FBI Is Building a Watchlist That Gives Companies Real Time Updates on Employees - grey-area https://theintercept.com/2017/02/04/the-fbi-is-building-a-national-watchlist-that-gives-companies-real-time-updates-on-employees/ <comment><USER2> Protesting peacefully is an American right, this will be a list of real patriots.

However, this is a bit scary. Corporations have become the brownshirts and we are inching towards a one-party authoritarian system like China it seems.

Unfortunately the divide and conquer strategy of the two party system in the US makes people honor party over country and this is a problem. The only solution is to be more independent.

"I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend." \-- Thomas Jefferson

<comment><USER3> Protesting peacefully != destroying private property and committing unprovoked acts of violence to innocents

There's a word for those that use random violence to effect change in society -- terrorists.

<comment><USER4> Not every protester is doing that though. If you go to a peaceful protest that turns into a riot, you may be arrested even if you did not commit any acts of vandalism or violence. Basically just because you were there. Is this the world you want to live in?

<comment><USER5> I've watched a lot of these protests-turned-riot and you don't see innocent people on the sidelines being hauled away. You hardly see any of the violent and destructive agitators being hauled away. I don't think the scenario you're describing is realistic whatsoever.

<comment><USER6> You've watched a lot of them, but you've never seen or heard of "kettling"? Odd. I have seen it and experienced it.

(I'm also curious what instances of protests-turned-riot you're referring to. The US hasn't had many riots, in any meaningful sense, recently. Do you mean someone smashing a window?)

<comment><USER5> There was one a couple of days ago at Berkeley where 150 or so masked people smashed windows and set things on fire in an attempt to block a conservative from speaking there. Causing $100k in damage to private property in order to curtail other's free speech isn't something that should be glossed over or minimized by calling it protesting.

There's the riot at NYU where more violent agitators showed up to prevent Gavin McInnes from speaking, where he was attacked with pepper spray.

On the night at Berkeley, a woman wearing a Trump hat was pepper sprayed while giving an interview for a news network.

These are the facts.

Call it what you want, but this is violence and destruction with the intent to silence people with an opposing point of view. It's not civil disobedience or protesting and more like terrorism.

As for your other question about whether or not I've heard of kettling, I have. The fact that it exists does not convince me that innocent bystanders need to fear that. In instances where you may have seen that, such as the inauguration of the president, charges were brought against some of those individuals. Which suggests the goal wasn't to arrest bystanders.

By the way, I don't know if you watched that one live or after it took place but there was a ton of chaos. People were throwing objects like glass bottles at the police in riot gear. Again, many of the people were dressed in all black with masks on. If you want a very real problem to attack, that's one to focus on.

<comment><USER6> Kettling is very typically used for mass arrests, even if charges are not filed against everyone arrested. This has happened in Oakland, where I live, multiple times in the last five years. And the fact that an arrest without a conviction can be reported to employers under this FBI program is one of the problems noted in the article.

Terrorism is quite a word for a situation in which nobody was seriously injured, as far as I know. And terrorism of the variety that involves killing people is already less likely to kill someone in the U.S. than a lightning strike. Picking the black bloc as the "very real problem... to focus on", in that context and with everything else going on in the world--including the serious damage done to many thousands of people by cruel and violent policies justified by reference to the threat of terrorism--strikes me as a very poor choice of priorities.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This quote stuck out:

> "People are clean when they first go in, then they get in trouble five years > down the road [and] never tell the daycare about this."

Interesting that he mentions "daycare," which seems to me like the Congressional-testimony-equivalent of clickbait. It's always easier to justify stopping bad people when you can tie it back to innocents somehow ("children, elderly, and the disabled", as the article mentions).

He also uses the word "clean," evoking images of drug addicts - the opposite of clean - and implying that these daycare providers might turn into drug- addicted crazies without their employer ever finding out.

But the scarier implication here is that what you do outside work affects your employment. Not just in the sense that posting drunken pictures to Facebook or bitching about your boss on Medium might do, but that the government will actively tell your employer about arrests that may have no bearing on your ability to do your job.

What about someone who gets arrested for protesting, or excessive speeding, or being party to a bar fight? Do those things necessarily affect their ability to watch over children, or work at a nursing home, or pilot an airplane? I can only imagine that employers will see the arrest report as an immediate cause for firing, regardless of what the arrest was for. "We can't have _people like that_ working here."

It's a scary path to be headed down.

</comment><comment><USER8> Beautiful - Go to protest against Trump (or even to document it [1]) - <AUTHOR> arrested and charged with "Rioting", "Disturbing the Peace" or my most favorite "Resisting Arrest[2]" \- get an Arrest Record - Get fired immediately thanks to RAP BACK - Charges get dropped.

Rinse and repeat.

Welcome Absolute Fascism.

[1] [https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jan/24/journalists- ch...](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jan/24/journalists-charged- felonies-trump-inauguration-unrest) [2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=92toXdu2KR0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=92toXdu2KR0)

<comment><USER9> We've already lost when an arrest is equivalent to a conviction.

Although, in some ways, we've been here for a while. Maybe less-so for individuals but for corporations, whom the law generally treats with a degree of "individual" rights (IANAL), it's long been that an indictment is worse than a conviction. After an indictment, clients turn away -> revenue flees -> shutters.

What's scary is an indictment is, in theory (under fair application of the principles of law), is more severe than a simple arrest. If we're living in a system (US) where a simple arrest results in a database entry which can result in the end of your productive life, we're living in a... [up to the reader to determine the severity]

Ultimately, the power of gov't to drop charges after such a consequence (firing) is powerful and unfair to the individual. Indeed.

<comment><USER10> > We've already lost when an arrest is equivalent to a conviction.

It's not, under the law, of course. But since businesses can (generally) freely choose who to hire or fire, it is legal for them to ask employees about arrests and make decisions based on the answer.

This is different, though, in that the federal government itself (the FBI) is assisting companies in doing this. The FBI is reporting arrests to businesses, in full knowledge of the negative consequences for employees in doing so. Indeed, the negative consequences are the entire point of the program.

The federal government is held to different standards. If an employee could prove that they were fired because of an arrest that never led to a conviction, reported through Rap Back, I think they would have a pretty good test case for the ACLU to go to town on.

The whole point of our system of justice is to ensure that the government only punishes citizens when there is beyond reasonable doubt that an actual crime was committed. Here, the federal government is delivering punishment entirely outside that framework.

