YouTube Advertiser Meltdown: An Opportunity for Startups - <AUTHOR> https://righteousruminations.blogspot.com/2017/04/startup-opportunity-youtube-advertiser.html <comment><USER2> _Strictly speaking it isn 't censorship when Youtube removes a channel for being politically too extreme._

Not to distract from the larger point, but this isn't true. The definition of censorship says nothing about the government being the one suppressing the content.

<comment><USER3> Discussion is terribly confused when 'censorship' is interpreted in this general sense. Censorship enforced by the state is something distinctly different from editorial control exercised by private entities. When the single word can represent either concept (and other related concepts) ambiguity and confusion isn't far behind.

I used to argue that 'censorship' should be interpreted as something done by governments and enforced by the legal system but that battle has been lost. Now the unqualified 'censorship' can mean just about any sort of content restrictions and as such is almost useless in its unqualified form.

<comment><USER4> > Discussion is terribly confused when 'censorship' is interpreted in this > general sense.

It's the original sense.

> Censorship enforced by the state is something distinctly different from > editorial control exercised by private entities.

Yes, government censorship is different in important ways than censorship by a publishing or distributing entity, but both are censorship (and they are also similar in important ways.)

> When the single word can represent either concept (and other related > concepts) ambiguity and confusion isn't far behind.

Heavy water is different from drinking water in some quite important ways, but its not at all a problem that both are identified with the word "water", because we can use more than one word when the differentiating features are important to the discussion.

> I used to argue that 'censorship' should be interpreted as something done by > governments and enforced by the legal system but that battle has been lost.

That battle was lost centuries ago. What the _censor librorum_ does in granting, or denying, the _nihil obstat_ has always been censorship, even where the Catholic Church is not an established Church and so is in now way part of the government.

> Now the unqualified 'censorship' can mean just about any sort of content > restrictions and as such is almost useless in its unqualified form.

It has pretty much always meant that, and just because the general sense of censorship is not something you are interested in talking about doesn't mean it's not useful.

<comment><USER3> I'm willing to concede that that 'censorship' has always been an expansive term. Perhaps my perspective is just a personal idiosyncrasy.

But that is really ancillary to my point that in order to communicate clearly about the public policy issues involved it is important to avoid the generic use of the term because that obfuscates the arguments making it harder to explore the issues.

In particular I think that in the US context, 1st Amendment proscriptions regarding freedom of speech and of the press are often implicitly assumed to be reasons why Google, for example, shouldn't be able to have a restrictive editorial policy. The negative aspects of censorship in the 1st Amendment sense are misleadingly attached to censorship in the editorial sense.

Sure it is possible to talk about 'censorship' in the 'general sense' but that is uninteresting to me and I would argue isn't very helpful in understanding the distinct aspects of different types of 'censorship'.

<comment><USER5> >The negative aspects of censorship in the 1st Amendment sense are misleadingly attached to censorship in the editorial sense.

The very presence of anti-censorship in the 1st amendment is the reason many people in the US get outraged when companies censor views. They view free speech as a fundamental right, even though the 1st amendment only applies to the government.

<comment><USER4> > The very presence of anti-censorship in the 1st amendment is the reason many > people in the US get outraged when companies censor views.

No, it's not. The value of free expression and the concept of the marketplace of ideas to which it is essential predates and goes beyond the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment isn't the cause, it's a product of the same cause.

Though it's a lot trickier to _apply_ the concept to private censorship, which is both, in one sense, an exercise of the right of free speech and, potentially, a restriction on it in some cases. Government censorship is a lot more of a clear issue (even if there are issues of drawing the precise boundary.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think there still is a big opportunity for ad companies that try to actually show stuff the user might interested in. Let me explain.

Let's say you are an amateur astronomer, like me. You have subscribed to a paper magazine about astronomy, like me. If, again, you are like me, then you also read the magazine for the ads in it. Ads showing new telescopes, ads talking about astronomy expeditions, ads for the astronomy club. It is advertisement on the one hand, but still relevant information for my hobby. The companies that buy ads for a longer period burn their brand into my brain, in the "relevant" section of it.

Now let's talk about how this would be on the web. When I visit a site about astronomy, I can expect the ads to show: flight offers for the business trip I recently googled. SAS software because I recently did a certification with them and visited their website. Amazon ads showing me business books I recently searched there. But what they often do not show: relevant, juicy astronomy related ads. And when they do, the ad is gone the next time I refresh the page replaced by something else. The ads on the web are most often totally out of context. They might be shown to you because of your recorded behavior before, but still they are totally irrelevant.

Probably running an ad network with great ads would be much more manual work than running the next past-behavior based network that tries to mine user data for new ideas. But at least for special interest sites, it could be a gold mine.

<comment><USER7> > flight offers for the business trip I recently googled. SAS software because > I recently did a certification with them and visited their website. Amazon > ads showing me business books I recently searched there.

Really? My experience is much more:

Hotels/flights to a place I went to weeks/months ago and am not planning on going to again.

Ads asking me to sign up for a service I am signed up to.

Amazon ads for something I just purchased (often the exact thing I purchased). From Amazon. For weeks.

<comment><USER8> I really don't get this model of travel ads... I have the same experience, even with what I consider "good" travel sites like Hipmunk: I went to the US once in 2015 on vacations, to this day I still get the occasional spam e-mail telling me about good offers to this or that airport that I just used as a connecting point on my trip and I don't ever plan on going back.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> It's a weird thing because this seems to be the culmination of YouTube, as a platform, becoming a worse place consistently for content creators. This ad- hysteria seems to have just accelerated the process to its (yet unknown) logical conclusion. I think a lot of content creators didn't look for alternatives to YT as a platform because they've been a pretty alright place for free speech (most of the time -- even during this debacle!), but it's been having some pretty severe issues over the years (a lot of which are caused by YouTube's absolute refusal to deal with people personally).

It's also a weird situation, because free video sharing on the Internet is not really a profitable line of business when it exists in a way as liberal as YouTube is (Vimeo, for example is limited for free users, etc.) so there are not as many long term, similarly equipped alternatives to it, at least as of now.

<comment><USER10> Let's not forget that presence on YouTube likely increases viewer retention. Being part of a channel eco-system where viewers subscribe to multiple channels gives higher retention for all channels.

Note. YT did cultivate an entire market of independent media published as subscribe-able channels of videos. It's no surprise moving is hard.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is such a manufactured controversy. Most modern advertisements are based around audience rather than content. If brands are so uncomfortable with the content their customers are consuming perhaps they should consider either new customers or new products.

<comment><USER12> On that note, how much neo-nazi propaganda would I have to watch in order for advertisers to avoid me?

<comment><USER13> They never would. Unless _somebody_ decided to make public that they were advertising to neo-nazis. Only then do they have to go into damage control.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Much prefer decent native/immutable adversiting. I don't care for 'smart' ads. I don't want ads following me around the web, because they tend to advertise things that either I already know/have or decided that I don't care for. That's how 'smart' algorithmic advertising has been working. I never got influenced into clicking that Amazon product ad that followed me through dozens websites or that crowdufing product that's on Twitter/Facebook. If a brand wants to reach me, they better find a good narrative and publisher that gets me to manage the relationship. Not plant some cookie and try to guess my taste based on pages I've been to.

</comment><comment><USER15> Here's an idea, advertisers directly pay the content creators they don't have a problem with to show ads natively in their content at a point they both agree is acceptable. And there could be a contract between the 2 parties that covers any concerns either might have.

<comment><USER16> But... But... I want to advertise for peanuts. I don't want to pay premium publisher prices!

Give me premium content around my ads for free! now!

/sarcasm.

This is a solved problem. The only people complaining are the ones that want the cake and eat it too.

There is Zero opportunity here. Because 100% of your market is already served by premium publishers.

<comment><USER17> OK so now content creators have to go out there and get ads from companies.

Or... they'll find some ad aggregator, and you're basically back to step one!

<comment><USER18> Maybe you ought to be able to say "I only want to bid on PewDiePie videos" or a whitelist of approved channels. Is that possible now?

<comment><USER19> That would be fantastic. Like another post in the thread mentioned, if I'm selling telescopes I'd only want to show those ads in front of astronomy videos. Being able to whitelist specific channels (say, DeepSkyVideos and 60 Symbols) or even videos would open up a whole new long tail ad market and allow very low friction "partnering" between content creators and relevant advertisers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> > "Perhaps what we need is a browser plugin with a wallet that allows for > microtransactions. It could charge a user a penny for every page load on a > creator's blog"

this sounds like a terrible idea. i imagine being directed to pages that tick me a penny, or leaving a browser tab open for months (i do that) without looking at it but getting ticked for refreshes.

or even worse, viruses that try to log visits to pages trying to take pennies from you hopping you dont notice. and who is going to try and fight a 1 penny fraud?

even in the best circumstances, i wouldn't want to revisit someones page for fear that ill get charged but the content might not be that interesting or original

</comment><comment><USER21> _> 1\. A smarter advertising-based model._

That would be the wrong lesson to take away here. By and large, ads are a scam on many levels, and it's not at all clear how that could change. Individual deals between content producers and companies seem like the sanest alternative, but it's obvious how that's not an option for the internet at large.

