Samsung 'blocks' exploding Note 7 parody videos - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-37713939 <comment><USER2> Wonder if the attention put on YouTube here will inspire Google to fix the financial and political 'infringement' takedowns.

Eg, during the takedown process, have something like:

> [ ] I understand that satire and political commentary does not in itself > consititute copyright infringement, and that I am not filing this notice on > the basis of the video satirizing or making commentary on my copywritten > content.

> [ ] I understand that incorrectly flagging satirical or commentary videos > that mention my trademarks but do not infringe upon my trademark rights may > delay response to future infringement filings.

Or something similar. IANAL. Complainants must tick the boxes to be able to submit.

<comment><USER3> How about an alternative to YouTube? It's such a pity that online videos have become so centralized ...

<comment><USER4> It is a money-losing game (free video hosting/streaming), unless you re- appropriate user provided content to extort ad revenue (a la Content ID)?

UPDATE:

Let me add, if somebody would be willing to subsidize such a service (large co, or gov), it would be possible to compete (market share, not ad revenue obviously).

<comment><USER5> > Let me add, if somebody would be willing to subsidize such a service (large > co, or gov)

Except that such a large co or gov would probably not allow certain videos against itself. Can I force them to host it against their wishes?

I don't mean to add this link sarcastically: [https://youtu.be/8CMxDNuuAiQ](https://youtu.be/8CMxDNuuAiQ) Maybe we have hope with ipfs? It looks promising to me [https://www.reddit.com/r/ipfs/comments/4eyc3v/ipfstube_a_pla...](https://www.reddit.com/r/ipfs/comments/4eyc3v/ipfstube_a_player_for_videos_stored_in_ipfs/)

Edit: obligatory sample video [https://ipfstube.erindachtler.me/v/QmPCTWTWqrDqRpquM4rqAmgBN...](https://ipfstube.erindachtler.me/v/QmPCTWTWqrDqRpquM4rqAmgBNL94m5UaWNFbz8HNeR49j2)

<comment><USER4> No, I understood you.

Benevolent 501c3, maybe?

Really, the answer would be in symmetric last-mile internet connections, no? Having the ability to host and distribute/stream video would change many things in these industries.

<comment><USER6> As an aside, why aren't symmetric last-mile Internet connections a thing? Is it a technical, physical capacity thing, is it a customer demand thing, or what? The last time I had symmetric bandwidth was back in the days of ISDN.

<comment><USER7> Combination of things. For fiber, direct Ethernet connections, etc that have clearly separated channels symmetric is fairly common. In ADSL and cable network the spectrum is shared for up- and download channels, so they have to balance it. And since marketing mostly happens over download speeds and most people don't upload very much, offering eg. 50/10 instead of 30/30 makes more sense.

I don't know why basically all providers don't allow to adjust the ratio, I suspect to much "complexity" for to little demand. (Quite a while back a German ISP had that for their ADSL connections, was popular with web developers and other professionals that needed fast upload occasionally)

<comment> gm-conspiracy People don't upload very often because their upstream sucks.

This is chicken-and-egg bullshit.

I am sure it is not that difficult to provision.

The area I resided in, had only DSL.

Later, a cable company ran FTTP, with a ONT outside, that converted the fiber to coax-DOCSIS, and then requires the usage of a cable modem? The ONT has a RJ-45 port, but the cable company does not know how to enable it.

The DSL was oversubscribed, and provisioned for less than 6Mbps/768kbps. However, it was only $35/mo.

Once the cable company offered service, it was $60 (plus modem rental or purchase) for 6Mbps/1Mbps.

Many people switched to the fake-fiber cable network, freeing up capacity on the DSL, so now the DSL is provisioned at 12Mbps, but upload is still 768kbps, and still $35/mo.

To get 5Mbps upload via the cable company would require a plan costing over $100/mo. That is their upper limit of upload speed. They can do 105Mbps down (closer to $150/mo), but 5Mbps up is the max.

I would love to have even 3Mbps upstream from the DSL provider

For now, I can use LTE for periodic uploading, where I can get 20 to 50Mbps, but I am paying much more for that privilege.

But, when time is money, I cannot afford to wait 3 hours for data to transfer at 768kbps (not considering encapsulation - yes, the DSL is PPPoE).

<comment><USER8> "Later, a cable company ran FTTP, with a ONT outside, that converted the fiber to coax-DOCSIS, and then requires the usage of a cable modem? The ONT has a RJ-45 port, but the cable company does not know how to enable it."

Not to sound rude, but you don't actually believe that, do you?

<comment> gm-conspiracy No offense taken.

I agree, it sounds like total BS to me. But, I am not surprised considering it is a cable company.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I love you all. :-)

Here we are again, and this thread is full of comments about whether this was afoul of DMCA or whether there's a way to adjust the system so that these claims will be more costly to the claimant.

We need to break open the head here, people! We're scientists, right? Step back from your political ideologies and your fears and tell me what the real problem is with this biological system.

Right: it's that a single actor can make the decision to censor these things. It's fundamentally a weak link problem.

Whether or not we fix DMCA, which I'm sure we will, we need to fix the problem that the weak link exists in the first place. A centralized Youtube will not do for the information age. Our organism must build immunity such that, no matter the tantrums of the state, nobody is _capable_ of giving in and handing over the lollipop.

<comment><USER10> I can't fix the problem so it's up to you. Good luck.

Increasingly, we live in a world of corporate ownership. Not private property.

<comment><USER11> Or more precisely, a world of rent-seeking instead of innovation. Society's consumption is constantly shifting away from traditional corporate interests. However, the one thing people will always need to consume is housing. I think this is why we're seeing property prices skyrocket - people with money realize the best and safest place for their money is property since it will always be in demand.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> By uploading a parody video of a Samsung Galaxy exploding, I don't understand how there is a law being broken? Can someone explain how this is a copyright issue?

<comment><USER13> You're right. Satire is fair use.

<comment><USER14> This isn't even a fair use defense, and I'm utterly baffled why anyone (let alone most people) in this thread seems to think it is.

Copyright does not protect Samsung from having their products rendered (in other words, I'm not breaking the law by drawing a picture of a Samsung phone) or their name mentioned.

Copyright does not protect marks, that's Trademarks.

Copyright does not protect basic look and feel.

There's no fair use defense here because there is no legitimate claim of infringement. Just because someone at Samsung clicked the "this is infringing" box does not A) make it true, or B) require the video author to defend themselves.

This is basically like Samsung trying to DMCA a newspaper from mentioning their name or publishing a picture of their phone.

<comment><USER15> >This is basically like Samsung trying to DMCA a newspaper from mentioning their name or publishing a picture of their phone.

I have no doubt that companies would do that if they could. Fortunately such draconian censorship methods aren't as effective against print media, especially when said media is ephemeral in the first place.

If the goal of the DMCA is to protect creative works, then it's a huge failure no matter how you look at it. Not only is it being used as a weapon against people who are actually creating innovative and original works, it is useless for protecting those very same individuals. The creative work of individuals is stolen and shared millions of times each day on sites like Facebook, imgur, tumblr, and instagram, generating ad revenue for the parent site, and followers for the pages and individuals committing the thefts, and leaving the creators of the content with nothing.

You can submit a takedown request as an individual, but by the time it's honored the post was old news anyways.

I don't have YouTube right now, but here's an article that gives a good rundown of the Facebook video controversy: [http://www.businessinsider.com/how-facebook-is-stealing- bill...](http://www.businessinsider.com/how-facebook-is-stealing-billions-of- views-youtube-video-goes-viral-2015-11)

Edit: And another link which goes in to a bit more depth: [http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-copyright- infringeme...](http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-copyright-infringement- facebook-content-id-celebrities-2015-5)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> It's a funny story but also shows how pathetic (IMO) some companies and organizations become. They just don't realize the cat is already out the bag. "Damage control" should not be used for censorship. This is clearly fair use (satire).

And in general about YouTube and similar companies: This is what happens when the court principle of innocent until proven guilty is inverted to be guilty until proven innocent.

There is a reason why freedom of speech is the first amendment in the US constitution, and Google (and other companies) should adhere and respect the intentions behind it.

</comment><comment><USER17> Oh boy, Streisand effect in full swing. Block a YouTube video and now get to the front page of the BBC.

<comment><USER18> Sadly I don't think Samsung has to worry about the Streisand effect: how much worse can it really get for them?

This is just damage control for their products not to become complete jokes.

<comment><USER19> But Samsung has now become a joke for trying to take down the original jokes. I don't see how anyone at, or working for, Samsung felt this was in the company's best interest.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> The good thing is, that after they blocked it. It appears EVERYWHERE in the news, so EVERYBODY see's it. Instead of some people (gamer community).

The block backfired.

</comment><comment><USER21> Update: video(s?) is back up: [http://kotaku.com/youtube-blocks-samsungs- takedown-of-gta-v-...](http://kotaku.com/youtube-blocks-samsungs-takedown-of- gta-v-note-7-bomb-v-1788042206)

<comment><USER22> The video appears to have had a few tens of thousand views before Samsung's complaint. Two days later, it's nearing 1.4 million views.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GhODn4FRoE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GhODn4FRoE)

Nice job Samsung!

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Like this? [https://media.giphy.com/media/3oz8xAfsxiA9aBytq0/source.gif](https://media.giphy.com/media/3oz8xAfsxiA9aBytq0/source.gif)

</comment><comment><USER13> Satire is fair use. Someone should sue Samsung, Get Lawrence Lessig on this!

<comment><USER24> US government just needs to enforce laws against corporations abusing the DMCA. Samsung committed perjury by saying they hold the copyright to these videos.

<comment><USER25> Not quite. Samsung claimed they own the copyright to some work, and that this video is in violation of such copyright (for example, the videos could include a photo or text owned by Samsung). I don't think the perjury clause applies if they're just wrong about the latter.

