were 12,981 housing units at an average > density of 708.5 per square mile (273.5 /km²)_

That doesn't seem so unusually dense to me. And the pictures I saw online of the burned houses all have the foundations reasonably far away from each other. These were houses with yards around them, not row homes put right up next to each other.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradise,_California#/media/Fi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradise,_California#/media/File:Paradise_after_the_Camp_Fire,_July_2019-7428.jpg)

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> "as climate change makes wildfires more frequent and intense."

That's reporter bias. I'm not saying it's right or wrong but to throw that in there is clear bias.

<comment><USER67> NASA agrees with the reporter: [https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/wildfires.html](https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/wildfires.html)</comment></comment>


How programmers went from being "computer girls" to "computer geeks" - <AUTHOR> http://www.stanford.edu/group/gender/cgi-bin/wordpressblog/2011/06/researcher-reveals-how-computer-geeks-replaced-computer-girls/

<comment><USER2> "Employers seek to hire new recruits who fit the existing mold."

I don't think this is true. Where I work we pounce on people that aren't anti- social. I think that implying that any significant amount of the problem is with current hiring practices is not correct. I buy into the fact that the stereotypical computer geek turns women off from choosing the field, and even that the culture is hostile to women in general, but I've never worked at a place that was hiring based off of the anti-social nerd template. Of course I wouldn't want to work at such a place, so perhaps there's some selection bias there.

</comment><comment><USER3> _The idea that the development of software was less important (and less masculine), than the development of hardware persisted for many years and women continued to work as computer programmers._

This truly turns the swaggering myth of the Real Programmer on its head. The real programmer... is a girl?

</comment><comment><USER4> These people were really working as _human compilers_ , rather than programmers.

Then again, this is true of most "programming" employment today.</comment>


Buy a Simple Platformer (Windows game) for only $0.99 - <AUTHOR> http://istanaangin.itch.io/a-simple-platformer-episode-1-3 <comment><AUTHOR> This is a game that I had worked on,

I want to make something interesting, that would make players go "what did I just played?"

It have platforming elements, but i verge into other genre as well

The visual and audio designs are barebone, this is a response to the overblown production of today (also to cut cost)</comment>


Ask HN: Standard set of Criteria for evaluating new Consensus/Blockchain Systems - <AUTHOR> Is there something like the Jepsen test suite for consensus/blockchain systems?<p>Example of new proposed systems: - hashgraph http://www.swirlds.com/whitepapers/ - Tezos https://www.tezos.com/ <comment><USER2> Before asking this question you should learn what is the consensus problem and learn what is blockchain from cryptosystems' perspective (hint: they are two completely different things). It's pointless to discuss research if the interlocutor doesn't understand the basic terminology of the field.

You could start with the Byzantine generals problem, its proof about lower bounds, and the relation between the lower bounds of Byzantine generals and blockchain.</comment>


My First Ritalin Experience - <AUTHOR> http://false-epiphany.com/2009/08/my-first-ritalin-experience/ <comment><USER2> freakin tweakers. amphetamines may help you energetically do a bunch of mindless tasks, but when it comes to hacking - insight, intuition, and the ability to notice patterns as you go are all very important. these are also the things that diminish with the use of amphetamines.

see: [http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2008/12/brain_performance_dru...](http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2008/12/brain_performance_drugs.php) and [http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2008/07/the_neuroscience_of_i...](http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2008/07/the_neuroscience_of_insight.php) and then google around for more...

do more research before messing with your brain like this. there's enough brain-dead yet hyper drones coming out of the younger generations as is.

<comment><USER3> The great logician and mathematician, Alfred Tarski, was an amphetamine user. As well as great sci fi writer Philip K. Dick.

So, in vulgar Popperian fashion, I declare the theories in your posts to be falsified!

<comment><USER4> How do you know those two wouldn't be even better had they not used amphetamines?

<comment><USER3> You are right, I don't know that, so while I can't falsify the anti- amphetamine claim in a rigorous scientific way, I can still point out that not all amphetamine users are spending their late night tweaking sessions on mindless tasks. That should be enough to at least spark some curiosity about the drug having some possible benefits, at least in moderation.