 _> 2\. A model that does not rely on advertising._

Ads are a _symptom_ of what brought non-corporate Youtube content down, but it's not the root cause. Youtube and its parent company will always be susceptible to repeats and variations of the WSJ attack, and Youtube didn't exactly have a respectful relationship with their content creators to begin with. "Controversial" content such as LGBT-focused videos doesn't just get less ads, it gets suppressed by YT in other ways designed to prevent discoverability.

 _Siloization_ is the disease.

Any crisis is an opportunity for startups. The larger point here is a wakeup call about the structure of the web. There are still opportunities to change this, but companies and governments are fast at work changing that. The time would be now.

</comment><comment><USER22> eh, it's not a real problem to solve, the large new buyers in the digital video space just are avoiding the complexity of intentional targeting and placements. The measly 100k-250k I spend on video ads on YouTube can be monitored and controlled to appear exactly where necessary. The large media buyers just didn't feel like doing the work.

</comment><comment><USER23> It mentions "removing a channel" and "banning unpopular opinions". But that's not necessary to appease advertisers. You just need to unmonetize those videos. And that's what Youtube's been doing as far as I know.

</comment><comment><USER24> I've lost lots of money with Youtube ads sending me children trying to learn their abc's. Lot's and lots of children searching for cartoons landing on my channel against my geo/language/age/interest filters.

A few hours on the phone with their Indian tech support got me only false promises of call backs and refunds.

I'm unable to reach intelligent/useful person at google adwords tech support. Which is terrible, because I think that's where most of their revenue comes from?

</comment><comment> norea-armozel I don't get why so many folks thought Google was going to give them a free pass forever when it comes to various touchy subjects. Google depends on advertisers to pay its bills and make profit for its shareholders. If that means Youtube becomes more vanilla than vanilla then that's what will happen. It's not an issue of left/right political spectrum as it is more to do with the fear of alienating their clients (the advertisers) who aren't the consumers or people who make videos on Youtube. So if content creators want to take this an opportunity to find a better distribution and payment scheme I think that would be wise rather than trying to change the beast that is Google because when it comes down to your content Google can easily replace it with the generic PBS channel videos or even hire their own content creators to replace you at a discount.

</comment><comment><USER25> Problem with ads is that we don't want to buy from them, we want to search and evaluate products instead. I never buy anything online unless I test both the seller and the product for bad reviews. Ads are just too risky to buy from. I need to trust before I buy, and it's silly to keep watching ads when I know I am not going to buy anything from them.

<comment><USER26> Most ads are 'impressions' not primary sales drivers now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> It's more growing pains. Advertisers are starting to better understand the digital space so will hopefully concentrate their efforts and dollars on those creating premium video (like Kurzgesagt). Youtube could help the case by adjusting their recommendation algorithms ... watch one weird video and your recs are ruined.

<comment><USER26> Yup, i watched one frikkin video game playthru and now my suggestions are all greasy pewdiepie ripoffs yelling into the mic for hours. Even seemingly normal selections turn out to be video games, which I have precious little interest in. I would pay cash for a way to filter all the little shits. The top 10 vids are almost as bad.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I, for one, love the idea of advertisers showing some backbone.

About freaking time.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hey, this is my first time being on the front page so long. Cool. Thanks for all the great comments, dudes.

</comment><comment><USER29> This could just be a UI problem. When you see an ad on YouTube, it's right under the video's title, so there's some subconscious association from the video's content to the content in the ad.

What if YouTube ads worked more like TV commercials, where you're taking explicitly out of the content (maybe to another page to view the ad?), and then returned to the video? Would this ease advertiser's concerns about placement?

<comment><USER30> It seems like you're advocating pop up/under advertising which is universally hated.

People aren't on YouTube to watch ads they are there to watch videos. The ads need to be as unobtrusive as possible. The current approach is the only solution.

<comment><USER31> I see pre-roll ads on YouTube, is that what you mean by the 'current approach'?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> An AI trained to identify extremist video content for an automated ad to video pairing system? I've read enough sci-fi to know where this is going.

</comment><comment><USER33> _Many channels are seeing their revenues plummet as big companies pull their ads out of fear they will be shown in more controversial videos ... Strictly speaking it isn 't censorship when Youtube removes a channel for being politically too extreme._

Ugh. It's not _remotely_ censorship to stop funding something. You don't have any _obligation_ to _pay_ me to jabber in front of a camera, and neither does anyone else. Putting the distinct ideas of "refusing to pay for X" and "censorship of X" in such proximity is either the result of confusion or a deliberate attempt at emotional Roveian conflation.

The linked Guardian article makes no mention of YouTube removing either videos or channels. If that's not happening, then whatever _is_ happening isn't even _similar to_ censorship. Just because the Guardian author throws the term around so casually doesn't make it _true_.

 _...we should ask ourselves how comfortable we are with large corporations essentially setting the terms of acceptable political discourse by pressuring media platforms into banning unpopular opinions._

Back in the 1970s, when video in America was dominated by three huge networks, an argument like this would have made a glimmer of sense: if advertisers pulled out of a program en masse, the network management would cancel the show in search of something more profitable, and the attitudes or opinions the program espoused might not be represented on television at all anymore.

But the internet isn't like that. YouTube isn't like that. You can keep making your show, your blog, your own personal website, etc., regardless of what the advertisers do. There is no panel of bean counters controlling access to limited, valuable airwaves, because the "airwaves" are unbounded in breadth and unmoored from time. One might argue that this is the principal, signature difference between broadcast television and internet video.

Even if YouTube was deleting videos outright, they're hardly the only way to share videos online. They simply aren't _capable_ of "banning unpopular opinions" in any effective general way.

It's a little tough to take "righteous" "Wiseman's" internet-censorship-based startup ideas seriously when 1) he doesn't seem to understand what censorship is 2) he doesn't seem to understand important differences between the internet and older media systems.

</comment><comment><USER34> OT: does blogspot look awful on iPhone for everyone else? I have to use the "request desktop site" feature in Safari. I see even official Google posts on blogspot so I would have thought they would make it work...

</comment><comment><USER35> Steem is an interesting concept around rewarding content creators through blockchain and cryptocurrency technology: [https://steem.io/](https://steem.io/)

<comment><USER26> Good thing they wont get confused by any other huge online services with a similar name... oh wait... Seriously though, wtf were they thinking?

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Is it really censorship or are we seeing the effects of the end of net neutrality with 0 rated services. I'm wondering whether advertisers are using placement as an excuse to try to weasel out of long term ad contracts if youtube's numbers are taking a huge hit to 0 rated video services favored by the carriers? Would you want your ad dollars trapped in a service in decline with long term contracts or try to find some way to get out of it even if its some excuse about a couple ad placements to find a way to break the contract and free those ad dollars for 0 rated carrier favored services?

</comment><comment><USER37> So... Patreon.</comment>


U.S. issues China travel advisory amid increased tensions - h- https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-travel-idUSKCN1OX1DJ <comment><AUTHOR> After traveling for over 2.5 years through 30 countries in Africa (still going)[1], I've learned travel advisories are extremely Political.

Senegal wants to get a fair price for it's resources and asks for that? France issues a travel warning and decimates their tourist industry for a few years.

It's common place for Western countries to issue travel warnings when they just don't like what a certain country is doing politically. It's often got nothing to do with traveler safety.

[1][http://instagram.com/theroadchoseme/](http://instagram.com/theroadchoseme/)

<comment><USER2> Sounds believable that countries do these alerts for sometimes political reasons, but China is actually keeping people from leaving the country for unspecified reasons and is seizing people, even their own citizens.

<comment><AUTHOR> Plenty of countries do bad things to their own citizens that have absolutely no impact on foreign tourists who visit.

I'm not saying it's OK, but it's hardly a reason to warn people not to go there.

<comment><USER3> [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/19/us/politics/china- canada-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/19/us/politics/china-canada- huawei.html)

China has been holding 3 Canadian's, likely in retaliation to the CFO of Huawei being held. So it may seem warranted here?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> To put this in context, the US Travel Advisory for China is "Level 2: Exercise Increased Caution". This is the same as the travel advisory for the U.K., most of Western Europe, and the touristy parts of Mexico.

Map of US Travel Advisories: [https://travelmaps.state.gov/TSGMap/](https://travelmaps.state.gov/TSGMap/)

</comment><comment><USER5> According to YouTubers fitting the description, lots of ex-patriate westerners have been leaving China in recent months. The climate there has changed from tolerant/friendly towards westerners to "we don't need you."

(serpentza and laowhy86 on YouTube are how I became aware of this.)

<comment><USER6> More like those two did not possess enough skills to qualify for a better visa. No country inherently needs immigrants who can't contribute anything. Zero sympathy for them.

laowhy86 and serpentza subsisted off a horde of uninformed people who couldn't be bothered to even read Wikipedia articles about a country. This is evident through the clickbait-y style and non-existent intellectual depth of their videos.

<comment><USER7> > No country inherently needs immigrants who can't contribute anything. Zero > sympathy for them.

We're all people of the earth who do not need inherit value to live with some imaginary line on the ground.

<comment><USER8> >We're all people of the earth who do not need inherit value to live with some imaginary line on the ground.

I'm not agreeing with the GP, but the world simply doesn't work that way. Travel across the "imaginary lines" you speak of are controlled via military might, so perhaps they're not just "imaginary". See how well you fare attempting to run across the NK/SK border.