The government will argue that they're just supplying information, not punishment, but they don't get to just pretend they have no idea what happens next. Everything the FBI has ever said about this program will be reviewed and will show that the whole point is to fire people.

<comment><USER11> >> We've already lost when an arrest is equivalent to a conviction.

> It's not, under the law, of course.

It is under some circumstances. For example, the US visa waiver program:

> We do not recommend that travelers who have been arrested, even if the > arrest did not result in a criminal conviction, attempt to travel visa free > under the Visa Waiver Program.

(From [https://uk.usembassy.gov/visas/visa-waiver- program/additiona...](https://uk.usembassy.gov/visas/visa-waiver- program/additional-requirements/))

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Maybe it's because I work in biometrics, but I don't understand what is newsworthy about this. The Rap Back program has been around for years now. The article gratuitously mentions the name "Trump" as an extra scare factor, even though NGI and its various depredations were planned since the Dubya administration (not that it matters whose administration it is; this kind of power expansion happens independently of what party holds power).

Yes, it's concerning. But the headline "FBI is building a watchlist that gives companies real time updates on employees" is out of date. Now it should be "FBI built the watchlist five years ago that snitches on teachers and bank employees and nobody complained."

<comment><USER13> The headline is baity, but the article makes a point that this thing is expanding rapidly in terms of number of participating employers. That part is news.

And there are certainly implications specifically wrt the Trump administration, and protests against it.

<comment><USER12> The implications with the Trump administration are no different than those under the Obama administration, when all of this expanding actually began accelerating as the NGI system was implemented.

<comment><USER13> The _potential_ for abuse is the same, yes. The way this is likely to actually be abused is a whole different ballpark.

<comment><USER12> How? The same people are still running the FBI who were running it before the election.

<comment><USER13> Different people are giving orders to people who are running the FBI.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> We need a public watch list of companies who fire, or in any way discipline, employees on this watch list.

<comment><USER12> Here's one off of the top of my head; it may be very imprecise:

1\. Every Bank in the United States of America 2\. Every NMLS licensed mortgage lender in USA 3\. Every FINRA licensed investment advisor, broker, or trader 4\. Eventually, every public school system in the USA.

All of these organizations participate because they're required to by law, or through "self-regulation" that's effectively the same as government coercion. And, they do have good reasons for wanting to; cases 1-3 are attempts to stop financial fraudsters from finding employment at their firm. The excuse for case 4 is to stop pedophiles or something (that one I'm actually less familiar with than the other three).

Now that you have this list, what are you going to do with it? Moralize at Bank of America until they relax their hiring standards? Wait for the market to produce a bank that doesn't do background checks on employees, and then do all of your business there? Call you Congressman and demand they do something about this terrible injustice (even though this mess was created by people calling their Congressman and demanding they do something about the fraudsters on Wall Street that destroyed the economy in 2008)?

<comment><USER14> > _Every FINRA licensed investment advisor, broker, or trader_

I've worked for, owned and sold broker-dealers. There is nothing stopping you from hiring someone with an unconvicted arrest record.

> _what are you going to do with it?_

Depends on the size and composition of the list. To make decisions, first one needs the data.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The message here is clear: Don't protest or you might lose your job. I will say it again, despite being down-voted last time, these are chilling effects on activism in the United States. They prevent democracy from happening. This means democracy is broken and needs fixing. Activism is the only way that egregious problems like racism in the United States got fixed, without activism black people would still be under Jim Crow laws.

edit: Okay racism did not get fixed, but it's a definite improvement on Jim Crow Laws. And we obviously we need more activism to fight the institutionalized racism that exists today such as the drug war.

<comment><USER16> If I lose my job for protesting or activism then fuck that employer. There should be a database of companies that fire people for their off hours activism.

<comment><USER17> it should start with a list of companies that publicly state that their employees are allowed to protest, even if the company disagrees with them.

<comment><USER18> You're suggesting a left-wing form of McCarthyism. I don't care if my employees/reports protest as long as they do their job and don't attempt political intimidation, but I am not willing to put my company on a list to satisfy a virtue-signaling busybody.

<comment><USER19> Are you kidding? Promoting the recognition of an employee's first amendment rights now falls under "virtue signaling" and "McCarthyism"?

<comment><USER18> Please re-read the parent comment:

> it should start with a list of companies that publicly state that their > employees are allowed to protest, even if the company disagrees with them.

The part that is objectionable is the expectation that my company would need to register on a list stating that I respect the rights of my employees. Doing things within your legal rights is the _default_; I reject the act of playing into someone's political "are you with us?" game.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> If this kind of crap actually becomes popular I give it 10yr before people realize that police arrest tons of people for tons of things and a disturbingly large amount if it is just them "mildly" abusing their power and whatever it is eventually gets dropped. This will be especially true when all the (rich, white) college kids who's only brush with the law is being in the wrong place at the wrong time start hitting the job market. Eventually people will hopefully demand that the cops stop acting that way.

<comment><USER21> And yet, the magnificently curated Do Not Fly list still exists..

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> All other issues aside, I really don't like that arrest records show up on people's background checks. On the other hand, there are very good reasons for the public to know who the government is arresting and why. How else would the public know that the government is abusing its authority?

What is the solution?

<comment><USER23> The best thing I can come up with is a system that protects the arrested's name until after a conviction. Anything released before that should include statistical data - description, race (since that is an issue), location, crime, and so on. I disagree with publishing mugshots for folks that have been found not guilty as well.

There is good and bad to all of this, of course, and some of it won't be fixed without better attuned labor protection laws and things of that nature.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> This is why I've always kept up my trade skills and wanted my kids to know a trade they could play without relying on corporate jobs.

<comment><USER25> Does programming count? :)

<comment><USER26> Absolutely.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> well, I'm starting a company, and everyone who is interested is hired. It's a pretty boring job; there's nothing to do. But you get compensated in real-time rap sheet filings on yourself.

</comment><comment><USER28> Good use case for Kafka

<comment><USER29> I see what you did there. ;-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I wonder how effective this will be at strike busting.

1\. Local police in the pocket of local business arrest protestors

2\. RAP BACK arrest record notification and thus grounds for termination

3\. Termination

4\. Charges dropped

</comment><comment><USER31> We have watched this country destroy other countries one after the other, prop up the main global ideological and financial sponsors of terrorism and then diabolically spend billions of dollars building a surveillance state at home in response while pretending to be the good guy.

