Why I gave away my company to charity - <AUTHOR> http://sivers.org/trust

<comment><USER4> "At a party given by a billionaire on Shelter Island, Kurt Vonnegut informs his pal, Joseph Heller, that their host, a hedge fund manager, had made more money in a single day than Heller had earned from his wildly popular novel Catch-22 over its whole history. Heller responds, 'Yes, but I have something he will never have enough.'"

Original source of 'enough' quote in Sivers' essay

<http://www.tompeters.com/dispatches/010754.php>

<comment><USER5> That quote kind of loses its punch without the ellipsis:

'Yes, but I have something he will never have...enough.'

<comment><USER4> Argh. Reminds me for some reason of the stand-up comedy formula. You are correct. I forgot the punchline. The ellipsis.

Example from Robin Williams

"Parenting is hard" (Premise)

"Once you become a parent, you have responsibilities" (Statement/setup building on premise)

"For example, you can't go out drinking, come home drunk, go up to Junior's room at 3am and say 'For a change, Daddy's going to throw up on you now just like you do" (Turn around, the twist)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I hope I'm not being an ass but this article annoyed me a bit. This guy came across very arrogant, self righteous and judgmental.

The following statements were just obnoxious: \- "Yes, but I have something he'll never have: enough." \- "I live simply. I hate waste and excess. I have a good apartment, a good laptop, and a few other basics. But the less I own, the happier I am. The lack of possessions gives me the priceless freedom to live anywhere anytime." \- "it throws off perspective. It makes people do stupid things like buy "extra" cars or houses they don't use - or upgrade to first class for "only" $10,000 so they can be a little more comfortable for a few hours."

A) I've never met nor heard of any billionaire who got where they were because they were chasing dollars. All of them started out by LOVING what they did and doing it extremely well. The market rewarded them for the value they created for society. The greater the value, the greater the reward.

B) Why is he implying that because of their success, the rich are incapable of appreciating the simple things in life? Why does doing that require owning just one nice apartment in NYC a nice laptop, a brand new prius

C) What business it is of his how other people live their life and how they choose to spend their money. Everybody needs to be like him in order to be as valiant and noble?

I dunno... maybe i'm being a bit extreme but I just cant stand it when other people go around self righteously preaching about how other ppl should live their lives.

<comment><USER7> It struck me the same way. He projects a salesman's confidence and glibness, so my knee-jerk reaction is to roll my eyes and wonder what the hell he's selling. Well, it's obvious _what_. The entire post is plain and simple bragging. He says himself that he didn't do it out of altruism. He did it to maximize his happiness, which includes -- he says this explicitly -- enjoying the fact that he made such a bright decision. And though he doesn't say it, it's obvious that another one of the benefits he gets is the joy of telling everyone about his enlightened, tasteful choice.

Nothing he says is new. Choosing a life of utter freedom, security, and modest luxury over the relentless drive for more wealth and power is probably as old as stable urban societies and has probably been admired for the same reasons just as long. So we're not here to learn; we're just here to gawk at one of our celebrities. If HN had channels, this would be E!

Admire the man for what he's done, but for God's sake, have the sense to roll your eyes and stop admiring for a second when he tastelessly brags about it. Resume admiring when this little faux pas passes out of consciousness.

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree!

I did all this over a year ago, and didn't plan on telling anyone. I knew it would sound like smug bragging.

But in a few entrepreneur-focused interviews since then, (VentureVoice, etc) - the interviewers seemed particularly interested in the details on how and why I set up the trust.

Yesterday I did another one of those interviews, and he pushed for details again - so today I thought I should just write it down once and for all, so I don't have to keep re-telling it.

Sorry if it sounds like bragging. Perhaps it is, a bit, but I hope that someone somewhere in the future selling their company might be aware that this is an option and read someone else's experience with how to structure it.

<comment><USER8> Most people aren't willing to talk about financial details _at all_. I find it fascinating myself. Thanks a lot for sharing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Altruism aside, it is a very smart move. I grew up in India and am sparse in my living standards and am at times amazed at the kind of affluence that exists in America even amongst those who consider themselves less privileged.

As long as the trust grows at greater than 5% of its values you receive the mandated annual disbursement which is this case is a fair chunk of change and add monies to be disbursed at the end. However factoring in the rate of inflation and "money's real value over time", the trust probably needs to be invested wisely to grow at 5% + rate of inflation to retain its original value over the years.

Occurs to me that setting up the trust is only half the battle, having it deliver on its original promise is the greater half.

<comment><USER10> When you reach that magnitude (many 10s of millions of dollars) getting 5% + inflation (inflation is on average pretty low in industrialized countries) amortized over many years is not hard.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Wow, talk about a classy move.

Major props to Derek.

 _"The best things in life aren't things"_

<comment><USER12> status is a thing >_> isn't derek signaling high status by giving away something valuable? <_<

<comment><USER13> sort of. but everything humans do can be argued as a status move, so it's unwise to get super hung up on it. (me, i just marvel at the 1337 tax-evasion skillz. :-)

<comment><USER14> Let's do Sivers the favor of precision in our language: he engaged in rational _tax avoidance_ for a good cause. When you say 'tax evasion', it generally means the steps taken were illegal.

<comment><USER15> Or at least focused on avoiding taxes _for personal profit_ if not outright illegal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Wow, this really rang true with me:

"It's not that I'm altruistic. I'm sacrificing nothing. I've just learned what makes me happy. And doing it this way made me the happiest."

I often think about how this mentality equates to business. For example, we generally think about business profit growth as healthy, but what if a business is sustainable, does not grow in profits but can somehow grow "happiness" with customers, investors, employees, etc. In a sense the business is not necessarily being altruistic, it's just recognizing what makes people more dedicated to the business. When thinking about Zappos I generally wonder if this wasn't their strategy for many years.

</comment><comment><USER17> He's getting 5% of $22 million each year to cover living expenses ($1.1million)?

Doesn't exactly sound like "living simply" to me.

<comment><USER5> He's required to receive at least 5% of the trust's value as his annuity each year.

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

<comment><USER18> Does the benefactor have to pay tax on that 5%? If not, this is an amazing deal for the benefactor!

<comment><USER19> If I am reading the Wikipedia article correctly (and if the article itself is correct), the benefactor does pay tax on that 5%.

However, if the OP had kept his startup in his own name, then at the time he sold it, he would have had to pay capital-gains tax on all of his profit, that year. (And then he would have been able to spend the remainder on whatever he wanted, that year.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Thank you, Derek. One of my all time favorite hn posts. So many good quotes, I won't cite any of them. Just read the whole thing.

We spend so much time pushing our customers to answer the question, "What's most important to you?" that we tend to forget to ask it to ourselves. OP's answer might not be my answer, but it's an awfully good one. Working hard is so much easier when you're working toward such an important outcome.

Respect.

<comment><USER21> Do the math. He created a trust that pays 5% of 22 million and avoids ~5 million in taxes. That's 1.1 million a year in income and a 5 million tax break at the cost his capital after he dies. It's less liquid right now, but 1.1 million a year is well past FU money and getting a loan with that sort of income stream is easy. If his annual payout was less than 5% then it would have been a sacrifice, but 5% + inflation means he might be extracting more money in real terms than he is generating. This means over a long enough time scale he basically skims most of his money back, and he leaves the tax break some of it's interest to charity. Granted if he generates significantly more than 5% + inflation he does lose some money but he does get 5% of an ever larger pool so it's not all that much of a loss.

PS: Which is not to say it's a bad thing, rather it's more of a tax loophole than you might think. Afterall his other option was to live off of ~4.5% of 17 million. (Assuming he did not want to run out of money if he lived to be 90.)

<comment><AUTHOR> Eh. I get taxed fully for everything that gets paid to me. (That annual 5%.) That doesn't avoid taxes at all.

Only what will never touch my hands (direct from purchase-event to charity) avoids taxes.

So this was just a way of making sure as much of it as possible never touches my hands.

(As compared to passing-through me: taking it as income then giving it back out again.)

<comment><USER21> There are 2 tax advantages. You don't pay taxes on the first sale, and the annuity does not pay taxes when it sell's it's assets.

Let's say you are a 30 years old and need to pay taxes on 14 million$ and decide to retire. As you get the money you need to pay taxes for simplicity let's call that 4 million$. You now have 10 million$ if you then buy stocks with a 5% dividend that keep up with inflation your income is 500k /year(which you do pay taxes on). However, if you ever sell those stocks you need to pay tax on how much they appreciated.

If on the other hand you setup an annuity it does not pay that 4 million in taxes. If it then buys those same stocks with a 5% dividend that keep up with inflation it's paying you (10m+4m) *.05 = 700k / year (which you do pay taxes on). And if the annuity manager want's to sell the stock and buy something else it does not need to pay taxes on the sale.

The final question becomes can you buy a life insurance policy for less than 200k/year that pays out the value of the annuity when you die. Expect your family does not pay death taxes on a life insurance policy so even that has tax advantages.

PS: In the real world all those numbers are subject to change, but it was setup by congress as a tax shelter and with proper management it can do that vary well. I only bring this up because it may be a good idea for other people on HN who decide to sell their company and retire when when they are young.

<comment><USER22> Could you please get rid of the apostrophes in the phrase "sell's it's"?

