Google Cloud Platform sets a course for new horizons - <AUTHOR> https://cloudplatform.googleblog.com/2016/09/Google-Cloud-Platform-sets-a-course-for-new-horizons.html <comment><USER2> New regions in Tokyo, Sydney, Singapore, Mumbai, Finland, Frankfurt, London, Sao Paulo and N. Virgina, with 3 zones per region (2 in Fin and Sing)? That brings them to 37 (edit: soon 38 with a third zone in Oregon) zones in 14 regions. In addition, they're putting down building footprints in Alabama and Tennessee, which may become new regions in the future, and adding buildings in Oregon, Iowa, South Carolina, and Belgium, which may become new zones. In March, they announced 10 new regions in 2017, and the above numbers account for only 8.

AWS will have 40 zones in 16 regions in the same time period (based on their public announcements.

Not sure about the AWS backbone though. GCP has access to dedicated fiber from the US to both the Pacific and South America on the order of 10Tbps, and that's just the wholly-owned stuff disclosed in public. Amazon is quite hush hush on their network.

<comment><USER3> Sorry we didn't make this explicit, but we'll be three zones for GCE in Oregon "soon" (i.e., us-west1-c will be online).

Disclosure: I work on Google Cloud.

<comment><USER4> Speaking of locations... Here's a nitpick... :)

The dot for Council Bluffs on the map in the article[0] is misplaced by hundreds of miles.

0: [https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-mCc_hmccB3k/V-y4E1VHooI/AAAAAAAAD...](https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-mCc_hmccB3k/V-y4E1VHooI/AAAAAAAADIs/Cx3pc4MlBasLG3uB2VBsZ- gCpqy_ftbvACLcB/s1600/google-cloud-network.png)

<comment><USER3> I know! I looked at it and said "Wow, what the hell? Did someone decide the dots would be too close?". All I can say is "Sorry, Diagram for conceptual purposes only".

However, it is one of our first to include the submarine cables! (So it's got that going for it)

<comment><USER2> Yeah, the cables were very cool to see.

For others reference, the Iowa DC's are two buildings a third of a mile long and at least two stories of data halls, with at least one other smaller footprint that I believe is 4 stories, and plenty of room to grow. The Oklahoma campus is similarly massive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Buried in the BigQuery "Standard SQL" blog post is support for DELETE and UPDATE statements. This is HUGE for BigQuery - the biggest problem has always been that it's an append-only data warehouse.

My company does ETL-as-a-service ([https://fivetran.com/](https://fivetran.com/)) and we've had beta support for BigQuery for the last few months using a somewhat crazy copy-the-table- every-time strategy. We're really excited to have DELETE and UPDATE and we'll be switching over in the next few days.

<comment><USER6> BQ is getting awesome and is a legit option for many many workloads that wouldn't have made sense for the cloud a year ago. For example, if I was contemplating a Netezza or Teradata environment for an EDW, I'd slap myself [hopefully before writing the check].

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> "We've recently joined the ranks of Google's billion-user products. Google Cloud Platform now serves over one billion end-users through its customers' products and services."

That is interesting. I understand that the enterprises running GCP reach a billion-plus people on GCP, but does that qualify GCP itself as one of Google's billion-plus products?

<comment><USER8> I think so. It's pretty unrealistic for one billion people to use GCP directly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> The managed Kubernetes across multiple clouds sounds very nice! Or am I reading too much into this? I would love to give GKE some access token to my AWS and have them manage the whole shebang.

> "In our support of this feature, GKE customers will be able to build > applications that can easily span multiple clouds"

<comment><USER10> This is what cluster federation is for. [http://kubernetes.io/docs/admin/federation/](http://kubernetes.io/docs/admin/federation/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> <Semi-Related Anecdote> I remember a friend of mine was working at Dropbox as an intern when they were only a few hundred employees, and we would tell me stories of these "R&D" brainstorm sessions - unofficial meetings where they would just spitball crazy ideas on where the industry was going or new product ideas, and collect them for future hackathons and the like (the best ones I'm guessing got put into the actual product roadmap.)

My favorite idea he mentioned was this assertion that the industry was moving towards a "cloud-within-a-cloud", or "a cloud of clouds." We both laughed for a good few minutes over how silly Silicon Valley terminology could sound sometimes.

Turns out this mysterious person was ahead of their time...</Semi-Related Anecdote>

<comment><USER12> > when they were only a few hundred employees

So like 3-4 years ago?

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> To the Google Cloud Engineers out here : If I use GKE in your Frankfurt, London or Belgium DC, will I be subject to the Patriot Act,potentially allowing US government to look or take over my private data? If that's the case, I still prefer to go through all the big headaches of setting up manually Kubernetes on Swiss or French cloud computing offering, or on my own servers

</comment><comment><USER14> I still haven't figured out how to run a blog sized web app with Java 8 or python 3 on a Google product that isn't in experimental mode yet.

Where should I start if that's my goal?

<comment><USER10> Both Google Compute Engine and Google Container Engine are Generally Available (i.e not experimental) and will run Java 8 and Python 3.

App Engine != all of Google Cloud Platform

(I work on Google Cloud)

<comment><USER14> Cool. Thanks. Containers seem overkill, but compute engine seems like it would work.

FWIW "Compute Engine" makes it seem like some API for machine learning or big data processing. I would not have guessed it was Google's version of EC2.

<comment><USER3> I don't blame you, sadly because "Search Engine" everything here is called "X Engine" (including say Maps Engine). If you're familiar with AWS services, we made a little mapping guide: [https://cloud.google.com/docs/compare/aws/](https://cloud.google.com/docs/compare/aws/) .

<comment><USER14> Engine (to me) also implies a monolithic process where something goes in one end, work is done, and something is produced. A compute engine computes things, a search engine searches things, a game engine does game computations, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> but do they have anything like rds (postgress) and s3 (dome storage) from amazon?

</comment><comment><USER16> Awesome news on the added regions.

One issue I've found with GCP is the Support pricing compared to AWS. Next step from basic is $150 p/m for support on GCP (2 individuals) compared to around $29-$39 p/m on AWS (for 1 individual).

Is GCP going to start offering support to 1-man dev teams with side projects? Stackexchange, communities, docs are only helpful up to a point.

<comment><USER6> Likely. Growing pains mean first priority are large customers, but ... there is much growing going on, including/especially in proserve & support orgs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> This is all marketing blarb and zero substance.

Oh. And G Suite? _Thanks_ for rebranding Google Apps once again, without adding anything actually new. Now we'll have to update our documentation, marketing material and what not. Again.

Just great.

<comment><USER18> (I think you commented on the wrong post, you want [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12607160](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12607160))</comment></comment>


FAA issues emergency directive on 2,000 Boeing 737 NG, Classic planes - <AUTHOR> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-737ng/faa-issues-emergency-directive-on-2000-boeing-737-ng-classic-planes-idUSKCN24P1KS <comment><USER2> One of the inspection checklist items:

 _Measure the clearance between the flapper bushings at both locations on each engine bleed air 5th stage check valve. If the clearance between the flapper bushings is a minimum of 0.004 inch (0.102 mm) at both locations, the engine bleed air 5th stage check valve at that location has passed this inspection._

I knew that aviation engineering dealt with tight tolerances, but boy, it must be difficult to make a call like that when you're dealing with thousandths of an inch. Do field technicians have dependable tools and methods of measuring with such high degrees of precision?

<comment><USER3> They've had calipers for literally thousands of years.

I used to be involved in some intermediate gunsmithing work, and we had these tools called 'dial calipers' which have a little gauge you read and you can measure extremely precise things. We used it for getting cylinder diameters or clearances that needed that degree of precision.

I can only imagine that in aviation, there are even more advanced tools, especially with a well-respected corp like Boeing.

I would think also, that when there are these clearance issues in parts, part of the concern that makes it worth raising flags over is the fact that it's consistently off amongst different aircraft. If someone were to bring me a rifle that had some important gas clearance off, I wouldn't be that concerned, just do the work and get it back in the field, but if guys are bringing me the same rifle with the same issue over and over, it makes me really uneasy because it's inefficient for my shop, and it points to carelessness from the vendor, which raises suspicion when dealing with orthogonal issues from the same vendor.

If these flapper bushings are bad consistently, and they had a spec and didn't meet it, what other corners did they cut?

Just my two cents. I don't know shit about aviation, but I can appreciate the systemic concern.

<comment><USER4> I really struggle to understand how you could have used the term "well- respected" here. It ain't muscle memory, this was done deliberately. Could you explain how you can refer to Boeing being well-respected after the 737 MAX fiasco? Maybe I am missing something.

[edit] remove a word

<comment><USER5> They are a respected company with many respected products, despite your personal feelings towards them. They did screw up big time with the 737 MAX, but they still have a huge portfolio of well engineered products and will surely launch more well respected products in the future.

<comment><USER4> In my opinion, a big screw up at least warrants that you lose respect, at least temporarily.

They can regain respect by building new good products. Or by admitting mistakes, surely not by laying blame on the pilots.

I am less forgiving. If you want to forgive them, that's your choice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The official PDF document is here: [https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf...](https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf/0/ec0e5875b315e9e5862585ae007cd448/$FILE/2020-16-51_Emergency.pdf)

I always wondered what the proper terms was for an airplane crash, and now I know: "forced off-airport landing"

<comment><USER7> Not necessarily. A "forced off-airport landing" could also be the result of an engine failure beyond gliding distance of an airport. Or engine fire, medical emergency in remote area, etc. There are many emergencies that could force an aircraft to the ground, off-field.

Not all off-field landings result in an accident, or "crash".

From our own regulations, NTSB 830 "NOTIFICATION AND REPORTING OF AIRCRAFT ACCIDENTS..." [https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/830.2](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/830.2)

>Aircraft accident means an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and all such persons have disembarked, and in which any person suffers death or serious injury, or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage. For purposes of this part, the definition of "aircraft accident" includes "unmanned aircraft accident," as defined herein.