How can any responsible citizen let their own country do this to other countries, allow a surveillance state to be built in the first place inspite of all the revelations at great personal cost and allow the unencumbered growth of a war mongering military industrial complex at home?

The business as usual tones of these discussions in the media and the constant judging of others like China or Russia for authoritarianism reflects a troubling dissonance and denial about the real consequences of our actions both at home and abroad. We are not just destroying these countries, we are killing hundreds of thousands of people, disrupting millions of families for generations, decimating their infrastruture and way of life and putting them back decades. These is the definition of crimes against humanity. Can we really afford to be blase and unconcerned anymore.

Anyone can guess the inevitable consequence of trillions of dollars of spend and adding millions of employees co-opted into the surveillance state. Responsible citizens and anyone who believes in freedom, democracy and peace cannot let this slide any longer.

</comment><comment><USER32> At the end of the day. American citizens will be the judge. With a booming demographic, you are watching the train pass, soon, you will be on, and then drive that train. Don't fight age, or fear. One day, someone reading this on HackerNews will take control. Our parents sent us to University, but, good lucking fooling them.

</comment><comment><USER33> It all boils down to money. Departments got a revenue stream from the churn of job applicant pool background checks. Now they're going with the SAAS model. It's a pretty bad ethical conflict of interest; that unfortunately someone without a job will never be able to afford to bring before the courts.

</comment><comment><USER34> We need sweeping data rights legislation and soon. And as long as democracy hijacking government agencies insist on compiling without cause or consent, a publicly maintained list of the developers that build these tools for government needs to be publicly available. A Hague for the digital age.

</comment><comment><USER35> I suppose the self-employed will have a new level of privilege -- an arrest event will remain exactly what it always was and not a loss of livelihood.

</comment><comment><USER36> It's disappointing, but not surprising, to see this plummeting off the front page. Tech is welcoming fascism with closed eyes and open arms.

</comment><comment><USER37> "including arrests at protests and charges that do not end up in convictions"

I'm not sure what is, but I am sure that secret arrests and secret trials are not the answer. My first thought was to argue due process but typing it out made this contradiction inescapable.

</comment><comment><USER26> 2018: FBI is Building a Watchlist That Gives Companies Real Time Updates on Employee's Social Media and Forum Accounts

</comment><comment><USER38> > First Amendment rights: filming public officials, attending protests, > blocking streets.

Is blocking streets a First Amendment right? I heard protestors blocking an exit to a hospital sometime ago. I would think that puts lives in danger.

Just wonder what does the law state there. Say a patient in an ambulance dies on the way because of a protest blocking the street. Is there a precedent, what happens then?

<comment><USER39> The problem with a lot of this is that it's just a pretext. You have laws against blocking an ambulance, and there are legitimate reasons for that.

But if what you're really after is to prohibit protesting and the thing being protested is near a hospital so you just go around arresting every protester you can find in the street for blocking an ambulance, that's a different situation.

<comment><USER38> > But if what you're really after is to prohibit protesting and the thing > being protested is near a hospital

It would seem it would be a good idea to just not organize a protest close to a hospital? Or have a more organized protest that would allow an ambulance to pass...

<comment><USER40> Can you show examples? This is feeling like a hypothetical you're using to dismiss political speech rather than a genuine concern. I don't doubt it's happened (I can think of a couple of anecdotal examples I've seen in person, as well as plenty of times we let cops through even though we were fully against them), but I also don't think you may have a respect for just how many peaceful protests block roads or buildings in this country every single day without major incidents. As someone else pointed out in this topic: the revolution isn't televised.

<comment><USER41> I appreciate (really, a lot) that you've been commenting civilly. But HN isn't a forum to be used primarily for political or ideological battle. It is for stories and conversations that gratify intellectual curiosity. Those things don't sit well together, because the more powerful forces (political battle) eventually overwhelm the more delicate ones (intellectual curiosity).

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

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> This is great. Background checks now have webhooks. What could go wrong?

</comment><comment><USER43> am I the only one who doesn't get people who write stupid titles ? let's read this again: "FBI Is Building a Watchlist" ok they're spending time and money to make a surveillance system. "That Gives Companies Real Time Updates on Employees." and they give that system to "companies" so they can track their own employees ?! ?! WTF

<comment><USER12> They don't "give the system" to employers. The system is part of the FBI's main biometric database. Basically, a small set of employers who have been using this database (which is the same database that all fingerprinted criminals are entered into) for background checks, now can subscribe to get notifications from it if you're arrested sometime after your background check was done.

Yes, it's a clickbaity title, but essentially sort of correct.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> Law would have to change.

</comment><comment><USER45> Jean Valjean weeps

</comment><comment><USER46> There is a group who have proposed a solution to this problem for decades:

Shrink the state.

Until people stop believing that any effort to do so will result in everyone literally dying in the street, the state will grow. Until people's first impulse towards someone doing something they don't like ceases to be "there ought to be a law", the state will grow. Until people stop demanding that laws must affect the entirety of the country instead of just their state, the state will grow.

What sort of government did we start with? "A republic, if you can keep it." according to Ben Franklin.

We didn't keep it.

Keep it small, keep it close, and recognize that there are limits to the problems a bureaucracy can solve. Be suspicious of all power. Be suspicious of all taxation. A massive government can, and does, wield incredible fortune like a weapon against the population.

Shrink the state until politicians are no longer worth buying and it barely matters who holds the reins. Trust your neighbor a lot more and your government a lot less.

Or do none of this, but don't ask why nobody told you this could happen. Because we did, and you laughed at us and told us we were juvenile, loathsome, heartless people.

<comment><USER47> Shrink the state = let rich & corporations get loose.

You want to replace kind of power that you got influence on and some expectations about public information access with totally "private" power that you got no control about.

That is special kind of stupid.

Thank you but no thank you.

<comment><USER46> > let rich & corporations get loose

This belief only causes the state to grow. It inflates politicians to the point where they are worth buying, so they are bought. They then make laws that hurt their competition and help their corporation. They make laws that make it extremely difficult to ever start a business to compete to begin with. So the corporations get bigger, and have more to buy the politicians with. And the scope of what the politicians control grows, so it costs more to buy them. So access to your government shrinks to the point where only the most wealthy have any real say in it.