I think it comes down to a matter of values, i.e. the long-term constant health of your physical brain vs. the benefit from getting extra bursts of energy to focus on immediate work. Not something science can really answer.

<comment><USER5> " ... the long-term constant health of your physical brain vs. the benefit from getting extra bursts of energy to focus on immediate work"

BTW, the experience varies for people, and I suspect that if the drug is giving you that "speed" sensation it may not be a good choice. Stimulants calm me down. =I don't get a burst of energy; I relax and make plans, and see them through.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "I'm going try Ritalin for two weeks, and then Adderall for two weeks."

I'm skeptical that is enough time with either to get a proper feel for their effects.

I've just switched from rit to Adderall; the ramp-up to the regular dosage of Adderall is two weeks.

Also, my experience with Ritalin is that it took some time to acclimate. I didn't care for it at first, but the experience improved. (Now, however, it hardly seemed to be doing anything, hence the change.)

<comment><AUTHOR> How long did it take?

The usual story I hear about Ritalin is, "Wow! I took one pill, and in an hour or so, I was in a different world: totally focused, getting my art history homework done, and even caring about it."

What kind of "first experience" are the college kids who buy it illegally having?

<comment><USER5> "How long did it take?"

I noticed a change in mental state probably right away, but over time it shifted from hyper-rational to better-focused.

The point I was trying to make was that whatever you experience the first few days is likely not going to be what you experience, on average, over the long haul, so "pharm tourism" is not a good way to judge a drug.

<comment><USER6> One day is not enough. Two weeks is more than enough.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm not sure why this is here. Someone took methylphenidate for the first time and didn't notice much of an effect? This has happened to other people I know as well. Doctors typically allow a few weeks for brain chemistry adjust to regular doses.

</comment><comment><USER8> I see you're now blogging in a fit of hyperactivity... and Twitter's down, which must just make your life miserable. Sorry mate ;)</comment>


Ask HN: Why can't gmail distinguish properly between dot/no dot email addresses - <AUTHOR> Any suggestions how to file a bug report? <comment><USER2> It is a feature not a bug.

Similar to how you can do firstname.lastname@example.com and still receive the email.

</comment><comment><USER3> Gmail doesn't treat dots as significant. This is considered a "feature," not a bug. I do think it probably cuts down on people sending emails to the wrong person or creating confusing email addresses in order to commit fraud.

<comment><USER4> What if two people have the same name but their email address is different JUST by the dot in between their first and last names? In this case they'd be sending personal privacy related information to each other. Sounds to me like the very opposite of cutting down on fraud. I could go in and set up a dot/non dot email address to people I know and just wait until I receive an email that was supposed to be for them but now goes to my email account.

<comment><USER5> > I could go in and set up a dot/non dot email address to people I know and > just wait until I receive an email that was supposed to be for them but now > goes to my email account.

Err, you can't do that?

The fact that somebody's email address is johndoe at gmail.com, and the fact that Gmail strips all the dots from the username, imply that john.doe and john.d.oe and so on… are taken as well.

You just can't register as e.g. john.doe and get johndoe's mail redirected because for Google, these two aliases are the exact same username!

(An exercise for the reader: if you have a Google account, try to log in by putting random dots in your username. Then, try to create a new account by putting random dots in your login.)</comment></comment></comment>


U.S. Debt at the Saturation Point? - <AUTHOR> http://www.professorhollybell.com/2012/06/11/u-s-debt-saturation/

<comment><USER2> From the original linked article: "It explains the jobless recoveries of the past and how each recent economic cycle produces higher money figures, yet lower employment. It explains why we are seeing debt driven events that circle the globe."

The graph and data don't _explain_ it, they merely demonstrate it.

<comment><AUTHOR> @tgrass: I agree.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Shared zoomable whiteboard on any device – it makes your skype better - <AUTHOR> https://ziteboard.com

<comment><USER2> I'm working on something similar. Not ready for a full "Show HN".

sample: my GF is drawing at the moment and for another 30mins [http://docs.write- live.com/WriteliveServer/webview.html?d=7e...](http://docs.write- live.com/WriteliveServer/webview.html?d=7e0ba663-14b7-4ffd-ac9f-b26eb8d47d6e)

<comment><AUTHOR> This looks great! Let me know if you're open for a skype to see whether there's a possibility to collaborate.

