How Traveling Abroad in Your Twenties Will Ruin Your Life - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@SavvyBackpacker/how-traveling-abroad-in-your-twenties-will-ruin-your-life-84eada003d2d <comment><USER2> That was quite egocentric description of what appears to be culture shock.

I'll start with an account I read at a merchant sailor's museum. When the sailors retire, they prefer to live with other sailors, because of differences in worldview between sailors and non-sailors. In conversation the latter might say "You talk about going to Buenos Aires as if it were a trip to the grocery store." The sailors feel out of place, because of the implicit otherness.

Now for a personal account, I used to do a lot of tango. (Co-incidentally) Buenos Aires is the birthplace and many will say still the heart of tango. Some people will visit Buenos Aires, take private or intensive lessons, and come back name dropping the studios, and milongas, and teachers they met, and try to pass on the lessons they learned. It can come across as "In BsAs they do things DIFFERENT and BETTER", with a snobbish and arrogant attitude.

Why do I say this is 'egocentric'? I'll highlight and explain key quotes:

> "Because travel has a way of messing with you and you're too impressionable > in your twenties."

This is humblebragging, since the author ends with how personally transformative and addictive travel is. But setting that aside, some people travel overseas when they are under twenty. As a kid we lived in Ecuador for a few years. My sister traveled in France and in Bolivia in a couple summers when she was in her teens, and we did family trips to the Bahamas, Ecuador, and Peru. Are people under 20 somehow not impressionable enough? Or does it take a truly insular life until adulthood to fully appreciate the multi- cultural experience? Or perhaps the best way to build up 'armor' against culture shock is to get it in small doses while young?

> "Wait until your thirties or forties or fifties or later because most people > are set in their ways by then."

Well isn't that a load of ageist manure. Yet it's also oddly compatible with the line "You'll spend your entire life traveling." This sounds like the author is set in the ways established as a 20-something - just like author says that occurs with almost everyone else.

> "First of all, the person who you were before you traveled no longer > exists."

Not surprising as you can never set foot in the same river twice. Lots of people have transformative experiences, including obvious ones like college, military, marriage, and parenthood, or less obvious ones like Timothy Leary's famous use of LSD at the age of 40, or learning to dance tango.

But those obvious ones are boring, run-of-the-mill life changing experiences, down to the point of stereotype. "Yes, you have the most beautiful baby in the world and I love to see the dozens of pictures you post on Facebook every day." "No, I didn't know that poop comes in so many different colors."

When you have a baby, or a long-term partner, you start to wonder "Do I want to work 60+ hour weeks and have barely any vacation time?". When you have teenagers you start to wonder "How come young people in other countries aren't crippled with student loan debt?" So it's not like these thoughts are special to 20-somethings with international travel experience under their belt.

On the flip side, are these traveling 20-somethings thinking "Why doesn't the US have paid parental leave for both parents?" or "Why is the cost of medical care and elder care in the US so expensive?" Likely, no. But it's something a traveling 30-something or 40-something is more likely to be thinking about.

> "Your friends and family and peers — they won't understand. In fact, they > don't really care that you've just gone through this transformative > journey."

The thing is, many of those friends, etc. have also had transformative journey. The parents - the ones who 'will listen to your tales for a few minutes' \- have certainly had a transformative experience, just due to being parents.

But excepting Timothy Leary, or a few others, relating these transformations to others who haven't had a similar experience is boring.

The socially acceptable solution is tit-for-tat. If you want to spend 20 minutes talking about firewalking on the beach in Thailand, then you have to listen appreciatively to your friend talk excitedly for 20 minutes about their child's newest accomplishments, or the differences between L.A. style and New York style salsa.

Now, I recognize that this written for 20-somethings who feel a bit of a reverse culture shock coming home. But it's addresses the culture shock by suggesting the reader's unique experiences are somehow better than the unique transformations of everyone else. This is a path towards snobbish that many, including myself, find off-putting. If that snobbishness comes through when relating one's personal experiences, then it's not surprising that friends and family won't even put up with a tit-for-tat exchange.

<comment><USER3> The author could have been clearer about whether the post was meant to be taken seriously or as contrary satire or sarcasm, but my interpretation was that the the chance of the post being serious is nearly nil.

First off, the description of the blog is "The Savvy Backpacker is the ultimate guide for budget backpackers who want honest, in-depth, and independent travel advice for their backpacking trip in Europe." Clearly this blog is meant to be a future destination for travelers.