<comment><USER23> He wrote several paragraphs of wisdom, and you're here to correct his spelling. Nice. Could you reallt nopt derive his meaning despite his poor spelling?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Derek, you did great work in creating that wealth and everyone here is happy to see you enjoying some of it. But please consider re-writing this to something more truthful - fewer words emphasizing your altruism and spartan lifestyle (?) and more words talking about the tax advantages and forced spending discipline that this smart plan gives you.

The title, for example, shouldn't be "Why I gave away my company to charity". You didn't do that. (Which is good! That would be crazy.) How about, "Why I willed my estate to charity."

</comment><comment><USER25> I was thinking of a similar configuration for an investment vehicle. Make a charity whose goal is investing in good startups. Feed the returns back into investing. The goal is clout and influence rather than cashed out returns. I think this would better align incentives of investors and companies. It could also be used for "human capital" investments which are uncommon today except for student loans.

It wouldn't need to be relinquished upon death - but the trustees would be transferred over time.

</comment><comment><USER26> Can we assume it actually makes more than 5% interest every year? Otherwise he's slowly draining it of its value, and if he lives long enough may empty it. It probably does, but it's a thought.

<comment><USER5> Yeah, asset managers generally advise withdrawing no more than 4% annually to preserve wealth. However, I'm guessing that this is classified similar to a foundation, which must pay out 5% of its assets each year.

EDIT: Just read the wikipedia article he links to, and as the value of the trust is recalculated each year, and his annuity is based on the recalculated value (as opposed to the original value) it's effectively impossible to deplete the value.

Also, you _can_ setup a net-income CRUT that pays out the lesser of the annuity income percentage, or the trust's net income for the year, thus ensuring that your annuity doesn't reduce the value of the trust from year to year.

<comment><AUTHOR> Exactly. I'm required to pay out 5% per year to myself, but then I don't have to spend the whole 5%. I can reinvest it or whatever.

<comment><USER27> Can you re-invest it in the non-profit that you created? i.e., accept the 5% and then just give most of it right back?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I have to admit, I hate anyone who says something like:

"That means $5 million more going to music education instead of another tank in Iraq or a banker's bailout bonus."

Because that is where all tax money goes. I'd say >90% of tax dollars go to something way more important than music education, though I guess if I had cashed out of a music startup I might be selfish enough to convince myself that is untrue.

<comment><USER29> Music education was important to him. For other people maybe other things are more important. They can donate to other cause, or pay voluntary taxes.

<comment><USER28> What paid for the roads he took on his way to music classes? What funded the internet he made money off of? What paid for the tanks that kept his country in such a state that people could spend time studying music rather than fighting civil wars and subsistence farming? I'm sure I'm no more a fan of the Iraq War than he is, but I'm glad we have tanks and nukes, if for no other reason than their very existence reduces the likelihood we will need them.

If everyone gave their money to helping other people with their hobbies, rather than paying taxes, would you want to live here?

<comment><USER30> This is a strange argument. He isn't dodging taxes - the same tax code that pays for roads and tanks also specifically encourages people to give money to charities, by providing legal deductions. That's all he's doing.

The government has a mandate, and the power, to fund itself. The same isn't true of charities.

<comment><USER28> It's not the action I object to, it's the dismissal of what taxes do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Why not use the money for music education now and be actively involved (or not) instead of in x number of years (40?) from now?

<comment><USER32> Because then you couldn't live off the interest in the mean time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> 5% * 22 million = 1.1 million

Not bad.

</comment><comment><USER34> just wanted to make a point that others seem to have missed. to the extent that this is avoiding taxes so that more money can be given to a particular charity, isn't it "robbing peter to pay paul"?

this might not make much sense to the american mindset, which seems to be virulently anti-government, but taxes don't just vanish - they pay for vital services. more than that, reducing how much tax someone with many millions pays implies that others, with less money, either pay more or receive lower quality services.

i realise this is a minor detailed compared to giving to charity or keeping it all, and i don't mean to detract from that. i just find the "it's cool to avoid taxes" (and instead give more to charity) assumption a bit odd.

<comment><USER35> The US government spends most of its money (roughly in order) on:

-Wall Street Bailout

-Military Spending (which, in large part, means pre-emptively attacking sovereign nations we don't like)

-Inefficient entitlement programs

-Interest on our existing debt

If memory serves, only about ~5% of our money goes to what I would consider really worthwhile programs like NASA and education. You can up that to about 20% if you include things like roads, infrastructure maintenance, 'vital services', and so on.

I imagine that Derek prefers to have more control over where his hard earned money goes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> hey derek - you mentioned that you wrote this article after being prompted to do so and I thought I'd take the opportunity to try and prompt you to write another one!

You briefly commented on living the (relatively) simple life - having fairly few possessions etc. I try and live somewhat like this myself and have found it very liberating.

If you're interested I'd much like to read an essay with your expanded thoughts on this lifestyle decision.

cheers, david

<comment><USER37> Here's one of his past essays that's relevant: <http://sivers.org/freedom>

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> I once heard the word "Charitable Remainder Trust" - it was by a guy who wanted to make sure his money could never be taken from him...

[http://www.investorwords.com/830/charitable_remainder_trust....](http://www.investorwords.com/830/charitable_remainder_trust.html)

So no cap gains + a tax deduction for making money? Doesn't seem so charitable to me...

(someone, please correct me if I am wrong)

<comment><USER5> There's absolutely nothing charitable about paying taxes.

<comment><USER38> Sorry - my point was that the title connotes he's already completed some charitable action, when, in actuality, he's just taken steps to preserve his wealth until he passes - at which point a charitable action will be taken (on his behalf).

edit: no one here likes the truth, I guess.

<comment><USER39> He does say explicitly that he's not being altruistic.

My take is that this is a tip for startup owners who are planning to give some of their wealth to charitable causes after their death. He suggests a way to do this (financial hack, if you will) that improves the efficiency of the operation, maximizing both the money that goes to the charitable cause and to the donor.

Regarding the payout, see <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=976759>.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> wouldn't it make more sense to invest that money into a few hundred startups instead?

At $50K a pop, that's 340 startups that he could invest in.

Then 5 years later, when that 17 mil becomes 200 mil, he could setup that music trust.

I mean sure, he can still invest with whatever is left over from that 1 mil yearly cash out, but it's not going to be a game changer compared to backing 340 new startups.

<comment><USER41> Reread the statement about "enough".

<comment><USER42> Plus if we assume that he does recieve 1.1 mil $ per year (at least for first couple of years).

And if he is that ascetic as he claims.

Then we can safely assume that from 660k that remain (after taxes) - he can probably live pretty lavishly on 160k per year (for an ascet !) - <USER2> since this amount doesn't need to be spent on making money (transport,...).

So now we can see that he can clearly invest into 10 startups per year - <USER3> even afford to be actually involved in them. Which would probably far increase possibility of success over just blindly dumping money in 340 startups with total disregard for anything. And in 10 years he would be involved in 100 of possibly pretty good startups of which I believe at least one could repeat his success (due to selection and nurturing).

To me its clear how this "non-greedy" strategy is clearly better over long term.

I'm really amazed how some people who claim (or act) greedy are really not THAT greedy - solely because they act on short-term ("BIG" bonus this year! or - steal from thy shareholders, etc, etc) over long-term. I don't call them greedy - I just call them stupid :)

Because a true greedy person should be focused on an mid or long-term goal (how to maximize my profit in 20 or 40 years).</comment></comment></comment>


Versioning controlling The New York Times with Git - <AUTHOR> http://www.newsdiffs.org/browse/

<comment><USER2> I get this:

SyntaxError at /newsdiffer/browse/ EOL while scanning string literal (urls.py, line 13)</comment>


Www.YouTube - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube/

<comment><AUTHOR> It's powered by nginx!

<comment><USER2> Follow up blog post: [http://blog.higg.im/2015/02/24/new-icann-name-collision- for-...](http://blog.higg.im/2015/02/24/new-icann-name-collision-for-youtube/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Blocked by NoScript, what is it?</comment>


Growth Hacking 101: Read This To Become A Magician - <AUTHOR> http://www.ranky.co/growth-hacking-101-read-become-magician/

<comment><USER2> my god.. this is well written. thanks guys

<comment><AUTHOR> 10X. We are trying to do our best :)</comment></comment>


Standard Cognition Raises $40M Series A to Deliver Autonomous Checkout - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2018/11/15/standard-cognition/ <comment><USER2> The "re-humanizing retail" line left a bad taste in my mouth. When I think of lots of cameras in a store designed to get you in and out as quickly as possible without having to talk to a cashier or a stocker, it feels de- humanizing and sterile. It is also one of the ways I interact with people at different income levels. That's why people go to farmers markets and do CSA boxes - they want to feel connection to their food providers and community.

I don't doubt this technology is the future or will be a big market, but let's not kid ourselves that this will generate more human connection.

<comment><AUTHOR> (Jordan from Standard here)

This is a fair initial take, and we should clarify why we think we're improving the social experience. A big part of why Lyft or Uber feels different than taking a cab is that there's no transactional portion of your interaction with the driver. Get into the car, chat a bit, say goodbye, and be on your way. By removing transactional mechanics you can focus on the human element. If you look at the Amazon Go stores, or the Standard Store, you see a similar effect. You walk in, and rather than immediately seeing bulky machines manned by people with the sole intent of transacting, instead you see people walking around chatting and helping you find what you need. They're not there to take your money, they're there to help you, exclusively. That changes the nature of the interaction, and is the experience we're trying to deliver across retail.