<comment><USER24> They claimed copyright on a Grand Theft Audio screen capture video that had the grenade model substituted for a cell phone. No way you could argue you own copyright on that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I feel like the best thing Samsung could do for themselves right now from a PR perspective is just apologize and shut up.

</comment><comment><USER27> methinks this will only lead to the barbra streisand effect.

<comment><USER28> I'd not heard of it until now. Streisand is in full effect.

I've also grabbed a copy of the mod in case they decide to abuse copyright to take that down too, pretty sure I can upload it to sites faster than they can DMCA them. The real lesson here is don't make exploding phones.

<comment><USER29> I have to bitch about Samsung once more, because their batteries are absolute shit and puff up even if charged with their original charger in the original phone, and so innocently the batteries' warranty is 6 month but they puff up and decrease in capacity dramatically after 7-8 months of use.

<comment><USER30> I have to agree. I should have learned my lesson after the Galaxy S2 Mini I had, but I went and got the S4 Mini anyway. I regret it now - after 18 months it barely lasts a day with me not doing much with it and gets very hot. Last Samsung I bought for a long time, that's for sure.

<comment><USER31> It getting hot just sitting there would be more a sign of some background process that is running the CPU at full tilt. I've had the same thing happen to a Blackberry and a Nokia Windows Phone.

Either way, it's a crummy situation to deal with. Sometimes rebooting helps.

<comment><USER30> Yeah when I notice it getting hot I usually reboot to kill any background processes. Typically what happens is I put it away and pick it up half an hour later only to see that it's dropped like 10% battery. My next smartphone purchase will be almost entirely based on battery life.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> This is why we need strict, very harsh penalties for abuse of copyright (and patent laws). This has NOTHING to do with copyright, yet these Samsung assholes file claims with Youtube? How about 1% net revenue fine for every wrongful copyright claim (like, but not limited to, a bad DMCA claim), increasing by 1% (with no limit other than at 100% you lose the business) for every wrongful subsequent claim? But of course, this will never happen. Personally, I see these kinds of attacks as justification for piracy and the willful disobedience of our incredibly stupid laws (in the US).

</comment><comment><USER33> Is there a major mobile phone producer with lower morals than Samsung?

<comment><USER34> Apple comes to mind.

<comment><USER35> Your getting downvoted beacuse morals only apply to people in the same social caste as you.

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

<comment><USER36> And I am sure that employees working at factories that make parts for other manufacturers absolutely never kill themselves due to their work, and that foxconn never supplies parts for anyone else but Apple?

Let's be realistic for a second.

<comment><USER35> From the wiki

"Fell from apartment building[11] after losing an iPhone prototype in his possession.[12] Prior to death, he claimed he was beaten and his residence searched by Foxconn employees."

<comment><USER36> And if Apple used any other factory in China it wouldn't have happened? Or are you saying that Apple murdered someone?

<comment><USER10> > And if Apple used any other factory in China it wouldn't have happened?

It could have happened in another factory. However, it surely wouldn't have happened in every single factory. And it _shouldn 't_ have happened in any factory. If large corps like Apple are in a position to influence a change such than things like this do not happen in the factories they rely on, then perhaps it is their moral responsibility to do so. If not them, who else would do it?

<comment><USER36> The government of the country those factories are operating in, perhaps???

<comment><USER35> So manifest destiny is your arugment essentially?

<comment><USER36> I literally had no idea what that was, and after googling it have no clue how it relates. So the answer is - I don't know.

<comment><USER35> Colonial Americans believed that they were right in displacing native Americans due to that fact that God did not stop them from doing so. Basically its moral as long as nobody stops you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Dear Samsung, Still lot to do -[https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/20/obama- roasts-samsung-over-...](https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/20/obama-roasts- samsung-over-burning-phones/)

</comment><comment><USER38> I never would have seen the video without the 'block'. Thanks Samsung, that was funny!

</comment><comment><USER39> I don't know what's the most abused laws are, but I'd say copyright would probably be in the top 10 list if there was such a list. I wish people who abuse copyright takedowns repeatedly would get a large fine. Then the fine should be split between the uploader and service provider. Plus the takedown abuser should have to pay all legal fees on top of the fine.

</comment><comment><USER40> Such attempts have rarely gone successful in past. May be the Streisand effect will be known as Samsung effect

</comment><comment><USER41> Maybe this has nothing to do with DMCA and more to do with Samsung spending millions of dollars in advertising on Youtube (speculation). If one of your major sponsors threatens to pull back advertising dollars, that supports your platform, maybe you bow to their requests. Maybe.

</comment><comment><USER42> Boy, this is really going to blow up in their face.

</comment><comment><USER43> This is the abuse of the copyright system people warned about and YouTube downplayed.

</comment><comment><USER44> So this means that Samsung could ask that any video which shows their phones to be removed from the internet? Because it is a copyright claim...

</comment><comment><USER45> Samsung must really not want to be in the mobile phone business anymore. The dim-witted actions they're taking in regards to these videos will only turn more people off. I for one will never consider a Samsung product now, and not just their mobile phones. They're set to join Sony on my relatively short "do not buy" list.

</comment><comment><USER46> Like it'll work?

With Halloween coming up, expect plenty of pics and videos of people wearing Samsung Note 7 wrapped around them as a suicide vest.

</comment><comment><USER47> Here are a couple of the videos with what I believe is the content:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enK5XGETCZM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enK5XGETCZM)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQjAM94W23Q](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQjAM94W23Q)

</comment><comment><USER48> Naturally I now want to see all of them.

</comment><comment><USER49> I guess Samsung will keep a lonely Sony company on my "do not buy list", too bad. BTW, in the US, last I heard Parodies is a protected form of speech. So I think DoctorGTA has the law on his/her side (assuming he is living in the US).

</comment><comment><USER50> There seems to be a lot of people saying the government should do something about this.

Keep in mind, this is not related to DMCA or copyright at all: this is a software system in use by a private company. No laws were broken, it is just extremely scummy behavior.

</comment><comment><USER51> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect)

<comment><USER52> No shit. Is that the best you can do? Link to Wikipedia for the Streisand effect when the story already explains what that is?

I might follow your lead and add links to Wikipedia's entry for...

GTA V: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Theft_Auto_V](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Theft_Auto_V)

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

and Youtube: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube)

Just in case anyone out there has NFI what these are.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> Have they never heard of the Streisand effect?

</comment><comment><USER54> How do you say Streisand Effect in Korean?

</comment><comment><USER55> I even heard Obama making a quip about the Note catching fire. Are they going to send him a reprimand as well? :)

</comment><comment><USER56> Better title: Samsung sends copyright claim for exploding Note 7 parody videos

</comment><comment><USER57> I love such news, their comment threads are the best source of funny Note 7 jokes :)

I can't find it now but I saw an image of a terrorist with a Note 7 belt under his jacket. Nice.

Why can't they think of a fun way to deal with this PR disaster, how hard can it be? Jeez what are they thinking??

<comment><USER58> Samsung probably gave ideas to terrorists

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> Typical Samsung

</comment><comment><USER60> I would love a note 7

</comment><comment><USER61> Internet censorship concerns, video games, faulty technology, and a big tech firm threatening legal action... No wonder this is top ranked on Hacker News.

</comment><comment><USER62> Why would Google want to leave up a video that ridicules their top hardware partner? YouTube isn't a public service.

<comment><USER63> According to a recent UN report to be released in a few months and which I've gotten an advanced copy of, YCombinator is the worst organization in the history of modern civilization.

That was a satirical sentence. Now let's examine your argument as applied directly to this very comment. Why is it in YCombinator's (the organization that runs this forum we're both posting in) interest to "keep up" this comment, which is obviously satirical by being over-the-top.

Because the default is "keeping up."

They would be crazy to remove it, which won't happen. The situation might be different if this were a new account not making a valid, albeit satirical, point. The fact that "YCombinator is not a public service" is not right, because yes, in some ways, Hacker News _is_ a public service in a sense, and so is YouTube.

Maybe not exactly, but it is not highly administered to promote only a single thought.

 _Note: I want to add the disclaimer that I really actually don 't have negative feelings about YCombinator, in case someone misunderstands. I'm literally just making a point by showing that just because they run this service doesn't mean they would remove a comment like this one. You need really, really good reason to remove something. By default things stay up._

<comment><USER63> I've been downvoted, but I think people didn't get my point at all. There is no _way_ that YCombinator is removing this comment, just because they host this platform, and for emphasis I pretend to be critical.

There is no WAY youtube would remove a video of an exploding samsung, just because samsung is a partner.

<comment><USER64> The downvote(s) on your comment were really saddening, though I was expecting exactly that when reading it few hours ago. This is sadly a trend with any discussion platform becoming "popular" past a certain threshold - the presence of forum warriors who "moderate" the content based on the few initial words is only going to rise up until everything becomes Reddit.

That said, I think your post was well written and right on spot - but the first sentence is a so obvious trigger that there are always going to be people that won't even bother reading past it. After all, there's so much to moderate and --- "Oh, hey! There's another post that looks dangerous! I've just noticed some words!"

<comment><USER63> On reflection and keeping the very useful posting guidelines in mind, I edited my comment into its present form, likely after you read it. (The original first sentence originally contained over-the-top trigger words like literally being an example of Godwin's law, as a demonstration that this was insufficent to cause it's removal.) I decided to edit it into its (still satirical) present form because the HN guidelines about making substantive comments are good and improve the site for everyone. Although the original phrasing invoking Godwin's law still wouldn't have been removed, and therefore still would have served as an apt demonstration, I think the present phrasing is better.