<comment><USER2> Ping me with an email. Click contact on my website [http://write- live.com](http://write-live.com)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> You immediately lost my interest when it promted me to login via Facebook and provided no alternative. As a remote software developer, this could be interesting but requiring Facebook makes it a non starter. I don't imagine I'm the only professional in the world without a Facebook account either.

<comment><AUTHOR> We're on it, so you'll have alternatives quite soon. What order would you suggest for login, like: email, twitter, fb, G+ ? What's the most painless login option for you?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It doesn't appear to work on the iPhone.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hmm, that's interesting. Could you give specifics (browser, ios x.y.z). Out of 140 tests none resulted in error on iphones. Thanks.

<comment><USER4> iPhone 5S, 8.1.3. I'm using Safari directly. Clicking "Try It Now" opens a new window (apparently blank, but maybe a white canvas?) And I can't do anything. just a white screen. Just re tested. This is the same behavior on the iPad Air, 8.1.3.</comment></comment></comment>


Google rolls out 2-step verification for Apps users - <AUTHOR> http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9186521/Google_rolls_out_2_step_verification_for_Apps_users

<comment><USER2> Think it is a about time they did this. There are some major risks with one factor as more and more services use Google as a single signon mechanism. I go into the details here: [http://rakkhi.blogspot.com/2010/08/why-dont-facebook- twitter...](http://rakkhi.blogspot.com/2010/08/why-dont-facebook-twitter-and- google.html)</comment>


Ask HN: Any good online webdesign courses? - <AUTHOR>

There are plenty of online resources if you want to learn programming but I haven't found many resources for webdesign. I want to learn how to design better user interface for my web applications. Can you recommend me any online course / resource? <comment><USER2> Purely design or using css to bring your design to life?

Here is a good website for web design inspiration. Some of the best designers in the world are on <http://dribbble.com> You can see design patterns by regularly visiting the site, and some of them provide freebies so that you can see how they created their designs.

These sites also has some good tutorials: <http://webdesign.tutsplus.com/> <http://tympanus.net/codrops/>

</comment><comment><USER3> Hack Design - hackdesign.com Treehouse - <http://teamtreehouse.com/>

Is there anything you want to specifically learn? Like D3.js for data viz?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, I'll check it out. What I want to learn is to design beautiful user interfaces for web applications.

<comment><USER3> I would argue that perhaps you need inspiration after learning advanced CSS. Perhaps you should browse through Dribble.

<comment><USER4> Dribbble _

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> <http://www.trydesignlab.com/> Design Lab

</comment><comment><USER6> hackdesign.org ...hands down.</comment>


How Vox aggregates - <AUTHOR> http://www.vox.com/2015/4/13/8405999/how-vox-aggregates <comment><USER2> 1\. Steal content that other people produced. 2\. Call it "aggregation". 3\. Profit.

These clickbait sites like Buzzfeed, Vox and Gawker are the cancer of the internet.</comment>


Amazon gets patent on social networks - <AUTHOR> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/061710-amazon-social-network-patent.html <comment><USER2> Here we go yet again. They did not patent "A networked computer system [that] provides various services for assisting users in locating, and establishing contact relationships with, other users." That's just the abstract. Gotta read the claims, people. The claims are what tell you exactly what the patent covers.

<comment><USER3> To put it another way, compare and contrast the following statements:

 _Amazon's patent covers a networked computer system [that] provides various services for assisting users in locating, and establishing contact relationships with, other users._

And:

 _Amazon's patent covers every networked computer system [that] provides various services for assisting users in locating, and establishing contact relationships with, other users._

<comment><USER2> That actually is a good way of highlighting the distinction.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> It sure doesn't seem like there's anything you can develop these days that isn't infringing on something; but it also doesn't seem like these kind of patents are often enforced.