<comment><USER2> I mean, that is a good pitch in theory, that just doesn't resonate with my experience as a consumer in retail.

Go to any store that has self-checkout currently. Usually there is one attendee servicing 4 machines. No one comes up to you to chat, they only come over when theres a problem. When you go to a manned-checkout, they usually ask how you are doing, if you found everything ok, if you want to join a loyalty program...etc. Some of the checkout people I know very well over the years in my community. One even gave my infant daughter free socks because she has grandchildren.

You wont get that in this future. Those checkers will be gone. You'll just have employees minding their own business tending to their work, like you will with yours.

<comment><USER3> I think the idea is that instead of being tied to a cash register, former checkout people would be able to get to know their community better by being free to go anywhere in the store. The Apple Store experience comes to mind for me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I did something slightly similar to this for class project years ago. I think my project was called "Object Removal Detection in a Retail Environment".

I wasn't trying to detect which item was removed, just that _an_ item was removed, so it was a good bit simpler. I was using Matlab to analyze with old school computer vision algorithms to analyze the video (this was before deep learning was common).

It mostly worked--it could highlight when an item was removed from a shelf, but it wasn't useful enough for much other than maybe helping security to manually review tapes for evidence of shoplifting.

</comment><comment><USER5> This is very surprising given the limitations of the technology. How they can handle occlusions from the ceiling cameras? How the can know for sure if a person is grabbing a product from the back of the shelf rather than a product that's in front? Unless they're using some high-frequency cameras to "X-Ray" the whole store, I'd say this approach is doomed to failure. Even Amazon Go, after many years of R&D, uses a combination of sensors to ensure that they charge correctly and that they have an accurate inventory of the whole store.

<comment><USER6> Why is it so surprising? Presumably they can setup as many cameras as needed. I don't see it being so much of an improvement over the current self checkout systems to warrant the billions of investment being thrown at it currently though.

<comment><USER7> (disclosure: I work for a competitor)

These are actually very valid points and why most solutions tend to go for a sensor fusion approach that leverages the best of computer vision along with other sensor modalities. Using only ceiling cameras will not get you to the kind of accuracy that most retailers require to confidently rely on the technology.

Even if you placed more cameras (not only ceiling cameras, but also in the shelves and other areas of the store pointing at different angles), leaving aside the cost (which adds up), people will always be able to occlude the items from the cameras (even unintentionally). To put it in numbers (as an example): computer vision can get you 80% of the way in terms of accuracy / detecting items grabbed, for the rest you need other sensors.

The main benefit over other self checkout systems is the time customers wait in line. If you have been to Amazon Go, the experience of walking out without waiting is quite magical.

<comment><USER8> Occlusion is a big vision problem here. The customer facing problem is being stuck at checkout with a "Wait for Attendant" message on screen.

There's "LaneHawk", which has a camera mounted near the floor looking at the bottom level of shopping carts.[1] This is to catch bags of dog food, cases of beer, and similar big items the cashier might miss. Came out around 2010. Saves about $10 per lane per day. That's probably the most successful system in this area right now.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpHqWSYTF2s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpHqWSYTF2s)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> To the few comments above: stores with automatic self-checkouts were a thing in Japan for a decade, but the trend has reversed. Properly trained cashiers were faster than machines, nor had issues with "please wait for attendant every second checkout."

The biggest problem for them were that they after all, all required some amount of human intervention for work. Because of that, the store had to buy both a self-checkout machines, then hire a guy to click buttons on the machine, then a security guy who looks if nobody tries to do any tricks and rough up ones who do.

I think the better way is how it is done in China: you have gigantic (shipping container sized) wending machines placed all around residential blocks and such. Works well for packaged products, but not for fresh produce. When it needs service, a truck comes in, picks it up whole, and a new, fully restocked one is placed in its place in a few hours by the same truck with a crane.

</comment><comment><USER10> If the software screws up and the item count is incorrect in the favor of the customer (ie, charged for 3 rather than 4+ widgets), who eats the cost?

Have you hired sleight of hand artists to field test the machines? I'd be very impressed if a determined actor could not fool a set of overhead cameras.

</comment><comment><USER11> Welp, grocery shopping in real life is about to get even worse. Instacart to the rescue.

<comment><USER12> I see Instacart people in the store all the time. However, I wouldn't use them. I like to pick my own vegetables, and meat. It's definitely not all the same (meat, vegetables, fruits), and having someone just throw whatever they can grab into a cart in the fastest way possible isn't something I'm interested in.

<comment><USER11> Is that what it looks like in the store? That's not how it feels at home. Shoppers frequently label items as 'of low quality' to alert me that the bell pepper selection or whatever isn't great.

Also, despite my 30+ years on this Earth, I vastly more trust a 'professional' shopper to pick out good veggies than I do myself. I respect that you're different, but I can say with 100% certainty that the produce picked out by my instacart shoppers is excellent and better than I could do. Never a single complaint there, at least from me.

Do they really rush? From my side, they seem to take their sweet time. They text frequently, asking questions, suggesting replacements not shown in the app, etc. The whole process feels slow and relaxed.

I don't eat meat so I don't know about that. But I would assume the same as veggies. Instacart does a top-top job picking quality ingredients for me. Definitely better than I would know how to do myself.

Who is more likely to know the freshest spinach? Not me, that's for sure. An instacart shopper who is there all day? Much more likely to get good results.

I do have issues with instacart, but none of the concerns you've mentioned have in any way harmed me. My main issue is that the delivery times seem to be not communicated to the driver. So it will tell you 10am - 11am, but the driver will show up at 9:50 and not know that they are early. Sometimes also, the selection available on the website will be mislabelled in category (tomatoes in bath care, or something).

Otherwise it has been really incredible for me, overall.

<comment><USER13> If you can't pick good produce yourself, why do you put any stock in your evaluation of the produce they pick for you?

Seems those things would be based on the same skill.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Wild guess: if they do well, they're going to be either acquired by Amazon (Go), or crushed by them.

<comment><USER15> They could be acquired by Walmart, or Target, or any number of other retailers.

<comment><USER16> If they continue to raise and add Amazon competitors as customers, they'll be in a similar position as Instacart. Selling to anyone whose in competition w/ Amazon</comment></comment></comment>


Steve Jobs trashed my last iPad app, so I created this - <AUTHOR> http://www.geekwire.com/2012/developer-excited-ipad-steve-jobs-inspired-work

<comment><AUTHOR> He loved the Urbanspoon iPhone app. The iPad app, not so much.

Someday I'll write up the story about the time we met in person. Yes, I too got yelled at by Steve Jobs.

<comment><USER2> That time is now, considering you just attracted an audience.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> [http://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/urbanspoon-for- ipad/id3692674...](http://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/urbanspoon-for- ipad/id369267453?mt=8)

I'm not surprised Jobs said that. Looks like someone hit it with the ugly stick^H^H spoon.

</comment><comment><USER4> "I think the UI isn't so good." == "trashed"?

</comment><comment><USER5> "The iPad's new "retina display" boasts a 2048-by-1536 resolution, a display that Joshua Topolsky of The Verge notes has a million more pixels than a HDTV."

Does this seem out of place in this article?

<comment><USER6> Relevant: [http://www.theonion.com/articles/this-article-generating- tho...](http://www.theonion.com/articles/this-article-generating-thousands-of- dollars-in-ad/)

<comment><USER7> "The page you were looking for is not here." Is that supposed to be the joke?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Steve Jobs did not trash his app. OP is either name-dropping or link-baiting.

</comment><comment><USER9> The most ironic part is that this new app's UI sucks as well. High res photos != UI

<comment><USER10> That was my first impression. But that's only one picture. Maybe the rest of the app looks better? Maybe the article writer only had access to an ugly one?

<comment><USER11> Still, if even one screen is ugly it's an ugly UI. and usually people publish the good looking parts. So I assume that the rest of the UI is even worse.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I've been involved indirectly in the self catering accommodation industry for about 3 decades. (I grew up working in my mom's holiday letting agency in cape town) The percentage of revenue spent on marketing in the industry is staggering. 20% to 50% is common here in France and in South Africa in Cape Town which is highly competitive. Much of this goes to adwords these days. It's a very cash rich space so an amazing opportunity. Best of luck Adam and team!!</comment>


pocketdiner.co.uk - the future of mobile restaurant websites - <AUTHOR> http://www.pocketdiner.co.uk/

<comment><AUTHOR> Although not really involved in this project myself I work with and am friends with the people behind it (who are not HN members) but I know they would appreciate any feedback from this community.

</comment><comment><USER2> Looks great to me, the homepage video is very slick and convincing IMO. If I owned a restaurant I'd be looking at this more closely for sure.</comment>


Ask HN: How to get higher paying contracts? - <AUTHOR> I have been working as a software developer for 6+ years and have a considerable amount of experience with many different technologies.
Like
- Mobile Development (React Native, Ionic and actual native on both Android and iOS),
- Backend with PHP, Python, Ruby, Java
- Frontend with Angular, Vue and React.
I currently get between $40 and $50 an hour as a contractor and I usually do whatever work comes my way and these are mostly low paying contracts and I end up making way less because I have to pay for my insurance and all that stuff.
I was just wondering how I could get higher paying gigs? How did you start charging higher? Lets say $100 or $125 an hour? Its impossible to find people who would pay that much.
I just need someone to point me in the right direction and I'm happy to work my way through. <comment><USER2> Work with recruiters. They will take their cut but you should still be able to make more than $40-$50 an hour and if you are a W2 contractor you can probably get cheaper health insurance working through them.