Actually the fact that my original phrasing did not meet the nominal guidelines on civility (because it invoked Godwin's law) whereas this one does is an important point: after all the video obeys YouTube's nominal guidelines. (For example it doesn't contain nudity.) So my present, quite civil (in line with HN guidelines) phrasing is the best analogy/demonstration.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> These people are so dumb and just don't get "it." Samsung is so dumb, they are very dumb, for real. So dumb, so dumb, so dumb, so.... they climbing in your windows trying to rape your GTA and youtube accounts. ([0])

All this is going to do is encourage tens of thousands of young kids to figure out what things like "DRM", "free speech", "EFF", "privacy", "copyright" and the like mean. Maybe we get a few good lawyers out of this, a lot of great parody and a lot of great art.

[0] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEAKsaQOCpQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEAKsaQOCpQ)</comment>


Airline fails after China labels Palau an 'illegal destination' - <AUTHOR> https://www.hongkongfp.com/2018/07/18/airline-says-shut-china-labelled-palau-illegal-destination-taiwan-recognition/ <comment><USER2> Illegal because they, Palau, dejure recognize Taiwan as a sovereign nation. A strong-arming tactic to get small (and not so small) countries to go along with the farce.

Ultimately, China will win... what they achieve geographically is another story. Taiwan is not going to revert voluntarily.

<comment><USER3> Is this any different than the US hurting companies that do business with Iran? Do you also consider the Iran sanctions a farce?

<comment><USER4> Yes. One could always complain about both, but yes there is a difference. The US doesn't try to punish companies that come from countries that merely acknowledge Iran as a sovereign nation. Nor does the US insist that anybody who claims Iran is not part of America be banned from doing business in America. I think there's certainly a difference.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > "We have tried everything we can to advertise and promote Palau in China's > tourism market. We spent more than USD$1 million on promoting Palau > annually," the airline's statement said.

A big marketing mistake IMO. This is not the first time China has shown their teeth to impose the "One China Policy". Ignore them and hit on emerging markets, like India.

</comment><comment><USER6> Isn't the same as what the USA did against Cuba or Iran or some countries against Israel?

Boycotts are quite powerful tools to achieve your goal so it make sense that country try this.

<comment><USER3> Ore more recently ZTE and Iran.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I wonder if the President has considered recognizing Taiwan. What would the ramifications be? Call the Chinese bluff. It's the right thing to do, and if the US will, I think others will follow.

</comment><comment><USER8> This might be blessing in disguise for Palau - it will be devoid of Chinese tourists and a quieter place for other tourists.

<comment><USER9> Not if no other airline would fly there.

Cases like these is why nations should preserve national airlines at all costs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Delta airlines, which serviced between Japan and Palau also exited the market. Looks like it's not profitable.

<comment><USER11> Do we know why Delta exited? Maybe China pressured them too.

<comment><USER10> [https://www.saipantribune.com/index.php/delta-end-flights- sa...](https://www.saipantribune.com/index.php/delta-end-flights-saipan- palau/)

<comment><USER11> Thanks for the link. Excerpted:

 _In a statement, Hiroko Okada from the corporate communications department of Delta Air Lines attributed this decision to "unsustainable pressure," including lower demand, in the Micronesia market._

and

 _The shrinking Japanese market that travels to the Pacific and Micronesia was prevalent and the service flights cuts were inevitably foreseen.

Concepcion said that MVA saw it with Delta's pullout in Guam, United Airlines' nearly 50-percent reduction in flights between Japan and Guam, and now with Delta's flight suspension for Saipan and Palau._

At least, there's plenty of support for Leary's claim.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Sick of this shit quite frankly. Western nations need to grow some balls and start to resist this narrative. I was extremely pleased when Trump acknowledged Taiwanese congratulations. This was the right thing to do, and I was appalled when many criticised him for this. China is one of the most illiberal up and comers on the world stage.

<comment><USER12> Taiwan (or Republic of China) had chance to be separated from China before People's Republic of China took the China seat in UN. The government refused to change to Taiwan because both the government and people consider ROC as the China. Of course opinion and education changed especially young people's opinion, but legally Taiwan is still Republic of China unless they change their constitution. And their constitution claims whole China and Mongolia as their land. China of course, legally required to see Palau as illegal in order not to lose claim on Taiwan. At least it is not putting sanction to every country and company does business with Taiwan. There is nothing wrong with it. Similar to Cuba and Iran with US.

<comment><USER13> > There is nothing wrong with it.

You are either mainland Chinese, cruel, or woefully uninformed (or all of the former).

Taiwan is not some rogue state with dubious alliances — like Cuba could be considered in the previous century — it is a democratic nation with a healthy economy and all the trappings of a modern nation-state; except for the official recognition which it can't get due to China's (the People's Republic (PRC) that is) bullying on the world stage.

The PRC does what it does because it can get away with it. That's a basic Realist attitude that works for them. The PRC won't likely release their claim on Taiwan any time soon, because of its economic/military aspirations in the South China Sea (cf. their dubious claims on the Paracel and Spratly Islands). The rest of the world won't upset the balance because of China's economic importance. It could if it wanted to, but that would require the US and the EU to present a common front on the issue (not very likely right now).</comment></comment></comment>


Hardware Designs Should Be Free. Here's How to Do It - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/2015/03/richard-stallman-how-to-make-hardware-designs-free/ <comment><USER2> It's a shame RMS made no reference to the current activity around RISC-V [http://riscv.org/](http://riscv.org/) a freely implementable instruction set architecture with BSD-licensed reference implementation.

At lowRISC [http://lowrisc.org/](http://lowrisc.org/) we aim to produce a fully open source SoC and produce it in volume. The aim is open source down to the HDL - that is the Verilog (or in this case Chisel) that describes the hardware. There is an extra step of place and routing the design for a specific process, but ultimately this relies on a process design kit for the process in question which comes with stringent NDAs. We are actually fortunate enough to be taking part as a mentoring organisation in Google Summer of Code in collaboration with a number of our friends in the wider open source software and hardware communities, so if you're a student and open hardware interests you there's an opportunity to get paid to contribute over the summer [http://www.lowrisc.org/docs/gsoc-2015-ideas/](http://www.lowrisc.org/docs/gsoc-2015-ideas/)

<comment><USER3> It was in Wired magazine, I'm sure that he needed to write with a certain level of concision. You might want to email him at rms at gnu dot org ... I've got to imagine he would support your efforts, and FSF has a hardware certification program, so couldn't hurt to try to open a line of communication

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It would probably help if RMS understood a little about how inventors of hardware circuitry make a living instead of posting from a position of almost complete ignorance.

Circuit topologies certainly can be patented. "Copyright" is an irrelevant concept here. The IP doesn't reside in a copyable drawing or shape, but in the commercial value of the topology.

What matters isn't the graphical or notional arrangement of the components, but the fact that the arrangement provides a novel and unique solution to a specific problem and/or implements a significant new capability.

Licensees can then pay for the right to use the topology in their own products.

If you want to make your topology free, you can simply release it into the public domain. Prior art rules will then make it very hard to patent.

The various CC/GPL licenses make little or no sense in this context, because most hardware topologies aren't directly copyable without modification and tuning.

Besides, a lot of designs already use standard topologies. There's no patent on many standard digital and analog design elements because they're already in the public domain.

Some of them have been in the public domain for decades.

<comment><USER5> So what you're saying is hardware is justifiably patent-able in the same way that software currently is.

<comment><USER6> I think that's the opposite of what the GP is saying. The thesis seems to be that hardware is patentable because what matters is not the schematic/topology, but the physically manufactured circuit board, whereas in software you can directly copy an algorithm. It's the "you wouldn't download a car" differentiation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Hardware designs require prototyping for any significant amount of complexity. Prototyping requires a back and forth costing many thousands of dollars. Obviously RMS didn't read this: [http://www.mauve.plus.com/opensourcehw.txt](http://www.mauve.plus.com/opensourcehw.txt)

<comment> TD-Linux >Prototyping requires a back and forth costing many thousands of dollars.

This is a problem that is being rapidly solved in the OSHW community, with low cost PCB prototyping services such as OSH Park and similar. Something of the complexity of a laptop motherboard may still be in the thousands of dollars range, but a large variety of hardware is now incredibly affordable.

<comment><USER7> Even something like a low-cost phone would fall under this. Unless you're making a simple control board for a physical process, OSH Park won't cut it. And of course RMS is talking about computing. Anything at the general computer level is probably not going to work out unless it's really tiny.

<comment><USER3> RMS thinks on much longer timeline than many of us.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> TD-Linux This was an incredibly well written article. I didn't realize who had written it until it referenced the GPLv3. The arguments are convincing enough that I'm going to use GPLv3 rather than the Apache 2.0 license for my future open hardware work.

<comment><USER8> Why is the GPLv3 better than Apache 2.0 for HDL?

<comment> TD-Linux They are very similar. Both include an explicit patent grant. However, GPLv3 requires that redistributions keep the original HDL intact, which I prefer. Also, the fact that one of the primary authors considers it a good choice for hardware is also a factor.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> If I released my circuit boards as "free", then someone would complain that I didn't use KiCAD instead of Altium.

<comment><USER3> People love to complain no matter what you do... let them, they're killing themselves by doing that, not you. Just keep building the free world using the tools you have, and the rest of us will surely appreciate it.

<comment><USER9> Funny thing is, before the age of throw away electronics, one could get schematics for just about anything. Today I was fixing a Lambda (now TDK) high voltage supply. The service manual has detailed schematics, parts lists, and trouble shooting procedures. All Agilent and Tektronix equipment had service manuals. One could even go to Sears and buy parts to fix the toys they sold.

I don't know if it's really manufacturers trying to protect their IP, or just not wanting to spend resources on publishing schematics and dealing with the questions from the public.

<comment><USER10> I think it's related to both of those factors, but also the continued miniaturization of parts, and the shrinking of package sizes. Rework on modern day electronics is infeasible without somewhat expensive tools and a fair amount of skill.