And what does that look like? That looks like what we have. Congratulations for being a part of the problem through the unwarranted fear of your fellow man.

Because so many of you only want to see simple cause and effect, not the multitudinous unintended consequences that every law and regulation creates. You are controlled by your fears. If the state fails to do something, grow it. If it succeeds at anything, grow it.

This is all I will say on this subject. I have spilled a lifetime of digital ink over this, as have countless others, but to no avail. When the civil war comes because everyone finally decides that everyone else is the enemy, don't ask me for help. I'll be looking after myself and mine. I want with all my heart for that not to happen, but you're going to start wanting it with all your heads first.

<comment><USER48> So instead Koch brothers are just completely unchecked? No thanks. What we have is broken, but to remove the state is to allow the US to become a 3rd world country where the mega rich get richer, federal parks land is auctioned off, and pollution remains unchecked. We have enough examples of failed states world wide to understand that rivers turning pink is what happens when you don't have laws for the people.

<comment><USER49> Are the Koch brothers abnormally strong or something? The state is what gives anyone the ability to control that ridiculous amount of wealth. The idea that them being unchecked without state backing is a problem is laughable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> jeffrey-sean If you use social media, I would recommend using an app like Rep'nUp to find any unprofessional Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram posts. Clean up anything you don't want representing you!

[https://www.repnup.com/](https://www.repnup.com/)

</comment><comment><USER50> FBI started out as the Pinkerton agency. They identified and intimidated/killed strikers, workers planning to unionize and anyone that got in the way of business.

This isn't surprising.

<comment><USER51> I think you mean the Secret Service started out as the Pinkerton Detective Agency. They became part of the government due in part of protecting the president and investigation into monetary related crime.

The FBI came in early 20th century as a need to address more conventional crime that crossed state lines and made it difficult for states to investigate/prosecute (organized crime, kidnapping, bootlegging). While you could say it had a valid reason to exist, J. Edgar Hoover morphed it into something entirely different.

Edit: To clarify my hastily typed up message from my phone, the Pinkertons were government contractors and precursor to the Secret Service, but not the same entity. Secret Service did not officially protect the president until the assassination of President McKinley in 1901.

<comment><USER52> Neither one is true.

The Secret Service was initially chartered solely as an anti-counterfeiting task force. The Pinkertons never became part of the government; they were just a handy private army to be deployed by people who'd obtained the good will of the government.

<comment><USER51> Mea Culpa. Should have double checked before typing that out :)

Didn't mean to say they were the same thing, just the precursor of the Secret Service and did much of the same work in a contractual role.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: What do you think of my App's Splash page? - <AUTHOR> http://spreadapp.co/signup

<comment><USER2> "Stop giving your Email Address to random people - but still be in the loop."

I was going to comment on your choice of copy text, then I refreshed the page to get another look and you had changed it to:

"Stay in the Loop without giving your Email to random People."

Much better. Why not make it more succinct? "Stay in the loop without giving away your email address" or even better: "Spread helps you stay in the loop without needing to share an email address". Tells visitors what you're doing, makes them ask "How" and it's direct copy.

Also, stop with the random capitalization, please?

<comment><AUTHOR> +1 for giving me great feedback :) ye that was @AwesomeTogether's idea.

Capitalization is fixed, thanks :)

<comment><USER2> Great work, good luck on your launch! :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, updated the copy again with your suggestion :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> The grammar on this page is terrible - "I'm Keeping a big Secret" - what's with the inconsistent capitalization?

This page leaves me more confused and frustrated than anything - what is your app? Why would I want to follow it on Twitter?

If you're keeping your app secret, you either shouldn't have a splash page, or should have a placeholder page with a quick sentence - even if it's just "Spread is going to revolutionize the way you share your ideas.", or something like that. As it stands, all I know is that Spread's splash page creators don't write very well.

<comment><AUTHOR> +1 for the detailed comment, thanks. Fixed the grammar and am working on some copy to replace the current text, thanks :) also, if you couldn't see the button and logo earlier, it should be fixed now if you want to take a second look, thanks :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Ok, I've changed it around a bit, thoughts?

<comment><USER3> It's much clearer, but I'm a bit confused - does "Stay in the loop without having to share an email address" explain what your app will do, or is it just your way of saying "hey, follow us on Twitter"? I'm expecting that sentence to be your service's pitch.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yep, that's explaining what the App does. I'll make that a little clearer now, thanks :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> "stay in the loop without giving your email to random people"

better, imho

<comment><AUTHOR> +1 for good idea :) Just changed it there, thanks a lot :)

<comment><USER4> np, i also think it's better to say

"Follow us on Twitter to get early access"

<comment><AUTHOR> changed it to that, thanks :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> doesn't inspire me to want to follow you on twitter.

i don't like teasers with no info.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good point. I'd rather work on the actual product though instead of spending ages on the splash page. Thanks for your comment.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> At least give your Twitter url...

<comment><AUTHOR> That's what the button's for!

<comment><USER3> I can't see a button under Safari 5 or Chrome 12: <http://d.pr/L7ln>

<comment><AUTHOR> Ok, that should be fixed now, can you confirm? Thanks for your help.

<comment><USER7> Button background still isn't appearing for me.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Work on production line of Boeing 737 Max 'not adequately funded' - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49142761 <comment><USER2> I look at this and see surprising parallels to the Wells Fargo scandal ( [https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-10-23/fake-a...](https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-10-23/fake- accounts-still-haunt-wells-fargo) ).

In both cases, management appears to have applied significant pressure to the teams doing the work, pushing them to achieve extremely unrealistic targets. And in both cases, the results of that incentive ended up being extremely detrimental to basically everybody (to the general public in the form of identity fraud / unsafe aircraft, to the companies in the forms of fines / grounding / PR / etc).

I doubt anybody in Boeing's offices woke up and thought "what a nice morning! Time to go to work and build some dangerous airplanes that will kill people, so that I can get slightly richer". I suspect the execs involved were just amazingly (and potentially even criminally) negligent: in their minds, they were pushing their employees to make the airplane actually similar enough to qualify as a "minor" change, without any of the oversight that would have caught what was actually happening. They turned a blind eye any time somebody told them that the new plane would require larger changes, and the results are unsurprising: their teams declared all the changes "minor", not because they'd successfully made only minor changes, but because exec pressure mandated that all changes be "minor".