But why are you contracting at all if those are the rates you are getting? If you live in a major metropolitan area in the US, you could make much more as a permanent employee and get benefits.

Again work with local recruiters who specialize in tech.

<comment><AUTHOR> My only requirement is I'm looking for remote roles. I don't mind going in to the office a few times a week but would love a remote component.

Recruiters usually have more onsite roles.

<comment><USER2> My experience is that makes things harder. A lot of companies want to do "rural sourcing". Where they outsource so they can get cheaper domestic labor in lower cost of living areas by hiring remote workers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> People tend to pay more for people in-person, meaning go do a talk, go co- working dive spaces, or space diving -that's a thing, --it's a thing, right? Word of mouth will always be your best contracts, and network. Lastly, do what you love, and love doing it. Rinse. Repeat.

<comment><AUTHOR> I have been trying networking but I am guessing that builds up over time just as the word of mouth? I do get a lot of referrals but most of them, their budget is usually what the person who referred them paid. So, it's a spiral.

<comment><USER4> You tell them that that's a grandfathered price for loyal past clients, and no longer available. Then you quote them 25% higher and let them negotiate you down to 10% higher. Wash, rinse, repeat, and a year later your new clients are paying 50% more than last year's.

Then (once you have more work than you have time for) you tell your old clients that due to excessive demand, you're raising your rates by 50%, but because they've been so loyal, you'll give them a valued customer rate of only 25% higher.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN:GO clp-People don't like to be left in limbo, especially on the CLI - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/lonnylot/clp clp stands for Command Line Progress. It is written in GO and is meant to be an easy to use interface for progress updates on the CLI.<p>I'm posting this here looking for any feedback. I am trying to fine tune my code logic and organization skills and any conversation on this would be appreciated. <comment><AUTHOR> clp stands for Command Line Progress. It is written in GO and is meant to be an easy to use interface for progress updates on the CLI.

I'm posting this here looking for any feedback. I am trying to fine tune my code logic and organization skills and any conversation on this would be appreciated.</comment>


"Builders" will follow Millennials, not "Founders" - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/sites/theopriestley/2015/12/30/why-the-next-generation-after-millennials-will-be-builders-not-founders/ <comment><USER2> Looks like Forbes won't let you past their interstitial page if you're using an adblocker.</comment>


How to remember any english word - <AUTHOR> http://learn.groupsone.com/how-to-remember-english-words-for-gre/ <comment><USER2> These are the best techniques I read so far. Amazing.. Keep going..</comment>


Recipe for Startup Success - <AUTHOR> http://fndrs.net/QIjQKl <comment><USER2> "Start with two or three founders who are determined, sufficiently smart, and work well together. Work on an idea that grows organically out of your own experience. Launch fast and iterate, using growth rate as a guide. Don't be dismayed when it turns out to be hard." -- pg[0]

[0] <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4573011>

<comment><AUTHOR> I'll add just keep working regardless of what discouragements you face. Startup failure is only so high because founders don't commit to their ideas.</comment></comment>


Facebook Publishes Enforcement Numbers for the First Time - <AUTHOR> https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/05/enforcement-numbers/ <comment><USER2> What does X% was found and flagged before anyone reported it mean? If they removed the content before anyone reported it, how do they know it was an actual violation? Does everything get passed through a human reviewer? Otherwise, are they doing something like "number of things flagged by system" / ("number of things flagged by system" + "number of things flagged by humans, not flagged by system")? I'd like to assume they're not doing something so egregious, in which they could trumpet 100% accurate classification by simply classifying all content as violations. More likely they have some statistical confidence from human validations of the false positive/false negative rate of their model, but without that breakdown the data they're providing does not address concerns about Facebook's systems being biased towards censorship and false positives. Anecdotally supported by a couple recent public incidents, and in conjunction with the lock-down of API functionality signals a turning point towards a new era of cautiousness and conservatism for Facebook...

<comment><USER3> If a new account signs up and makes 10,000 posts in a minute, and the first 10 are flagged, then you can probably delete the remaining ones with high confidence.

I also imagine that they have sanity checks for their systems. Either running classifiers again previously identified spam, or running manual sanity checks against deleted items.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> As someone who's account got flagged, is there any way to figure out why? I've done the appeal process, black hole of course.

I hardly posted anything, and somehow got flagged without notification, when I tried to log in one day.

The consensus seems to be that if this happens it's generally because of illegal content but given my posts were all stuff for family/friends, I'm not sure what could trigger this.

A bit annoying, and my linked Instagram account is just fine (same content).

This whole experience has colored my view of our AI future quite negatively - I have visions of "computer says no" cropping up all over the place with no ability to appeal/dispute, and I've turned from a neutral observer of GDPR to a strong supporter even if I'm not a EU citizen.

</comment><comment><USER5> Can anyone provide a copy/paste or summary for those unwilling or unable to access facebook?

<comment><USER6> web.archive snapshot: [http://web.archive.org/web/20180515192640/https://newsroom.f...](http://web.archive.org/web/20180515192640/https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/05/enforcement- numbers/)

Purpose of the piece seems to be about how FB has proactive measures in detecting spam/fakery, and the quantity that it manages to process. Key numbers:

\- We took down 837 million pieces of spam in Q1 2018 — nearly 100% of which we found and flagged before anyone reported it...

\- In Q1, we disabled about 583 million fake accounts — most of which were disabled within minutes of registration.

\- Overall, we estimate that around 3 to 4% of the active Facebook accounts on the site during this time period were still fake.

\- We took down 21 million pieces of adult nudity and sexual activity in Q1 2018 — 96% of which was found and flagged by our technology before it was reported.

\- For graphic violence, we took down or applied warning labels to about 3.5 million pieces of violent content in Q1 2018 — 86% of which was identified by our technology before it was reported to Facebook.

They also mention that their hate speech tech "doesn't work that well". Of the 2.5M hate speech pieces it removed, 38% was flagged by FB's tech.</comment></comment>


Researchers harness brain waves to reconstruct images of what we perceive - <AUTHOR> http://utsc.utoronto.ca/news-events/breaking-research/do-you-see-what-i-see-researchers-harness-brain-waves-reconstruct-images-what-we <comment><USER2> Reminiscent of Black Mirror season 4, episode 3: "Crocodile"</comment>


Ask HN: Should I ditch disqus and what are some alternatives - <AUTHOR> I'm beginning to think that maybe I should ditch disqus from my blog with all the tracking issues, but I still want to keep commenting on my blog. So what are some alternatives? <comment><USER2> I'm also stuck with Disqus and want to switch for the same reason. Here are some ideas to get your own comment system running: StaticMan[0], Isso[1], Netlify GoTell[2]. This article[3] brings up some more ideas.

For my small blog with 1-2 comments a month I'm thinking about implementing a small form and include comments manually using front-matter options or a separate comments file. This would make the comments fully static which is big plus. Spam will obviously be the biggest problem, so something like Akismet is necessary.

[0] [https://staticman.net/](https://staticman.net/)

[1] [https://posativ.org/isso/](https://posativ.org/isso/)

[2] [https://github.com/netlify/gotell](https://github.com/netlify/gotell)

[3] [https://mademistakes.com/articles/jekyll-static- comments/](https://mademistakes.com/articles/jekyll-static-comments/)

</comment><comment><USER3> Remarkbox[0] recently came up over on the discuss.bootstrapped.fm forums[1] and might suit your needs. I'm not affiliated in any way - your question just happened to jog my memory that I'd read about an alternative recently :)

[0] [https://www.remarkbox.com/](https://www.remarkbox.com/)

[1] [http://discuss.bootstrapped.fm/t/remarkbox-is-the-disqus- alt...](http://discuss.bootstrapped.fm/t/remarkbox-is-the-disqus- alternative/4871)

<comment><USER4> Hey Matt, Thank you for posting this. I'm bootstrapping Remarkbox and currently accepting beta sign ups.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I haven't used it (just tried the demo), but maybe you'd want to take a look at Discourse - [https://www.discourse.org/](https://www.discourse.org/)

(Jeff Atwood is a co-founder of it and it's open source.)

<comment><USER6> Doscourse is nice but a little too much opinionated for normal usage.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Looking for the same thing. A while ago I researched and no good alternatives came up.

Most of what I found either didn't work at all or wouldn't allow anonymous comments.

I even thought about making one since it seems a market well underserved. But settled on Disqus for lack of time to dedicate to the project.

A good start point I would use is to start looking at WordPress. I think they got most of it right. It's simple, fast and allow anonymous comments. It's a shame I cannot use it as a standalone version or hosted by myself.

</comment><comment><USER8> The obvious alternatives are to use a (dynamic) blog which supports commenting. Things like wordpress, ghost, etc will do the job.

If you want to have a static-blog you can look at self-hosting a commenting system though, I wrote one which uses javascript to fetch, display, and add comments easily enough. Styling is hard and you lose integration with facebook, etc, but its an option if you have time to tinker.

</comment><comment><USER9> I'm working on an alternative, and it will allow live chat on the post too so it's basically always a live feed with a view-able history.

</comment><comment><USER10> Looking at the same thing after seeing how the waterfall chart looks like in Chrome. Couldn't believe how much junk and in how many requests it's sending.