<comment><USER11> > Rework on modern day electronics is infeasible without somewhat expensive > tools and a fair amount of skill.

Skill, yes. Expensive? Define that. A microscope, a heat gun, and a soldering iron total to about $3,000 for quite good ones.

<comment><USER12> So what, two orders of magnitude more than the gear you'd need to hack an Apple ][?

<comment><USER11> I was being _very_ generous (good microscope, high-end Oki heat gun and soldering iron which professionals would use).

Chinese imports are at the $100 range for the gun and iron. Microscope, probably not unless you can get by with a USB microscope of some form. Although, you can get by with the same stuff that jewelers use (glasses, loupes, etc.)

And, I'm sorry, but good tools for doing anything cost actual money. Anvils, sledgehammers, etc. all cost near $50+ or so.

However, you are _significantly_ underestimating the cost to hack on an Apple II. First, the Apple II was damn expensive--it was almost the price of a new _CAR_. Chips were way more expensive, and you needed a lot more of them. Edge connector cards and edge connectors were very expensive.

There was a reason why so many people loved the TRS-80 Color Computer for robotics and control applications for many years. It had analog ports you could get at with inexpensive connectors and the connector on the side had almost every digital signal and wasn't ferociously expensive (although, it wasn't cheap. IIRC, prototyping cards for it were in the $70 range in 1981).

Things are _WAY_ better now for the hobbyist even with surface mount technology.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Things used to be much better. Nearly all early computers included complete schematics. My first education about computer hardware came from studying the schematics of the Apple II.

<comment><USER14> Big, useful manuals scare neophytes. As such, the awesome schematics included on a lot of early systems were removed along with nearly the entirety of the manual because they just added bulk for the majority of users. Also, as boards have gotten more and more integrated, the value of those schematics for someone just getting into hardware has diminished. The boards are now 8+ layers, which means most of the traces are now hidden from view, and the components themselves tend to be little more than a fairly simple power regulator, big huge monolithic chips with hundreds of pins, a few filter capacitors, and a few pull up/down resistors. There's too much "there" there to really be useful for the beginner.

However, this is where the arduino is very useful. It's a small chip, and a small number of components, which would increase the value of having a schematic that people can trace, and keep in headspace what the various lines are doing. More than a bit of me thinks that the ARM chips that are starting to squish the 8/16 bit micro market from above may be useful here. A decent number of pins, decent speed, and something you can hack that does more than blink pretty lights. Perfect for giving a schematic that kids can follow and get to really understand what's going on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> For me the missing link in OSHW is proving the microscopic circuitry we depend on is the same as the design published by the chip designer. It's a form of hashing for circuitry.

Chinese intelligence agencies are convinced NSA pits back doors in their CPUs and HDD, the NSA are convinced the Chinese are doing it to them. And every other intelligence agency just throws it's hands up.

This situation could easily spiral downwards to a Halton of chip improvements, and yet an "institution" such as verifiable open hardware could let everyone trust again.

Bitcoin is not the only one needing global trust.

<comment><USER16> the solution here is to release the schematics, and the resaulting gate-level netlists. People who want to verify designs can use scan/jtag to verify that designs do waht they claim

<comment><USER15> I understood that jtag was effectively trusting what the circuit reports back - a bit like asking a binary to tell you it's own md5.

I am interested to know if I am wrong (it's not uncommon) and if scan chains might solve that too.

A different approach might be to fingerprint different areas of the chip under different inputs - so for example when this bus passes over a million zero words, everything connected to it performs in a unique way that would not work if the chip was physically different to it's schematic?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> There are fundamental flaws in this idea of trying to treat hardware as software. They are very different animals. A better designation might be "physical products". It seems these discussions tend to ignore the fact that physical products are not simply circuit boards with a handful of chips and code.

As an example, we developed an advanced high power LED light source. The design took a year of engineering. During this time hundreds of LED's and a myriad of circuit technologies and driving approaches were explored. Thermal management alone required six months of iterating through a family of designs. Initial designs were tested and fine tuned with thermal FEA tools and physical test candidates were machined in our CNC shop for real testing.

Past that, some of the advanced approaches we used required designing and building custom manufacturing tools and production test equipment.

Just think about the cost, not just in man-hours but also prototyping, testing, materials, regulatory, etc.

So it is because of this and over 30 years in the hardware manufacturing wold that I say, with all due respect, that the view being put forth is rather myopic and naive. Fine for little Arduino type gizmos and perhaps even some chips but it breaks down very quickly once you start to hit what I am going to call "the real world". This is where reproducing or iterating a design might require an infrastructure in the hundreds of thousands of dollars and potentially deep multidisciplinary capabilities.

In the software world any 15 year old with enough motivation to dive into a large open source project can do so armed with a $200 laptop. They can learn and iterate at practically no cost. Not so in the case of physical products.

</comment><comment><USER18> Another fundamental fact to consider is the benefits of having open hardware.

When I make software free, it can easily be forked, contributed, and can scale to thousands of contributors. Consider the cost in man-hours to write a patch for Linux.

Now I make my hardware free. How do you submit a patch to a piece of hardware? How many man-hours does it take? How do I test this said patch? How do I accept pull requests? Can a piece of hardware have thousands of contributors? It is definitely significantly less trivial, when compared to software, considering the special equipment one needs to design physical hardware.

A lot of the free software movement revolves around improving software because it is more open. If I release open hardware, I don't see how the same will hold true for free hardware. Open hardware is just a giveaway.

I believe hardware is more akin to art; no one submits a PR to the Mona Lisa.

<comment><USER12> I've gotten several pull requests to my free hardware design that I sell as my primary source of income. Granted, a PCB change is difficult to test given the minimum order quantity, but other physical designs like cases are easy to do a one-off if you have access to a laser cutter or 3D printer.

[https://github.com/technomancy/atreus/pull/4](https://github.com/technomancy/atreus/pull/4)

[https://github.com/technomancy/atreus/pull/10](https://github.com/technomancy/atreus/pull/10)

[https://github.com/technomancy/atreus/pull/15](https://github.com/technomancy/atreus/pull/15)

As someone mentioned elsewhere in the comments, RMS thinks on a much longer time scale than you and I. Prototyping PCBs is already dramatically easier than it was ten years ago; I'm convinced the cost and MOQ will only continue to drop.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> It's also a shame this article made no reference to the open hardware foundation ([http://www.oshwa.org](http://www.oshwa.org)) who've been doing an awesome job promoting open hardware.

</comment><comment><USER20> I feel like this is essential in pushing humanity forward. Once it becomes commonplace to build a business model around OSHW and drive freedom deeper down the stack we will be that much closer to a post-scarcity world.

</comment><comment><USER21> An interesting article in light of a brief conversation that I had with RMS in the early 2000s, after one of his lectures.

At the time I was involved with Opencores and asked RMS about his thoughts on Free Hardware. He was dismissive, on the basis that it wasn't software, so the four freedoms couldn't apply to it, therefore it was out of scope.

It's great that he has come around! I suspect that he hasn't so much shifted his position, as gained a better understanding of hardware and can now see the applicability. If only I had been able to give a better explanation at the time!

<comment><USER12> > I suspect that he hasn't so much shifted his position, as gained a better > understanding of hardware and can now see the applicability. If only I had > been able to give a better explanation at the time!

I suspect it has more to do with the improvements to fabrication technology since then; in particular the dramatically increased accessibility to your everyday hacker.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I have a "You can build my design, but you must send me a picture of the finished device, and let me post it on my blog" license for my stuff. It's surprising how many people don't even bother to do that.

<comment><USER23> I'm curious, what's the legal mechanism for your license?

<comment><USER22> CC Attribution Noncommercial Sharealike with the add-on that I want a picture.

<comment><USER23> No, I mean, what law would they be in breach of if they don't send a picture?

I'm guessing you won't take anyone to court over it, but if you did, how would you do it?

<comment><USER22> I personally wouldn't take someone to court over this, a slap in the face is sufficient. But if I were to, my understanding is that it's copyright infringment:

[http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2008/10/breach- conditions-...](http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2008/10/breach-conditions- free-and-open-source-software-licenses-may-constitute-copyright)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Booting an Intel Architecture System, Part I - <AUTHOR> http://drdobbs.com/parallel/232300699

<comment><USER2> It's a fairly comprehensive article, but it does seem to veer too far into "This happens and then this happens and then this happens" without providing a great deal of insight. There's oddness like "the Memory Management Unit (MMU), if it exists", when we can pretty much take as given that it does for the platforms he's discussing. And then "Some speculate that this feature is maintained in order to ensure that the platform can boot legacy code such as MS-DOS" - isn't the author in a position to give us facts rather than speculation?

I did learn things from this, but it's not especially well written. I think there's still plenty of scope for a series of articles that explains this with more background.

</comment><comment><USER3> In grad school, I made a presentation/walkthrough about what the Linux kernel does for an x86 system at boot-up: <http://people.cs.vt.edu/~scschnei/papers/boot_2up.pdf>

This article is from the hardware perspective. My walkthrough is the software side.

</comment><comment><USER4> Scary. Makes me wonder if it is really necessary...</comment>


Show HN: Use Python to safely run Postgres triggers - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/skamensky/plpy-wrapper <comment><AUTHOR> Hi Hacker News Readers!

This is my first submission here but I've been reading religiously for a year or so. You can use _plpy-wrapper_ as way to generate python trigger definitions which ensures some of the more obscure errors bubble up as actual exceptions (as opposed to noops).

Given that this is a wrapper-style library, more functionality can be added to complement the native _plpy_ module that postgres ships with.