So while some off-field landings could be classified as an accident, that would only be the case if the off-field landing met the above definition.

<comment><USER8> I think it would be rather hard to land a plane off the airport without substantial damage, especially when talking about larger ones.

<comment><USER9> For small 4-6 seater general aviation aircraft it's hard (relative to a normal landing), but not at all unheard of. A modern 4 lane highway is more than wide enough, and very probably has a long enough straight section within range, to make for a relatively uneventful landing if you can get traffic to cooperate.

You're absolutely correct though when it comes to larger aircraft. I rather doubt there are any examples of an off airport landing of a 737 without significant damage to the aircraft.

<comment><USER10> > I rather doubt there are any examples of an off airport landing of a 737 > without significant damage to the aircraft.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TACA_Flight_110](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TACA_Flight_110)

<comment><USER9> Well, I stand corrected. That's both surprising and an incredible feat of airmanship by the pilots!

Since I love reading about these kinds of incidents and the best way to solve a problem is to claim it's impossible, I amend my claim to "I rather doubt there are two examples of an off airport landing of a 737 without significant damage to the aircraft." :)

<comment><USER11> The famous Gimli Glider wasn't badly damaged either, although it was a 767!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I have been wondering how dangerous flying is going to be when when / if it comes back and all these planes come out of storage. Mechanical things just sitting around is some times far worse than them being in constant use.

<comment><USER13> Luckily, this is already pretty standard practice for airplanes.

I worry a little more about theme parks that don't do winter shutdowns or might not have done the full shut it down for the winter procedure with sudden lockdown orders. The regulatory environment is also sketchier.

<comment><USER14> Luckily for theme parks, the pandemic hit right as winter maintenance was wrapping up for seasonal parks so it shouldn't have many adverse effects if any. And since then, maintenance workers have been on site running and getting the rides ready to reopen. Actually, it seems like this might be a good things for parks since the extra time has given them a lot more time to do more long term projects and refurbishment they never had time for in the past.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Interesting that the vast majority of 737s were flying so frequently that this was not found earlier. For their entire 20-ish year service life, those planes are never left idle long enough for this part to rust! Amazing. Goes to show how popular and successful the 737 line is.

<comment> matt-attack And this may be obvious to some, but why does use inhibit rust?

<comment><USER16> In normal use these valves take air out of the turbine stage, so they see very very hot air with almost zero moisture in it in normal use. If you park them long enough I can imagine they get wet from rain or even just condensation.

<comment><USER17> According to the AD this is the 5th stage bleed air valve, so on the compressor side and cold air.

>Bleed air is tapped at the 5th and 9th stages of the HP compressor and from the fan.

[https://hursts.org.uk/airbus- technical/html/ar01s19.html#idm...](https://hursts.org.uk/airbus- technical/html/ar01s19.html#idm45838557976224)

(Airbus doc but the engines are CFM56 on the 737 models listed) Also according to this page the CFM56 doesn't have a turbine bleed air takeoff.

<comment><USER18> When you say "cold air" I guess you mean that it's bled before the combustion stage. It's not cold at all after the compression.

And bleed air is indeed always taken in the compressor, never in the turbine. First there's no point taking it later than the compressor, you just want compressed air. And it's ultimately used to ventilate the cabin, you don't want fuel vapors or smell.

<comment><USER17> Stage 5 would be pretty early on. However generally when talking about the HPC you're talking about cold air. At this stage, cold air that's sprayed on the turbine housing when engine power is reduced to thermally shrink the metal to keep the turbine blades and casing within tolerance for efficiency's sake.

All is explained in the link I posted, would recommend it as good introductory reading on the subject.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This, coupled with the idea that big planes simply aren't flying enough to keep the pilots certified has me concerned about commercial aviation. The scale-down and scale-up is incredibly costly and will result in huge write- offs of equipment that cannot be cost-effectively kept up. You can't just park these airframes and expect them to be ready when you need them.

</comment><comment><USER20> Anything mechanical that you don't use is on the way out, airplanes, cars it doesn't matter. Use it or lose it very much applies and all it takes is to _not_ use something for a while to find completely new failure modes. Case in point, and very timely: just today I had to replace the valve that allows for the pressurization of the fuel tank on my car simply because it wasn't used for three months. It had seized and no amount of brake fluid or other solvents would get rid of the gunk enough to unstuck the valve so it could be worked.

</comment><comment><USER21> That is surprising. Pandemic or no pandemic, you have NGs and classics going and coming out of storage with a certain frequency.

Funny this wasn't found before.

<comment><USER22> I think it wasn't an issue before because most airlines aren't going to keep a plane they have in storage for multiple days. They'll sell it to another airline. Otherwise they still have to maintain it and pay storage fees plus whatever lease or finance costs are associated with the plane. Boeing runs a finance corporation which is how a lot of planes are "sold." They have to plan for maintenance windows and unexpected failures but when your fleet is big enough these events are regular enough that you can tune your fleet size to absorb these events without needing idle capacity.

<comment><USER23> This is also why planes out of use for extended periods are typically stored in dry, desert climates - less moisture in the air to cause corrosion.

The massive increase in stored aircraft due to the pandemic meant that there wasn't enough room at these airports, and so aircraft had to be stored anywhere there was space available, often in less than ideal climates.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> This only applies to aircraft coming out of storage, so it's not going to create a disruption.

</comment><comment><USER25> At the beginning of lockdowns I was wondering what might break down on the fleets of planes that have been grounded, or under utilized.

I wonder what other bugs will be uncovered from not exercising machines that are designed to be used on a very regular basis.

</comment><comment><USER26> Your car will also start exhibiting random failures if you leave it parked long enough. Parts will corrode, stick, develop flat spots, cold weld themselves together, water gets in, bugs and mice set up shop, chew on the wires, etc.

Especially if you leave it out in the weather.

</comment><comment><USER27> Aircraft are meant to be in high usage, so decreased flight time and larger flight intervals will cause interesting problems. For example many part 135 planes currently parked need to be rolled to a different position daily because parked weight deforms tyres.

</comment><comment><USER28> This may be a dumb question, but why use materials that can corrode on such an important part? Just use stainless steel (or AL or TI), problem solved?

<comment><USER29> I'm guessing some other parameter was more important. Thermal expansion characteristics, ease of tooling, interactions with the materials around it, resistance to some other non-oxidative chemical corrosion…

<comment><USER18> This particular valve sees temperatures above 600°C. You basically need to use steel or inconel.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> The title here should have "737 NG, Classic" not "737 NG Classic". As in "Boeing 737 NG and Classic aircraft", not "Boeing 737 NG Classic aircraft".

<comment><USER31> And why not just "NG and Classic"? Really curious, I see this replacement of "and" for a comma in a lot on headlines, and I don't know why or where it comes from (English is not my first language). Is there a name for this?

<comment><USER32> Most english speakers also wouldn't be familiar with the term, but it is called 'Headlinese'.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headline#Headlinese](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headline#Headlinese)

<comment><USER33> And it's dumb. We're not setting hot lead into column inches anymore.

<comment><USER34> But we are trying to fit summaries into a limited screen real estate</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Rix: The Power of C Language and the Convenience of a High Level Language - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/riolet/rix <comment><USER2> Bold claims, I hope it pans out. I'll be watching this language.</comment>


Show HN: Stay updated with bite-sized remote work content - <AUTHOR> https://remoteclan.com/news-feed <comment><AUTHOR> Hey HN!

I find it super painful to find quality remote work content. Plus, there aren't any feeds or topics to subscribe to.

So we built one ourselves.

It currently only uses Twitter as a source but we plan to add other sources as well.

Would love to hear your feedback!</comment>


Ask HN: Your tips on working getaways across the globe - <AUTHOR>

I recently quit my job to take a year off from cubicle life. Instead of idling, my plan is to work for myself. The dream is fairly typical: build products and reach ramen/paradise profitability before my savings run out.
As the work only requires a laptop and an internet connection, I'm pretty much free to do it from anywhere in the world. My idea is to make trips (1-3 months) to great places with low living costs.
I'm sure other people here have been in a similar situation. Any good experiences or recommendations for global work getaways? Somewhere inexpensive, enjoyable, with fairly reliable internet connections. To me, finding a good place to stay is the hardest part. Hotels and 2-month stays don't really mix.
(My original plan was to go to Guilin in China for two months this fall. I calculated that the savings in living consts would roughly cover the plane ticket during that stay. Unfortunately, the plan got cancelled due to an ill-timed health issue. I still want to go there, but not in January.) <comment><USER2> I've done what you want to do this year and have been in Indonesia, Philippines, Malaysia and Vietnam (5 months in total). As ehambers pointed out Lombok (or for the same feeling, islands of the Philippines) is nice if you like the beach - I think for me 3 months in a place like this and it would not look like paradise anymore. If I stay longer somewhere, It would be in a big city - I miss the energy if I'm staying in the mountains or the beach for too long.

If that's the same for you, then you could go to cities with great access to nature, like Yogjakarta, Indonesia, Cebu, Philippines, Hanoi, Vietnam...

On the inexpensive side: you cannot get much cheaper than Vietnam. Philippines and Indonesia while still cheap are more expensive.

I would also recommend not to stay in a hotel but to look for an apartment. I found a good apartment in 2 days in Hanoi (there's a good website for expats), it might be harder in smaller cities.

Of course, nothing limits you to Southeast Asia :-)

<comment><AUTHOR> A good short-term apartment rental scene sounds perfect. Finding cheap flights is easy, but the housing doesn't seem trivial. 2 months is sort of an in- between duration. Too long for a hotel, too short for traditional renting.

Remember the expat website's url? A quick googling doesn't bring up any clear winner.