</comment><comment><USER11> You could build your own.</comment>


Launch HN: RoundOf – bannerfree Doodle like webapp with Stripe integration - <AUTHOR> https://www.roundof.app/new <comment><AUTHOR> RoundOf ([https://www.roundof.app](https://www.roundof.app)) is a very simple banner-free Doodle-like webapp which integrates with Stripe to collect the participation fees from participants.

No signup/credit card is required to try it out!

After giving the event title and participation fee (plus a bounce of other options), you can select (from a week or a month calendar) a range of possible dates and share the generated event link online.

People interested in participating can reserve their spot by selecting their favorite dates among the available ones. If a participation fee is required they will be asked for credit card data through Stripe. No participation fee will charged until the minimum number of participants is reached and the event is confirmed

Once all the spots are filled for a certain date you will be notified and can confirm the event, thus collecting the participation fees, which will be directly transferred to your Stripe account.

The app will charge a fee of 0.5%+50 cents (and Stripe fees) for every paying participant.

I developed the current MVP in less than 10 days using Bootstrap and Django on Pythonanywhere.

I really have no idea, especially in this very covid-19 times, if anyone will find it ever useful. Still I liked the idea, found nothing like it online and thought to give it a try with a simple MVP to see what happen.

Thank you in advance for any comment/feedback/suggestion, especially regarding possibile holes/security issues which I could overseen.

<comment><USER2> Love it. Can't wait to check it out.</comment></comment>


A Hackathon on a Train - <AUTHOR> http://hacktrain.com/

<comment><USER2> >An unforgettable experience where 40 of the best developers from all around Europe will revolutionize the world!

No, they will not. They will write code, have a fun time and get a bit tired of being on a train. At best, someone will build a cool app that might make a few people a bunch of money. It is a weekend of programming, not the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand.

We need to stop with this ludicrous hyperbole. It's making us look foolish, and needlessly alienating people.

</comment><comment><USER3> This sounds like a lot of fun! If it was in the U.S. I would sign up.</comment>


Context.IO Makes Your Inbox into an easily queryable Datastore - <AUTHOR> http://blog.programmableweb.com/2011/04/18/context-io-makes-your-inbox-into-a-datastore/

<comment><USER2> Funny this. I created the Ruby Gem for this (gem install contextio to install it).

<comment><USER3> and you wrote the gem because you have a ruby app using contextio?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Very cool. And cheers to fellow Canadians too!</comment>


EU Wants Developers to be Liable for Code; Provide Guarantees That Software will Work - <AUTHOR> http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,39649689,00.htm

<comment><USER2> This is almost sort of reasonable, until

> _According to Mingorance, the proposed regulatory extension would cover all > software, including beta products, and would cover both proprietary and > open-source software._

So I'm now liable for that project I wrote in one night for myself that I released under the MIT License if anyone from the EU finds it, uses it, and runs into some security hole?

That's going lead to a whole new brand of licenses that say, "Anyone may use this, unless you're in the EU, in which case I can't handle the liability. Sorry, your parliament sucks."

In fact, I would argue that this law would void open source licenses in the EU anyway.

From the MIT License:

 _THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE._

Doesn't that imply that the software can't be used anywhere where a warranty is mandatory? The license states that there's no warranty, so you're violating the license by having a required warranty.

<comment><USER3> IANAL, but it looks like this only covers commercial transactions. I'm guessing it applies to things like Red Hat Enterprise Linux, but not free as in beer software.

<comment><USER4> It's about consumers rights, where consumer is: (quote)

any natural person who, in contracts covered by this Directive, is acting for purposes which are outside his trade, business, craft or profession;

<comment><USER3> I can't tell whether that would include a "consumer" of free-as-in-beer software.

After reading the link you posted above, it seems that a money-back guarantee would comply with the regulation. That should be easy enough for someone writing free-as-in-beer software to offer :).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This was proposed by Meglena Kuneva, the consumer protection comissioner for the EU. I attended a talk she gave in Harvard. While she seems dedicated to her work she often blames companies for consumers' lack of judgment. For example, she blamed Apple for corrupting the youth with iPods.

</comment><comment><USER6> As soon as they can guarantee all government services will work.

<comment><USER7> Maybe there's a build dependency between govt. services and software and sometimes it breaks?

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Every now and again, a government representative decides that they would like to do something relating to technology, or medicine, or whatever. Whether this something is practical, possible, or legal is largely immaterial. They will bring it up, and it may even get passed (American CDA, Australian internet filtering thing); at that point it will die amongst legal challenges or simple impracticality. Business as usual.

<comment><USER9> Judging from some of the stories which come out of the EU, it seems that bad policies don't die there -- instead they are thoroughly enforced.

(see, for example, the endless variations on "this product is the wrong size to meet the EU definition of a strawberry", etc.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I guess the EU won't be using a whole heck of a lot of software then, will they?

</comment><comment><USER11> This is about risk allocation, the idea being to make the party bear the cost is who in the better position to do something about it.

If corporations were liable for defects in their software, they would need insurance to cover claims, and this would be passed on to consumers as higher prices. They would also be more precise in specifying and communicating how the software should be used. They would start using techniques that might not be efficient or clever, and they might be overkill and more expensive, but that were known to work - similar to how civil engineers design bridges that don't fall down. And they'll need teams of lawyers to handle the litigation.

Software will cost more in the EU.

This focus on security and consumer rights is what happens after the cowboy phase of an industry is over. But as we move into cloud computing, SaaS, and netbooks and smart phones, that age is yet over for us. Probably it will last at least as long as Moore's Law holds.

</comment><comment><USER12> Although I'm certainly not sold on this idea [1], I find it amusing that the BSA representative is against it; after all, one of Microsoft's main arguments against F/OSS is that there's nobody liable for its correct function. Maybe because the EU laws covering warranties only apply to consumers, not businesses, and Microsoft would have to offer consumer-level customer support of some kind as part of the license. (as far as I know you currently have to pay per issue for support unless you have some kind of contract with MS)

[1] I don't see how someone writing open source software in his or her spare time in any way deserves to be liable for malfunction, for example; another worry is the amount of ambiguity involved at all stages, from "intended use" to the definition of "efficacy and security", along with the technical complexity and explosion of possible combinations of software on the average computer

<comment><USER13> Oh, that's just one part of the inconsistency shown in the BSA quotes.

"Digital content is not a tangible good and should not be subject to the same liability rules as toasters" is also interesting seeing how in regards to [intellectual] property they very much push the opposite stance.

"extending consumer regulation to software could lead to less interoperability between software products" is just shameless seeing how the EC had to force some (much fought against) interoperability down some of the bigger memberst of the BSA.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> There is no mathematically rigorous way of proving that any given piece of code does or doesn't do anything. It all depends on the context in which the code is being used.

Building software is a trial-and-error process, and building large pieces of software is a large trial-and-error process. They are asking for the impossible, like providing airport security or anything of a similar scale.

If a law is made of this it will serve nothing but annoyance to actual users of said software. There is just no conceivable way anyone could regulate and enforce that law. It's a good idea in general but it shouldn't have an application in legislation, that's like forbidding pigeons to litter monuments -- no offence, but what the...

<comment><USER15> _There is no mathematically rigorous way of proving that any given piece of code does or doesn't do anything._

Sure there is.

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

<comment><USER14> Run it on MS Word X, then. Or OOO v3.

And draw any meaningful conclusions from that data.

Better yet, how do I write reliable software that runs on a buggy processor? What do I use to test that the chip I'm making does what it is supposed to every time for all scenarios? It's programmable, after all.

That, I'm sure, you can identify with.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> There's a reason why most entrepreneurial endeavors start in the United States and not in Europe. Bureaucratic laws like this stifle innovation rather than promote it.

How about we make the EU politicians and lawmakers liable for the laws they pass? If a law they make happens to harm the economy in any way, they'll have to cover any such losses out-of-pocket.

<comment><USER17> This isn't a law. It's a bizarre, stupid suggestion.

>> "There's a reason why most entrepreneurial endeavors start in the United States and not in Europe"

I'd like to see your data for that one. I really don't think it's due to bureaucracy. Starting up in the UK at least is ridiculously simple, and cheap - £25 will get you a Ltd company.

<comment><USER16> Good question. Note by "entrepreneurial endeavors" I meant start-ups, and not mom/pop "home businesses." Companies which plan to scale to a reasonable size (20-1000+ employees), essentially.

I've come to that perception from economic classes I took in college, and from general observation of start-ups. This is a good article which elaborates on entrepreneurial differences between the U.S. and Europe, citing economic, government, and social differences, among other things:

[http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?sto...](http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13216037)

Noteworthy quote: "And far fewer start-ups in those countries become big businesses. Janez Potocnik, the EU commissioner for science and research, points out that only 5% of European companies created from scratch since 1980 have made it into the list of the 1,000 biggest EU companies by market capitalisation. The equivalent figure for America is 22%."

It's not that doing a start-up in Europe means you're doomed. There's just less of them which make it big.

Also, "Europe" encompasses a bunch of different nations with different attitudes and laws. The U.K. is much different than Finland, or Denmark, etc... So bunching them all together as I did isn't entirely fair.

If you look at one of the charts in the article, Denmark/Sweden/Finland all in-line with the U.S. when it comes to venture capital. If you look at Europe as a whole at the bottom of the chart, averaging all nations together, you see a much different picture.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> If this proposal passes (which I doubt) I'm going to write a letter to the commissioner, demanding that everyone gets to try washing machines for 60 days and keep a copy of the machine after returning it.