<comment><USER9> Being "made up" (what I think GP means by "imaginary") doesn't mean that such things lack force. For instance, class is "made up" and some ontologies of race and gender fix them as "made up" \- this does not, of course, mean that class, race and gender do not have very real effects on society and the individuals therein. But humans have power over human abstractions, so such "made up" things can be changed, as opposed to what I presume OP would group into things not "made up", such as the laws of physics. Being "made up" hints to a possibility, no matter how remote, of a different (and dare I say better) world.

<comment><USER8> Calling them "imaginary lines" was an obvious attempt by the GP to disregard them as meaningless. They are not meaningless, that was my point.

<comment><USER9> But by the same token, if we assume that GP is more than a simpleton (in the principle of charity) we must say that they would also consider art (always created by human intention) to be "imaginary lines", but I doubt they would deny paintings can have meaning. Words (usually though not always naturally evolved), by the same token, are just scrawls, but they have meaning despite being "made up" in the same way. GP knows they have meaning because he/she is using them in such a way. I read the idea that the lines are imaginary to mean that they don't have to be that way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Headline is somewhat misleading, since that advisory seems to be the same as previous year (and maybe previous years?).

</comment><comment><USER11> One Chinese idiom is "kill the chicken to scare the monkey" — right now Canada is the chicken.

</comment><comment><USER12> I guess 30 years of peace and prosperity was too much for people to handle.. we can't just read our history, we have to learn the hard way.

<comment><USER13> I dunno... a travel warning about a country with over a million people currently in camps seems reasonable.

<comment><USER14> We have about 1/4 their population and over 2 million people in prison I'd think people visiting the US from China should be the ones that are worried.

<comment><USER15> prison =/= forced labor camp for political prisoners or Muslims

I have yet to see Trump arrest the hundreds of thousands of people who marched against him and send them to perform slave labor in Alaska. Or arrest members of the media or opposing political parties who criticize him

<comment><USER16> I only wish that was true[1]. Of course, that does nothing to let the Chinese government off the hook for imprisoning and 're-educating' their Uighur citizens.

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

<comment><USER17> >I only wish that was true[1].

he said

>for political prisoners or Muslims

Penal labor is bad and all, but equating what china's doing with what's happening in the US is giving china too much credit.

<comment><USER16> I wasn't trying to give China any credit, what they're doing is reprehensible, no doubt about it. I was suggesting that the situation of African-Americans in the US prison system[1] is less different from the Chinese example than we'd like to think.

1: [https://www.naacp.org/criminal-justice-fact- sheet/](https://www.naacp.org/criminal-justice-fact-sheet/)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Tesla: Solar Car Roof Idea Is All but Dead - <AUTHOR> https://stocknews.com/news/tsla-tesla-inc-tsla-solar-car-roof-idea-is-all-but/ <comment><USER2> Sounds about right, to me.

Solar cells are heavy, require maintenance, and the small amount of area on the roof of a car is unlikely to improve real world driving time, especially since the cells will be at an angle to the incoming sunlight most of the time.</comment>


Marissa Mayer takes Yahoo back to the... past - <AUTHOR> http://www.itworld.com/it-management/344958/marissa-mayer-takes-yahoo-back-past

<comment><USER2> That wasn't even remotely funny. No pun intended.

</comment><comment><USER3> That's quite amusing. I got through the first few paragraphs and then had to check to see if it was 1 April!

</comment><comment><USER4> trollius maximus</comment>


Daily Stand-Up Meetings Are a Good Tool for a Bad Manager - <AUTHOR> http://www.yegor256.com/2015/01/08/morning-standup-meetings.html?2015-01 <comment><USER2> Standups are one of those things that 15 years ago sounded great on paper.

"Yeah, everybody is communicating every morning. Our communication problems are solved!"

The reality is that 90% of my standups are pointless and more importantly interrupt my most productive time of the day.

</comment><comment><USER3> I never understood the point of the daily meeting.

To find out what other people are doing, I can just look at source control or the ticketing system.

If things are properly organized, I don't really need to know 95%+ of the stuff other people are doing. When they are doing something that impacts me, they can tell me. I don't need a daily meeting for that.

The only advantage of the daily meeting seems to be micromanagement. But everyone has good days and bad days. There are some days where things come easily, and days when it's a struggle to do fixes that should be quick.

<comment><USER4> How are people supposed to know what you are working on if aren't communicating with them routinely?

<comment><AUTHOR> There are better instruments for sharing this information. You can use task tracking software, you can use emails, etc. No need to stand up for that in the middle of the office, every morning.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, for example:

Boss: Fred, I want you to work on the Frobitz feature. FSK worked on the Frobitz feature a little, so coordinate with him.

For a daily meeting, I hear about a lot of stuff that usually has nothing to do with what I'm working on. Inevitably, two people get sidetracked and talk for 15-30 minutes on an issue that only affects them, making it a huge waste of time. (I know that isn't how daily meetings are supposed to work, but that's what happened at the place that did them.)

<comment><USER5> Peer pressure. If two people get sidetracked, after about 10-20 seconds, say, "Take it off-line. Next?" It's even better if multiple people are willing to do this, or at least to back you when you make the request.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Some of the comments here surprise me. I have used stand up meetings for years. Yet I never thought they were for the benefit of the manager. Instead they help keep everyone abreast of what is going on and quickly sets the tone for the day if there are any key issues that need to be resolved.</comment>


Craving cannabis: is marijuana addictive? - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/apr/28/marijuana-addictive <comment><USER2> Anyone who has smoked for longer than a month at a time will know that the cold sweats few days after quitting are inevitable.</comment>


Sex Dolls That Talk Back - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/12/technology/robotica-sex-robot-realdoll.html <comment><USER2> Sorry, but if sound or video is going to immediately autoplay, then I'm going to immediately close the tab.

</comment><comment><USER3> That's an extremely weird video.

First, the guy making robo-concubines is just strange, in a scientific sort of way.

Second, a friend of mine calls the hypothetical owners of robot sex dolls, "Robosexuals".

Third, what was with the artificial theremin music in the background? Was it to convey that these robo-concubines are "in the future" or "some time in the future"? Because all it did for me was point out how un-easy the filmaker was with the subject matter.

</comment><comment><USER4> I could see that being popular in Japan!</comment>


Paul Cormier Replaces Jim Whitehurst as Red Hat CEO - <AUTHOR> https://www.itprotoday.com/hybrid-cloud/paul-cormier-replaces-jim-whitehurst-red-hat-ceo <comment><USER2> Even more interesting

> "Red Hat's CEO for the past 12 years moves to take on the role of IBM > president"

<comment><USER3> Here's IBM release about that: [https://newsroom.ibm.com/2020-01-30-Arvind- Krishna-Elected-I...](https://newsroom.ibm.com/2020-01-30-Arvind-Krishna- Elected-IBM-Chief-Executive-Officer)

President seems like second-in-command, below CEO. (And the outgoing CEO was both.) Am I understanding that right?

<comment><USER4> Correct -- Ginni Rometty was CEO, President, and Chairman of the Board. She remains Chairman, while Arvind Krishna is now CEO and Whitehurst is President.

This is the first time in a while that the IBM President & CEO roles have been divided among two different people.

<comment><USER5> The president title was a thing for people claiming the top spot without being the founder. It doesn't make sense to split CEO & President role between two people, but when the fable is told long enough the people who tell believe it themselves.

<comment><USER6> Its the co-CEO strategy, or two in box. Its becoming quite popular as of late.

<comment><USER7> Why is that? I can't imagine it going well for an extended period of time.

<comment><USER8> > I can't imagine it going well for an extended period of time.

Why is that?

I don't think there are many modern examples, but the idea of consensus based decision making isn't new, and doesn't appear to be intrinsically flawed.

Consider the origin of the word triumvirate. While the first one ended less than optimally for all concerned, we have a slightly less violent way of dealing with organisational promotion and succession now.

Personally I _love_ the idea of having three equal heads of state, especially if their decision and voting behaviours are obliged to be published.

But I also like the idea of proper democracy. I'm Australian, and I don't think we have an actual democracy here - just a poor facsimile. I think in the USA it's even more distant.

<comment><USER9> The Swiss Federal Council is an example.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> If anyone wants to find out more on what Cormier wants to focus on over the coming years, he did a small QnA: [https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/get-know- red-hat-president-an...](https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/get-know-red-hat- president-and-ceo-paul-cormier)

It will be interesting to see, how his management style is going to impact Red Hat over the coming years. Considering his background and acumen, I feel like there is going to be a stronger focus on tailored services and specific solutions for organizations. They are already very active in the health care and financial industry, so this could be an area they might expand.

<comment><USER11> A lot of IBM products are in the cloud and the focus from Whitehurst as IBM president is that cloud, containers/K8s/RHOSP, and edge are the big things that will be going on. It will be very interesting to see how RH plays into the broader IBM strategy. Will RH become the platform and IBM becomes tooling, services, and products on top of that platform? Or will RH move to more consultancy and enterprise IT services? Coming from Cisco where the acquired company always gets folded into the mothership, I find it very interesting to see IBM's stance of keeping RH alone and mostly separate. At least for now...

<comment><USER6> its very possible and widely touted that it could go the other way, in that Red Hat takes over IBM (culturally. Red Hat certainly has a strong enough culture to do that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I work for Red Hat and wasn't going to comment (as I don't know Paul), but I feel somewhat compelled by so much of the negativity here.

Red Hat, like all companies, is not a monolith. It's a huge mix of people from different places, cultures, etc. It's a salad bowl of personalities, values, and priorities.