So as a developer, the right thing to do with software patents is simply ignore them until someone sues you, right?</comment>


Ask HN: Best place to learn stuff I didn't learn getting CS degree - <AUTHOR>

Self taught programmer and my boss said I need to know more programming theory - what are some good books to check out? <comment><USER2> Try the very first wiki ever: <http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WelcomeVisitors>

Also, aside from reading books I recommend reading (and using) well written source code. I learned more picking apart the Symfony2 framework source code that any PHP book. Adjust for whatever programming languages you use. Find a well-written project, tear it apart and figure out what makes it tick. Just like you did with things when you were a kid :-)

</comment><comment><USER3> I bookmarked this on my Chrome. I guess I found it via HN.

30 Free Programming eBooks:

[http://citizen428.net/blog/2010/08/12/30-free-programming- eb...](http://citizen428.net/blog/2010/08/12/30-free-programming-ebooks/)

</comment><comment><USER4> <http://www.algo-class.org/></comment>


The Psych Approach - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/28/opinion/brooks-the-psych-approach.html

<comment><USER2> _Ideas_ on CBC Radio did a good documentary about this.

[http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/episodes/2012/08/07/all-in-the- famil...](http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/episodes/2012/08/07/all-in-the-family-2/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Cool I'll definitely watch that. I have mixed feelings about the ACE survey. On the one hand it seems like one of the most important studies ever done. On the other hand, a lot of the data is really questionable if you look closely enough. E.g. are rates of things like suicide and domestic violence really 5x what they were 50 years earlier? (I'm writing this from my phone, but if you look at the actual study and calculate the differences between the cohorts for yourself then you get something like this.)

I still cite it all the time though as it seems like the best data we have, although I wouldn't be surprised if large swaths of the data were incorrect.</comment></comment>


SYN packet handling in the wild - <AUTHOR> https://blog.cloudflare.com/syn-packet-handling-in-the-wild/ <comment><AUTHOR> What I didn't mention in the article is a sea of corner cases around the SYN handling code. For example: did you know, that when SYN Cookies are disabled (sysctl set to 0), a quarter of slots in SYN Queue is reserved for "IPs that we have in route cache".

[http://elixir.free- electrons.com/linux/v4.14.8/source/net/ip...](http://elixir.free- electrons.com/linux/v4.14.8/source/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c#L6333)

    			/* Without syncookies last quarter of
    			 * backlog is filled with destinations,
    			 * proven to be alive.
    			 * It means that we continue to communicate
    			 * to destinations, already remembered
    			 * to the moment of synflood.
    			 */

Anyway, setting SYN Cookie sysctl to zero is a terrible idea.

There is more, the SYN Queue used to bleed-out SYN packets at a rate of 0.5HZ if full. A feature basically nobody understood - removed in 4.10.

<comment><USER2> Am about to read the article, but knowing myself I'll forget doing the following if I don't do it now: I want to thank you for what will undoubtedly be another enlightening article!

If you don't mind an unsolicited AMA then I'd love to know how you learn about the topics you write about, what kind of experience you have in your field, at what point do you allow yourself to authoritatively say "yes, what I'm talking about is more or less correct" and publish a post to the wider world (this is something I struggle with), and what are some of the resources you recommend keeping up with or being aware of if someone else wishes to gain more knowledge in topics similar to those you post.

<comment><AUTHOR> In this case I stumbled upon a problem (trying to dig through the SYN handling code, specifically [1]) and sat down to understand it. When I finally "got" it I moved on and forgot everything. After couple of months a colleague asks me a question and I think - oh boy, if only I wrote about it when I still understood it! I also regularly ask smarter people when I'm lost.

On correctness, let me cite my boss:

      > Never underestimate the value of shipping. Ships blogs,
      > open source, pull requests, tweets, products, etc.
      >
      > It's better to ship something "wrong" than ship nothing at
      > all. You'll get feedback that you'd never get if you just
      > talked about an idea.

I don't think being 100% right all the time matters. On every mistake I make I learn and it's easy to fix a problem in a blog post! I generally think for non-trivial technical stuff, it's better to create some documentation when previously there was none, than to get it 100% correct.

Another example: many "man" pages are technically correct but useless. My favorite example [2]. You would be blessed if you could take 10% of the most useful options and actually explain them to human beings.