</comment><comment><USER19> If you are an open-source developer, you could write in license or documentation, `This software does whatever its source code states it does'. Joe the Average User don't need to to read through code himself; there are enough geeks on his friendlist to have this covered. In spite of reeking of RTFM-ness, this approach actually is about the only honest; all other ways of documenting are simplifications, approximation and literally shuffling dirt under the rag by assuming nonexistence of bugs.

However, due to to exceptionally high complexity, and hard to predict interactions between various software and hardware components of system, you need to put strong disclaimers in place: `Unless there are faults in compiler, libraries, the underlying OS your hardware' makes any responsibility very diluted and hard to prove at best. And let's not forget about the -- very uncommon, but occurring nonetheless -- random flips of bits in memory, which may bring the system down or silently corrupt code or data in unreproducible ways, regardless of software and hardware quality.

Only actual cure for software reliability is to use simpler systems, made up of loosely coupled components, where failure of one doesn't affect others, and it's easy to re-start from previous step. It's the big, opaque, monolithic, all-encompassing application or systems that bomb and trash your data that are the most problematic. Outlaw those.

</comment><comment><USER20> They should put forward computer scientists to refute this, rather than business representatives. Oh well, we can laugh at their ignorance but it's easy to miss overlook the fact that companies in a large fragmented market sometimes gouge consumers for years and falsely shift the blame for high prices onto whatever government happens to be handy. Having worked for some privatized utilities over there, management is often focused on accumulating as much money as possible rather than improving service for the consumer.

</comment><comment><USER17> The EU needs disbanding :( Complete waste of money. This is just another example of them making up work for themselves to do to justify their existence.

Only someone with no clue about programming would suggest something like this.

It's very worrying that unelected 'officials' being paid by us can try to pass laws that no one wants.

<comment><USER21> _Only someone with no clue about programming would suggest something like this._ _It's very worrying that unelected 'officials' being paid by us can try to pass laws that no one wants._

Unfortunately, that type of thing happens all over the world, not just in the EU parliament. I don't think that disbanding the EU would resolve the problem of politicians making decisions about things they have little to no understanding of.

<comment><USER17> True, but at least without the EU, the UK would be free again to govern itself unhindered, with its own elected politicians.

<comment><USER22> I don't think our politicians are any better, really. Local politicians make equally bone-headed moves, such as the UK's DNA retention schemes, or France's 3-strikes rule. In these cases, the EU has actually been the one opposing political idiocy.

It's also worth noting that most dumb ideas from the EU (including this one) come from the unelected European Commission. The EU parliament, whilst far from perfect, doesn't seem to be quite so stupid, and unlike the EC, the EU parliament is made up of elected MEPs.

I'd be in full favour of getting rid of the EC, but the EU has been a very powerful economic equalizer in Europe, which in the long term is probably a good thing for all European countries. It's also a force that discourages local politicians from being dumber than average, so schemes like punishing people outside the judicial system, or keeping the DNA of innocent people tend to be resisted by most MEPs.

At least, that's been my experience with the EU. Feel free to come up with counterexamples :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> As an electrical engineering grad, I have thought about the option of becoming a Professional Engineer. The idea behind the PE certification is professional responsibility - I see very little wrong with requiring that an engineer stands behind their work.

Unfortunately, software does have the formal verification problems discussed above, so there may have to be modifications made to how this responsibility is handled.

At the same time, I find it very troubling that software engineers who produce shoddy products - bad security, unsafe control system code - are not held responsible. If nobody takes responsibility to "sign off" on a design, who is the one that is going to spend the time necessary to verify its function to the proper degree it deserves?

</comment><comment><USER24> Here's Marcus Ranum on Software Liability:

Inviting Cockroaches to the Feast ([http://www.ranum.com/security/computer_security/editorials/l...](http://www.ranum.com/security/computer_security/editorials/lawyers/index.html))</comment>


Roll your own toy UNIX-clone OS - <AUTHOR> http://www.jamesmolloy.co.uk/tutorial_html/index.html nice tutorial on how a simple x86 OS works <comment><USER2> He mentions in "The Screen"

You could also have a scout at the linux0.1 code - that has an implementation of vsprintf which is quite neat and tidy. You could copy that function then use it to implement printf()

here are the goods:

[http://oldlinux.org/lxr/http/source/kernel/vsprintf.c?v=0.11...](http://oldlinux.org/lxr/http/source/kernel/vsprintf.c?v=0.11#L92)

</comment><comment><USER3> There is also movitz - a Common Lisp running on the metal - <http://common- lisp.net/project/movitz/>

<comment><USER4> That's pretty cool. Do you know if anyone's tried using that for embedded systems? It's been in the wild for a while. I know that Rodney Brooks developed L, a common lisp for embedded systems, but that was a more than a decade ago (<http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/712056.html>)

<comment><USER5> There's a project called Hedgehog Lisp that's been used "in the wild" for embedded sensor systems. It's bytecoded, but the interpreter gets down to 20kb. It's not CL; it's got its own set of special forms and predefined functions, but it's a real Lisp:

<http://hedgehog.oliotalo.fi/>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I would be more interested in building a small practical operating system based on Linux, but with new user interface components (i.e. building your own configuration, terminal, and GUI portions).

I want a new Apple II.

</comment><comment><USER7> I've got no problem with the C code, but the assembly is a little beyond me. Anyone know of a good x86 asm primer?

<comment><USER8> I would try just looking at the x86 manual by Intel. Just looking up the different operations might be all you need.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Looks cool, but how is it different from Minix? Minix is a pretty nice system for learning, and very clean.

<comment><USER10> This is smaller. Its probably more comparable to Nachos. Minix is a full featured UNIX with many features TCP/IP, Posix support, etc. That said, I'd rather learn (or possibly teach) from this code over Nachos.

<comment><USER11> Minix is also a microkernel, which is a whole different can of worms.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is great!

</comment><comment><USER13> Well, I know what I'm doing in my free learning time now.

Thanks for sharing, this looks awesome!

<comment><USER14> Very nice tutorial(s). He links to Google, saying "There are plenty of resources out there if you know where to look." But here is something that takes the concept a bit further, already having done a bunch of "weeding" : <http://www.zentu.net/oss/?q=forum/10>.

BTW. If you or anyone else happens across some tools/etc. that aren't listed in that directory, please submit them! I think all the ones JamesM's tutorial mentions are in there somewhere, plus are there quite a few more.

Haven't been focusing so much on this aspect of my project, esp. not promoting it, but I think it's still useful -- namely for researching options that a perfunctory Google search that might not capture efficiently. Anyone is more than free to add a link relevant tutorials, wikis or forums at the directory.

<comment><AUTHOR> heres another list with some links i found via google [http://www.rohitab.com/discuss/index.php?act=Print&clien...](http://www.rohitab.com/discuss/index.php?act=Print&client=printer&f=41&t=31873)

movitz looks interesting too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Sigh, reminds me of the good old times... <http://www.osdever.net/> for more information</comment>


Unstoppable file-sharing network 'Tribler' spells trouble for copyright holders - <AUTHOR> http://www.bgr.com/2012/02/10/unstoppable-file-sharing-network-tribler-spells-trouble-for-copyright-holders/ <comment><USER2> > "Tribler" is a peer-to-peer file-sharing client that is completely > decentralized. "The only way to take it down is to take the Internet down," > the software's creator says.

Which is a pretty f--king stupid thing to say at a time when we are trying to avoid draconian, Big-Media-backed legal shenanigans like SOPA/PIPA and ACTA.

Are they _trying_ to demonstrate that the only way to enforce copyright law _really is_ to monitor everyone's communications 24/7, assume that anyone who uses encryption to an unrecognised/unauthorised host an infringer, and ruthlessly cut off Internet access to any such person? Because anyone who thinks such a scenario is unrealistic hasn't been paying attention.

People who make and advertise file sharing tools for the obvious purpose of conducting illegal activity are the enemy of those of us who want to have such tools for legitimate purposes and of those of us who want to have the content we honestly pay for in unrestricted formats that don't get in the way of us enjoying them.

<skeptic>Also, with my technical hat on, how exactly does this work? I'm betting you aren't really as isolated and decentralised as you think you are, because, well, you can't be off the network and yet still be on the network. The article says it's a BitTorrent client, so surely someone is seeding something somewhere.</skeptic>

<comment><USER3> >People who make and advertise file sharing tools for the obvious purpose of conducting illegal activity

Except that's not what Tribler is. If you can't think of legitimate reasons for a decentralized, censorship-proof file sharing network that don't violate the law, I daresay your imagination is broken...

<comment><USER4> Go right ahead. Name some uses for a censorship-resistant network that doesn't violate the law of the country in question. (It doesn't count if the use merely breaks a law you dislike, as in Chinese or Iranian suppression of dissidents.)

<comment><USER5> Distributing personal files without being subjected to fraudulent DMCA takedowns, like the ones that Warner Bros sent to any file containing the string "the box".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> One word... Kadmelia!

It's worth saying (and has been said elsewhere already) that fully distributed search has existed for years. Kadmelia is just one notable example in wide use. I do think it's great that it's coming to the torrent world though!

The characterization of it by many seems to suggest that this is novel and groundbreaking.