Somehow we come together to make some amazing products. As I mentioned above I can't comment on Paul because I don't know him, but I can comment on what I've seen at Red Hat.

We are super forgiving about "license violations." I've never seen the "Oracle tactics" and if I do, I'll probably quit. IBM is not infecting Red Hat, in fact it's the other way around. I don't interact with IBM at all but from what I've seen at a distance we are spreading our culture to them. I don't agree with every policy of ours regarding RHEL and subscriptions, etc, as I feel it disincentivizes community usage too much, but I've _never_ seen it used punitively or aggressively against anyone, especially our customers.

I choose to remain optimistic that the future is bright, until there's actual evidence that it may not be true. Jumping to conclusions early is at best unproductive and at worst could become a self-fulfilling prophecy. I'm excited to see what the future will bring.

</comment><comment><USER13> Good for Paul. He has wanted the CEO job forever, and was notoriously bitter about being passed over last time.

Don't expect a revolution in Red Hat's strategy or culture. Paul was already extremely influential, especially on product and R&D which are not Jim's strong suits.

Things to know about Paul:

\- He is very competitive and has a zero-sum approach to competition: for him to win, someone else has to lose.

\- He has a bad temper. If you work on the same floor as him, you will hear yelling.

\- He doesn't shy away from Oracle-style tactics. Expect customer audits to get more hardball; more aggressive use of anti-competitive bundling ("if you use this competitor's product on RHEL, we will not support that RHEL host").

<comment><USER14> As someone who is a big fan of Red Hat, it horrifies me to see the new CEO be described like that. He sounds like one of the worst people for Red Hat. I admit I despise power seekers and people with tempers, so that's coloring my view a lot.

I have always been optimistic about Red Hat's future, but this has me very worried. Red Hat has done so much good in the world, and it would suck to see them shrink or disappear. That said tho, I'd rather they go extinct than become evil. The latter suddenly seems like a possibility. I sure hope I'm wrong.

<comment><USER15> Yah similar to zapita's reply below, if this person is a driving force in redhat's past, you probably won't see any changes if you liked what they were doing in the past.

Brings to light an understanding of things like systemd though. I can understand how a culture like this would promote systemd's "all or nothing" approach.

The thing is, this is how Redhat Wins and has been winning ... I think redhat won't disappear because of this leadership style, but this is how it has been getting contracts, making money, getting sponsorships, and being attractive enough to be bought by IBM.

<comment><USER13> > _The thing is, this is how Redhat Wins and has been winning ... I think > redhat won 't disappear because of this leadership style, but this is how it > has been getting contracts, making money, getting sponsorships, and being > attractive enough to be bought by IBM._

Very true. Red Hat is a very successful company by any measure. Paul played an important role in making that happen.

At the same time, Red Hat also has a major problem which limits its long-term growth potential: lack of meaningful diversification. RHEL is still the lion's share of their revenue. It's a powerhouse of a business, but its growth is definitely reaching a plateau. So what comes next? As far as I can tell, the answer is: Openshift and Ansible. Both are successful products, for different reasons. But can they grow revenue fast enough to compensate for RHEL's gradual decline? The answer seems to be "not yet". I think Red Hat reached the same conclusion, realized that their stock price would likely peak in 2019/2020 as markets realize the problem, and decided to sell.

And here's the thing: Paul also owns this problem. The failure to differentiate happened on his watch. If you believe Openshift/Ansible revenue is already on the same growth trajectory as RHEL, then success is a matter of execution, and Paul is the right guy for the job. But if you believe that Ansible and Openshift, while good, are just not as game-changing as RHEL once was - then no amount of execution will solve that problem.

EDIT: I meant "diversification", not differentiation! My bad.

<comment><USER16> DISCLAIMER: I work for Red Hat Consulting.

Red Hat almost doesn't sell RHEL by itself anymore [0][1]. RHEL is lumped into OpenShift, Quay, OCS, OpenStack, RHV and more often than not sold along side Ansible, Tower, JBoss, AMQ, Fuse, DecisionManager, etc. So, the revenue streams are being bundled together which makes it harder to tease out which product is pushing the Total Revenue line. Our integration with IBM might make that even harder to tell since they love to bundle everything into Cloud Paks [2]. You can review our 10Qs to understand our Revenue performance.

What do you mean we lack differentiation? From who or what? Microsoft? AWS? Google? Canonical? SuSe? Apple? VMware? Pivotal? Docker?

When we got acquired, we were the first $3B Open Source company with double- digit percentage growth [3]. And I think there is a brawl going on for big Corporate IT Cloud $$$. You might make the case that Red Hat was completely outgunned in a scenario where a $3B company wanted to compete against $100B companies (AWS, Google, MS, IBM).

[0] [https://www.redhat.com/en/store/linux- platforms](https://www.redhat.com/en/store/linux-platforms)

[1] [https://www.redhat.com/en/store/red-hat- middleware](https://www.redhat.com/en/store/red-hat-middleware)

[2] [https://www.ibm.com/cloud/paks/](https://www.ibm.com/cloud/paks/)

[3] [https://www.redhat.com/en/about/press-releases/red-hat- repor...](https://www.redhat.com/en/about/press-releases/red-hat-reports- first-quarter-results-fiscal-year-2020)

<comment><USER13> > _Red Hat almost doesn 't sell RHEL by itself anymore [0][1]. RHEL is lumped > into OpenShift, Quay, OCS, OpenStack, RHV and more often than not sold along > side Ansible, Tower, JBoss, AMQ, Fuse, DecisionManager, etc._

Right, but that only strengthens my point. Red Hat is bundling add-ons with RHEL in an effort to boost add-on sales. Without the bundling, those products would be doing considerably worse in the marketplace.

> _So, the revenue streams are being bundled together which makes it harder to > tease out which product is pushing the Total Revenue line_

Again, this supports my point. Given the historical importance of RHEL revenue standalone, there is no good reason to bundle it with other streams, other than to hide something. What is being hidden, presumably, is exactly how much Red Hat still depends on good old RHEL renewal, as opposed to genuine demand for their new products.

<comment><USER16> I wouldn't put so much credence on historical revenue streams. As computing has changed, so have the revenue streams. There's fewer & fewer companies these days building and selling OSes. Linux has done wonders to standardize and commoditize the OS. I think the reality of computing today is that platforms, subscriptions & services are what companies want. It's a very Cloud Computing or Utilities-like conversation at certain levels of many companies. SaaS, PaaS, IaaS, CaaS, KaaS, Managed Services (your PaaS, IaaS, CaaS, KaaS or "X"aaS). We (Red Hat) have even developed (or are developing) Automation as a Service, AppDev as a Service, Digital Transformation as a Service, (Data) Integration as a Service managed services or service offerings. And obviously for Red Hat, it is all on a foundation of RHEL. But to focus on the OS is short sighted. No one believes an OS by itself is the solution anymore. So you can call them add-ons to RHEL, but things like OpenShift, Ansible, OpenStack, Satellite, etc. also have their add-ons in our catalog.

So, I don't believe we're intentionally trying to hide revenue deltas in one product or another. I think that as computing has changed, customers are no longer asking if an OS can run these 1, 2, 3, dozen apps or network services on a single machine. Instead, they're asking for platforms or services that run their 10K or 100K apps/services in elastic, scalable and manageable ways. And we have platforms for those customers. And those platforms and service generally try to optimize for density and utilization. So that frees up resources for new apps and services.

<comment><USER13> I agree that the world is moving away from the OS-centric model, towards a cloud-centric model. I just don't think Red Hat is nearly as strong in the new model as it was in the old.

Red Hat was an uncontested leader and innovator in the OS market. In the cloud market... not the same story. The gap in revenue between RHEL and _everything else_ illustrates that.

<comment><USER16> I don't worry about that. We're backed by IBM Cloud now, there was that $34B bet placed last year, there's all sort of cross selling going on between IBM and Red Hat. I imagine we'll see more and more Red Hat software integrated in IBM Cloud services and offerings, and then, we'll have a Red Hat Enterprise Linux which will look a lot like Amazon Linux (which appears to be based on RHEL & CentOS).

<comment><USER12> Do you think IBM cloud will get more competitive price and feature wise? AWS (and Google and Azure, etc) are overpriced in many ways (dgress charges anyone?). I would love to see IBM cloud be price competitive. If it also then featured first class Red Hat products that could be compelling even to startup and hobbyists. I'd happily pay the same cost I pay now for a VM to get the equivalent CPU/mem/disk in an OpenShift cluster.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Wow, for the first time in decades I see a sliver of hope for IBM's relevance.

<comment><USER18> RedHat shares IBM's model of "change the terms and product definitions every year and audit folks to death who can't switch providers"

They are going to irrelevance together.

<comment><USER19> I've worked with several large firms that had large footprints of Red Hat products and never heard about them being audited. You're confusing them with Oracle.

<comment><USER20> No, just sounds like that person can't keep track of how many system they deploy.

<comment><USER19> Well, it's not always as simple as 'how many systems' even when you're talking about just an operating system. There's licensing based on cores and/or sockets. Then there's licensing for virtual machines.

Oracle was really nasty in some of the licensing scenarios, IIRC. If you ran an Oracle DB on an unlicensed platform in a VM (such as VMWare), then when you got audited, you needed to pay for how many cores/sockets were in the physical server, rather than just how much CPU your VM was using.

<comment><USER20> Is there evidence of Red Hat ever doing that kind of gotcha licensing?