<comment><USER2> First Google result is the winner :-)

<http://newhanoian.xemzi.com/>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Lombok, Indonesia – for a couple of reasons.

Lombok is a laid-back, easy-going beach paradise right next to Bali. It's pretty much like Bali without tonnes of tourists.

You can get really cheap flights to Bali (since so many people go there). Going from Bali to Lombok takes less than a day by bus/taxi and ferry. I ended up near Senggigi, Lombok by coincidence last summer and ended up staying there for weeks. I halfway plan to do what you're doing once and that's probably where I would go. :-)

You will probably not find super-fast Internet connections outside of cities/tourist destinations, but unless you often need to download gigabytes of data that shouldn't be a problem.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! I'll check out what I can find about Lombok. Do you remember details about where you stayed? Some bungalow thingy?

Super-fast connections are not a requirement. I've been perfectly happy with my phone's slow gprs connection before. It's just important to have _a_ connection.

<comment><USER3> I stayed at a hotel, but I can't remember its name. I was there with my girlfriend and we paid around $10 per night including a light breakfast. There are also some really nice resorts there, but I don't know how much they cost. The food is amazing and nasi goreng (fried rice with some meat and vegetables) is often not more than $0.40–$0.50.

Another thing: It's really easy to pick up some Indonesian phrases since the language is quite simple to pronounce and has a really simple grammar. The language does not have the concept of tones that other south-east Asian languages (Thai/Vietnamese/Chinese...) have, so even if the pronunciation is a bit off, people will understand you. It was really nice being able to use some polite phrases in Indonesian after just a few days – even if using English was no problem. :-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Thailand is nice.

I was at the island of Koh Samui for 9 days in April 2008 working and attending a conference and lived in a bungalow village. Food was cheap and excellent, stable but DSL-slow (0.5Mbit?) wifi, and the very good accomodation was not too expensive. People are friendly, and I never felt worried about my safety. I could definitely see myself returning to Thailand and working there for a while.

One of my sisters has travelled extensively in the region, visiting places in Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Kambodja over a time-span of 8 weeks. Her favorite is Vietnam since it is a bit less exploited by tourism, and is also a bit cheaper, while still having very friendly people.

</comment><comment><USER5> Come to Kathmandu, Nepal.

Your laptop will run smooth here. Internet connection varies from Kbps to Mbps - depends on how much you would spend. Delicious Nepali food (Daal, Bhat), guest loving culture and friendly people. What else would you look for ?

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting choice. Will definitely check it out. Thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I would probably skip china, you don't want internet censorship to get in the way of your work.</comment>


Ask HN: Why is 4G not enough and what are the use cases of 5G? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Surprised no one has mentioned IoT yet.

The goal is to have everything connected to the grid. Your door opens: it pings a server, you walk in through your main entrance: A notification is sent.

Not just in home automation, but in industrial settings as well.

There's a lot of heavy machinery equipment and industries ripe for disruption as IoT devices scale into those industry verticals. For example: real-time access to information about machinery running the supply chain is invaluable. Whether it is ground, air, or ocean freight, being able to tell when a shipment is loaded, when the carrier has arrived, etc... helps optimize a supply chain and allows operators to react in real-time to address supply and demand. Everything will be tracked whether it's an NFC or RFID sticker, and IoT devices will pick up these trackers as they flow through a system or supply chain.

In short 5G enables IoT devices at scale that can feed data into BI systems can let you find bottlenecks and react in real-time to issues that have a high impact from a deliverables perspective and might require intervention to correct an issue in real-time.

4G does not have the bandwidth capacity to enable IoT devices at scale.

<comment><AUTHOR> I've been doing IoT stuff for 5+ years now, I am looking forward knowing what is that killing use case that needs the requirements you mention.

Also, are you aware that 5G would require people to pay and wifi is free (and fast enough!)?

I really want to see a specific problem and then look for a solution, not the other way around.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> The end goal is to finally kill local storage and have everything as a service, on the cloud. This way tech companies will finally take back the control on their users they have so foolishly relinquished in the 70s.

</comment><comment><USER4> 5G has extremely low latency, enabling anything that would benefit from that: gaming, telemedicine, low-latency video calls (could potentially allow live music collaboration over video chat, for example)

<comment><AUTHOR> Definitely 5G is not solving any problem in gaming. I work for a company that builds big fat chips for gaming, streaming is a thing but this is the first time I hear that we need 5G. As for the rest, I am already doing that and all works quite well!

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> The use case is to allow telcos to put cable companies out of business with millimeter wave antennas to the home. Basically rebuild the bad old AT&T.

5G is critical infrastructure needed to beat the Chinese. Go America. So it gets to bypass pesky state utility regulation.

</comment><comment><USER6> 5G gets us to Gigabit speeds over the air, which 4G couldn't pull off even in ideal conditions. This introduces an incredible amount of opportunity that was not previously available (such as TV and internet for the home over cellular that's actually viable).

<comment><AUTHOR> Do we know at least 3 problems that 5G is solving? Even in my little town people have internet at full speed via optic fiber.

<comment><USER5> The problem is that wireless margins are significantly higher than wire line, and the government will foot part of the cost.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm invested now, I want to know how many Gs the marketing people are going to try and pack in there.

</comment><comment><USER8> Let me answer by rewriting your question:

Why are stiffy drives not enough and what are the use cases of CD-Roms?

<comment><AUTHOR> CDRoms were solving the problems of storage. So what is the problem 5G is solving for the world?

<comment><USER9> Bandwidth and latency.

In my world view of computing there are the two atomic elements of data and computation. In general people don't care much about computation as its hidden behind many layers. Mostly people care about data. Getting it quickly and getting a lot of it.

<comment><AUTHOR> That was too loose and generic, with statements like that you would be kicked out of any meeting :P</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Monoids, Functors, Applicatives, and Monads: Main Ideas - <AUTHOR> http://monadmadness.wordpress.com/2015/01/02/monoids-functors-applicatives-and-monads-10-main-ideas/ <comment><USER2> I've had an idea for a monad tutorial that I think might be quite instructive, but haven't had the motivation yet to write.

In essence, the idea is that you are led through the process of implementing: early exit, nondeterminism, threaded state and coroutines using call/cc in scheme. Then monads are introduced as a way of typing those patterns.

<comment><USER3> I think most monad tutorials would be quite ok if they didn't use words like "monad", "bind", "return" and so on. It's just stupid to insist on using names which mean nothing or when they mean something (return) it's actually opposite of what they're supposed to do. And no, there are no upsides to this: you math-inclined people may think so because you were trained to think that way, but it's simply not true.

I suspected this for a long time, but recently I saw a talk from Gilad Bracha - [http://www.infoq.com/presentations/functional-pros- cons](http://www.infoq.com/presentations/functional-pros-cons) \- which convinced me that I was right. Scroll to ~22 minutes into the talk for relevant section.

Ok, I finally said it. I feel better now, thanks ;)

<comment><USER4> None of those names "mean nothing"; they all have very specific meanings. Its true that in the case of return, the meaning in the context of Haskell monads is somewhat special, but since its part of the actual syntax of Haskell do- notation, its particularly important to address it in Haskell-oriented monad tutorials, whether or not it was the best choice from a syntax design perspective.

<comment><USER5> You may already be aware of this, but for those who aren't: `return` isn't actually part of do-notation syntax, it's a function name. It's true that do- notation must result in a monadic value, but that's just because of the type. `return` _can_ be used to construct that monadic value, but there are many other ways to do so:

        func1 :: Maybe Int
        func1 = do x <- foo
                   y <- bar
                   return (x + y)  -- Using return

        func2 :: Maybe Int
        func2 = do x <- foo
                   y <- bar
                   Just (x + y)  -- Building a monadic value explicitly

        func3 :: Maybe Int
        func3 = do x <- foo
                   y <- bar
                   plusJust x y  -- Using some other function

        plusJust :: Int -> Int -> Maybe Int
        plusJust x y = Just (x + y)

Also, since `return` is a function, we can use it outside do-notation:

        wrapAndApply :: a -> (a -> b) -> [b]
        wrapAndApply x f = fmap f (return x)

What makes `return` "special" is that it's a method of the `Monad` typeclass. In other words, the name `return` is overloaded to work with any instance of `Monad` (`IO`, `Maybe`, `List`, etc.), depending on the type that's required of it.

Loads of other functions are overloaded like this, eg. `+` has implementations for `Int`, `Float`, etc. so it's not monad-specific.

The part which _is_ monad-specific is that Haskell's do-notation is hard-coded to the built-in Monad typeclass. We're completely free to make our own monad implementation, separate to Haskell's built-in one, but we won't be able to use do-notation with them unless we implement the built-in `Monad` typeclass _as well_. That could be as simple as mapping one name to the other:

        instance MyMonad a => Monad a
            return = myReturn
            (>>=)  = myBind

<comment><USER6> _" The part which is monad-specific is that Haskell's do-notation is hard- coded to the built-in Monad typeclass."_

That's not quite true, at least in GHC. It's hard-coded to use (>>=) and fail, but the only thing that prevents you from defining your own is the name collision. With -XNoImplicitPrelude, you can (and they can even be locally scoped - I did some cute things with this once that I'd never want to see in production code...).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Im not getting the idea of monads here. From my understanding monads does series of transformation( composition, unit , lift ) of a function to do its task. So does monad is similar to Adapter pattern in java? which does make two classes work even though they aren't meant to work.

Because it does transform the class/ interface to work with other class, right?

Am I missing anything here?

<comment><USER8> I like to think of a Monad in terms of the Monad laws, it makes it much less abstract. [https://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Monad_laws](https://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Monad_laws)

Different monads can have drastically different implementations but they should all obey those laws.

<comment><USER9> And _anything_ that obeys those laws is a monad (if I understand correctly).