The statements made about how you'd have to shut down the internet to take it down are also a bit hyperbolic. After all, algorithms to sniff, detect and either block or throttle this kind of traffic are widely deployed. Of course it's an arms race and encryption and obfuscation are used to counter. I'm not sure what the current state of that battle is, but clearly the main tool in protecting these kinds of capabilities is our voices, not fundamental technical properties.

<comment><USER7> For anyone searching, it's "kademlia".

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Anyone have a summary of the bootstrap process for this? There is no "central servers" or the like but how does one client find the next?

<comment><USER9> An overview is here: [https://torrentfreak.com/tribler-makes-bittorrent- impossible...](https://torrentfreak.com/tribler-makes-bittorrent-impossible- to-shut-down-120208/) It's based on bittorrent with search, metadata, and spam control all distributed among peers.

<comment><USER8> "Tribler is based on the standard BitTorrent protocol and uses regular BitTorrent trackers to communicate with other peers. But, it can also continue downloading when a central tracker goes down."

Well there we go. A bunch of sensational journalism hype again.

The problem with Tribler then is that the network becomes stagnent once the tracker goes down. Sure peers receive shared connections from one another to create a web architecture but unless you've dialed into a web that has the host of a scene group the group will stagate on content will it not? Without a __central __tracker to facilitate the sharing of new peer data to prevent the swarm from becoming stale the content will eventually all reach 100% download and remain so with no nocomers being able to find the network.

My knowledge of the DHT and Peer Exchange protocol extensions to BitTorrent _are_ limited but isn't this what they tried to accomplish? How does Tribler make this any better?

I'm stuck on the fence now. Tribler doesn't _appear_ to be new and fantastic because its still strongly relied upon by central servers for bootstrapping abilities. Sure the network established _might_ be large in size but without fresh peer exhanges the swarm will die off once the tracker is brought down.

Someone to enlighten me perhaps?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Some of this stuff, like peer exchange and magnet links, are not new and are in most torrent clients for years. Pirate Bay has started promoting magnet links and rumour is that they'll stop doing torrents all together.

It's the search part that's hard to do, and I wonder how tribler do it? Anyone analysed their code? I wonder how you'd do a true decentralised p2p search system.... (i.e. do to p2p search what google did to web search, come up with a new algorithmic invention)

<comment><USER2> It would indeed be interesting to know how they do it.

If someone has finally developed a way of sharing large amounts of data in an efficient, decentralised, and secure way, then it's not just the copyright holders who need to be afraid, it's also anyone planning on investing in Facebook (or those operating any other content-driven walled-garden services).

<comment><USER11> It's going to be _very_ difficult to provide the same things Facebook does in a decentralized way (I've thought about the problems around such a project a lot and written up my ideas for an approach in a series of blog posts at <http://carcaddar.blogspot.com/search/label/ClearSky> \- I've outlined the big problems and proposed workable solutions for all of them, but the implementation is difficult and will be hard to get right).

Justin Frankel released WASTE in 2003 and it does the basic P2P friendnet thing, but without a great user interface, ability to log in via the web browser from any random Internet cafe/computer lab, and a load of luck ("traction"), it's not going to work.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Is Tribler "better" than Oneswarm and AllianceP2P? And if so, why?

<http://www.oneswarm.org/> <http://alliancep2p.com/>

Is it because Tribler is more focused on having everything public, while the other 2 are more focused on "friend sharing" networks, so it's easier to find files on Tribler?? From what I can tell they have more security/anonymization than Tribler, and it's not just because of the limited access between friends.

</comment><comment><USER13> Quite the contrary - it may force them to evolve into companies fully adapted to thrive in this environment.

No. Not really. What will most likely happen is that big-media will just use it to push legislation that assume the users cannot be trusted and that enforcement must be more thorough to catch all those bad guys. If you do a lot of high bandwidth encrypted data exchange, someone will have to search your computer for "stolen" content.

</comment><comment><USER14> Can anyone speak to how well the search function works within the Tribler application? I can't get it to return any useful results :(

</comment><comment><USER15> These researchers view of technologies' I would consider to be quite robust -- "we don't rely on shaky foundations such as DNS, web servers or search portals" -- kind of blows my mind

<comment><USER3> Robust, from a legal standpoint. Robust as in "Government jackboots can't come in and shut it down". SOPA proved that any centralized service, whether that be DNS or HTTP, is vulnerable to governmental shenanigans. It's been on the back of everyone's minds since Napster, but this brought it to the forefront.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> "Spells trouble to freedom of the net" is more like it. Copyright holders will push repressive legislation sooner or later, and will use projects like this as an example.

<comment><USER17> It's unlikely that the absence of projects like this would cause them to refrain from pushing repressive legislation.

<comment><USER16> absence of projects like this would make their arguments look weak.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I wonder how well it would work as a way to access data from outside national firewalls. Seems pretty topical considering what's happening in Iran right now.

</comment><comment><USER19> Flashbacks to Napster, Kazaa, Gnutella, etc.

Come on, that wasn't THAT long ago. Do people really not learn anything from history?

<comment><USER20> Are you saying that they were as decentralized as Tribler?

<comment><USER21> Gnutella definitely was once you found another node to talk to.</comment></comment></comment>


Android Devs 650+ impacted by Google Play indexing bug - <AUTHOR> Our Pomodoro Focus Timer, DayNinja https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.envisageapps.dayninja has been published for over 7 days now and still does not appear in search results. If you search "DayNinja" or the package name in Google Play "com.envisageapps.dayninja" it won't appear. We publish many apps and this has never happened in all the years of our business. I tired support chats over the last week which just were a waste of hours debating and me insisting that this is a fault. They won't listen and there is no path to escalate.
In frustration started digging around the web this morning and found this: https://support.google.com/googleplay/thread/15162444?msgid=15162444
Many other developers are impacted dating back to September!
I just finished another support chat bringing the thread to their attention, and support would not acknowledge it as a known issue or offer any idea of if/when they will resolve it.
Their only suggestion was to get reviews and downloads?!? But this is not an ASO issue, no other app that appears in the results is on competing terms with our apps' name, we have always been able to search on the package name or exact name of the app and have it appear as the first result. In this case we do not appear at all.. (Sorry I am venting here! just really frustrated)
...Same app in Apple App Store https://apps.apple.com/us/app/dayninja-focus-timer-to-do-task-list-mindful/id1163539295 appeared in <24hrs using just the app name and is now ranking on other terms.
In my experience, Google Play is going down hill. A client app a couple of months ago took over a week to approve.  Apple takes 24hrs pretty consistently now, to at least get a reply. With google nothing, and now this.
Please download DayNinja by the direct link and rate it. I'd like to test if votes and downloads do make an impact, as the way things are right now I don't know what to tell clients about when their app will appear.
If this is the new status for app publishing then there is no hope of having an app even appear without massive budgets for Ads. <comment><AUTHOR> UPATE: Our app did appear for a couple of days this week when searching 'DayNinja'. Now today it won't appear at all again even when using the package name search i.e. entering 'pname: com.envisageapps.dayninja' in the search. The only access is by the direct URL. Google Play!? what gives?

</comment><comment><USER2> I also get the same issue. I think there is issue on Google algorithm search play store. I hope they listen our problem and solve it soon.</comment>


Stop the Signature File Insanity - <AUTHOR> http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/14/stop-signature-file-insanity/ <comment><USER2> I don't mind as long as it's preceded by:

      "-- \n"

My e-mail client will then de-emphasise it and automatically remove when replying.

<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3676#section-4.3>

<comment><USER3> Yes. But the guy is talking about `bold' in emails.. He's at a completely different level.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> In Germany you are required by law to have a massive signature in your email, if it is part of a "commercial correspondence".

Now the problem is to define "commercial correspondence". When are you talking to a friend or a coworker, inhouse or another company, but there are already poeple, trying to make money in Germany, to rip of firms for emails without signature, that somehow ended up in the "foodchain".

<comment><USER3> You haven't even started talking about need an "Impressum" on your web-page. And fora are especially dangerous devices according to a German judge.

<comment><USER5> I think as stupid as the term is, the idea is pretty helpful

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Back in the day on Usenet, civilised people never used a .signature longer than 4 lines, and often two of those were some form of ASCII-art divider. It's good to see that etiquette lives on, at least somewhere.

<comment><USER7> Yes, but when I read that article, I thought, "That .sig is _nothing_." Some of the stuff I've seen and heard about during my USENET days could bring you to tears. (Like the "Kibo Warlord" .sig mentioned here, for example.)

<comment><USER8> I had to google for that: <http://www.birdhouse.org/etc/kibosig.txt>

<comment><USER9>
        > This blank region of empty space is a hollow void that adds lines to the
        > length of this .signature's physical size.
        >
        > I cant think of anything more to add!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Even worse are the fancy graphical "please think of the environment before printing" logos - a few billion of them is some real watts of power & cooling in the datacentre...

<comment><USER11> At one point I did a back of the envelope calculation and it came out that 25 e-mails are roughly equivalent to 1 sheet of printed paper. My context was whether to send out a mass e-mail or to put up a few posters around the place. I guess a few posters would be better for the environment in some cases.

<comment><USER12> I'd love to see how you come up with that number.

<comment><USER11> I remember that I took into account the amount of storage and the hard drive capacity and the power consumption, etc.

Here's a new calculation: assume your e-mail server has user/server ratio of 1000/1. Assume the server uses 500 watts power (server + UPS + cooling + lighting). Assume each user has 10,000 e-mails stored on this server.