<comment><USER19> I don't know of any, but that isn't to say there isn't any. Oracle on the other hand is widely known for this practice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Hopefully this will be like when Apple bought Next.

<comment><USER22> I hope is not like when IBM bought the Weather Company then proceeded to destroy all the good things Weather Underground did

<comment><USER3> Did anyone from the Weather Company join IBM senior leadership?

<comment><USER23> David Kenny ran Watson for a couple years.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Cringely on IBM, Red Hat, and Whitehurst: [https://www.cringely.com/2020/01/31/predictions- for-2020-ibm...](https://www.cringely.com/2020/01/31/predictions-for-2020-ibm- and-trump/)

</comment><comment><USER25> Is this good for IBM?

<comment><USER26> In the sense that we hope Red Hat takes over IBM and makes it a success again, yes.</comment></comment>


A change to the sell-by dates on food - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/02/16/a-barely-noticeable-change-to-how-food-is-labeled-could-save-americans-millions/ <comment><USER2> This has been the case in the UK for many years. There's an actual regulatory difference between 'use by' and 'best before': [https://www.food.gov.uk/science/microbiology/use-by-and- best...](https://www.food.gov.uk/science/microbiology/use-by-and-best-before- dates)

<comment><USER3> This can generate a bit of confusion. Many won't eat anything past its best before date, as though it's a use by date. Best before date = no guarantee of quality after. Use by date = potentially poisonous after.

In fact, we have online stores that sell past best before date food at ridiculous prices because retailers can't really sell them.

<comment><USER4> They could simply have used the terms "Unsure quality after" and "Discard after"

<comment><USER5> Or "could be dodgy" and "will be dodgy".

<comment><USER6> Fellow Australian think we are going to have to explain to most of the rest of the world what dodgy means first :)

Anyway shouldn't it be "might be dodgy" and "is dodgy"?

<comment><USER3> Except the British, or at least Mancunians. "Ugh tastes a bit dodgy" does not sound foreign to me in any way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The best thing about these dates is fancy high end stuff gets tossed in the discount bin for 50-75% off when that date is imminent.

And based on my experience, yeah, it's not "best" at that time, but it's still edible, not so bad, and maybe even pretty ok compared to fresh cheap stuff filled with artificial flavors.

<comment><USER8> Ive seen this in the UK Aus and NZ but never in the US. I wonder if it is because US stores stick to a perhaps rational strategy where discounted items cannibalize profits?

<comment><USER9> It's in the US too however it's in lower cost areas. For example, a small rural town in Wisconsin has a bargain store that often gets these kinds of items from Costco and major markets like NYC and Chicago (it's obvious by the ethnic grocery items). Obviously, one small store isn't enough to sell it all so there must be quite a few of these spread out over the country in lower cost of living areas where rent is cheap for low margin small retail.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The expiry date put on medicines are sometimes absurd. Certainly antibiotics may break down, but why would aspirin have an expiry date that's only a year or two away? It's a simple stable molecule that would probably last decades. Anyone know what's up with that?

<comment><USER11> Aspirin is acetylsalicylic acid. When it's exposed to water vapor, the acetyl group comes off and combines with water to make acetic acid, which is the acid in vinegar [1].

This happens pretty fast. An open bottle of uncoated aspirin tablets can start to smell of vinegar in a day or two, depending on the local relative humidity.

If you smell vinegar when you sniff your bottle of aspirin, toss the bottle. Why? Well, the other hydrolysis reaction product (salicylic acid) removes the outer layer of the skin and is used, for example, to remove warts [2]. Not something you want in your stomach.

[1] [http://www.kii3.ntf.uni- lj.si/analchemvoc2/file.php/1/HTML/S...](http://www.kii3.ntf.uni- lj.si/analchemvoc2/file.php/1/HTML/SPEKTRA/kinetics2.htm)

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

<comment><USER12> Isn't your stomach already extremely acidic...?

<comment><USER13> Not all acids are the same. What's at play isn't only the amount of free protons but also what else is disassociating. For instance, hydrofluoric acid is considered a weak acid but it can severely burn (pretty slowly but it will get you) or even kill you. The fluoride group will consume the calcium ions in your blood and possibly send you into cardiac arrest.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> In case you missed it (since there are a lot of quotes being thrown around in the article...), the new standard will be either:

"Use By: (date)", or "Best if Used By: (date)"

However, the article still claims there are no guarantees of adoption.

<comment><USER15> > "Use By: (date)", or "Best if Used By: (date)"

Since one contains the other, seems like this could be open to packaging errors. Much better to use an alternative verb for 'best if used by', i.e. 'display until'.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Germany uses the wording "Mindestens haltbar bis", which roughly means "good until at least". Yet despite using the "at least" wording, a lot of people still throw out their yogurts that are one day over the date.

<comment><USER17> Yeah, but I've seen it much more often with meat and sausages that people are (over?)cautious.

Then again yoghurts months after this date still looked and smelled fine, but at some point even I start getting wary :)

<comment><USER18> The nifty thing about dairy, at least, is that the human nose is very adept at determining spoilage.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> My brother - who is a chef has - has already told me to hunt for the oldest beef I can find in the shelves.

Oh, and one of the largest grocery chains here has now started agressively pushing anything that is about to expire by cutting the price in half and put it on display in a designated fridge.

Market segmentation I guess but for those who care to check it is often lots of good food at a nice price.

<comment><USER20> if it's the same price why would you want the oldest beef!?

<comment><USER19> In case you really wonder:

Because 1. some ageing is good for beef and 2. often beef isn't aged enough when it enter the shelves.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Sonetimes the dates are inaccurate, but I've always been impressed by the ability of milk to go from totally fine to weird-tasting on precisely the use- by date.

</comment><comment><USER22> It's nice to see an example of self regulation working once in a while.

<comment> rm_-rf_slash Another example is MPAA movie ratings. Since they decide which ages are appropriate for the movies that they license local theaters to play, theaters prohibit kids from sneaking into R-rated movies, even though it isn't against R law.

It's a shame self-regulation doesn't occur more often.

<comment><USER23> The MPAA rating system might look like a success from the outside but I think a lot of people familiar with it would disagree. It is wildly inconsistent and the rules that it does follow are mostly arbitrary (one "fuck" is ok, but two isn't) . The process of getting a film rated is not very transparent and getting a film re-rated can be prohibitively expensive for low budget films.

<comment><USER24> On the other hand, government rating systems can get hilarious.

Here in Finland, VHS and DVD distribution of program materials were rated for audiences (does it suit children or not, etc) by a government agency. They wanted to raise money for the government. So, even if a program was rated for VHS, distributors couldn't use the same rating for DVD distribution; they had to pay another fee to get the DVD rating. Without government inspection, movies had to be distributed with K-18 (X-rated) label.

Eventually, one of the distributors got fed up when they were told to pay yet again for the new rating of "Little House on the Prairie", the nostalgic 1970's family series classic. The distributor simply said no, and decided to sell Little House as an X-rated DVD release. Supermarkets had to verify that buyers had photo ID and were over 18 years old. Parents were told it's forbidden to show the series to their children (it had been on air in prime time in 1970's and many remembered it fondly).

Everyone started to laugh at the government rating agency, and they gave up and changed the regulation.

<comment><USER25> I met someone who worked for the British equivalent, the BBFC.

She said every release had to be submitted for classification, since they often contained different material -- a slightly different edit of the main film, or "extra features" which occasionally needed changing, such as where the director's interview "The Making of Fluffy Bunny Adventures III" had him cursing about something.

<comment><USER26> British Broadcasting F*ck Commision?

<comment><USER27> Eh? British Board of Film Classification

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> When it comes to food I go by look, smell, and taste. The dates don't often mean much. I've had bread that grew mold a week before the sell by date and I've had bread that didn't a week after the date.

</comment><comment><USER29> Ah another reminder I am old, and thankful I got to learn the lost art of using my senses, and appreciating food that although not useful for winning photography awards, it was still yummy. Yes, I'm one of those that gets frustrated when I see someone throw away a banana because it had a softer spot on one end, or "ew, too many freckles". I am from a past that will never return. While I'm here, I'll miss it.

EDIT: I should mention that I prefer buying non-packaged food, so I still trust my senses better than any "sell by" or "best before" labels.

<comment><USER30> It's one of the superpowers I got from being poor back in the day. The "sniff test" always makes my wife and her family laugh :-)

<comment><USER31> The human olfactory system is the product of millions of years of evolution, it's highly adept at detecting food that's no longer edible. Nature doesn't come with labels, that's why the smell of inedible food is so obvious and fowl.

<comment><USER32> You can smell meat that is rotting. You can't smell most bacterial contamination, and some of these can be fatal.

For example, fresh chicken will smell fine, but a lot of it (in Europe) is contaminated with campylobater.

[https://www.food.gov.uk/science/microbiology/campylobacterev...](https://www.food.gov.uk/science/microbiology/campylobacterevidenceprogramme)

> We carried out a survey of campylobacter in chicken on retail sale in the UK > between May 2007 and September 2008, and it reported that campylobacter was > present in 65% of the fresh chicken samples tested. A European Union > baseline survey carried out in 2008, and published by European Food Safety > Authority in March 2010, showed the UK estimated prevalence for > campylobacter in broiler batches (caecal contents) was 75.3% and 86.3% in > broiler carcasses (skin samples). These results were above the weighted EU > mean prevalences of 71.2% and 77% respectively. There was a wide range of > campylobacter prevalence across members states varying from 4.9% to 100% in > broiler carcasses and from 2% to 100% in broiler batches.