<comment><USER3> While reading your text I was thinking about Volkswagen, diesel cars and their defeat devices. This article (sorry for German only writing) [https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/verkehr/audi- abgasskanda...](https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/verkehr/audi-abgasskandal- betrugssoftware-diesel-defeat-device/) states exactly opposite! The VW guys were writing poems for their clever defeat device! I am pretty sure, that some people at Boeing were also clapping hands about sales potential and cost savings of the new planes. There are more evil people in the corporate floors than you think. And top management plays with them!!! There is no way to build in defeat device in millions of cars without top management agreeing. I can guess, that Boeing's management had enough clues, that their software wasn't in the best shape.

<comment><USER2> I don't think anybody is arguing that Boeing execs hate money, or weren't excited to make loads of money. And, as I wrote, the incentive structure the Boeing execs created has an incentive structure whose outcome was incredibly dangerous. Realizing those incentives required that the executives turn a blind eye to how the problems were being solved. But I think it's pretty implausible to suggest that the "evil people" at Boeing we're clapping their hands about savings with an understanding that they were trading human lives for those profits. It's tempting to imagine that the executives of corporations are all comic villains, sitting in their offices plotting the demise of humanity, but to imagine them in that way is detrimental to the goal of actually avoiding these problems. If we treat corporations as if they're comic villains, we ignore that they're actually made up of normal people with a variety of social and economic incentives, and being aware of those incentives is crucial if we'd like to actually change corporate behavior.

<comment><USER4> Maybe I'm wrong but it feels a bit simpler than people being evil or malevolent. It's more like squeezing a juice out of a lemon: at first, it only requires light pressure to get the juice, but as you want more and more juice, your grip must get increasingly tighter. At some point it becomes clear you need a new lemon to get more juice, but for some reason it seems cheaper/more effective to keep squeezing the one that has nothing left to give.

So it is with businesses extracting value (/making as much money as possible).

<comment><USER2> The tricky part is figuring out the "for some reason" in your metaphor, and then designing a system that causes them to rethink that calculus instead of just finding a different way to keep squeezing the same lemon.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> What will the certification process for the next plane from Boeing look like?

The FAA certified a plane that had obvious flaws. From what I understand they out sourced the certification process to Boeing but that doesn't remove their responsibility, it's still their "stamp". The real certification process started after the accidents and only needed a few weeks to find additional flaws. I'd assume the process is normally months long so "a few weeks" would be finding it early.

But why should I trust the FAA? They seem to be working hard now projecting an image of a for-the-people agency while throwing as much dirt as they can on Boeing but I haven't really seen anything addressing their own problems with out sourcing, corruption, and political interference.

Have I missed something?

<comment><USER6> What happens most of the time with the big companies (Boeing, Cessna, Bombardier...) is that it is cheaper to have an in-house DER (Designated Engineering Representative) for the part of the aircraft that they are certifying. DERs themselves

You have Mechanical DERs, Electrical DERs, Software DERs, and others.

A good example for the HN crowd, the Software DER. Per regulations, the software standard is the DO-178B. The DER isn't actually spinning up the dev environment, or building the piece of software used; just checking to make sure the process was followed. (the dev environment was documented, what dependancies...) These people are a step up from code reviewers and just check paperwork more than software.

The FAA itself isn't concerned with safety; it is just there to make sure there is a papertrail to follow in the event of a safety issue.

<comment><USER7> I think that's a rewriting of the role of the FAA. A papertrail is a strong prerequisite to being able to adequately review the safety of an aircraft. Without strict conformance to both complete written instructions on how to build, assemble, and configure an aircraft, how would one ever know a plane, no matter how many tests you do is the same design that is later flown vs what was certified?

BTW when the plan was floated to let Boeing self certify more in the process, in the name of 'efficiency' there were objections made to the political appointees driving that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> >>Since 2013, Boeing has paid $17bn (£13.74bn) in dividends to shareholders and has spent a further $43bn buying its own shares - a spending spree that has helped Boeing treble its share price in just five years.

Are share buy backs a common strategy for large companies?

<comment><USER9> For the last ~10 years yes. Almost all big companies that are profitable do it.

This is actually a major problem for innovation and investments in general, there are lots of economist who talk about this issue: Mariana Mazzucato has some very convincing arguments for public investments based, among other things, on this very problem.

(neo-liberal) Governments lower corporate taxes to boost corporate profit in the (unfunded) hope that this will drive massive investments in innovation and create job, and bigCo just buy their stock back because it is by far the most profitable short-term for their shareholders and their executives.

Major reason is : they don't know what else to do. There was a very cool article on HN about the specific Boeing case that went over how it changed in the last 20y to go from engineering company to finance-driven company

<comment><USER10> > Major reason is : they don't know what else to do

no, they just don't like the risk of innovation. A share buy-back program is guarenteed to increase the share price, which is benefitial to executives who hold their bonuses in shares (and share holders would also like it).

Doing innovation comes with risks - which may or may not pan out. If it doesn't pan out, the executives would get chewed for it, and if it does pan out it is unlikely to pay off for a long time (in terms of bonuses - at least, not within their tenure).

Gov'ts should just invest in startups, rather than give tax breaks. Invest in up and coming students who show promise, and get to claim a share of their innovation as taxes as well! And if it fails, it fails - the gov't doesn't need to be profitable.

<comment><USER11> Yes, it is prudent to invest capital back into the company (R&D), but it may not be the best use of money or have the best ROI.

It should also be noted that share buy-backs are also useful to shareholders as an alternative to dividends. Whereas a dividend creates a tax event that an investor may nor may not welcome, the same investor can choose to sell their stock or hang on to it.

Financially speaking, if you start with $1000 in stocks, it does not matter whether you end up with $1000 in stock and $100 in cash from dividends, or $1100 in stocks (from the price going up).

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpXI_Vd51dA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpXI_Vd51dA)

And yet companies that payout dividends are not vilified the same was as buy- back companies--in fact dividend payers are lauded in an almost fetishist way due to human psychology:

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

<comment><USER10> the issue here is that gov't lower corp taxes in the hopes that the money gets put into R&D. Instead, it goes into share buyback schemes.