[Edit: And if the implementing pieces are named correctly.]

<comment><USER6> I think "fmap f m = (m >>= f >>> return)" also needs to obey the functor laws. I can quickly show that "fmap id = id" follows from the monad laws, but I don't know whether "fmap (p . q) = (fmap p) . (fmap q)" does.

<comment><USER6> Ah, it does seem to follow:

        M1: return a >>= f  = f a
        M2: m >>= return    = m
        M3: (m >>= f) >>= g = m >>= (\ x -> f x >>= g)

        (fmap f . fmap g) m = (fmap f . fmap g) m

        by defn of (.)      = fmap f (fmap g m)
        by defn of fmap     = fmap f (m >>= return . g)
        by defn of fmap     = (m >>= return . g) >>= return . f
        by M3               = m >>= (\ x -> (return . g) x >>= return . f)
        by defn of (.)      = m >>= (\ x -> return (g x) >>= return . f)
        by M1               = m >>= (\ x -> (return . f) (g x))
        by defn of (.)      = m >>= (\ x -> return (f (g x)))
        by defn of (.)      = m >>= (\ x -> (return . (f . g)) x)
        eta reduction       = m >>= return . (f . g)
        by defn of fmap     = fmap (f . g) m

        (fmap f . fmap g) m = fmap (f . g) m

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Monads, applicatives, functors, and monoids are different algebras. OK. That's really helpful, actually. (At least, I suspect it's going to be really helpful after I've thought about it for a few days.)

But monads are the way to do sequencing? Only if you insist on putting yourself in a functional straight-jacket that's so tight that you cannot escape. Then, yes, you do sequencing via monads because you don't have any other way to do it. But if you're a pragmatist rather than an ideologue, it seems more reasonable to just do sequence _by doing things in sequence_ , rather than forcing yourself to do unnatural contortions.

<comment><USER6> _" Monads, applicatives, functors, and monoids are different algebras. OK. That's really helpful, actually. (At least, I suspect it's going to be really helpful after I've thought about it for a few days.)"_

I think it's not quite accurate. They're all algebraic structures, but an "algebra" is a more specific thing and I don't _think_ they are algebras specifically (except maybe monoid?).

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebraic_structure](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebraic_structure) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebra_%28ring_theory%29](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebra_%28ring_theory%29)

 _" But monads are the way to do sequencing? Only if you insist on putting yourself in a functional straight-jacket that's so tight that you cannot escape."_

"Chaining actions with bind is the only way to combine actions" in Haskell is more strongly motivated by keeping things sane in the face of _non-strict_ semantics than by a "functional straight-jacket". In fact, it wasn't the way Haskell initially did IO.

 _" Then, yes, you do sequencing via monads because you don't have any other way to do it. But if you're a pragmatist rather than an ideologue, it seems more reasonable to just do sequence by doing things in sequence, rather than forcing yourself to do unnatural contortions."_

"You have to do things my way, or you're not pragmatic!" seems to be your dogma.

Reifying actions in a way that lets you talk _about_ them in the same way you talk about the rest of your data is sometimes a very useful thing.

<comment><USER9> > "Chaining actions with bind is the only way to combine actions" in Haskell > is more strongly motivated by keeping things sane in the face of non-strict > semantics than by a "functional straight-jacket".

OK, if you have non-strict semantics (by which I presume you mean non- sequential), then you need some way to make things sequential when they have to be, and you have no ordinary (non-jumping-through-hoops) way to make them so.

> "You have to do things my way, or you're not pragmatic!" seems to be your > dogma.

Shoe's on the other foot. Haskell's the one that insists that I _have_ to do it Haskell's way. I complain, and you accuse _me_ of being dogmatic. Doesn't work that way.

But I suppose you'd say that I have the choice to not use Haskell, so stop complaining. And in fact, I take that choice, precisely because I consider the language's dogmatism to be less pragmatic (and therefore useful) than a multi- paradigm approach.

<comment><USER6> _" if you have non-strict semantics (by which I presume you mean non- sequential)"_

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

 _" Haskell's the one that insists that I have to do it Haskell's way."_

... when you're writing Haskell. But _I_ am the one who sometimes wishes I could manipulate actions in that way when I am writing C.

 _" But I suppose you'd say that I have the choice to not use Haskell, so stop complaining."_

I'm saying that it obviously doesn't make pragmatic sense to require things in contexts where they don't make sense, but that 1) some things can make sense in more contexts than you might think, and 2) that you would do well (for pragmatic reasons) to actually learn about this stuff before deciding you don't need it.

<comment><USER9> > I'm saying that it obviously doesn't make pragmatic sense to require things > in contexts where they don't make sense...

Absolutely.

> you would do well (for pragmatic reasons) to actually learn about this stuff > before deciding you don't need it.

I keep learning about it. I still haven't seen any need for it. But then, my whole career is in a context where it doesn't make sense...

<comment><USER6> _" But then, my whole career is in a context where it doesn't make sense..."_

Well, like I said, applicability can be occasionally surprising. What is your background like?

<comment><USER9> Embedded systems. It's all about driving external hardware, and much of it _has_ to be sequential.

<comment><USER6> Gotcha. I certainly agree (albeit with low confidence - never sure what someone somewhere has done) that would make no sense as a GHC target. But that doesn't mean the concepts necessarily have no applicability. As I said, I've found myself wishing for some of Haskell's capabilities while writing C. That said, when the usefulness is subtle it's probably not the place to start. I'd dig deeper into some of the other monads first and basically forget about IO until you actually want to code in Haskell.

Incidentally, you can write Haskell to write your embedded C: [https://hackage.haskell.org/package/atom](https://hackage.haskell.org/package/atom)

I haven't actually played with it, but understand it's used in production.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> _' there's no such thing as the "IO monad" or the "List monad"'_

I don't think I agree (depending on just what is meant by "such thing as")... I would say there is such thing as "the IO monad" in the same sense as there is such thing as "the rational field" or "the Z/5 group". It's a particular example of a more general algebraic structure, and you'd use the phrase when you're talking _particularly_ about the structure as it occurs in that instance.

</comment><comment><USER10> Further evidence for my hypothesis that everyone who has ever understood monads has gone on to write a blog post trying to explain them.

<comment><USER11> ... and failed:

> Once you understand what monads are, and why they exist, you lose the > ability to explain them to anybody. -- Douglas Crockford [1]

[1] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkZFtimgAcM](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkZFtimgAcM)

<comment><USER12> How can one lose it? Before understanding it, one also has no ability to explain.</comment></comment></comment>


Using Lyft share link you can pull all names of users - <AUTHOR>

It seems through Lyft's new share link you can pull the names of all the users. Ex: https://www.lyft.com/invited/MATT2398. Decrementing the last four digits exposes other users. You can try this with other names. Not sure if this is a vulnerability since it's just names. Surprised they didn't hash them. <comment><USER2> You should probably report this to Lyft directly.</comment>


Designing The Holy Search Box: Examples And Best Practices - <AUTHOR> http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2008/12/04/designing-the-holy-search-box-examples-and-best-practices/ <comment><USER2> Is anyone else sick of Smashing Magazine? All of their posts are just lists and there doesn't seem to be any real content behind them. This one made some good points at the beginning about usability but then a bunch of their examples contradicted those points!

No offense to the submitter of this article. This was popular all over the net today.</comment>


That XKCD on voting machine software security is wrong - <AUTHOR> https://blog.erratasec.com/2018/08/that-xkcd-on-voting-machine-software-is.html#.W27f5IopCfA <comment><USER2> I'm not sure who the two authors of this piece are but they are distressingly naïve and their sweeping statements ignore the real issues.

> The reason we have electronic voting machines in the first place was due to > the "hanging chad" problem in the Bush v. Gore election of the year 2000.

The reason electronic voting machines are now so common in the US is indeed a result of the 2000 presidential election, but it was at the time a panicked reaction that also ignored the advice of computer security professionals (and followed the wishes and claims of voting machine vendors)

> After that election, a wave of new, software-based, voting machines replaced > the older inaccurate paper machines.

A nice statement, characterizing paper-based machines as "inaccurate" and implying software is not. But there has been no serious study of this issue, which implies that people don't care either way.

> ...If [accidents vs. intentional attack is the] measure, then voting machine > software is fine and perfectly trustworthy. Such machines are no more likely > to accidentally record a wrong vote than the paper voting systems they > replaced -- indeed less likely.

Again, a sweeping, unsupported statement. When I work on software that people actually care about (e.g. system control for power plants, trains, aircraft and other vehicles; medical devices) there's a huge amount of attention paid not just to classical security but also reliability, resilience, correctness etc. Audits of voting software have never shown concern for these matters -- everything I've seen has been written with the same level of care as for an e-commerce website.

> To repeat: software is better than the mechanical machines they replaced, > which is why there are so many software-based machines in the United States.

I could assert, and repeat, that the moon is 90% made of quartz, and for all I know that could be true, but I have no real data on the question.

<comment><USER3> As a recovering election integrity activist, I agree with gumby.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Missed the point, so badly.

There is nothing smug about the comic. It expresses horror at democracy subject to haphazard, ill-informed choices and malicious negligence.

Hanging chads were a result of a previous rush to faulty technology.

The fact is that voting machines are thrown together from faulty components with faulty design choices by badly managed companies with no evident care for their responsibility to the public.

<comment><USER3> _" Hanging chads were a result of a previous rush to faulty technology."_

Not quite.

The hanging chads happened because those election administrators didn't follow procedures and simply clean out the machines (turn over, shake vigorously), allowing the wells to fill up with chads, preventing new votes.

Otherwise punch card ballot tabulation is rather robust and reliable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> The real question is "Why?" Manually counting votes is easily verified. What do computers add here? Speed? Who cares? It's not that kind of race.