> "Because travel has a way of messing with you and you're too impressionable > in your twenties."

> "Wait until your thirties or forties or fifties or later because most people > are set in their ways by then."

> "First of all, the person who you were before you traveled no longer > exists."

> "Your friends and family and peers — they won't understand. In fact, they > don't really care that you've just gone through this transformative > journey."

All of these quotes are so absurd that they are meant to spur on the adventurous rebel. This is in the same way that a child would want to do something more when her parents tell her not to do something.

So, I would interpret this piece a bit more lightly. The author seems that he would agree with your views on the benefits of travel.

The point of the article is actually to argue that waiting until your 30s and 40s is too late, because you will be too old to change. Do it in your 20s, because you will still have a chance to change for the better. The following are all very worthwhile questions:

> "Do I want to work 60+ hour weeks and have barely any vacation time?"

> "Is there more to life than work?"

> "How come young people in other countries aren't crippled with student loan > debt?"

> "What is most important in my life?"

<comment><USER2> I think the essay is meant to be taken seriously, but not literally. A reasonable parallel would be something like "don't be a hectomillionaire because you won't be able to talk to your friends and family about the difficulties you have being rich."

The thing is, it's true - a hectomillionaire can have emotional difficulties. Are their "friends" there for the friendship or for the money? When do you say no to a relative who continues to ask for a few thousand dollars? To friends who have a "great business idea and just need some seed capital"?

Similarly, being a parent, or a newlywed, or switching careers, or any of those other things can and often do come with their own emotional joy and struggles.

> "All of these quotes are so absurd that they are meant to spur on the > adventurous rebel."

My complaint about the essay is that it places the personal transformation that (sometimes) come from travel as somehow different and above the transformations associated with everyone else's coming of age stories. As such, it encourages a snobbish attitude, which will worsen connection to friends and family who are sick of hearing how you met the Dalai Lama in India, or about how thing are so much better on the other side of the fence, I mean, ocean.

Instead of humblebrag, it could have given real methods for understanding the effects of culture shock, and how to cope with it "back home", without ruining one's relationship with others back home, and thus _prepare_ the rebel instead of putting the rebel on a pedestal. (Which, admittedly, seems like what the target audience wants done to them.)

My views on the benefits of travel are much more mixed. A lot of people travel overseas, even as a 20-something, with little overall change. Friends of mine spent 6 months working for an NGO in South Africa, came back, and have no more desire for travel. I personally didn't start my travels until I was in my 30s, self-employed, and a homeowner. And all those choices are great, including the choice to not travel.

The idea that since I waited until I was 31 to really travel overseas, on my own, means I was too old to "change" is ludicrous, and meaningless. Everyone changes.

BTW, I find your use of "adventurous rebel" interesting - based one what you've written, it sounds like the world traveler who starts at 32 is more of an adventurous rebel than one who starts at 22.

<comment><USER3> I agree with the parallel you draw with the hectomillionaire scenario, but to me the focus of the essay was more on the "hectomillionaire" part, and less on the "having difficulties you have being rich". In the essay, the illustrations of the "difficulties being rich" were really this flimsy straw man meant to show that the difficulties are actually huge benefits.

So, in a way it is a humblebrag, in that the "difficulties" are really "benefits", though I don't think the reader is meant to believe that the author is really having a very hard time with the "difficulties." You get the feeling that the author is very pleased with himself about his choice to travel, based on the whole theme of the article being "it's so good you can't stop and nothing else will ever be good enough."

If we are really supposed to empathize with the author about his troubles and the article is meant to be serious, than it's a very bizarre post and I basically share your sentiments. Under that light, it comes across as humble bragging and seeking sympathy for a choice he repeatedly chose to make and that he espouses transformed him and opened his mind, which is an important part of life. I have a hard time believing someone could write a post that is such a strange mix of complaining, bragging, recommending to people to not open their minds until their 40s, and an incredible hyperbolic tone of "travel is as strong as cocaine and it ruined my life." By Occam's razor I can only assume that it's not meant to be serious.

<comment><USER2> Perhaps I'm thrown off by the ready dismissal of those older than 30.

It may be a form of satire as you suggest. Such things exists. In 2008 there was a Onion headline "Junior Senator Returns From Backpacking In Scandinavia With Obnoxiously Broad Perspective On Infrastructure Reform", but I can't find a working link to it.