I'd love any critique, suggestion, or input you may have.</comment>


Yahoo Shares Top $31, The Price Microsoft Offered In 2008 - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthof/2013/09/19/jerry-yangs-revenge-yahoo-shares-top-31-the-price-microsoft-offered-in-2008/

<comment><USER2> It should be noted that Yahoo owns 20% of Alibaba. With Alibaba announcing its IPO plans earlier this year, yahoo's stake is worth between $13B to $18B. Most of the share price increase is because of this. Not because Yahoo's core business has gotten better. Yahoo is worth $31B today. So almost 1/3 to 1/2 of Yahoo's valuation is its stake in Alibaba. In 2008, nobody knew how big Alibaba would get.

<comment><USER3> This is what should scare investors, look at the link below and you realize that Yahoo is a leader in none of their business. Google leads search, Facebook leads social, Twitter realtime news & events etc. [http://everything.yahoo.com/](http://everything.yahoo.com/)

They have a big bowl of goo right now. I was impressed with Marissa's stats during her Disrupt interview but a few days ago, i took a look at their business and they just have a bunch of mediocre properties with lots of link bait. This is how they getting so many views, a lot of gossip, lifestyle, tv clips. Even in the gossip side, tmz & others beat them there. Dan Loeb is a smart guy, he jumped out at the right time. I like Yahoo and hope they come up with something that they dominate. They destroyed their research departments, which were one of the best in the world and now when the market moves towards more intelligent backends as devices get smaller, they are stuck fighting for weather and gossip market space.

<comment><USER4> They might be the leader in fantasy sports. Obviously a small portion of overall eyeballs but eyeballs that refresh the site many times a day.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> With inflation that number is around $33 bucks. But jeez what a silly metric, who's happier that deal didn't happen - Yahoo or Microsoft?

<comment><USER6> Yahoo -- I think they were concerned about getting infected by M$'s culture.

<comment><USER7> At least they'd have a culture then.

<comment><USER6> At the time they felt very strongly about it. The employees were adamant about the fact that they had a certain way of doing things and they were concerned that Microsoft would disrupt whatever it was they had.

I don't know if it was the right thing for either party, but that's what happened.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The S&P 500 index was at around 1,300 at the beginning of 2008.

It's at around 1,700 today -- actually, a record high.

Of course, it reached as low as 700 to 800 in March 2009.

<comment><USER9> Quantitative easing is great... Mugabenomics forever!

"Priceline.com became the first company listed in the S&P 500 to trade at $1,000 in the index's 56-year history."

[http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2013/09/18/on-a-day-of- record...](http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2013/09/18/on-a-day-of-records-for- stocks-priceline-trades-above-1000/)

<comment><USER10> Inflation has more to do than with overt quantitative easing. Also, share price has no direct correlation to overall valuation; you have to throw in the number of shares and multiply.

<comment><USER11> Quantitative easing = inflation.

<comment><USER10> Quantitative easing causes inflation.

Inflation does not require quantitative easing.

<comment><USER11> Using equals was incorrect. I should have said: Quantitative easing -> inflation

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Yay, let's celebrate the underperforming. I suspect many Yahoo investors would rather have had their $31 5 years ago so they could have invested it in something that would actually grow.

Though, at least they've had better results than the MSFT investors.

<comment><USER13> Did you account for MSFT dividends?

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> bought yhoo at 26 usd, set a limit at 31, excellent!

i really believe in what melissa meyer's doing for the company, though i dont see them in the same vein as google, more so an online media company, not in terms of a true innovator which is fine because if you get that right, there's plenty of money to be made, buy!

</comment><comment><USER15> One interesting bit of Yahoo news. Yahoo in Australia is partnering with Adwords rather than Bing Ads. Wouldn't surprise me if all of Yahoo went that way once their contract with Microsoft is up.

Despite all the effort it doesn't really feel like Bing Ads is on the map compared to Adwords.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Anybody know what Yang is doing following his resignation last year?

<comment><USER16> Crunchbase lists a bunch of angel investments and a board observer role, but I can't imagine that's what's taking up the majority of his time.

[http://www.crunchbase.com/person/jerry- yang](http://www.crunchbase.com/person/jerry-yang)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Just wondering, how many people use Yahoo? It's supposed to be getting more popular but at least with my peers I don't see that trend. Is it popular outside of the USA?

<comment><USER18> They were kind of the definitive site for general information in the 90s, so many millions of people who started using the internet in the 90s got used to going there for news, sports, finance, weather, and some of their other verticals, as well as things like email.

A lot of those people haven't had any good reason to switch to anything else, so that's what they use. This tracks with the way people choose offline brands like toothpaste and such -- once people get used to buying a brand, most of them tend to stick with it until they have a clear reason to change.

That's actually why the transition to mobile is so crucial for them -- those people still want to keep up with sports and weather and everything else on their phones, but they're more likely to use an app than a website. If Yahoo loses their userbase in the transition to mobile, those users are probably never coming back.

<comment><USER19> +1

<comment><USER20> LOL at creating a throwaway account b/c you're ashamed to say you use Yahoo!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Yes, and MSFT started 2008 at a share price of $34.38. It's closing price today was $33.64.

<comment><USER16> Since the beginning of 2008, MSFT has paid ~$4/share in dividends as well, so we can't ignore those.

[http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/msft/dividend- history](http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/msft/dividend-history)

<comment><USER21> Fair enough... but we can't exactly hold up microsoft as the paragon of good returns compared to it's cohorts (eg. AAPL, GOOG, etc).

<comment><USER22> AAPL, GOOG, etc will reach their plateau soon enough. Apple already has flat or worse y/y earnings, Google is on steroids and is ruining their brand to artificially increase their earnings by penalizing sites (advertise or no traffic) and making it all ads in certain sectors. It will last maybe another or two. What then?

The point I was making: large tech companies have different rules, they behave more like Exxon and PG then a recently IPO-ed Google or Microsoft.

<comment><USER23> _penalizing sites (advertise or no traffic)_

Surprising, if true. I am interested in knowing more. Do you have some good links?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> There is no legitimate business-based excuse for Yahoo! to have turned down Microsoft's offer. Yang et al had to fight tooth and nail to keep it from being executed, and that opposition was obviously based purely on ideology: not wanting to become part of the MS behemoth. I don't believe any informed person seriously thought that Yahoo!'s choice to not only forgo but actively prevent Microsoft's buyout had anything to do with anything else.

<comment><USER22> _Yang et al had to fight tooth and nail to keep it from being executed, and that opposition was obviously based purely on ideology: not wanting to become part of the MS behemoth_

And not wanting to sorta admit defeat. That's why companies have boards, to do what is best for shareholders not for founders still thinking they got it. Yahoo's loss = Microsoft's gain.

The price goes back and forth, but right now I don't see yahoo leading anything, maybe just online answers. So it's part Marissa euphoria and part Alibaba stake.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> If we factor in the inflation rate over 5 years, then Yahoo should still worth less.</comment>


Things Every Programmer Should Know - <AUTHOR> http://programmer.97things.oreilly.com/wiki/index.php/Contributions_Appearing_in_the_Book <comment><USER2> [https://hn.algolia.com/?query=97things%20every%20programmer&...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=97things%20every%20programmer&sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=story&prefix&page=0)</comment>


Intelligent disobedience - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_disobedience <comment><USER2> _Intelligent Disobedience has also found its place in Children 's Rights Education offering instruments that help to keep children safe from the rare, but traumatic instances when authority figures abuse their power._

I really don't think this is _rare_. People do crappy things all the time, especially when they imagine they know what is best for someone else. This is the default assumption of most adults in how they relate to any children in their lives.

<comment><USER3> Another way to look at this may be something like:

Odds of an adult knowing what's best for another adult: Low to Medium

Odds of an adult knowing what's best for a child: Medium to High

<comment><USER2> Odds of an adult being able to talk with the child in an informative way in a non-emergency situation and help them make a better decision for themselves: Extremely high.

You don't have to boss the kid around and treat them like a puppet you control to help them make better decisions.

Obviously (and it should go without saying, but I will say it anyway): Emergency situations are an exception. You can and should stop a child from sticking their hand in the fire without trying to nicely and at length talk them out of it while they are in the midst of doing so anyway.

You will also de facto be making a fair number of decisions on their behalf when they are below a certain age. Infants can cry to let you know something is wrong, but they can't tell you they need to be fed, etc. Adults have to do their best to figure out what the issue is and address it.

Good parents typically don't have a policy of "Oh, just let them cry it out." They typically feel that a crying child requires parental intervention to solve whatever their problem is.

(Exception: It's okay for them to just cry for emotional reasons. I never tried to convince my kids to stop crying about being told "no" or whatever. If you know they are crying because small kids have big feels, let them cry. No big deal.

But babies don't typically cry for emotional reasons. They cry because they have a problem that needs to be addressed.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> A short documentary called "Pick of the Litter" focuses on the training of service dogs for the vision impaired, and it first introduced me to this concept of Intelligent Disobedience.

No longer on Netflix, but you can find it on Amazon Prime here: [https://amzn.to/3gttRxt](https://amzn.to/3gttRxt)

If you are a dog lover, this movie will tug at your heart strings. If you are not into dogs, it's still a wonderful character study in perseverance & human- animal symbiosis.

For programmers, you'll start to realize that even reaching dog-like AI would be quite an accomplishment and open up a lot of possibilities for humanity.

On a lighter note, whenever I hear the term Intelligent Disobedience now, I always also think of one of my favorite organizational psychology terms, Malicious Compliance.

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

</comment><comment><USER5> This is a fascinating concept, and I always appreciate wiki reads like these whenever they come through HN.

One thing I wonder, though, what's going on in this part:

>The animal understands that this contradicts the learned behavior to respond to the owner's instructions: instead it makes an alternative decision because the human is not in a position to decide safely.[5] The dog in this case has the capacity to understand that it is performing such an action for the welfare of the person.[6]

I think that's a very bold and categorical claim to make. Not necessarily because it's wrong, but animal cognition is a charged subject where it's easy to become motivated to make claims, and I think it's fair to say it's a sphere where untrue claims abound.