Instead, gov't should use the taxes (rather than returning it to corps) and pay startups for innovation, rather than hope companies use it on R&D.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> >We have always held true to our values of safety, quality and integrity and those values are complementary and mutually reinforcing with productivity and company performance

It says something very bad about the state of accountability in this country when someone's negligence can kill hundreds of people and they have absolutely nothing to fear from putting out a completely horseshit statement like that. Half a dozen different Boeing executives should be in prison for the rest of their lives on 346 counts of manslaughter but I'd be amazed if Boeing faces so much as a monetary fine.

<comment><USER13> do you pass the same judgment on car manufacturers since they are also somewhat responsible for numerous deaths every single year?

<comment><USER12> Indeed I do. For example, the Takata corporation negligently ignored many warnings that its airbags were unsafe. This resulted in hundreds of injuries and the deaths of 24 people. The Takata corporation was fined ~250% of its annual EBIT and three of its executives were prosecuted. For Boeing, a comparable fine would be thirty billion dollars. If you multiplied the fine by the ratio of deaths, the fine would be over 420 billion dollars.

<comment><USER13> That would bankrupt Boeing. That's probably not a desirable outcome for such a company - and this would discourage any investment in aviation moving on.

<comment><USER12> It is the job of the federal government to protect the lives of its citizens by enforcing the law. It is not the job of the federal government to protect the existence of certain corporations by giving them special exemptions to the law.

But even if you wanted to do that, you can still have your cake and eat it too. Boeing's yearly profit is 4.2 billion dollars. Take three billion of that per year and let them pay off the fine over ten years.

<comment><USER13> Thats all good and dandy but the Federal government has not just one mission but several hundreds of them. They also have to protect their citizen from foreign threats and Boeing is also huge in the military space. Conflicts of interests everywhere.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Want to see senior management laser focused on safety? Require forfeiture of all benefits, options, and bonuses, plus all personal cap gains from stock sales in the event of an engineering flaw resulting in loss of life. Claw it back from all senior management who worked during the lifetime of the airliner, even if they left or retired. You'll see the midnight oil being burned on walnut row, and fanatical effort going into testing and design reviews.

<comment><USER15> That's a terrific way to ensure no want ever wants to work on aviation or infrastructure projects ever again. I guess they can come work on adtech like the rest of us.

<comment><USER14> It is a bit tongue in cheek, but giving the top couple of layers some serious skin in the game is the only way to align their interest with safety rather than the next 10-Q.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'm surprised almost no one is also talking about the 2010 Boeing subcontractor Ducommun 737 NG (-600/700/800/900) critical structural elements deficiencies scandal and coverup Al Jazeera exposed. Several passengers have also already died from this on runway overruns and hard landings when the fuselage breaks up whereas it didn't used to happen on previous 737's.

<comment><USER17> It is obviously still an unknown story.

Some details:

[https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/16150378-post10.html](https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/16150378-post10.html)

<comment><USER18> It's somewhat amusing to see the pilots in that thread criticise airbus for having computer systems that take control away from the pilot, given what we now know about MCAS.

<comment><USER17> It's irrelevant for this thread, which is about:

"If you're Boeing, you realize you have a multi-billion dollar liability on your hands that will bankrupt your company 10 times over if you actually had to tear apart and inspect or rebuild all the suspect aircraft. So, you bury the reports, fire anyone involved, call in all your favors and unleash your lawyers with all the political power you have as a major defense contractor to make it all go away. (The program suggested that's exactly what they were doing)."

Also, the link to the program summary:

[https://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/peopleandpower/2010/12/...](https://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/peopleandpower/2010/12/20101214104637901849.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> For once i hope these x employees come forward before these incidents...Nothing new in this article, article is being posted for this "Watch BBC Panorama: Boeing's Killer Plane, on 29 July at 8.30pm on BBC One."

<comment><USER20> The dark side of that is that in contrast to management, employees face far harsher penalties than a million dollar settlement. You will only get that if you have "responsibility".

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> "Boeing said it wasn't relying on the single sensor, because the pilots were there as back up."

Pilots are part of the redundancy package?! NO! Pilots are not part of your hardware!!

Imagine the contrast from what we've been told for years that aviation hardware is about redundancy and what really is going on in their management offices.

</comment><comment><USER22> "We did not cut corners or push the 737 Max out before it was ready," it said.

After two crashes and the groundings, i would say they did. Of course that's not what all of this is about, just their pr dept.

</comment><comment><USER23> I will never ever get into one of those planes, whatever they rename it to and however many updates they push.

<comment><USER13> On the contrary this will probably be one of the safest planes to fly once they fix all issues (assuming they can) since no other plane would have undergone such in depth review and testing ever.

<comment><USER24> How do you know they fixed all issues? Surely all issues will be fixed which the regulators can find. But I am sure there will be cover-up still. And more to it regulators have clearly demonstrated their incapability and unwillingness to find something.

<comment><USER25> How do you know all the previous planes have no issues at all? The only way you truly know is the track record and we do need to give the Max or its successor the benefit of doubt at some point. What's the point of having regulations of we don't believe in them anyway and depend on feelings? Of course, the regulations allowed 300+ people to die, but that's a thing to be fixed and improved.

<comment> saiya-jin It could go as something like this - since we know how much safety was omitted in chase of profit, we see the most common problems. But airplanes are massively complex, and compromises could have been done on thousands of other places. Those could start failing after 10+ years of service for example, or in some rather unusual corner cases.

Faith is a funny thing - once lost, it needs to be massively overcompensated to come to similar levels as before, and even after that things are just not the same...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I am so called self taught developer.I learned how to write software out of boredom at work. Subsequently,I wrote some parts of the system,my current employer uses,that range from 'nice to have' all the way to 'mission critical'. I allowed myself a lot of freedom in terms of errors, mistakes and etc. The company provides training to people,so the worst that can happen is someone may not get a correct email or internal user won't see an update on training they were expecting.Now if I were working for Boeing and had to write code that'd go into production,aka a working plane,I'd probably either say I couldn't do it or do so many iterations that they'd would sack me...I couldn't sleep for the rest of the life knowing that I pushed some update that ultimately controls some parts of the plane and that it can go wrong any time...

</comment><comment><USER13> Why are they showing the compensation vs Boeing revenues in the beginning? Does Boeing pay for compensation directly? I thought this was rather paid by insurance companies, and had nothing to do with manufacturers?

<comment><USER27> Boeing voluntarily paid compensation to the victims and their communities directly. This is in addition to the travel insurance claims that the victims could file for.