[1] [https://elixir.free- electrons.com/linux/v4.14.13/source/net/...](https://elixir.free- electrons.com/linux/v4.14.13/source/net/ipv4/tcp_ipv4.c#L1324) [2] [https://linux.die.net/man/1/ps](https://linux.die.net/man/1/ps)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> If the SYN queue is more than half full, the kernel (used to?) adapts the number of SYN/ACK retransmissions to mitigate the load. Interestingly, this opens a side channel that can be determined remotely, and used to measure packet filtering world-wide. See Section 2.1 in: [https://censorbib.nymity.ch/pdf/Ensafi2015a.pdf](https://censorbib.nymity.ch/pdf/Ensafi2015a.pdf)

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm quite sure this was removed in recent kernels, the "young" logic is now greatly simplified. Anyway - great paper. Thanks for digging it up.</comment></comment>


I survived a speaker's worst nightmare - <AUTHOR> http://birminghamblogging.com/2009/10/17/i-survived-a-speakers-worst-nightmare-at-blogworld-bwe09/

<comment><USER2> An even worse variant happened to me at Defcon. They put me in the wrong room. I was giving the talk that became "Inequality and Risk" and I noticed people kept getting up and leaving. After about 10 minutes, I stopped and asked what was going on, and someone said "Isn't this the talk on lockpicking?"

<comment><USER3> Video / audio is at [http://www.defcon.org/html/links/dc- archives/dc-13-archive.h...](http://www.defcon.org/html/links/dc- archives/dc-13-archive.html#Graham) for those interested. Jump to 3:40 [video] if impatient.

<comment><USER4> It's interesting to read along and see what was cut for the version on the website.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I can appreciate this. I am a Lutheran pastor (as well as a CTO for a printing company) and while preaching one Sunday a few years ago, I flipped my page over and, to my horror, discovered that the second side was the same as the first. Needless to say, I did not have a duplexing printer at the time.

Though I had been using written-out manuscripts for a couple years, at that moment I was grateful for being forced by my profs (and I hated it at the time) to preach from an outline. I did that five years straight, week after week.

When I flipped the page, everybody knew something was wrong (I don't hide my reactions well), but at least I was able to recover: just try to recall the key points and keep on going.

</comment><comment><USER6> This has happened to me, and I did something similar. Since then I've learned - always check the program for your name, title and abstract. Doing so is part of a professional approach, not doing so is understandable, but leaves you open to this kind of problem.

It happens more often than you might think. Sometimes the program is right, and then a last minute change leaves everyone confused.

Usually a good speaker is worth listening to regardless, but it does look bad. The comment is right - listen to your audience, work with them to find a suitable compromise, promise what's necessary, do what you can.

</comment><comment><USER7> I was once at a Microsoft conference when a speaker didn't show. We waited 15 minutes when finally a sweaty, scruffy dude comes running into the room panting all apologetic-like. Apparently he had been in his boxers relaxing in his hotel room about a mile away and 15 minutes prior when he got a call from the organizers. His presentation wasn't in 2 hours like he'd expected. It was right then and there. I felt really bad for him.

</comment><comment><USER8> First, thanks to everyone for reading my worst nightmare and commenting on it. :)

+1 to RiderofGiraffes for that tip: From now on, I am reading the program online and in print. No surprises, please.

I only wish the BlogWorld organizers had responded to my direct e-mail explaining the situation and asking for ways to prevent it for other speakers in the future.

Wade Kwon Birmingham Blogging Academy

</comment><comment><USER9> Now that is one crazy experience. I'd expect better from BlogWorldExpo, but messing up on your talk's summary is usually a killer.

I guess the survey (show of hands) was the right approach to immediately know what to do. What if you had had about half and half? What would you have done then?

<comment><USER10> Clearly he should have combined the two talks into one. "How to turn _bold_ words into a startup," or something.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Hlspy, curl/wget like utility for dynamic web pages - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/kanishka-linux/hlspy <comment><USER2> I don't understand why it needs Qt if it is headless. Why?

<comment><AUTHOR> It's based on qtwebengine(chromium).

<comment><USER2> Yeah, I read that. My question still holds.

<comment><AUTHOR> phantomjs was also based on qt technology (qtwebkit)

<comment><USER2> I didn't know that.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>