It wasn't clear to me that the source for [6] is sufficiently authoritative. It seems to be derived from interviews with dog owners. Here's a quote from [6] on the cited page:

>"The competent guide dog can recognize dangerous situations and, even when commanded to engage in a articular action, can decide to disobdy in order to protect the owner's welfare.. All of the interviewees spoke of their dogs as regularly involved in behaviors that were not understandable if one were only to see dogs merely as automatons responding to instinct or behavioral conditioning."

Anyway, I bring this up because that sentence stuck out to me as something that felt highly motivated, and in general it's a feature I think you see sometimes in wiki articles - bold claims, almost vulgar in their simplicity, that just go ahead and declare a truth and don't try to couch the language in terms of earned institutional understanding that fully merit the claim. Again, not saying it's wrong, it just stuck out.

<comment><USER6> You do realize this is Wikipedia, right? There is no bar to editing it.

The rules of the game there are basically, if you can source something to a published book or newspaper, even if idiotic; it's game. Trying to change anything in case of a conflict takes time, effort and allies. And the corporation that owns Wikipedia not being hostile ("Framgate" has been publicized about).

And this is one of the few good Wikipedia's, where at least some important articles will receive due care from capable and benevolent editors. Try checking out the "Croatian Wikipedia", or some of the other Wikipedia's relevant to a smaller country.

<comment><USER5> Thanks for explaining to me how the fifth most visited english language website in the entire world works. A site that I've been visiting on a near daily basis for past 15 years, and to which I've contributed numerous edits and where I've become way too familiar with weirdly specific controversies (my favorite being probably the 'Verifiability Not Truth' debate). But wow, you told me that Wikipedia can be edited, which blew my mind. So thanks to your extremely helpful insights, I'm all up to speed now. But... did you have anything constructive to add that related to my comments on this particular article?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The article briefly mentions teaching this principle to children, and references this article, which I found interesting: [https://blinkthinkchoicevoice.com/resources-and-tips-for- tea...](https://blinkthinkchoicevoice.com/resources-and-tips-for-teaching- children-intelligent-disobedience/)

"Blink, Think, Choice, Voice" is a pretty poor mnemonic though. They compare it to "Stop, Drop, and Roll", but those instructions make sense even before you read anything else about it.

<comment><USER8> It's weird and forced. "Blink, Think, Choose, Voice" would be much more consistent, but I'm guessing someone really wanted it to rhyme.

<comment><USER9> "Blink, Think, Choose, Refuse"

"Blink, Think, Make a Stink"

or, the classic, "Question Authority"

<comment><USER7> "Refuse" implies an outcome.

I also think "blink" in the first place is a bad term. I understand what they're going for, but it's not an intuitive instruction.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> When I was a child I watched a blind man repeatedly kick his service dog while screaming obscenities because it would not let him cross the street outside of a cross walk. I think about that poor animal often.

<comment><USER11> Yeah, I saw a CCTV video on Australian news where a train stopped short of the platform and the blind owner dragged his poor dog off the edge. That sucks for everyone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Some people seem invested in the idea that animals are not intelligent, do not have feelings, are not persons etc, despite so much evidence to the contrary. Why is that?

<comment><USER13> Assuming you're genuinely asking. I believe it's because feelings and intelligence would mean that animals suffer pain like we do, which would imply that we are cruel for eating or using them as we do.

The best analogy I can come up with that many Americans would relate to would be slavery, when slave owners would insist on dehumanizing them. They were both financially and emotionally invested in the idea that slaves could be used and abused.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I think this article describes a quality of communications that many discussions of artificial intelligence seem to miss.

Intelligent disobedience is effectively a formalization of the way informal language-interactions often work. When you ask a person to do something, the response is can easily be a request for clarification, a comment on possible negative results, some suggestions about alternative approaches and so-forth. Often, you get a decision after a few rounds of this. Basically, a good portion of language interactions involve a bargaining and clarification process.

Now, consider the average "AI goes wrong" argument. The classic scenario is someone asks a general AI to "build a lot of paperclips" and, like Disney's Sorcerers Apprentice, the AI converts the entire earth into a paperclip factory. Here, the interactions between AI and human fail to be anything like human-to-human informal interactions. And this hypothetical scenario seems implausible just given that the scenario also posits vast understanding in the AI, an understanding which would seem to encompass language understanding such that AI could do that back-and-forth bargaining approach (the human might ask for such behavior to be avoided but theoretically we're talking the human that invented the AI and also has this sort of meta-understanding).

<comment><USER15> I think your missing the point of the paper clip maximiser example. All it's for is to show how complex reasoning and intelligence are, and that strong AI has to be about a lot more than just solving problems.

Arguing that a strong AI would have to be smart enough not to make a mistake like that is really the purpose of the example.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Reminds me of the Milgram experiment [https://youtu.be/rdrKCilEhC0](https://youtu.be/rdrKCilEhC0) , where people were followed up with, to ask if there was anything the man they were electrocuting could have said to get them to stop electrocuting him, no matter what the investigator told them to do (36:30 is an example of one)

<comment><USER17> > In 2012 Australian psychologist Gina Perry investigated Milgram's data and > writings and concluded that Milgram had manipulated the results, and that > there was "troubling mismatch between (published) descriptions of the > experiment and evidence of what actually transpired." She wrote that "only > half of the people who undertook the experiment fully believed it was real > and of those, 66% disobeyed the experimenter".[23][24] She described her > findings as "an unexpected outcome" that "leaves social psychology in a > difficult situation."[25]

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Tangentially, I'm reminded of something a high school teacher mentioned to me. The context was military service, but of course this applies in any organization.

'The way to get rid of an undesireable superior is to do only what you are ordered to do.'

The supervisor's task will fail in some way, and new leadership will be needed.

I've kept this in mind, not as a way to undermine leadership, but as a lesson in what good leaders need to know — that getting things done requires everyone to be be empowered and act in some degree at their own inititive.

</comment><comment><USER19> Reminds me of Asimov's Second Law of Robotics[1].

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

</comment><comment><USER20> Dogs are beautiful creatures

</comment><comment><USER21> small anecdote, saw couple years ago - a woman with a dog leaves the dog park and pulls the dog to follow her toward the parking, the dog pulls into opposite direction and is pretty insistent, after some moments of mutual pulling the woman finally "Oh! you're right! I parked there today!" and follows the dog to the other parking.

</comment><comment><USER22> I have been fortunate to work under a few managers who value this trait.

<comment><USER23> Those who don't often get its evil twin - malicious compliance.

<comment><USER24> Great reddit sub to read btw :)

<comment><USER23> It has the flavor of sticking it to the man and it has great comedy potential (like 70% Dilbert is about it). That said, you can only be passive-agressive for so long before you get jaded and unhappy.

<comment><USER25> > you can only be passive-agressive for so long before you get jaded and > unhappy

I think you're putting the cart before the horse here

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Service animals do the best for the person they're trying to help!

I feel like this is obvious, and, therefore, if you agree with me, pls don't upvote. I feel like recently there's been an emphasis on individual responsibility which is at the very least not sustainable in the long term. I'd wrap my point up but I feel the original poster hasn't really put in the effort :-)

</comment><comment><USER27> A different framing of this would be multi-heuristic decision making.

</comment><comment><USER28> Can have applications in AI / AGI alignment.

</comment><comment><USER29> Really good documentary on Disney+ about the training dogs go through, and how they reinforce this type of behavior is really interesting

</comment><comment><USER30> "This behavior is a part of the dog's training and is central to a service animal's success on the job."

Now get back to work.</comment>


Using the Old Bean (1985) - <AUTHOR> https://www.si.com/vault/1985/12/02/621002/using-the-old-bean <comment><USER2> LL Bean is in the news because they have stopped the lifetime return policy to due to abuse. It shot up in recent years from people returning well-worn items, 2nd hand purchases or "rentals." They now only accept returns going back one year with a receipt and if it was due to a defect or the incorrect size. [http://bangordailynews.com/2018/02/09/business/ll-bean- dropp...](http://bangordailynews.com/2018/02/09/business/ll-bean-dropping-its- unlimited-returns-policy/)</comment>


Apple patches Siri, no longer says Lumia 900 is 'best smartphone ever' - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2012/5/14/3019960/apple-siri-best-smartphone-ever-answer-patched

<comment><USER2> And the result from [http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=what+is+the+best+smartp...](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=what+is+the+best+smartphone+ever) now responds with a list of five different phones using data from Best Buy.</comment>


Applications of Graph Theory (2007) - <AUTHOR> http://www.dharwadker.org/pirzada/applications/ <comment><USER2> As a mathematical peasant who does modelling.

# If you have a small data set - you set notation.

# If you have 100s of larger data set - try to formulate your problem as a graph theory problem - Its easy to walk small graphs.

# If you have 10,000 data points - start to think of your problem in terms of matrix.

I know there is going to strong disagreement about my rule of thumb but I found it useful for many problems.

<comment><USER3> Fair enough. Graph theory has a collection of quite well-known algorithms that run fast, which mostly come down to clever manipulations of depth-first and breadth-first search algorithms. These typically run in O(n+k), where n is the number of vertices and k is the number of edges. In large networks, it's still often the case that k is proportional to n (most people have less than 1000 facebook friends, so we can bound k by 1000n...), so this is still linear in n.

I tend to see lots of graph algorithms which run in O(n^3) time, which tends to be fine for medium-sized data sets, but yeah, breaks down when you get into the 10,000+ sized data sets.

And then there's 'matrix' methods you mention. These can often be tied to an area called algebraic graph theory, which looks at properties of matrices (like the adjacency matrix) to try to pull out information about the graph. Relaxing the graph problem and allowing the full range of matrix operations allows some fast linear algebraic methods to be used, though the final solution may need some massaging to make sense, and may not be perfectly optimal.