<comment><USER26> True, but that's the reason why you don't see "raw" recipes for poultry: properly cooking the meat kills whole classes of bacteria prevalent in it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> As a consumer I only want to know two things...

        1) Use By (if properly stored)

        2) Best By (a guess about quality, should be BEFORE above)

Note that both of these are /best case/ outcomes. Food can and frequently does go bad before then. An example that comes to mind is highly pasteurized milk. IF SEALED and STORED PROPERLY it can indeed live to that date. However I've also noticed that it tends to go bad at roughly a fixed time after unsealing, even if it's well before that date.

<comment><USER34> "You've noticed"? It's printed on every pack of UHT milk I've seen: 'After opening, refrigerate and use within x days'.

UHT isn't some magic process that allows milk to sit in an open container for months.

<comment><USER33> As a followup:

I checked the milk in my apartment's fridge. My room mate's only lists a pull date and has no other handling instructions (not even to refrigerate). The milk I am buying /now/ happens to mention, in otherwise completely ignoble and normal looking text in an out of the way area, to refrigerate and use within 7 days of opening, but not past the printed date.

I would hazard that most consumers have read the directions on milk /maybe/ once, if at all, and have been operating on prior behavior since then.

<comment><USER34> "My room mate's only lists a pull date and has no other handling instructions (not even to refrigerate)"

I'm not sure where you live but, if in the US, you room-mates milk packaging is contrary to FDA regulations. See this doc: [https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/GuidanceRegulation/UCM209...](https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/GuidanceRegulation/UCM209789.pdf)

Section 4, paragraph 3, point 2 says that milk subject to 'aseptic processing' (defined earlier in the same doc, as milk that can be stored without refrigeration in a hermetically sealed container) must be labeled with the words 'keep refrigerated after opening'.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> The nose knows people! Just smell and look, I have eaten many past due things and scooped of layers of fungi. I have never been ill from it, 34 years and counting.

Sure, be careful with chicken and turkey but yoghurt for example, come on, it's basically a bottle of bacteria already and the smell is hard to ignore when it actually goes bad.

<comment><USER36> I generally agree, but be careful with moldy food. Some mold species produce mycotoxins that can be quite dangerous (e.g. aflatoxin can induce liver cancer, some mycotoxins can't be degraded and build up in the liver).

Simply removing the fungi is not enough, since the toxins diffuse into the food matrix (e.g in jam, yoghurt). An exception is mold on fruits and vegetables, there you can cut out the affected areas, the toxins can't diffuse across the cell walls.

<comment><USER36> Because everyone likes references, here's a good start for further reading: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC164220/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC164220/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Off topic, but what is wrong with this site? The top bar is moving around and as a reader, I cannot use the top of the browser as a line to read. It is extremely frustrating.

</comment><comment><USER38> I once bought some Camembert in France which, instead of having an expiration date, had a date to determine the ripeness of the cheese e.g. "Eat this cheese 30 days after this date if you like it ripe and runny".

</comment><comment><USER39> I learned not long ago that fresh meat is not really good; it has to be held for some time to reach its best point.

Few centuries ago it was even a delight to let the meat "rot" a little more.

<comment><USER40> I have seen some meats with a "best after" date as well as the regular date markings. Makes sense.

<comment><USER39> I found it funny to think that people in "non civilized" eras knew that fairly well, while I never even considered the idea.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> "In fact, it's totally fine to eat a product even well after its so-called expiration date."

Not so, unless lost nutrition and bad flavor are totally fine. Americans eat a lot of moldy nuts, rancid olive oil, and stale coffee. Just Google for the expert opinions on these foods, and compare to what you read on the label of any mainstream, high-volume product on the shelves.

<comment><USER42> >stale coffee

I'd say consuming stale coffee _is_ totally fine. The only certain way (that I'm aware of) to get coffee that won't be stale is to grind the beans just before use, and I certainly do not have patience for that. I buy packaged coffee even if my hipster-y friends disapprove.

For a regular coffee drinker, a far more useful way to improve the taste of coffee is to remember to wash the pot of the coffee machine more regularly.

<comment><USER43> The clock starts ticking on coffee as soon as it's roasted (green beans last a long time). Grinding accelerates the degradation as more of the coffee is exposed to oxygen (nitrogen flushed containers help here). Coffee off its peak isn't harmful, but is less flavorful.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> What about wine? That should have a best after?

<comment><USER45> Certain beers do; particularly the lambics. They'll have a 'best after' date, or a 'best before' with 20 years in the future.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> My goto website for this is : eatbydate.com

<comment><USER47> I've had [http://stilltasty.com](http://stilltasty.com) recommended to me as well.</comment></comment>


The Wall Street regulation overhaul gives FTC authority over the Internet - <AUTHOR> http://hotair.com/archives/2010/05/01/why-does-the-wall-street-regulation-overhaul-give-ftc-authority-over-the-internet/

<comment><USER2> This is a somewhat misleading presentation (unsurprisingly, given the source). The Washington Post article it links to is somewhat more informative:

 _The version of regulatory overhaul legislation passed by the House would allow the FTC to issue rules on a fast track and permit the agency to impose civil penalties on companies that hurt consumers.

[...]

Advertisers and retailers, for example, are wary of new rules from the FTC, which acts as their primary enforcement agency. The House financial overhaul bill would make it easier for the FTC to issue rules on privacy that would curtail an advertiser's ability to collect personal data on consumers' Web habits._

A much more detailed analysis of the FTC changes here: [http://thebalanceact.wordpress.com/2010/04/22/today-at- the-a...](http://thebalanceact.wordpress.com/2010/04/22/today-at-the-aba- expanding-the-ftc%E2%80%99s-role-through-financial-reform/)

You can read the text of the house bill here: [http://financialservices.house.gov/Key_Issues/Financial_Regu...](http://financialservices.house.gov/Key_Issues/Financial_Regulatory_Reform/FinancialRegulatoryReform/hr4173eh.pdf)

The Wall street Journal rather likes the House bill, or at least significant parts of it: <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125729617077326787.html> ..and yes, those things are still in there.

<comment><USER3> The liberal front page of the WSJ might like it, but the conservative editorial board doesn't; here's the most recent house editorial on the subject: [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22his+achievements+include+h...](http://www.google.com/search?q=%22his+achievements+include+having+predicted+the+financial+panic+of+2008.+It+was+a%22+site%3Awsj.com)

Here's Wikipedia on the Journal's split personalities: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WSJ#News_and_opinion>

<comment><USER2> That editorial doesn't even mention the house bill, but confines its opinions to the Senate one. I take your point, but I hope we can do better than just competing links or editorial opinions. I tried to include a fair amount of other substantive information about this legislation.

<comment><USER3> Well, I'm not interested in debating this bill now or in this thread (I'm waiting until it's in a more final form and we e.g. see how much Dodd has changed the heinous angel provisions or they get amended by others); my link was just for illustrating my point that you can't say "the _Wall Street Journal_ supports X" without qualifying which part, the front page or editorial board.

ADDED: However for most other papers you can say e.g. You can generally say "The _New York Times_ says" without worrying about which part. E.g. look here where the _New York Times_ deep sixed language critical of the Obama Administration's response to the Gulf oil leak in less than a day: <http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/98559/>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Wow. This article has it all:

Hypocracy - They accuse democrats of fear-mongering, then proceed to do it themselves.

Red herrings - He opposes the democrats' use of attaching riders to bills. Of course he doen't mention that this tactic is hardly unique to them, nor is it really relevant.

Blatant disregard of the real issues - He doesn't mention that this amendment is really about leaving the Internet alone, not making things worse. Not one mention of net neutrality.

All in all, I'd say that this is partisan crap that doesn't belong on the front page.

<comment><USER5> > Red herrings - He opposes the democrats' use of attaching riders to bills. > Of course he doen't mention that this tactic is hardly unique to them, nor > is it really relevant.

Unless you're not arguing that "everyone does it" makes it right ....

However, it is nice to know that you won't complain when Repubs do it in the future. Right?</comment></comment>


The Pentagon's Cybersecurity Priorities Haven't Changed in a Decade - <AUTHOR> https://warisboring.com/believe-it-or-not-the-pentagons-cybersecurity-priorities-haven-t-changed-in-a-decade-aeee59d60ed3 <comment><USER2> I've never understood why supposedly secure networks are accessible from the public Internet _at all_. Presumably there is a better reason than so officers can check their Facebook during the day? Why is there not an airgap requiring an attacker to physically attach something to gain access, that can be defended against by physical means, something the military is _very good_ at? Genuinely curious.

<comment><USER3> Systems behind air gaps are a pain to maintain and super expensive. Often the software behind air gaps needs to be maintained and developed. Trying to develop software behind an air gap puts you at a substantial competitive disadvantage.

There are ways to balance it and it is a balance, giving users access in one location to air gapped and internet-connected systems for example, but there's a context-switching cost (and risk) there. To keep up with and even ahead of the curve though it's so much easier to do as much as you can without an air gap.

I've worked with people who've spent decades behind an air gap and it can be like working with people from the past. Imagine being a developer in 2016 who doesn't understand how Google, let alone Stackoverflow, can help their work.

<comment><USER4> Do you have to do the development on an air-gapped system too?