There are absolutely conflicts of interest involved in voting. I assume anyone who tries to implement computerized voting is malicious, trying to cash in on voting, or both.

<comment><USER6> I disagree with a lot of the article, but they do bring up the "hanging chad" debacle. Digital voting helps prevent these cases.

<comment><USER7> Wouldn't a simple pen/pencil also solve that problem? I mean, over here in the UK we don't use hole punches for voting, we just write a cross in the relevant box.

Seems to work well enough without any sort of voting machine involved.

<comment><USER8> Problems off the top of my head:

\- cross is too light

\- shape drawn is not a cross

\- more than one cross

\- one cross drawn, erased, and redrawn elsewhere

\- one cross drawn, crossed off, word "nevermind" written next to it, and then a new cross drawn somewhere else

<comment><USER9> These are handled by the vote counting humans. There are rules about what counts as s valid marking of the paper. Anything else gets discarded. I don't see a problem with this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> True, software works just dandy these days if you remove the "attack" factor, but software isn't deployed into an attack-free space the same way a plane flies through safe air.

As anyone who has ever logged into a Linux server to be greeted with the number of failed logins since the last successful one knows, _everything_ is under constant attack when it comes to digital technology. That's a large part of the problem, but the other part is that most people don't take security seriously enough. I would be more likely to trust a voting machine that isn't networked at all, with votes periodically extracted manually onto an encrypted USB drive or something, but good luck getting these manufacturers to not put wi-fi and bluetooth in everything.

I'll just end on this note: [https://www.engadget.com/2017/10/10/defcon-event- reveals-eas...](https://www.engadget.com/2017/10/10/defcon-event-reveals-ease- of-hacking-voting-systems/)

<comment><USER11> Military aircraft frequently operate in a non-attack-free environment.

Attacks are not entirely stochastic.

Oddly, this has been known in military circles for several years. Check with Sun Tzu.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Threat actors are threat actors no matter if they are "conscious" or not.

Now are current electronic voting machines sufficiently reselient against modern threat actors - probably not.

Especially not in the US where mandating government issued IDs is seen a taboo (I understand why, but as a non-Americans it just seems odd to me) which means that much of modern cryptography backed by "something you have/are" is out of the question.

But the argument that machines are only intended to be reselient against "accidental" attacks is simply incorrect.

The airline industry is a good benchmark of how to manage threats against automated systems if anything a good argument would be that launching an attack against an airline is simply not cost effective while launching an attack against a nation state to sway an election is a completely different ballgame.

And the most important factor is that unlike say causing an airplane to crash you don't actually need to launch a technically successful attack against an election, the allegation and doubt alone can cause long lasting political damage and chaos.

So even if you manage to hack a single machine in a single district and nullify only a single vote the doubt that would be cast on the entire election process not to mention the candidates and the political parties behind them can last for years.

</comment><comment><USER13> I think the wording in Randall's comic was very deliberate.

"Nothing is ever foolproof", "Nearly incapable". Software engineers can absolutely reach those standards.

But we also understand the threat model well enough that to us, "almost foolproof" is equivalent to "totally broken".

We understand that there are smart saboteurs looking to attack our systems, we understand that our software is only one link in a very susceptible chain, and we understand that they know our almost foolproof system is totally broken.

</comment><comment><USER14> > Confusing the two, accidents vs. attack, is used here because it makes the > reader feel superior. We get to mock and feel superior to those stupid > software engineers for not living up to what's essentially a fictional > standard of reliability.

For what it's worth, every single person I saw retweeting and agreeing with that comic was a software engineer, usually with some comment to the effect of "This is the truest thing ever written about programming". The article makes a good point that the comic elided over the distinction between hardening against accidents and attacks, but let's not pretend like software doesn't have hilariously low standards compared to more mature engineering disciplines.

</comment><comment><USER15> The problem goes down to Hanlon's Razor.

In elevator or airplanes, it applies, we try to make as safe as possible, we ironed most of the bugs (over which the maker would lose big), and if they ever fail, would be far more possible to be because human stupidity than malice.

In the other hand, with voting is human malice what matters. The holy grail for that is to paint it as safe and failproof as possible while still rigging things for the intended party at some point of the circuit. And there is big money to ensure that it happens, so the for profit manufacturers of such machines (or their for profit workers/managers) will be very motivated for slipping a subtle/obfuscated bug or backdoor somewhere (remember the Apple SSL bug due a duplicated goto fail line?).

Making software safe from their own makers is complicated. Software itself it runs may be complicated, what makes auditing it not trivial, and with enough resources you still can play with lower layers like the compiler or chipset (for all or a portion significative enough of the machines).

And blockchain is a tool that can be misused too, we already seen a lot of frauds, scams, majority attacks and so on over it. "It is safe because it uses blockchain" is a good intro by someone that have something to win there.

</comment><comment><USER16> Utter bullshit. Who even wrote this? This seems horribly naively written from people who can't think beyond simple concepts. Voting machine company shills, perhaps?

This has next to nothing to do with attacks. This has everything to do with choosing who gets to choose the software. If the software and system design came from academia, it'd be vastly different than anything that comes from Diebold or any other evil company that's excellent at selling crap to the government but willfully and intentionally ignorant of actual security.

As Douglas Adams wrote, "Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." Likewise, any voting software which can be sold to politicians should on no account be allowed anywhere near the voting process.

</comment><comment><USER11> Counterpoint:

[https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1027539289750429696.html](https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1027539289750429696.html)

</comment><comment><USER17> IDK, hacking elections _is_ a standard use case and not some "accident" that needs little attention because "extraordinary circumstances".

Be like a bank saying their vault is super secure but online security isn't important because that's an external threat outside of their control.

</comment><comment><USER18> This article is needlessly harsh in pointing out a hole in the analogy. All analogies have holes—that doesn't mean they can't still be informative (and funny).

</comment><comment><USER19> > software voting machines are actually better against accidents than the > paper machines they replace. ... It ignores the solution, which isn't to fix > software bugs, but to provide an independent, auditable paper trail.

XKCD is not an essay, where this may in fact be the ultimate belief of the comic, there's only so much space in a comic.

The comic is right that this implementation is bad, and the quote above agrees, it's the paper audit trail that's the fix.

I actually agree that software could, emphasis on could, make the voting system better by simplifying the interface to the ballot. For example, in San Francisco we have ranked choice voting, this creates a complex ballot, I think it's a better system than winner take all balloting. This creates a complex voter form, though. A good UI/UX on a computer _could_ make this simpler and less error prone, but it should be backed up by a paper ballot.

Paper ballots can't be as easily hacked, and require larger orders of corruption to pull off. Not just a single hacker getting in and changing some numbers, but a group of people working together to change the paper record. This makes them important for auditing an election's results.

That being said, are computers in this context worth the cost, that can probably be determined by the error rate of paper ballots.

<comment><USER3> _"...provide an independent, auditable paper trail."_

I trust that you're advocating the Australian Ballot, aka private voting, public counting.

And not VVPAT, which has been an utter failure. Most USA election administrators have abandoned touchscreens and are either reverting to precinct-based opscans or moving to postal ballots.

<comment><USER19> In San Francisco we have a decent system in place, paper ballot with a scanner that immediately tallies the vote and secured the ballot in a tamper-evident box.

I'm not advocating for anything more than that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> OMG Becky, really?!

First off, yes this piece raises some important ideas, but also misses the point of the comic, which isn't about smugness. It's boiling down the importance of something complicated to point out AT LEAST one reason to shut it down.

Second, this is the kind of thing I could pull up and show any of my non-tech relatives. Nitpicking does not help anyone.

</comment><comment><USER21> I don't think the XKCD comic is wrong. It's a commentary on 'computerized voting.' Not a commentary on 'computerized voting with a paper trail,' which is what the writer of the article presents as a solution.

<comment><USER3> VVPAT has been tried. It failed. It's irredeemable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Errata Security wrote:

 _" Such machines are no more likely to accidentally record a wrong vote than the paper voting systems they replaced -- indeed less likely."_

Wrong. The gear is unreliable.

 _" Confusing the two, accidents vs. attack, is used here because it makes the reader feel superior."_

Wrong. Fraud, incompetence, and silent failure are indistinguishable.

I stopped reading at that point.

Errata Security may know something about cybersecurity, but knows nothing about election administration.

XKCD's assessment is (mostly) correct.</comment>


Unlike in US, most European students learn a foreign language - <AUTHOR> http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/06/most-european-students-are-learning-a-foreign-language-in-school-while-americans-lag/ <comment><USER2> The Europeans are predominantly learning English, the world's language. Americans already know English. Plus, ask any American who took French in high school how much French they still retain. The answer will most likely be zero. It's kind of a waste of time unless you use it, which few do.

[http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/08/more-than- an...](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/08/more-than-any-other- foreign-language-european-youths-learn-english/)

<comment><USER3> _Plus, ask any American who took French in high school how much French they still retain._

From two years of H.S. French I still remember:

Je ne parle pas français

and

Je m'appelle Phillip

and

je joue au tennis</comment></comment>


Starting your first business in France? Here are the steps, and some great tips - <AUTHOR> http://www.colestreet.com/starting-your-first-business-in-france-here-are-the-steps-and-some-great-tips/ <comment><USER5> Amazing summary, I will bookmark this even though I am french.

With my co-founders, we've been looking to chose a bank and an accountant to officially start the company for some time now, and have been baffled by how much the banks charge charge for little to no service. The same holds true for accountants, although to a lesser degree as we're at the very beginning.

Also, debating about the 'statuts' has been a real pain. However, this is the only part in all this process that is of actual use, since it forces the founders to agree on a lot of important ownership and processes issues from the start.

</comment><comment><USER6> 0\. Hop on a train and do it in London instead?

Is that realistic, especially if you're unsure of success and don't want to go through all the bureaucracy?