We get 500W/1000 users/10,000 emails per user = 0.00005 Watts/email.

0.00005 Watts/email * 365 * 24 = 0.438 W*hours/email.

Small but significant over your 10,000 emails.

[edit]: fixed my glaring mistakes. That's what happens when you rush.

<comment><USER12> You're out by a factor of a 10^4. You forgot to divide by 1000 to get KW from W, and you accidentally scaled everything up by 10, too. Still, the correct figure is meaningless too.

<comment><USER13> I cannot trust your declaration of meaningless, since you seem to think that KW somehow matters to his calculation. There is no term that is originally in KW (thus requiring conversion) nor is there any term which he presents in terms of W which is usually presented in terms of KW (thus having a hidden error).

<comment><USER12> Yup because he corrected it (read his edit)

<comment><USER13> I see. Yet another reason to disapprove of edits :/

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I wonder what the author would think of Kibo and his sig:

<http://www.birdhouse.org/etc/kibosig.txt>

<comment><AUTHOR> That's just extraordinary.

<comment><USER15> It's like the Time Cube of email signatures

<comment><USER7> Kibo would scoff at such an upstart. The 'Net god is truly an Ancient One; he was posting to USENET long before Eternal September began.

<comment><USER3> Talking about Ancient Gods: <http://www.cthulhu.org/>

<comment><USER16> Typical - there's no contact info in the God's .sig

Suppose I want to serve him a writ?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Don't get me started on stupid quasi-legal disclaimers!

<comment><USER2> I retaliate with this:

> By accepting this e-mail you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release > me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED > agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, > confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies > ("BOGUS AGREEMENTS") that I have entered into with your employer, its > partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to > my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the > authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your > employer.

And this is even better:

<http://www.andrews-and-arnold.ltd.uk/inboundemailterms.html>

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> My signature is company mandated, was done by our marketing department (along with all email signatures in our company) and includes 6 lines of contact information, an image of the company logo, and then a disclaimer paragraph (which only gets attached to external email). I don't know how prevalent this is, but many people may (like myself) have no control over the content of their signatures.

</comment><comment><USER19> I have a workaround for this. My sig is three lines, of which I often omit one on the fly as I send emails: 1) My full name and email user name 2) One organizational affiliation (deleted as needed) 3) Another organizational affiliation (deleted as needed)

For some emails I write for the organization in line 2 on its internal email list, I add a standard disclaimer in one line in place of the organization mentioned in line 3.

If I'm writing a personal email to a person who for business or personal reasons may need to contact me again, then I paste in the BODY of the email a text file of a few lines that gives my full name, postal address in standard format, and telephone numbers (land line and mobile), and also repeats my email address. That reduces the number of emails I get from people who would just be looking for my phone number (for example, from other parents whose children are on the same soccer team as my children, or from new business clients).

</comment><comment><USER20> I'm just thankful that HN doesn't allow sigs...

<comment><USER21> After reddit and HN I am horrified at even the useless stuff slashdot crams into their comment system but going to php forums of any kind is just another dimension of crazy: multiple animated gifs, the specifications of the machine the person is writing on. Small wonder stackoverflow-like Q/A sites are eating their lunch.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I'm guilty of this... This the signature I'm using.

        Thanks,
        ---
        Firstname Lastname
        My enterprisey title.
        Name of the Company I Work For.
        555 Some Rd. | City and, ST ZZZIP-CODE
        Work Phone: 555-555-5555
        Cell Phone: 555-555-5555
        Email: firstname.lastname@example.com

I wish I could reduce the length of my signature but at least it's on the small side compared to the majority of the non-spam emails I run across in the customer support mailing list.

<comment><USER11> My former employer has in their guidelines that, in addition to the 10 or so line signature, we needed to attach the department's graphical logo to every e-mail... Can this be considered the signature whale?

<comment><USER23> Half of my company has the "logo in signature" thing and it drives me nuts to no end. Now _EVERY_ email has an attachment to it. I can't tell which emails have important files and which ones are just 200 copies of the company logo in a long thread.

<comment><USER3> You can probably script your email client (or similar) to filter those logos.

<comment><USER23> I'm on gApps and use the web interface a lot. I'll have to look through that stuff. Thanks.

{edit} Nothing there. Great. You know what, signature and signature processing in gMail _sucks_. Why can't the web interface know I'm mailing someone in _the same organization_ and NOT include the signature? Why can't it skip the legal block that my company requires _if it's already in the email thread_?

Let's put the self-driving priuses on hold for a while and get some real functionality in there, Google!

<comment><USER24> AutoHotKey hack for GMail and Google Apps sigs: <http://www.autohotkey.com/forum/topic31346.html>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> "And you're being a conservationist this way. Our precious digital resources will be preserved. Countless bits will be saved. This is one small step for a sustainable Internet."

The author should take a look at the header that come attached to each email message, with its dozens of lines: From,To, Date, Delivery, DKIM, DomainKey, Spam status/score/etc , MIME, Reply-To, Subject, Encoding, etc.

</comment><comment><USER26> _SPECTREfest 2011 is Feb 7-10 at the bottom of the South China Sea._

This is basically the reason for the existence of signatures..

</comment><comment><USER27> Why not use one of the web services that puts everything in one place? Then just add the url to your sig.

I happen to use this one, for example: <http://myonepage.com>

</comment><comment><USER28> This calls for a URL shortener that points to contact information :-)

<comment><USER29> That's what this will be great for: <http://about.me>

<comment><USER30> You mean, like a homepage?

But seriously: I can understand people use URL shorteners to twitter ephemeral links, and pastebin for syntax-colored code copy&paste. But special-purpose hosting for something slowly-changing like contact information?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I completely disagree with this guy.

Doesn't bother me at all, and I get annoyed when contact information I need is not listed.

</comment><comment><USER32> Harrumpf. I've been using the same layout for my .sig since 1990; I'm not changing now.

</comment><comment><USER33> I typically just use initials, can't get much shorter than that.

</comment><comment><USER34> Name, address and contact details should be in an address file attached to the mail, no?

<comment><USER35> No, please no. Then it registers as an attachment and then I can't tell which email you sent me has that very important attachment at a quick glance. Keep it short, sweet, and in 4 lines please.

<comment><USER34> Again with the downvotes, did I detract from the conversation? If you disagree say so (and preferably why) or upvote such a disagreement.

> _I can't tell which email you sent me has that very important attachment_

If it's from me then the subject will say "$important-attachment-subject" and the priority will he set to high (but not highest unless you're going to lose money or there is a risk of injury to persons or properties by a delayed response).

Seriously I'd have thought that people would like a vcard that can save them 10 mins inputting data and instead be imported into an address-book with a simple click.

Admittedly I hadn't realised that it got labelled as an attachment (but it seems obvious it should now). But then ...

Oi, I just tested with Thunderbird and __vcards (and signature images) are not labelled as attachments __. So, are you sure it does in your MUA?

<comment><USER35> Yes, I am sure, or I wouldn't have mentioned it. Not everyone uses Thunderbird. (I use Mail.app for OS X and roundcube webmail. Both display them as attachments.)

tbh, I don't pay attention to priority ever, since the only people who use it when they email me are spammers.

So the moral is: not everyone uses the same client as you, and not everyone uses email the same way as you. To piss off the least number of people, go for a lowest common denominator thing. This is also why I always use plain text email.

<comment><USER34> Do you use lynx for browsing the web too?

<comment><USER35> Sorry, what's that got to do with anything? Email is not the same as web browsing. You can't compare the two.

<comment><USER34> Curiousity - I used links2 for a while, it's like lynx with images and some minimal js support.

Anyhow, I find images in email incredibly useful - it makes it an extra couple of steps for a lot of things if one has to upload or serve an image and the recipient then has to follow a link to get images.

What area of work are you in? Not big on branding?

I'll have to get some time with Mail.app, does it make no distinction between inline images and attachments either? How about encoded images that are inlined - do they show as attachments too?

I do know that OSX handles vcards very well so I'm kinda surprised it treats them as straight attachments but still don't think that matters so much.

<comment><USER35> Sorry, only just got back to comments today. I'm in academia, so yes, not big on branding. The only attachments I like to receive are papers, calls for papers, agendas, student work, stuff like that. These tend to be important and can get lost in the pile if every email comes with an attachment.

Mail.app handles any attachments as attachments (even inline ones). If images are linked to as part of HTML email it will display them (but not by default due to spam tracking -- you have to click a button to display them), and not count them as attachments though.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


This man built a VR app to cure his fear of spiders - <AUTHOR> http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/16/technology/fearless-vr-spiders/ <comment><USER2> Really impressive use of vr. It definitely helped me get over my fear. This is one of the "must try" vr experiences.</comment>


Michael Atiyah claims proof of 160-year-old Riemann hypothesis - <AUTHOR> https://www.newscientist.com/article/2180406-famed-mathematician-claims-proof-of-160-year-old-riemann-hypothesis/ <comment><USER2> On Mathoverflow, there is skepticism:

"I'm voting to close this question as off-topic. It should be clear to everyone that Atiyah does not actually have a proof of RH." – Dan Petersen

[https://mathoverflow.net/questions/311062/sir-michael- atiyah...](https://mathoverflow.net/questions/311062/sir-michael-atiyahs- conference-on-the-riemann-hypothesis)</comment>