<comment><USER3> Depends whether the software is sufficiently sensitive that you want it air gapped too. Doing development for an air gapped system on a different network without that data has a different set of challenges.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I've never understood why military computer people need to wear camouflage. You are in an office. I see you.

<comment><USER6> Its to install conformity and obedience just like school uniforms.

<comment> semi-extrinsic Yes, armies generally tend to do this. It's not like that's unknown when you enlist.

When you want to have a rigid chain of command and people who all essentially always follow orders, you need conformity and obedience.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Cybersecurity isn't the Pentagon's job. The military does security like any other large organization, but they are not the bleeding edge for technology or innovation. That's the domain of intelligence agencies, specifically the NSA and its private partners.

The article is critical of the military for prioritizing service continuity, but that is what large organizations dealing with continual attacks must do. They are not on a war footing, ready to throw down everything for total victory. Cutting off online attacks in wartime is different than in peace. Got a boat with an anchor? The navy does.

Their priorities haven't changed because their conflict space hasn't changed.

<comment><AUTHOR> Cybersecurity is the Department of Defense's job. Guess where they're based out of? The Pentagon.

<comment><USER7> Lol. Don't tell the NSA that, or the FBI, or DHS or the NYPD or the latest "Cyber Threat Intelligence Integration Center". Everyone says "cyber" is their thing. They all fight for dollars. The reality is that most of them do nothing more than defend themselves as would any other large organization.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Assuming that it's inadequate now, why was it adequate ten years ago?</comment>


Google Presents Inside Abbey Road - <AUTHOR> https://insideabbeyroad.withgoogle.com <comment><AUTHOR> ... and the About page [1] gives some interesting details about the technology involved here. I'm not sure how new this is, but I haven't come across it before, and I'm impressed.

[1] [https://insideabbeyroad.withgoogle.com/en/technology#x=&y=&z...](https://insideabbeyroad.withgoogle.com/en/technology#x=&y=&z=)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> For hardcore music nerds, the Mastering room is a must.</comment>


Big Data Needs To Think Bigger - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/20/big-data-needs-to-think-bigger/

<comment><USER2> I find these articles to be long on puff, short on content. The take home is: big data is really important, and some people think their startups will make buckets of money either storing/ analyzing it or selling software to process it. I don't really need 800 words (and a bunch of unwanted javascript and tracking cookies) to tell me that.

Here's what I would like: 12 technologies or techniques for handling big data, and why, with examples. Or a tutorial on a complex analysis that merged 3 really big datasets and came up with something useful (I dont need Hadoop to count words, thanks). Or a list of mathematical background every data scientist must have. But I am afraid the people who read these articles don't actually know "their asymptote from a hole in the graph", and that they don't have examples of big successes (maybe not yet, I grant...)

My daily job is merging building permits and tax assessor parcels to get small area population estimates. This seems like "big data" to me (though nothing like, say, all the twitter messages or google searches or FB friend connections); if someone could explain to me why -- and how, exactly -- I should move away from my SQL queries on and string matches, I would be really interested, but I all read off of this hype is BIG, BIG, BIG, AUTOMATICALLY DISCOVER EVERYTHING, MAKE MONEY, BIG, BIG, BIG.

Just my little rant...

<comment><USER3> Are your SQL queries problematically slow, or do you expect them to be in the foreseeable future? If so, can this be fixed by throwing beefier hardware at the problem?

Unless the answers to these are yes and no, respectively, then your data is small enough. Now, there may be usability reasons for going with different database technologies, but from the lack of panic in your post, it sounds like you're doing fine.

(Incidentally, if you've got data problems that aren't being satisfied by SQL queries, then you could probably get a really interesting discussion going if you wrote about it.)</comment></comment>


My job's background check is a PDF of every tweet I've liked with "fuck" in it - <AUTHOR> https://mobile.twitter.com/kmlefranc/status/1221869659139366912?s=19 <comment><USER2> It's bullshit like this that made me give up the corporate world. I'd rather be underemployed than deal with this crap.

<comment><USER3> Worked-owned co-ops (combined with workers banding together with courage, solidarity and decency) who treat their HR and all of their employees decently and with fair compensation are the way out. Jobs and employment shouldn't become so commodified because then ownership becomes rent-seeking, management goes the route of Boeing/Enron, work becomes pointless and workers become extremely disposable. The net effect is producing crap, no employees caring and treating customers like crap too. It's only learned helplessness that convinces people they must be exploited, underpaid and treated like cattle. And there's no universal binary utopia/slavery formula, each culture can evolve to suit its industry, style and members.

Herman Miller, WinCo, Publix, Mushkin, Graybar are just a few employee-owned no one thinks about.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_employee- owned_compani...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_employee- owned_companies)

If anyone wants to learn more, check out videos and writings by Dr. Wolff and Democracy@Work.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Recruiter took my money, what to do? - <AUTHOR> So the story goes: Somewhere in UK, I was hired through a recruiter a long time ago... I have not signed or accepted any contract from the recruiter beyond period and day rate for the work. My understanding is that the client did sign a contract with the recruiter, details of which I don't know.
Fast forward a while.
The client approached me directly, asking If im available to do more work, which I was and we agreed a day rate and a period with the client. As the contract finished, the recruiter found out that I was working directly to the client and swiftly got in touch with them.
From what I hear they are planning to/have inflated my agreed rate with the client and charged them for my work. ----- Now I understand that the client has breached the contract they had with the recruiter by hiring me directly, which opens the client up for legal action - not a great position to be in. I can sympathetic they just want the problem to go away and get on with their life. However, this leaves me with in a difficult situation as well, with my earnings for the past 2 months gone.
Client now maintains radio silence, not answering emails or phone calls. I have not spoken to the recruiter yet, wanted to get some advice on HN before I do so.
My understanding is that client and recruiter can settle the broken contract through legal means or settle out of court. The recruiter however should not be able to charge for my work (correct me if im wrong), an agreement that was made between me and the client irrespective of their previous contract, as that would constitute as fraud.
Not sure what do now, any advice would be greatly appreciated! <comment><AUTHOR> I got in touch with the recruiter following celticninja's comment, the situation is not as bad as first appears: The recruiter will seek to recoup their fees (as in excluding my daily rate) as agreed between them and the client way back when. I guess this is part of their contract. They have not done so yet.

I am to invoice the client directly as agreed with them when they approached me, the recruiter is not involved. The client has replied, although with nothing of much interest, but I feel much happier knowing they haven't gone off the radar.

Lesson learned on not invoicing often enough, many lessons learned in fact. Thank you all very much for the advice, HN crew #1! <3 <3

<comment><USER2> > Lesson learned on not invoicing often enough, many lessons learned in fact.

You should write down summary of what you did for that day.

I had a client HR lady that handle the check that saw my invoice and she was like it seems like I'm getting pay too much for such little work. Nice lady, but she was dragging her feet making sure it wasn't a mistake or if I'm pulling a fast one.

I sent her my daily summary of each and every day I've worked, bullet points of what I did for that day. She stopped sending those silly email and the next email was my check.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> IANAL.

Short answer: lawyer up or don't get paid.

Longer answer: You don't have any relationship with the recruiter. The client, however, does - they likely agreed to hire you through the recruiter for some period of time. If they wanted to hire you, they should have reached out to the POC at the recruiter's office. They didn't, though, and opted to work directly with you. It's extremely likely that they'll have to pay a percentage to the recruiter, but that shouldn't affect you at all (in terms of what you're owed): they engaged you for work and they owe you compensation for it. Take it to court and see what happens (or don't and probably don't get paid).

<comment><USER4> IANAL either, but I suspect there is a certain period of time (like 6 months) after which the client is allowed to contact the OP directly, even if he got his details originally through the recruiter.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Whether or not the client and the recruiter have an issue with each other is not your problem. You were contracted by the client so the client should pay you. Talk to a local sollicitor on how to proceed if the amount is worth it (> 1000 pounds or so), otherwise charge it to your educational fund.

</comment><comment><USER6> Hey. Hopefully you're still reading these responses.

I'm London based and have extensive experience with literally everything you have described, on _both_ sides of the fence.

I'm not a lawyer. I'm not looking to sell you anything or charge you for any assistance.

I am an employment law expert with extensive experience both as an agency recruiter and in-house recruiter. I will gladly assist in any way I can because your situation is the epitome of why I detest the agency recruitment industry. My email is in my profile. Feel free to reach out.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for the kind offer, I will see how things progress next week.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> AFAIK you should be able to get your money from the recruitment agency. If they have charged the client a higher rate this includes their cut and your wages. As you said you did not sign anything with the recruitment agency as such you did not breach your contract.

Contact the recruitment agency, explain the situation and ask how you obtain payment for the services you have rendered. If they have received their cut it should be an administration process to pay you.

The more reputable the organisation the easier it will be. A small boutique agency will find it easier to lose the money on their accounts whereas a larger legitimate agency will need to account for that most eye at some point.

Call the agency first nd plan from there.

</comment><comment><USER8> How did you lose two months of earnings? Just curious if you worked two months before invoicing the client.

(I am not a lawyer but just some thoughts/ideas) If you didn't work for your client and it was a long time ago I would expect your client might have an out with the recruiter that the time limit had expired or they should have been released from the contract since you weren't even employed by them through the recruiter.

If the client paid the recruiter for your time you need to take up the issue with them.

1\. Determine if your client paid the recruiter.

2\. Sounds like your client paid your recruiter your rate + their fee so they owe you your rate portion.