<comment><USER7> With the current British government angling to leave the EU at present, that's a decision that might have unpleasant consequences in a few years for any French entrepreneur that tried this, even assuming it's practical now.

<comment><USER8> Even if Britain leaves the EU, is it really likely that they will leave the EEC?

The French entrepreneur cares about free trade, not much else. And I can't see Britain or Europe shutting down trade, regardless of whether Britain sticks around or leaves.

<comment><USER9> My understanding is that the EEC merged into the EC which then became the EU - so I don't think the UK has the option to stay part of the EEC and leave the EU.

Certainly EEC isn't a term that you here very often these days.

NB Perhaps you mean EFTA rather than the EEC?

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Free_Trade_Association>

<comment><USER10> Yes, the EEC/EC was officially abolished with the Lisbon treaty in 2009 (though it was mostly merged into the EU even before then). However, it's still possible for non-EU members to be part of the EU's common market via the EEA (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Area>).

EEA membership is pretty close to de-facto EU membership, though, including legislative harmonization on almost everything except agriculture/fisheries (which is what suits Norway about it), and a "voluntary" contribution that de- facto replaces EU dues. Would that satisfy UK politicians' reasons for pulling out of the EU, if they still had to pay dues and harmonize most of their legislation anyway, only without getting a vote in return? It's not clear to me they would join the EEA under those terms. And in the other direction, there's a lot of uncertainty over what they'd even have the _option_ to join, since there's a real possibility some EU members would veto an agreement to give them an intermediate status.

<comment><USER9> That page on the EEA seems to imply that members have to stick to EU laws - particularly around freedom of movement, which is one of the main reasons some UK politicians are keen on leaving the EU.

Personally, I think that any move to leave the EU would probably contribute to a break up of the UK.

<comment><USER11> It's absolutely non-sensical to want to be part of a common market but to not do what's necessary to actually create a common market. You can't cherry pick what you want.

Freedom of labor (which necessitates freedom of movement) is just as much part of a common market as freedom of capital is.

If the UK wants to leave the EU but, for example, keep freedom of capital they will be told off. If they don't want to accept some harmonization process of laws (which is necessary or else it's real simple for individual governments to erect barriers in the market) they will be told off.

If they are out of the common market they are out. You can't be half in and half out. And good riddance to them.

<comment><USER9> There are lots of people in the UK who want to remain in the EU - and I'm one of them. I hope that if it looked like the UK was going to leave the EU then Scotland would leave the UK and (re)join the EU.

<comment><USER12> Ha ha.

"We want Scotland to be an independent country! And that sacrifice its independence to the EU."

Yeah, that's logical.

<comment><USER9> Well, as I'm more attached to the EU than the UK it seems perfectly logical to me.

<comment><USER12> Anglo-phobe! ;-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Can anyone comment on what it's like to run a startup or a smaller high-tech outlet in France? Taxes, social insurance / humangous vacations, bureaucracy matters - the boring day to day stuff. I'm sure I'm not the only one playing with an idea of moving to Europe, so a first hand account would be much appreciated.

<comment><USER14> Sure. Low (or even no) taxes on yearly income if you locate your startup well (e.g. put it in an area that gets subventions or tax cuts, checkout so-called ZFU aka Zone Franche Urbaine). If you're innovating (which is, really, an administrative term, that you can put anything under), you'll get tax rebate on the salary mass that you dedicate to R&D. Even further, your startup can be labeled as a 'young innovating company' (JEI, aka Jeune Entreprise Innovante) and you get even more benefits.

I (with others) operate a startup with entities both in France and in the US. It is cheaper for us to leave R&D in France because of the subventions mentioned above.

Sure, you'll still get plenty of taxes and the euro is strong, which may be good or bad depending on your activities.

PM me if you need more details.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I've set up a business in Australia, average 2 days, and in Austria where the average is 25 days (and it went way over that for me) and I am not sure I'd do it again in Europe besides perhaps the UK. It's not so much the time and frustration, which is indeed wasted going to I think it was 4 different locations in 7 or 8 trips, but the shocking hostility of the process and people. It made me feel very unwelcome.

There is also a dearth of funding and a much smaller culture of philanthropy. Although those two are not really relevant to my project, jkl.io, as I am not taking funding and looking for philanthropy from places other than Austria.

<comment><USER16> Even though I regularly meet French who whinge about their _culture bureaucratique_ , I don't think they have anything on Asia (China, India, etc.)!

I'm Aussie/Kiwi/European and have set up wholly foreign-owned businesses in China (9 months) and Hong Kong (2 hours). I believe AU+NZ are pretty damn straightforward.

Have to mention: this article reads so obviously like an American wrote it, it's kind of amusing .. impatient, US spelling, notion of a 'check book'. Come on! Welcome to Europe, you're in the developed world now. We have online banking that actually functions... at minor or no cost across the whole region. We don't generally use cheques. Even China's consumer banking system is more efficient than America's, in my experience. You will learn to love it in Europe :)

<comment><USER15> It took me almost as long as setting up a business in Austria to get just a business visa for India so I agree with you on that point.

AU+NZ (check out the coverage of NZ on my site, what do you think?) are the models to follow for business registration I think. Given they've proven it can be done in one or two days I am not sure how the other countries can justify the delays.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> When I read things like this, I'm glad that I was in the US at the time I had the opportunity to create my app business (flight sim app for mobile). My school mates who are still in France are having a hard time with all the overhead of french bureaucracy when doing anything... most of them are thinking of moving abroad at some point.

The whole process in the US was so easy, finding a bank was a total non issue.

<comment><USER18> I don't know really; I started my company 8 years ago and it didn't appear to be that much of a hassle to be honest. I could find 3 banks willing to take us onboard in an afternoon.

And I only pay 140€/mo for the whole family health-care extension :P

<comment><USER19> Okay, thanks for sharing that perspective. Perhaps its the case of different cities having different business cultures within France? Not unlike how doing a high tech startup is going to look somewhat different in the bay area of California vs in Macon, Georgia?

<comment><USER18> There are different cultures in different cities for sure.

That said I, like a growing number of people I know, do everything "online" from a very rural place of France (both doing consulting for heavily technical startups or regular companies, and launching a SaaS product), and meet entrepreneurs and technical people once per year at conferences etc.

Then again I don't have employees (we're 2 cofounders as a couple), so being remote is probably easier!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Thanks for the post.

What I find annoying is that to simply test a business idea where you need to store subscriber's email addresses you normally need to register at the CNIL for which you need a registered company which requires what is described in the article. It feels backwards somehow: you need to register a company (with all the paperwork involved) before you even know if it can work.

<comment><USER21> I think that this sort of stuff is why a lot of people are afraid to create start-ups in France. Yes, there are huge taxes, but huge taxes provide a benefit (living in a decent society). This on the other hand is just an artifact from the past that nobody has bothered changing, much like how universities ask students for photocopies of every degree they got every damned year, or how much physical paper is used for trivial stuff that should be computerized.

(just to clarify, I am not against the CNIL, just against the hoop-jumping mentality)

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Good tips

Well, the bank thing seems exaggerated. Did they pick one of the main banks or one tiny one?

Yes, I have had an account on France. Sure, mine was a personal account, but it was pretty straightforward. Online banking worked fine (true, I haven't done transfers)

The weirdest thing (for me) about the French banking system (apart from cheques that rip from the widest margin of the book) is what they call a RIB (Releve d'Identité Bancaire), it's something that comes in your statements and is the 'key' for service providers to set up a direct debt to your account. Yes, they need that piece of paper.

Public offices are weird as well, they are sometimes a row of unmarked doors, so you just have to guess, or figure it out from some faded indications and _voilà_

<comment><USER18> Agreed on the banks: read my comment on the article, we pay 15€/mo for top notch service (used to pay more for sub-par service). Pick a bank that is entrepreneur-friendly, not all are interested.

<comment><USER22> Ah, you're using Credit Agricole. Mine was BNP Paribas, not sure which one the person in the article is using.

<comment><USER18> I can relate to what he wrote since initially I was at the CIC, which historically was good for entrepreneurs, but jumped the shark at some point, starting to sell me Virgin mobile phones etc instead of focusing on their core job.

Switching was easy and totally worth it!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Just don't start a company in France, at least not if you can avoid it which is the case for most startups (just go to Luxembourg or whatever). Not for the one week hassle, but because if you're looking for investors or if you want to sell it later, you and they'll have to pay close to 70% taxes so it will be a tough sell. Also, if you need to hire employees you will have to go through the expensive hell that is managing/hiring/firing employees and the crazy expensive taxes. Just not worth it.

The only case where you could start a company is if you're a one man shop freelancing startup (or a non-startup that needs to start a company for physical reasons such as a grocery store etc). Just my two-cents.

</comment><comment><USER24> Some incorrections here and there in the article, I want to add some fixes:

\- I wouldn't say the exigence of having a bank account is humiliating for a company. The process of opening one can be, however. But you can pick up any bank you want in any EU country you want. They can't "discriminate" against say a Luxembourg bank if you think this bank will serve you better. That's the EU market- same currency, and they can't change you fees for sending/receiving money from/to EU countries. I have a french bank, and I really like the idea of a conseiller - I want a single person I can talk to. Previously I had a bank which worked differently - I basically saw a different person every 6 month, while I had complex stuff that needed to be done and lost time reexplaining everything again and again. Now I have had one person for the last 3 years, that get things done by email, fax or phone. I like that. And when I decided to take my business to some other bank because it worked even better (phone service 24/7, with a limited number of person handling your case because you conseiller can't work around the clock) I never even had to go there in person- did that while travelling abroad, sending scans of my ID documents, having the account ready 24h later, having the paperwork they sent in return waiting for my signature at home since they just wanted a physical signature too.