[0] [https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2019-07-03-Boeing-Pledges- Suppo...](https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2019-07-03-Boeing-Pledges-Support-to- Families-Communities-Affected-by-Lion-Air-Flight-610-and-Ethiopian-Airlines- Flight-302-Accidents)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> It is my hope that whatever bureaucratic process that allowed that to happen will be chopped into pieces, burned into ashes and scattered into the four winds.

Whatever will remain can continue building planes if it still can.

</comment><comment><USER28> The free market working at its most efficient.

<comment><USER29> I'm curious to understand what you mean by free market. Civil aviation is probably among the most regulated industry you could find, isn't it ?

<comment><USER30> Actually, it looks as if it wasn't that strictly regulated, hence the hundreds of deaths because Boeing was allowed to self-certify. The magic of the free market was indeed at work here, producing value for shareholders.

<comment><USER31> Their competitors were highly regulated, preventing them from existing in the first place. As always in incumbent firm wrote the regulations and defacto decides who is in violation or not.

<comment><USER30> The economy cannot be separated from the government. If large capitalist interests exist, they will exert power with the government, in the form of influencing regulations or other rent-seeking. Thus you cannot have a "fair" capitalist economy.

It would be nice if capitalism worked as it did in econ classes, but it doesn't with real humans.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> "We did not cut corners or push the 737 Max out before it was ready,"

The family and friends of 346 people would beg to disagree.

</comment><comment><USER33> Anyone surprised that an U.S. company was actively trying to bypass regulations to boost commercial success? If money is _all_ you are aiming for, putting people at risk is suddenly not a problem at all.

<comment><USER34> Right this would never happen in EU oh wait VW AG

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Classic SemVer :D</comment>


Book: "Linux is badass" is now available - <AUTHOR> http://lunduke.com/linux-is-badass-the-book/

<comment><USER2> Well, that was $3 well spent (I splurged for the package with the comic books).</comment>


Where Are All the Fun Software Engineer Jobs? - <AUTHOR> https://www.bennettnotes.com/post/where-are-all-the-exciting-software-engineer-jobs/ <comment><USER2> My take is that it's your job as a developer / software engineer to find the the best jobs. Most jobs may be boring, but we are lucky to be in demand as developers so it's relatively easier to find fulfilling jobs (compared to other sectors). For example, I left my semi-boring job as an web+data engineer to create an ML-based crypto trader. Is it easy? No. And I happy with that choice? Hell yeah

Also, most of my relatives / family don't quite understand or approve of that choice, and that's fine. Sometimes you have to be a little daring

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a good way of looking at it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I've had fun building software for 30+ years. My advice would be to:

1\. Find a small place, 2-3 developers. 2\. Who make critical software for the business. 3\. Frankly, not web software.

I know,this sounds like "Eat what I eat and you'll be as tall as I am." but think about it.

<comment><AUTHOR> I feel like that would be an ideal situation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I would add: "Ask" to to the title .</comment>


California Enacts Law Requiring IMDB to Remove Actor Ages on Request - <AUTHOR> http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/california-enacts-law-requiring-imdb-932330 <comment><USER2> This is a bad law. The solution is to prosecute those discriminating, not force information to become contraband.</comment>


Lisp in Small Pieces: Table of Contents and Code - <AUTHOR> http://pagesperso-systeme.lip6.fr/Christian.Queinnec/WWW/LiSP.html <comment><USER2> "This is an excellent book on Lisp implementation. You'll get a lot out of it, whether you are interested in writing compilers and interpreters (for Lisp or any language) or whether you just want to see how Lisp works. It is the modern day successor to Allen's "Anatomy of Lisp"." Peter Norvig

</comment><comment><USER3> Another interesting book on implementing Lisp (from a C perspective) is [http://www.buildyourownlisp.com/](http://www.buildyourownlisp.com/).

Also, Lithp from fogus [http://fogus.me/fun/lithp/](http://fogus.me/fun/lithp/) is a nice and brief exploration of implementing Lisp in Python and good example of literate programming.

<comment><USER4> Another interesting lisp is Maru [http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/157xdz/maru_is_...](http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/157xdz/maru_is_a_symbolic_expression_evaluator_that_can/)

from I. Piumarta (Inria, VPRI), sophisticated yet beautiful C code.

<comment><USER3> 1750 lines of fascinating C [encompassing an garbage collector and user-level implementations of user-defined types and structures, single-dispatch object- oriented "messaging", and generic "multimethods"]

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Could someone give an advice on how to grok Lisp, please?

I write Clojure code, read Lisp books, articles etc.

But I don't feel 'magic' yet.

How did you get 'addicted' to Lisps?

<comment><USER6> The one feature that really differentiates Lisp from other languages is its macro system. Macros allow you to give arbitrary semantic meaning to an expression. The expression (a b c) could quite literally do anything. It could set the value of b to the value of c (setf), it could call the procedure named by c with the value of b and store that value back into b, or define a class called b which has a local variable called c. Macros allow programmers to build arbitrarily complex DSLs all within Lisp.

A couple examples of some really great macros are those in _PAIP_ [0]. In particular, look at the defrule macro[1][2] for a version of mycin[3]. The macro defrule is a DSL for creating rules about how to diagnose different bacteria. Also look at the rule macro[4][5] for defining DCGs[6], a way to parse natural language.

A great way to learn more about macros is through reading _On Lisp_ [7], in which Paul Graham explores some of the really crazy things that are possible with macros, including implementing continuations[8], creating a DSL for ATNs[9] (another way to parse natural language), and even implementing an object system.

[0] [http://norvig.com/paip.html](http://norvig.com/paip.html)

[1] [http://norvig.com/paip/mycin-r.lisp](http://norvig.com/paip/mycin-r.lisp)

[2] [http://norvig.com/paip/mycin.lisp](http://norvig.com/paip/mycin.lisp)

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

[4] [http://norvig.com/paip/grammar.lisp](http://norvig.com/paip/grammar.lisp)

[5] [http://norvig.com/paip/unifgram.lisp](http://norvig.com/paip/unifgram.lisp)

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

[7] [http://www.paulgraham.com/onlisp.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/onlisp.html)

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

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

<comment><USER7> > The one feature that really differentiates Lisp from other languages is its > macro system.

That's not exactly true. There are many languages, both old and new, which provide macro systems comparable to defmacro and/or syntax-rules. Dylan, Nimrod, Julia and Elixir come to mind.