A great example of this is spectral clustering, which uses eigenvectors of a relative of the adjacency matrix to perform a clustering of the graph's nodes. The optimization that the clustering is solving is actually an (iirc) NP-hard problem; casting it as an eigenvalue problem gives an O(n^2) approximation of a solution, which then gets hammered into something we can live with...

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> When reading the title, I was thinking more of real-world applications. For instance, the Cantor-Schröder-Bernstein theorem or the "Knight tour's" problems seem like rather abstract problems.

</comment><comment><USER5> Wow! I tried to prove Cantor-Schroder-Bernstein last year and couldn't get my head round it. This makes it obvious!

</comment><comment><USER6> My positive takeaway from this is that "graph theory" which I see as a single lump of knowledge (that I don't have), is actually still developing and being used by practitioners - the paper several times in the summary mentions "rapidly growing fields etc). To me that signals the use of this is changing, and being a dumb ass who knows nothing is not so bad

</comment><comment><USER7> A bit off topic, but what are some good resources for studying graph theory?

<comment><USER8> I strongly recommend Introduction to Graph Theory, 2nd edition, by Doug West. It covers the basics right up through graduate-level material, and has excellent exercises.

</comment></comment><comment> antonio-rt [http://barabasi.com/networksciencebook/](http://barabasi.com/networksciencebook/)

</comment><comment><USER9> From the home page ([http://www.dharwadker.org/](http://www.dharwadker.org/)):

A new proof of the Four Colour Theorem, by Ashay Dharwadker.

Abstract

#########################################

We present a new proof of the famous four colour theorem using algebraic and topological methods. Recent research in physics shows that this proof directly implies the Grand Unification of the Standard Model with Quantum Gravity in its physical interpretation and conversely the existence of the standard model of particle physics shows that nature applies this proof of the four colour theorem at the most fundamental level, giving us a grand unified theory. In particular, we have shown how to use this theory to predict the Higgs Boson Mass [arXiv:0912.5189] with precision. Thus, nature itself demonstrates the logical completeness and consistency of the proof. This proof was first announced by the Canadian Mathematical Society in 2000. The proof appears as the twelfth chapter of the text book Graph Theory published by Orient Longman and Universities Press of India in 2008. This proof has also been published in the Euroacademy Series Baltic Horizons No. 14 (111) dedicated to Fundamental Research in Mathematics in 2010. Finally, the proof features in an exquisitely illustrated edition of The Four Colour Theorem published by Amazon in 2011. The Endowed Chair of the Institute of Mathematics in recognition of this achievement was bestowed in 2012.

#########################################

See also ([http://www.dharwadker.org/standard_model/](http://www.dharwadker.org/standard_model/)):

Title: Grand Unification of the Standard Model with Quantum Gravity Author: Ashay Dharwadker

Abstract:

#########################################

We show that the mathematical proof of the four colour theorem [1] directly implies the existence of the standard model, together with quantum gravity, in its physical interpretation. Conversely, the experimentally observable standard model and quantum gravity show that nature applies the mathematical proof of the four colour theorem, at the most fundamental level. We preserve all the established working theories of physics: Quantum Mechanics, Special and General Relativity, Quantum Electrodynamics (QED), the Electroweak model and Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD). We build upon these theories, unifying all of them with Einstein's law of gravity. Quantum gravity is a direct and unavoidable consequence of the theory. The main construction of the Steiner system in the proof of the four colour theorem already defines the gravitational fields of all the particles of the standard model. Our first goal is to construct all the particles constituting the classic standard model, in exact agreement with 't Hooft's table [8]. We are able to predict the exact mass of the Higgs particle and the CP violation and mixing angle of weak interactions. Our second goal is to construct the gauge groups and explicitly calculate the gauge coupling constants of the force fields. We show how the gauge groups are embedded in a sequence along the cosmological timeline in the grand unification. Finally, we calculate the mass ratios of the particles of the standard model. Thus, the mathematical proof of the four colour theorem shows that the grand unification of the standard model with quantum gravity is complete, and rules out the possibility of finding any other kinds of particles.

#########################################

<comment><USER10> There's a fascinating history of Usenet beef around this: [http://www.log24.com/log05/050725-Crank.html](http://www.log24.com/log05/050725-Crank.html).</comment></comment>


Flickr API now supports OAuth 1.0a - <AUTHOR> http://code.flickr.com/blog/2011/06/21/flickr-now-supports-oauth-1-0a/

<comment><USER2> What took so long?</comment>


Intuitive Equals Familiar (1994) - <AUTHOR> http://www.asktog.com/papers/raskinintuit.html <comment><USER2> I uesd to accept this but after he revealed that novices learned to operate his zoom world system in less than one minute, I have changed my mind.

For tens of millions of years, our ancestors made it back to the nest or we wouldn't be here. Geographic navigation like that or like operating a zoom world system take advantage of the tens of millions of years when the talent for learning such skills was pounded into our DNA.

This may not be what we think of as intuition, but it's more than just familiarity that powers the ease of learning exhibited.

You might expect computer experts to be even quicker than novices but they took two minutes to become proficient in operating the zoom world system.</comment>


Ask YC: Dragging text from OSX terminal windows? - <AUTHOR>

About 6 months ago I got a Macbook Air.  It's an improvement over my old Powerbook in most respects, but not one: dragging text from terminal windows.
In older versions of OSX, it was very easy to highlight text in a terminal window and then click on it and drag it into another window.  In more recent versions this doesn't work so well: the sw seems to have been tweaked to err on the side of interpreting the second click as changing the highlighted area, unless you pause and hold the cursor absolutely still for a bit before clicking.  I usually work by dragging changed code into a repl, so this makes it much harder for me to program.
Does anyone know of any settings I can change in OSX to undo this "improvement?" <comment><USER2> To be honest, I got lost with the concept of dragging text as a productivity tool. Why don't you stick with copy and paste for a while (combined with the convenient window switching keyboard short cut), and see if you end up taking the quotes away from "improvement".

<comment><AUTHOR> What is the convenient window switching keyboard shortcut?

<comment><USER3> ⌘tab to cycle apps

⌘` to cycle windows within an app

I think that's what he's referring to.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I had thought this was just the behavior of Cocoa, and so any text field based on it will have the "pause, then drag".

There are Carbon-based terminals for Mac OS X that will drag text instantly. I'm partial to MacTelnet. :)

<comment><USER5> MacTelnet is a joke right? It is worse then iTerm.

<comment><USER4> No...it does what I need it to do.

Anything specific to back that up?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I just tested this with two Terminal windows running under OS 10.5.6. I didn't get the + icon indicating I could drag, but dragging still worked.

It helps if you lift your finger slightly as you click. It doesn't detract from the speed of the operation and makes it much more reliable.

</comment><comment><USER7> Hmmm not sure. It works well for me on my iMac.</comment>


Can You Trust Kurzgesagt Videos? - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtUAAXe_0VI <comment><USER2> I love Kurzgesacht videos, along with PBS Eons and LangFocus, as intelligent, extremely well-produced, thoughtful, educational and philosophical science discussions. I'm so glad stuff like this exists!</comment>


Superbad - <AUTHOR> http://superbad.com/

<comment><USER2> [http://superbad.com/robots.txt](http://superbad.com/robots.txt)

        # Dear Robot,
        #
        # How does it feel to be a robot?
        #
        # I used to wish I was a robot.
        #
        # And a friend of mine when I was
        # growing up used to think that
        # everyone else was a robot.
        #
        # I thought that might be some sort
        # of signal that he needed counseling.
        #
        # Okay, robot.
        #
        # Talk to  you later.

</comment><comment><USER3> Am I the only one who is missing the context? I don't get what is the point of this website.

<comment><USER4> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superbad_(website)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superbad_\(website\))

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Hell.com was in a league of its own in this genre. Those were the days. It's fittingly tragic that it's now reduced to a landing page of ads.

<comment><USER6> Wow, it sure was. Did anyone expose what it was actually all about, since it claimed to have a membership site or something?

Ah the days of entering in random URLs and seeing what happened...

<comment><USER7> I was a member, bought back my soul, and had a hell.com email address for years. As aric said, it was a cabal of artists and designers, mostly using Flash. There were discussion boards, spaces to explore, and so on.

The associated site [http://www.cygne-noir.com/](http://www.cygne-noir.com/) is still up, but with just an image. There's probably a login somewhere, but you must know the URL. And [http://final.org/](http://final.org/) is for sale. But [http://www.8081.com/home/](http://www.8081.com/home/) and [http://www.medialounge.org/](http://www.medialounge.org/) are still there, and seem much as I recall.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> TD-Linux [http://yyyyyyy.info/](http://yyyyyyy.info/) (sound, sometimes NSFW)

[http://fauux.neocities.org/Love.html](http://fauux.neocities.org/Love.html)

<comment><USER8> [http://www.kalx.com/](http://www.kalx.com/) [http://wwwwwww.jodi.org/](http://wwwwwww.jodi.org/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> This was one of the first websites that got me interested in becoming a web developer. Classic web right here

</comment><comment><USER10> [http://wwwwwwwww.jodi.org/](http://wwwwwwwww.jodi.org/)

Working until 3 AM in 1997. My first development job. jodi's page gets sent to me by a friend or from slashdot or word.com or whatever. And this bit of mystery, while DJ Shadow or Tricky or Lycia plays in the background, was completely beautiful and overwhelming to a sleep-deprived me.

</comment><comment><USER11> Why is Mytho's comment [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9603201](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9603201) marked dead? That was the first comment from the user and it appears to be on topic.