BTW you know why there's so much red tape with french bank? bankers are legally responsible if you launder money using their services and if they didn't ask you basic questions designed to flag such cases. Some take risks, some don't. If you see a bank involved in a big scandal, pick it - it usually means it has less red tape, serves customers better, but some con men abuse it. If you don't care about the reputation of your bank (I don't) you get efficiency.

\- the address fees depend on the company you create. For some corporate types it will be fully free to change your address as much as you want, and you can "upgrade" your startup to any type. You may want to start as a Autoentrepreneur (personally liable), then switch to a EURL, then a SARL, then a SAS - you'll pay almost nothing for the first 3 types.

EDIT: someone posted this link to compare them: [http://www.rsi.fr//change- user/pied-de-page/espace-telecharg...](http://www.rsi.fr//change-user/pied-de- page/espace-telechargement/brochures-thematiques/creation-dentreprise.html)

\- for the step 2 and 3, I'm sorry to disagree here, but why didn't you file online instead? That's usually simpler - there are also what is called "unified" centers usually within ursaff offices to do everything in one place, with civil servants who know their job and can even check and fix basic mistakes in your file - for free! The whole process exist so that you can get the legal numbers (for tax, payroll, vat) within a day!!

\- accountants sucks, and there's worse- whether you do your accounting or whether they do it, any mistake there is - it's your responsibility. The taxman will go after you anyway, it might be a good idea to learn the basics yourself, if only to avoid poor service. If you take an accountant you get a tax break (especially for the less complicated corporate forms) but take some "for dummies" guide and you're ready to go.

I'm french, and I wouldn't say the process is overtly complicated when you have some experience doing it. It's sometimes quite efficient - I have one person in the tax office who knows my file and cell number, who I can call if I have any specific question, and who can call me back if there is any problem.

Also we have great laws: for ex, between companies, an exchange of emails can constitute proof of contract, like a signature. You don't need as much paperwork if you know the law.

The real problem is the corporate environment - your company may work with french company and customers. Most of them are not even worth the euros they'll bring. Make sure you add the customary letters at the end of each bill, reminding them that any overdelayed payment will result on late fees + interest.

Personally, unless I personally know the guys or the company that need my services, I don't take french clients anymore. Been burnt too many times on too many technicalities.

I've had the pleasure to bill a HN company (hello there if you read this!) - <USER2> pleasure to deal with.

EDIT : some corrections

All things considered, I should let you know I am examining the corporate situation in Canada, to have a place where hiring (and firing if needed) might be less problematic, along with companies that may be more pleasant to work with when I need outside help, or as clients.

Hiring in France is taking a real risk. You don't want to hire in France - <USER3> don't want to hire any one, at any salary. Just don't do it, trust me.

Also, Europe has some new demons recently- there's a lot of hate going on there, especially in France, now with casual aggression too (not even for the money) etc. When I visit mainland France, I play a game with friends, sitting at a cafe terrace : we watch people shop etc, and we make bets: mine usually is whether we would see someone getting beat up within 1 hour - and I won every single time, in the center of Toulouse - (in)famous city, last year at the same time a guy was shooting down schoolchildren and their teacher, because they were jewish. My mom was attacked twice these last 2 years - <USER4> a knife, in the city center. A cop got the guy - well, two of them, because the one who caught it was stabbed _13 times_ and was sent to the hospital. The guy was released from jail because of a technicality in the prosecution. Racism and hatred are rampant, cops are giving up on some neighbourhoods, etc. I'm not talking about hearsay here, but from a personal account. I trust my mom. Now she has had a new passport made - one that doesn't say "France" on it, and might get used if the situation gets too bad.

Some compare the situation in France to NYC of the 1980, prior to the introduction of tougher laws. I don't really know how to understand it. It's complicated. There are basically groups of people growing apart from each other, and hating eachother more and more - a bad recipe for any country.

If physicial safety is something you value, try to spend 6 month there first, to see if it is something you can live with - especially if you are a female founder considering any big city suburbs (cheaper rend, tax breaks for ZFU, etc).

I added these little warnings after proofreading my text, because I realized I was painting maybe a too rosy picture: there is no paradise on earth, and creating your company in France won't be as complicated as some make it sounds, if you like french food you'll love it there, but for what I value life is _much_ better on the other side of the atlantic.

You are free not to trust a single word of what I say - just go live there and try to make a decision by yourself.

<comment><USER25> You are 100% spot on. I moved to Belgium (like many "wealthy" french people do) and will probably move further away.

The situation in the eurozone is really degrading quickly: it's not gonna get better with the second state default of Greece and the 50% unemployment amongst young people in Spain. Portugal, Italy and France (Greece is economically dead as of now) are on life support. France let way too many people in and gave them way too much welfare-state goodness (that's the way socialist buy votes to get re-elected). Lost of immigration is good when the GDP is growing: 100 000 people is 0.1 additional % of GDP growth... But when you're in recession, all the immigrants can't find job and suddenly they accelerate the fall of the GDP (due to all the wellfare-state benefits that have to be paid).

Moreover the socialists made sure to give a sense of entitlement to most of the french population: so as soon as something is _talked_ about getting lowered or removed, there are strikes and revolts.

Physical security is a real issue: it's really not reassuring to take the subway in Paris and exit at station "Chatelet" to see groups of heavy armed _military_ trying to make sure the situation doesn't degenerate too quickly.

I think most people are living in a fairy tale, refusing to see what is going on.

France is going to state default just like Greece, the question is just when. The officials keeps lying about the predicted GDP numbers and state deficit numbers: now they admitted that they'll be in recession in 2013 and plan on a state deficit of 3,7%. It's going to be much more than that. In 2014 the french state shall have so many debts to pay back that it's going to have a very hard time refinancing itself on the market, bringing it closer to a default (skyrocketing public debt).

No country in the eurozone is safe due to the common currency.

You have to be IMHO a totally stupid and f _cked up person to start an online business in France as of now.

Don't forget that should you succeed you'd be regarded with jalousy and hatred.

Last year while on vacation in France my girlfriend was driving in a 8K convertible car (bought used for 8K). 8K. Hardly a "rich" person's car. Yet she could see the disdain and hate at trafic light from french people.

Socialism ruined France. While Sarkozy was in place it was still a wellfare- state and the local communities created more state servants than Sarkozy managed to terminate at the state level (Sarkozy suppressed 180 000 public state jobs, trying to keep the public debt in control but meanwhile the socialist in charge of the local communities created... 500 000 public state jobs!).

Socialism is killing France and is killing the eurozone.

It's killing entrepreneurship and encouraging a _very* concerning hate of the succesful (President Hollande said himself: "I don't like the rich").

I moved out. Do the same. Do not even consider starting a company there.

Btw go further than the eurozone: the only way out of the euro-crisis is going to mean either a gigantic depreciation of the euro or a split of the eurozone and a move back to local currencies (which would be followed by a massive recession in all these countries).

I'm considering Switzerland as of now. It's expensive but at least people there aren't all nuts.

I don't mind giving Godwin the win: not that long ago in Germany there were national socialists who put in place 8 of Marx's ten major point of communism and who spread hatred of the wealthy and the succesful. France is going this same path right now and this worries me a lot. People are getting nervous. Hate is growing up left and right. The situation sucks.

The military are _already_ in charge of subway stations and doing surveillance in front of important buildings (like Notre Dame). There are only going to be more and more of them. If the situation gets worse I expect the "couvre feu" to be put in place in big cities.

People are free to believe in fearytale and pink unicorn pooping rainbow butterflies that said...

<comment><USER24> > Don't forget that should you succeed you'd be regarded with jalousy and > hatred.

While the rest of your article may have some exaggerations, that's true and that's what is shaping my decision. I can live with some insecurity, I can live with deadbeat companies trying to avoid paying their bills and laws preventing me from hiring - I'll just go solo and focus on foreign clients.

But if on top of that I'm hated and discriminated against (that's common when your name doesn't sound french) sorry but that's just too much.

BTW for the people who do not know France let me precise what the "military" mentioned by this poster is : there are squads or 3 to 5 soldiers, in full uniform with machine guns in their hand patrolling in some places. I don't know if it's supposed to make me feel safe or not. And you can be asked "your papers" by policemen for no reason that not looking exactly like what they expect. (I once took the train to work every day - when they did that for the 4th time straight, I just said I had forgotten them (I had!) and suggested they arrest me. they ducked out. That's just plain intimidation)

And BTW to those who say it's anecdotal evidence, just go live there! Try it for yourself. Vote with your feet. When it is in the media _and_ your family is attacked _and_ you see people being attacked too, all the while being hated for being successful maybe you'll sing a different tune.

I'm happy to be on the right side of the atlantic, in the FWI where making money is well regarded, people start business, and you generally feel safe. The population is quite diverse in the Caribbean, and - _for now_ it's working just fine! There's not so much hate!

We certainly have unemployment and some stupid french laws to deal with, but with different tax brackets, and overall it's IHMHO not a bad choice.

PS: to those who downvote my original article, I tried to be factual and fully honest. You can hate the truth, but it remains the truth.

<comment><USER26> I live there, just next to the train station that you describe as being in a war state, and while there are worrying incidents in the outskirts and suspicious neighbourhoods, center Paris is by far the safest city I've ever lived in, and the only one where my women friends feel safe enough to walk alone at 3am. If we're playing the anedoctal evidence game, the only place I was ever seriously threatened ("I will kill you", at gunpoint and with evil eyes) was in your beloved Caribbean, in the beautiful island of Saint Lucia.

<comment><USER24> Please enlighten me.

Were you living in the Caribbean, or just a tourist? What were you doing? By any chance, were you going to the friday night?

(St Lucia is right next to my island - been there too, there is some unsafety but nothing too worrying)

There is not so much hate- we have people from all shapes and colors, and all creeds too. But FYI, in some places, including in the FWI, you should know tourist are not very welcome. They look for the sun, booze, girls but also for trouble. They hold sightseeing tours on the most poverty stricken areas and are arrogant. Many of them see local as dummies from the 3rd world.