I personally don't think there's one feature which makes lisps this great. It's really the whole experience, from syntax to repls to tools and so on.

<comment><USER8> The counterargument has been that while other languages may provide powerful macro systems, they're not as easy to use, nor are they homoiconic.

<comment><USER7> That's not quite true either. Julia, Prolog, Io are homoiconic, for example. Ease of use is subjective, but most AST based macro systems work in the same way defmacro does, using quote and unquote. Then there's Scheme and syntax- rules, which are (arguably) even easier to get right (not necessarily to use) and which don't even need homoiconicity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Off-topic:

I know this is a long stretch, but if any of you bought a used copy of LiSP from someone in Virginia, USA, please can you check if your copy has a telephone number hand written on inside of the right cover? It's the only contact I had to my step-father and I have not heard from him since. We haven't been in touch since my mother's passing.

<comment><USER10> It might be worth also asking on the newsgroup c.l.l and the irc channel #lisp on freenode.

<comment><USER11> and reddit !

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The title appears to indicate that the book would be available for download (free), but this does not appear to be the case. Am I overinterpreting or missing something?

<comment><USER13> No. The linked page is essentially an advertisement. (But the book is well worth buying.)

<comment><USER14> Yea, an article reviewing the book might be appropriate but this isn't, especially since it is £66. And no prelude to prerequisite skills is discussed.

 _edit_ Google helped me find the front matter: [http://assets.cambridge.org/97805215/45662/frontmatter/97805...](http://assets.cambridge.org/97805215/45662/frontmatter/9780521545662_frontmatter.pdf)</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Accelerator wants up to 23% equity? - <AUTHOR> My startup has been approached by an accelerator with an unusual structure. The numbers I'm giving below aren't exact, but represent the general structure of the accelerator.
1. They admit a small cohort in which they give all startups ~$70,000 for 7% of their company.
2. After a few months they give half of the startups an additional $50,000 for 4%.
3. After a few more months they give two of the startups an additional $50,000 for 2%.
4. Finally, they give one company ~$150,000 for 10%.
They then want you to raise a Round A after having given away ~23% of your company. They want you to raise with the VCs who fund this accelerator.
Is this a typical accelerator structure? My cofounder and I think that the initial $70,000 for 7% would be enough to bring our product to market, but our contact at the accelerator disagrees.
Does anyone have any experience with this kind of approach from an accelerator? Does this seem more or less preferable than what other accelerators offer? <comment><USER2> There are basically three accelerators which are widely regarded as value- adding: YC, 500 Startups, and Techstars. The field is otherwise littered with options which have yet to demonstrate value add and which offer terms which are not considered very competitive relative to the standard terms in the Valley.

I have no dog in this fight and don't know anything about the particulars of your accelerator, but those terms strike me as somewhere between "Uncompetitive with your best options" and "Run screaming."

<comment><AUTHOR> >I have no dog in this fight and don't know anything about the particulars of your accelerator, but those terms strike me as somewhere between "Uncompetitive with your best options" and "Run screaming."

That's the same impression we got. I was hoping to get an outside opinion.

Our contact told us (straight-faced) that no software company could be started for $70,000 and I immediately thought of Bingo Card Creator.

Thanks for your input Patrick.

<comment><USER2> BCC probably isn't the comparable you want if you're on the investment track.

There exist _many_ companies which can get enough proof points for a sizable seed round or A round on $70k (chiefly spent on living expenses of founders as they build product and attempt to get some evidence that it is useful and salable). YC's history is chock full of examples.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Whether this is a good deal depends on many specifics, all of which revolve around how much risk the accelerator is taking.

Do you (and/or the team if there is one) have a track record? Prototype? Product? Customers? Traction? Brand recognition?

If you went through that and answered "yes" to more than one of those things, then 23% plus the other terms -- like investor lock-in -- seem onerous and excessive. I see people raise seed rounds for more money on the strength of team + idea with no product for less of a percentage than that.

So if you're not just at pure idea stage, run away screaming with arms flailing in the air like you're running away from the monster in a cheesy 80s horror flick.

Also, in business "unusual structure" always makes me skeptical, especially if it's complicated or has a bunch of restrictions hanging all over it like this one looks like it does. Outside the wonkier areas of finance, typically there is no value in the actual structure of a deal itself -- all the value is in what the deal is _about_. Complex deals usually mean someone feels screwed or you spend a lot of time wrangling the deal which takes away from the time you should be spending building something.

General sense: run.

</comment><comment><USER4> Are the startups allowed to decline the follow-on funding? Without that, run a mile

If I was a year or so into a startup, had already taken on ~$170k in funding for ~15% of my startup, and shown enough traction to be judged the most promising startup, then I very much doubt that I'd either see ~$150k as either a fair valuation for another 10% of my startup or a useful amount of capital to raise. (Also, with the approximate numbers you've provided, it effectively represents a "down round" compared with the last tranche of funding which is an odd way to _reward_ the best startup in the batch)

</comment><comment><USER5> If steps 2-4 are optional, then you're fine. Step 1 is reasonable. Not great, but ok. If $70K would make a difference for you, such as allowing you to bring a product to market, then it's worth considering.

If all steps are required (can be forced by the incubator), then say no.

[source: I used to run an incubator that I believe provides value]

</comment><comment><USER6> Is this for common or preferred stock?</comment>


How AI/ML algorithms from Google/Msft/AWS see nudity in images - <AUTHOR> https://dataturks.com/blog/image-moderation-api-comparison.php <comment><AUTHOR> There still seems to be 10% gap between these ML APIs to miss-classify images, might be a case where they have been trained very conservatively to filter out even a little bit show of skin. Wonder how others are moderating their UGC images? (Seems social networks like FB don't do any moderation, have been embarrassed many times when an explicit image shows up on my wall :P )

</comment><comment><USER2> Looking at the report, guess its good time to replace those millions of manual moderators.

<comment><AUTHOR> I would strongly disagree, moderators apart from filtering nudity also apply a lot of business rules while filtering content even the report says that the best recall is around 90% which leaves a fair bit of stuff that still needs to pass human evaluation. May be that's why folks like youtube employee ten of thousands of moderator in countries like India or philipines.

<comment><USER2> I think the number of employees required might be way lesser now, Just to verify near threshold courses.</comment></comment></comment>