I would approach the client's HR or Finance department and present hey I worked for you X hours at X rate, this amount of money is important to me(and my family's) well being. Can you verify that my fees were paid to this recruiter?

Then approach the recruiter and explain that you weren't aware an agreement was in place, sorry about that, however my client indicated that they paid you for my work and I want to provide any information you need to process my payment for that work.

Kill them both with kindness initially, explain you weren't aware of the contract between the employer/recruiter.

See how that goes.

Good luck getting this worked out.

In the future invoice more often . . . in the states the max I would go with a new client is a week or two weeks (with possible retainer/portion up front), maybe a month for on going work with proven clients.

<comment><USER9> I would go after the client for those fees. You did work for the client directly, they should pay you. The contract is not your concern. Let the client and recruiter hash it out over what's left.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Client owes you the money, if they are evading you then you need to get a barrister involved. Recruiter might be liable- I think they would be if they were in the USA- but that depends on UK laws. I'm not a lawyer and don't know the law, but I would be surprised if you aren't owed the money for the work you did.

</comment><comment><USER11> Not sure about the legal aspect, but the bottomline is that your client messed up. I am not going to do the whole recruiter bashing thing because we all know most recruiters are useless. But the thing is that if your client had an agreement with the recruiter, then they should have thought about it.

Yes you are the one who suffers but you should blame the client and if it doesn't work, then move on. You really cannot get in the middle of this fight. Not worth your time.

</comment><comment><USER12> > From what I hear they are planning to/have inflated my agreed rate with the > client and charged them for my work. Now I understand that the client has > breached the contract they had with the recruiter.

Question: Did the client actually pay the recruiter for the additional engagement or not? Did you invoice the client directly?

In either case, you have no contract to back up your claim. The relationship between client & recruiter has been damaged. It seems unlikely you will get paid, especially if the recruiter is threatening the client with legal action.

> What to do?

Be persistent-- call/email the client daily until they reply. If possible, show up in person at the office. Find out who his top boss is, does the company have a CEO? Do they have investors? Call them, ask for help sorting this out.

Moving foward, always have a formal agreement or contract in place covering the scope of your work and how you will be paid.

</comment><comment><USER13> When a client doesn't pay, you have two options:

      1. Take legal action.
      2. Take the loss.

Both have hard and soft costs.

Good luck.</comment>


FlightCaster (YC S09) Takes Off With $1.3 Million In Funding And A New API  - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/11/23/flightcaster-flight-delay/

<comment><USER2> _Flightcaster manages to predict ten times as many delays as the airlines do._

What does this mean? Do the airlines know about the potential delays but are unwilling to tell the public in most cases?

If Flightcaster really does have better tech than the airlines, then their major customers should be the airlines.

<comment><USER3> Flightcaster is all about the probability of being delayed though. The big customer is business users who will rebook on a flight that has less of a chance of delay. Airlines don't want that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I saw this comment on the WSJ - *

This is an intriguing idea, but the problem I see is that airlines will not rebook you (fee-free, at least) until their own internal procedures have declared a delay or cancellation of a flight. By that point having the intel becomes useless.

Seems like a good point

<comment><USER5> It depends on who "you" are in this example. If you're someone who is flying for personal reasons or non-mission critical business reasons, then you're 100% right - knowing ahead you'll probably be late is interesting, but not enough to do anything about since you don't want to pay change/cancellation fees. I'm this guy when I travel for personal reasons.

But I also travel a lot for business, and when I do, travel is 100% critical. If I don't show up when I am scheduled to, there will often be several thousand people - not to mention three national news networks - waiting for me and my traveling party. Those people won't wait around, and will embarrass me and my people on a national stage.

Hence, for business travel, I use a travel management company for all my movements. I fly full-fare economy (so there are effectively no penalties to change my flights), and have a someone who gets paid a significant commission to monitor the status of my travel plans and adjust them on the fly based on weather and traffic conditions. Maybe 1.5 times per month I'll get a call/email from my travel guy some time between a day and a few hours before my departure telling me something has changed - either my routing or my departure time (incidentally, my travel guy is the only person outside my team who has access to our detailed daily calendar, so he can adjust for this).

I have no doubt that my travel manager would pay good money for this information, if it was statistically reliable. For people who travel for fun, I think you're right - a delay isn't a delay until the airline says it is. But for people who absolutely have to get where they're going - to the level that they'll charter a plane on an hours' notice if needed - this would be invaluable.

<comment><USER4> Previous comments from JimmyL :

"I work in a moderately-progressive workplace, and if I ever need to seek the input of a supervisor on a big issue/something that may come back to haunt me, I'll talk to them about it, and then send them an email saying what we decided. This makes it clear what the decisions was (and more importantly, how I interpret it) and provides documentation to both sides that the issue was discussed and a conclusion reached."

"When I know I am wrapping up a coding session, I'll often leave a few trivial things unfinished - so that when I sit back down again for the next session, I'll have an easy place to jump right back in, and it will force me to (consciously or otherwise) get back to somewhere near the mental state I was in when I half-finished the thing."

Are you really as important as you make out?

<comment><USER6> Yes, I had the same idea after reading his comment above. I went back and read his last X comments.

He seems to be a Canada-based programmer.

EDIT: _However_ :

"I mentioned that I've got no in-industry peer networking contacts, but I have a few very good ones in politics. Specifically, I've got a possible job offer through one to be one of the two or three advance guys for a very senior national politician. It would be a year of traveling around the country with them, likely including an election, and would be incredibly exciting."

Note: It is scary how much we reveal ourselves through our Internet postings

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=667547>

<comment><USER5> I took that job - hence the travel.

If you're interested in the back story, shoot me an email at email@example.com and we'll chat.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Clojure's first big success story! (beyond the how fantastic the language is itself :)

</comment><comment><USER8> _Flightcaster manages to predict ten times as many delays as the airlines do. And they manage to stay 90% accurate (which is on par with the airlines)._

They're equally accurate, but predict ten times as many delays? Doesn't that imply that only a negligible percentage of flights are successfully predicted as delayed by either party?

<comment><USER9> 4 hours out, airlines notify users of ~4% of flights that will eventually be delayed 1+ hours.

FlightCaster right now captures 40% of those flights 4 hours out (and growing as the algorithm is improved).

That is the origination of the statistic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Congrats, the b2b partnerships sounds like a solid business model. Plus it'd be easier to charge a frequently travelling exec for the service then the average consumer.

Hopefully the service can expand outside of the US. I see the limited/varied data of each country as the biggest technical hurdle they'll have to overcome.

<comment><USER11> I'm a frequent business traveler, but I don't see being able to expense flight change based on predictive analysis.

Is there anyone within the travel industry that can speak to the market demand for this? Does this cost the airlines $x/year, or booking services?

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Congrats, guys! I did quite a bit of traveling recently, and I found myself checking FlightCaster for a peace of mind. Great team, and a great product!

</comment><comment><USER13> Congrats to Jason and the FlightCaster team!

</comment><comment><USER14> Congrats guys! Glad to see that I'll still be able to use the service well into the future :)

</comment><comment><USER15> Any inspiration of some cool stuff that can be built with their API?

</comment><comment><USER16> Congrats</comment>


Ask HN: What is your recommended VPN for personal use? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Not VPNGO. It's one of the many fake VPNs that China either builds or acquires.

My proof is me staring at their Elasticsearch logging server right now, which has no authentication on Port 9200.

Have been trying to reach them for weeks. They are doing some less than honorable things on their network as well that you can if you spend a few minutes studying the logging system.

[http://220.127.116.11:9200](http://22.214.171.124:9200)

EDIT: for those not familiar with Elasticsearch, try expanding the URI paths... [http://126.96.36.199:9200/_cat/indices](http://18.104.22.168:9200/_cat/indices)

</comment><comment><USER3> Mullvad. Does the trick. Cheap. Anonymous. Easy to use. Not too blacklisted. Compatible with my phone.

</comment><comment><USER4> I use expressvpn. I haven't tried a bunch of others but their sales jargon looked nice and the price was right. I'm happy using it and have had no issues. I travel around the world and has worked in every country I've been in to get around blocks.

</comment><comment><USER5> I recommend ProtonVPN

</comment><comment><USER6> I recommend nordVPN or encrypt.me

<comment><USER7> Wasn't NordVPN hacked recently?

<comment><USER6> Yeah. It's a bit more nuanced than "they were hacked," but no one's data was compromised because of how Nord is setup.</comment></comment></comment>


Secret Service Violated Privacy Law to Shame Lawmaker - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/watchdog-top-secret-service-official-wanted-information-about-chaffetz-made-public/2015/09/30/ff280378-67ae-11e5-9ef3-fde182507eac_story.html <comment><USER2> They had access to his SS personnel records, because he had applied to join the SS. If he hadn't applied, they wouldn't be able to attempt to smear him.

So the only thing keeping an agency from thuggery is access to information.

What thuggery is being practiced by the NSA and other agencies with access to information?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Here is the pdf report:

[http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/A_U.S.%20new...](http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/A_U.S.%20news/US- news-PDFs/20150930-OIG-Secret-service.pdf)</comment>


Software Tools for Hobby-Scale Projects - <AUTHOR> https://rickcarlino.com/2019/11/02/software-tools-for-hobby-sized-projects-html.html <comment><USER2> Very good and very useful. Hope others can chip in to expand the list.</comment>