</comment><comment><USER12> Polish only (so you'd likely not be able to appreciate the typos and orthographic errors), early 2000s, but the page itself is worth looking at:

[http://www.web_4_all.republika.pl/](http://www.web_4_all.republika.pl/)

<comment><USER13> Haha. This really reminds me of the very first webpage I ever made, in... 2000 I think? I created a series of images of a lens flare turning a magenta background into a white flash, turned it into an animated gif and used that as the background tile. Eye-watering stuff. I knew I'd finally found what I wanted to do :P

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> website art?

[http://11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111...](http://111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111.com)

</comment><comment><USER15> [http://www.theuselessweb.com/](http://www.theuselessweb.com/)

</comment><comment><USER16> Aha my go to test site when I'm sick of google.com and example.com.</comment>


Ask HN: Leaking hours and money. I need a tool to keep digital projects in check - <AUTHOR> I do a lot of online projects (one man show) with a lot of 3rd party's, licenses and time spend in each project. Can any of you recommend a tool to keep track of the costs and hours? Something that allows me to see how many dollars are left? (I'm constantly going overboard. I don't mean a time-tracking thingy). I would <i>love</i> to find a good tool... Thanks in advance! <comment><USER2> For money flowing out, if your bank allows you to create "virtual" credit cards/sub-accounts you can use those to make it easier to track where your regular expenses go or at least to notice if something costs more than expected.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the reply's. But sorry guys, spreadsheets is not an option. It gets to cluttered too fast. (I'm no spread sheet guru, I do UX and design work).

<comment><USER3> > I do UX and design work

Seems like you should be able to whip up something for yourself then.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> We use freshbooks for all of our project billing (we're a small focused dev shop). You can set project budgets, track expenses against a specific project, have them invoiced to the client (if passing along costs) and time tracked. It doesn't sound ideal in your circumstance, but we treat it as our book of record for project finances and works quite well.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! I'll have a look. planscope.io was mentioned to me as well. Anyone use that? It's rather new.

<comment><USER4> I used planscope.io for a year or so but never got past the hump of actually using it for ongoing client projects (That's not to discredit the app though, it's definitely a solid tool). One part of it that I did love was sending clients itemized proposals that they could pick and choose items and see the costs change.

Planscope is way more of a project management tool than Freshbooks (as it's primarily invoicing), so it would be worth giving planscope a try for a project.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks a million!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> 1\. GNUcash for a Quickbooks alternative.

2\. Ledger for CLI badasses.

3\. Org-mode because time series data is essentially lists with time stamps.

4\. Paper and pencil, because if that doesn'twork, then the issue is not technology. It's habit. Personally, I'd go with paper and pencil to develop a workflow before fooling around with technology.

But, the problem with going over budget boils down to one of two things: poor estimates or buying the job.

Lastly, if you're billing hours internally against a fixed price externally, there's always going to be an impedance mismatch. I know that HN'ers love to promote fixed price, but if it doesn't work then don't use it: bill time and materials instead.

Good luck.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. You're right of course. I use to do this at BigCo and we had people doing the calculations and negotiations for projects. And doing the planning. Apart from that I'm just to f*ing nice. Clients do love fixed price. But I am way too busy working my ass of for months now. I need to raise prices and want to use Planscope to see how.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm not a designer, but I use Freshbooks for all my invoicing/time tracking/estimation stuff for my business. It's free for up to three clients, you pay a subscription after that. ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯

</comment><comment><USER7> Have a look at getharvest.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. Either Getharvest or Planscope. Both are looking good.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> +1 for the spreadsheet</comment>


10 Programming Proverbs Every Developer Should Know  - <AUTHOR> http://www.kevinwilliampang.com/post/Programming-Proverbs.aspx

<comment><USER2> Whenever I read articles like this, it makes me wonder why half of it even needs to be stated; then I go and look at the code base for some of the companies that I do development for. At that point I realize that, planning, documentation, and "fixing broken windows", are all activities that you need to build into the core values of your company from the start. They need to be so ingrained in the culture, that people participate in them on an intuitive level, instead of it being a after-thought. The time spent working around "known bugs" far (exponentially) exceeds the time it would have taken to fix them before they were part of the current stable release.

</comment><comment><USER3> I like the "bus factor" discussion. It's #3 in the article. In the projects I've been a lead on, the bus factor is in a sense 1: each hacker is responsible for their own module, and while others might read their code, they don't contribute (except report bugs).

However, the modules are set up so that there is a clean separation between them, with all interaction being through well defined API's. In fact, each hacker typically uses their own server unless/until efficiency constraints force us to do otherwise. So far it's worked well. If one person goes away, the project can continue until they come back or one of the others can learn/duplicate their module.

This allows us to dramatically increase prototyping speed, but may not be sustainable as project size increases.

I'm fairly inexperienced, so I'd like to know what you guys think about this practice, since it's something I think about a lot.

<comment><USER4> #3 - Seems to indicate that everyone in your team must be replaceable. This is good from a management and operational perspective.

...but you can't stop people who are just damn good. In fact, often this hampers them - i.e. You're too good at X, so you have to train a whole bunch of people who are bad at it otherwise it's a risk. This is often applied irrespective of the skill/talent of the person involved and the rest of the team respectively.

Sometimes people just are irreplaceable. What you don't want are people who are irreplaceable because of systemic issues.

<comment><USER5> Bridging the gap is always a pain. As a freelancer, I find that often I need to steer clear of "better" (though perhaps technically complex) solutions at times because I know it may create a panic when I leave. It's frustrating to "play to the crowd" but I have also found it can be just as bad to leave companies with elements their in-house employees can't figure out.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Architecture astronauts should take careful note of points 7 and 9. I've read some obsessive-compulsive discusions regarding RESTful design around here lately. You don't see much focus on the customer.</comment>


India considering adding new type of patent - <AUTHOR> http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Home-grown-jugaad-set-for-patent-cover/articleshow/9092731.cms

<comment><AUTHOR> As a comment, the word 'jugaad' is somewhat explained here:

[http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/dec2009/id20091...](http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/dec2009/id2009121_864965.htm)</comment>


Amazon confirms acquisition of Souq, marking its move into the Middle East - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/28/amazon-confirms-acquisition-of-souq-marking-its-move-into-the-middle-east/ <comment><USER2> Less than a unicorn, but a milestone for the region in every possible way. E-commerce in MENA is officially a global arena. Yallah Omar, jado could be the follow up unicorn after all</comment>


Show HN: We made a WordPress plug-in to replace Clef - <AUTHOR> https://www.authentiq.com/blog/2017/06/06/authentiq-on-wordpress/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hi HN,

We received a number of requests from (ex-)Clef users asking if we would perhaps build an authentication plug-in for WordPress, now that Clef is sunsetting.

This is our first version: We opted to use a proven extension as a base, and collect feedback. Then use that to develop a stand-alone plug-in in the future.

Tell us what you think!

\- Pieter

</comment><comment><USER2> This looks nice, does it let me restrict who can sign in to my site in some way?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, you can filter by email address or email domain. It's one of the things we get for free by using WordPress Social Login.</comment></comment>


Professor Frisby's Mostly Adequate Guide to Functional Programming - <AUTHOR> https://drboolean.gitbooks.io <comment><USER2> Direct link to book: [https://drboolean.gitbooks.io/mostly-adequate- guide/content/](https://drboolean.gitbooks.io/mostly-adequate-guide/content/)

</comment><comment><USER3> Whilst I'm not a particular fan of OOP or Javascript, statements like this feel intellectually dishonest to me:

> Object-oriented programming currently dominates the industry, but it's > clearly awkward in JavaScript. It's akin to camping off of a highway or tap > dancing in galoshes. We have to bind all over the place lest this change out > from under us, we don't have classes (yet), we have various work arounds for > the quirky behavior when the new keyword is forgotten, private members are > only available via closures.

OOP does not equal class-based programming; prototypes are a perfectly cromulent way to implement inheritance (although, of course, inheritance should be avoided; but I think OOP should be avoided, so...).

OOP is actually _very easy_ in Javascript, since everything is an object, e.g.

        > (123).toString().length
        3

That's certainly more OO than many other languages which claim to be OO. For example, the Java equivalent to Javascript's "123" would be "new Double(123)", which I would consider to be more awkward.

Whilst prototypical inheritance is the go-to example for Javascript's Self influence (and, in turn, Self's Smalltalk influence), I would say a more pervasive influence is the _use of objects to define the object system_. In other words, the object system isn't a language-provided template of keywords and special syntax, where the programmer fills in the boxes. Instead, the language provides a bunch of objects which, when combined together, produce the behaviour of an object system. This not only makes the language simpler (fewer keywords, less context-specific semantics, etc.) but is much more flexible: by combining them in other ways, you get a different object system; you can _extend_ the object system using the object system; you're also free to _completely ignore_ the object system (but it's still there; "123" is still an object, even if you don't treat it like one).

For this reason, I dislike criticism like "private members are only available via closures"; it's true, but that's a positive! Closures are one of the components of the the object system, lexically-scoped variables are another, "constructor functions"/"factories" are another (which, I believe, is what the new "class" keyword reifies), etc. "bind" and "this" are others. In other words, class-based programming is a design pattern in JS; if you think it's appropriate in some situation, go for it; if not, you're not stuck with it.

I think it's much more damning to say, of other languages, that "private members are only available via special-purpose syntax", since this translates to "if you want to tweak it, go hack the compiler".

I find myself having this rant so often I even wrote it up once [http://chriswarbo.net/blog/2014-03-12-trolled.html](http://chriswarbo.net/blog/2014-03-12-trolled.html)

<comment><USER4> I read your rant and while I agree, you said that classes are not objects in Java. But last time I checked, there was a java.lang.Class object (and objects have a getClass() method which return a Class).</comment></comment>


Coroutines in C - <AUTHOR> http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/coroutines.html <comment><USER2> If you like coroutines, also have a look at libmill ([http://libmill.org](http://libmill.org)).</comment>