So we don't really like them - personally I don't. We are not a bordello or a zoo, but just normal places were people work and live.

<comment><USER26> I was in the docks, arriving by boat from another island. Like everyone in that boat, we were held up for many hours waiting to get our passport stamped and a bunch of young locals started harassing our girlfriends (we were 6). We were the last to leave the passport check because officers didn't know what to do with people from my country (apparently we were the first ones there, so the passports were held). When we got out, these guys were waiting for us in a pickup truck outside and I walked up to them to have a chat before things got out of control, and while we were still next to the customs office. It's an open world we're living in. I realize many tourists can be unpleasant and disrespectful, but hating tourists is just as stupid as hating immigrants. If you don't like their actions, put rules in place to avoid them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I have been there, done that. In my experience, the problems do not end after the business creation. If you are like I was, an unemployed guy trying to start its own business with a few equally unemployed associates, you applied for the ACCRE subvention which was, at that time (2005) the worst piece of bureaucratic form I ever experienced. Then you get a load of accounting obligations. The "siege social" was at my own address and I had to move after a while, which produced another round of bureaucracy hoopla to change the business address. It took some time and the post office was refusing to give me my mail as long as I couldn't give a Kbis with the new address. I haven't had the chance to have employees before the business collapsed, but what I've read about what to do when you hire people and the risk you take was very untempting.

Now the things has apparently been better, and a new very simplified status has been created for one-person businesses (the "auto-entrepreneur"). It is my status right now and it is quite fine. But if I start earning too much money (more than 30K euros a year) I'm forced to change my status and go trough all this again.

</comment><comment><USER28> Can anyone explain European rubber stamp-fetishism? Has there ever been a study done showing that rubber stamping practically everything (20 euro purchase at an electronics store) is effective in preventing forging of documents? To an outsider visiting continental Europe the practice looks redundant and almost comical.

<comment><USER29> It's just a way of identifying that a document is 'officially' from the company.

Ideally you just lock up the stamp in a drawer. You can probably forge it just as easily as others, but at least with the stamp multiple people can "sign" for the company. In my experience it was more useful than anything.

also: it's not euro-only. Go to Japan for a laugh if you want.

<comment><USER30> China also.

And then there is also the fapiao (stamped receipt).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Dealing with banks in France is a humiliating experience even if you're not a company. They have way too much unchecked power and, ultimately, treat you like a criminal. For example, if you do an international bank transfer, you might get a phone call to explain it. If they don't like the explanation, they will freeze your account. They even freeze accounts if you get an unusual bonus from your employer and they find it odd for some reason.

French people seem to find it all normal because they grew up in this system, but people that come from abroad quickly learn to be terrified of French banks.

<comment><USER29> that's funny because I've had the opposite experience with my bank (Societe Generale). I've been able to call them up for most anything and they've been super reactive. Maybe it's all the fees I pay

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> > the Internet interface will only let you do small amounts, and only to pre- > entered recipients. Who enters those recipients? You guessed it – your > conseiller!

I do not think this is true. With my French bank account, I can add recipients for online recipients without interacting with my conseiller. I do need a confirmation code sent through SMS to confirm additions (a poor man's two- factor authentication) but that's it.

</comment><comment><USER19> Wow! I read through this entire article and the thing that struck home is even how painful this process sounds vs my experience incorporating businesses in my home State in the United States. Even banking wasn't as big of a problem due to the level of competition among banks and that the local smaller banks still even offer free basic checking to business accounts.

</comment><comment><USER33> Out of curiosity, how hard is it to get a visa to start a startup in France as a US citizen? I've toyed with the idea of starting something in Paris.

There appears to be ample opportunity even if all you want to do is create a French version of some other successful product.

</comment><comment><USER34> Thanks for the article. And thanks God, nowadays we can open business in nearly any country, just be sure to have some coins for air ticket..

</comment><comment><USER35> Starting your business in France? Step 1, register it in the UK...

<comment><USER36> not entirely true : if you are a french resident Dual Taxes Treaty apply ... If you work from France or do business with French companies you'll end up paying some taxes to France.

if anyone got more details on this topic I'm interested, please pm.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Great article, but doesn't cover the mother of all French bureaucratic challenges - employment law!</comment>


How to Hack Windows 7/8/10 Using an Excel File - <AUTHOR> https://www.androidgigs.com/how-to-hack-windows-using-excel-file/ <comment><USER2> Victim needs to enable Macro? Yes/No?</comment>


EULA limitations of liability overturned in court - <AUTHOR> http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/sroosa/software-license-agreement-takes-it-chin

<comment><AUTHOR> Link to decision (pdf) [http://ia360707.us.archive.org/15/items/gov.uscourts.hid.874...](http://ia360707.us.archive.org/15/items/gov.uscourts.hid.87427/gov.uscourts.hid.87427.36.0.pdf)</comment>


Show HN: Crudcast – Create and Deploy a RESTful API with a Few Lines of YAML - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/chris104957/crudcast <comment><AUTHOR> I just created this simple library for creating a RESTful API from a yaml file with just a few lines of text. As a full stack developer, I regularly need to build simple REST APIs quickly in order to build a web app prototype. This library allows me to do this with just a few lines of code, and I am sharing it here in case its of use to anybody else.

Effectively, this library turns a yaml file into a Flask RESTful API and implements documentation via swagger.

It's very basic right now, and still not yet documented, but I'm planning to add additional feature such as user management, permissions and the ability to insert your own code.

Thanks, Chris</comment>


Facebook considers letting users add a tip jar to make money from posts - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2016/4/19/11455840/facebook-tip-jar-partner-program-monetization <comment><USER2> For those who make a living, this is good news; for the internet, this is one more papercut, closing to the 1000.</comment>


Ask HN: How Is Google Analytics So Damn Fast? - <AUTHOR> It updates in real-time, it certainly can't be using bigquery as I see every query in bigquery takes atleast 2 seconds. So, how is it so realtime? <comment><USER2> Likely by processing different data at different times.

E.g. big aggregates and time series are likely updated on a lower interval whilst near-time event data is probably stored in fast recall storage so that you can satisfy near-time queries immediately.

Otherwise, their long view queries are always sampled. They control the fields available so they can make sure samples are properly stratified in order to be representative.

IMO, it's just good old fashioned good engineering. It could be done with no special tech whatsoever. E.g. sharded Postgres DBs and network storage would do just fine.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm going to guess:

\- If you are logged into the Analytics dashboard, then a web-socket has been activated between your browser and GA. For fast lookup, there's probably an in-memory hash of GA IDs, web-socket IDs.

SO:

\- User visits your webpage / performs some action worth analyzing.

\- GA script gets executed; sends request to GA server.

\- GA server acknowledges reception and schedules jobs for:

\-- storing the hit for associated GA-ID.

\-- sending info of hit to websocket associated with GA-ID.

</comment><comment><USER4> Pre aggregated reports. Custom reports have `using x out of y sessions`. Custom reports using bigquery or something similar and more compact/specialized.

</comment><comment><USER5> This is where architecture is important and there are several techniques you can use to make things faster.

You could look at pre-calculation, subsetting the data, in-memory databases, dedicated servers, non-blocking requests, etc.

</comment><comment><USER6> Are you talking about a specific feature of it or the whole thing in general?

</comment><comment><USER7> Google Bigtable

</comment><comment><USER8> It's sampled.

</comment><comment><USER9> DHTML

<comment><USER10> Can you clarify?</comment></comment>


Robinhood knowingly left leapyear bug unpatched - <AUTHOR> https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/fcoaev/and_now_a_brief_flashback_to_four_years_ago_where/ <comment><USER2> Although perhaps it sounds like this didn't happen four years ago after all if you read the comments further down:

"March 2nd 2016 was on a Tuesday though. Wouldn't this have happened on March 1st 2016 if this was the case?"

"It would have. Notice how none of the replies 4 years ago mention anything about a leap year."

</comment><comment><USER3> Robinhood has disputed this

[https://twitter.com/AskRobinhood/status/1234861941413351434](https://twitter.com/AskRobinhood/status/1234861941413351434)

<comment><USER4> I _might_ believe the response from RH if 1) this didn't happen exactly 4 years ago 2) admission of this being the issue didn't expose them to a negligence lawsuit which could _easily_ bankrupt the company 3) the original tweet didn't have a screenshot of the app building links to 3/3/2020 data on 3/2/2020

<comment><USER5> Yeah, the problem is it happened exactly 4 years ago as opposed to 4 years and 1 day ago.

March 1st, 2016 was the leap year. Not March 2nd.

<comment><USER4> Fair enough, but the screenshot that one client posted definitely shows their links generating dates for 3/3 on 3/2\. That's highly suspicious in of itself. Also, the fact that their website previously said they had identified the cause and now it doesn't is also suspicious to me. I'm not a client so I don't care either way. I'm just saying I don't inherently believe a word RH says when they have so much to lose.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Let's cite /r/WallStreetBets as a reputable source of information shall we, what could go wrong?

</comment><comment><USER7> There's no proof it was a leap year bug. If they were truly sending an out of range value, the response code would probably be a 500, not a 503.

<comment><USER8> But it could also be the case that a service they use times out if you ask for invalid data e.g. from the future. In which case that could cause a cascade of backlogged tasks that would eventually lead to 503 errors under load.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I notice that the status.robinhood.com page has changed as well. Yesterday there was a note about the source of the issue being identified. That is now gone.</comment>


Qt 5.1 Alpha Available - <AUTHOR> http://blog.qt.digia.com/blog/2013/04/08/qt-5-1-alpha-available/

<comment><USER2> With preliminary support for Android and iOS.</comment>