But satire works when there's at least a seed of truth. Consider [http://totallysamsworld.com/backpacker- stereotypes/](http://totallysamsworld.com/backpacker-stereotypes/) , which lists "Backpacker Stereotypes". The last is "The ones who want to 'find themselves'":

> These confused and emotional people have gone travelling to find themselves. > They don't know what they want to do for the rest of their lives, and all > their friends are settled down, popping out babies and in great long term > careers. Whereas they want to avoid commitment and responsibility for as > long as possible. These backpackers can go from one extreme to the other… > Living by YOLO, trying crazy new things with open minds, to getting all > drunk and emoshe, crying on strangers and treating them like therapists. > These guys are great when they're on form, but if they are having a 'moment' > it's best to avoid them like the plague.

Here's a blog post from someone who has post-travel depression after a "year of mind-blowing adventures" \- [http://www.nomadicmatt.com/travel- blogs/coming-home-blues/](http://www.nomadicmatt.com/travel-blogs/coming-home- blues/) :

> You find your friends don't understand the new you, don't want to hear about > your time sailing the Pacific while they sat in rush hour, or don't get why > you feel so uncomfortable being back. "What? You don't like it here > anymore?"

I think the comments help enrich the understanding of those with post-travel blues. Some choice quotes, that are not indicative of the whole, are:

> Can someone please help me cure the travel bug!! It's ruining my life, > relationships, careers and friendships!! ahhhh

> How can we not change after having experienced everything that long term > travel offers? It's hard to explain this to family and friends without > sounding self righteous.

> If you don't want to get married and start popping out babies it's like the > end of the world for some people. [I picked this one because it's almost > exactly the stereotype quote from earlier.]

> What I find astounding is that many people don't really care that I did. > What to ME is an amazing thing, they don't think much of it.

> Paul Theroux has a great quote: "You go away for a long time, and you return > a different person. You never come all the way back."

> Yep, there's just absolutely no way that people who haven't travelled long- > term can understand what we go through.

I quoted these as examples to show that, yes, this is a real problem, that many people have to deal with. One of the ways to deal with a problem is to infer that it makes one special, perhaps like the agony of Marine Corp training makes one special, or of hazing. I believe the author's coping mechanism is to embrace the emotion pain, and the advice to others to avoid the pain is in fact a boast that the author can take the pain when others can't. "Thank you sir, may I have another!"

You believe that the original author recommends "people to not open their minds until their 40s". I don't believe the author is doing that at all. I believe the author thinks that anyone in the 40s is more set in their ways, so their minds are more closed (on average) than someone in the 20s.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> "Do I want to work 60+ hour weeks and have barely any vacation time?" "Is there more to life than work?" ...and the rest...

It's pretty normal for people in their 20's to consider all of those questions, regardless of passport status.</comment>


Structuring a "build this for us - for free" deal - <AUTHOR>

Lemme start with I've tried googling for about 30 minutes, and searched this site for a bit, but just came up empty.  If there are some links I'd be happy to read them.
Background:
I've recently launched my own startup, and a client of mine would like me to do some related work for them on the side, so they can resell it to their customers.  It's all custom and it's nothing I could turn around and sell to anyone in the future.
They are offering a commission or percentage type of deal, with no money up front and are estimating it's gonna take about 3 months to develop.  (I don't have all the reqs. yet but want to be prepared with some options)
They say they will resell this to all of their clients, although I don't know them well, and don't have many details.
I can't sustain myself on savings for 3 months, and just hoping that they might sell some in the future and give me some nice recurring income sounds like a really bad plan that's been tried a million times before.
Question:
Any ideas on how I could structure a deal with them?  Say a $xx per hour (minimum tech wage???) with x% revenue share when the product is sold?  Maybe a deadline saying "free if you sell xx units by 2/2/2011 or you owe me $20,000."
All thoughts and ideas are welcome.  I'd like to go into the meeting sounding like I know what the hell I'm doing on the business side.  The tech part is no issue.
Thanks! <comment><USER2> Why would you do a deal with somebody who doesn't have any skin in the game? You're going to burn runway while you work on a product that you can't sell personally. They are going to have the right to sell it and not put any money in? I don't see any upside for you.

If I were in your position I would structure your take as a percentage of the gross sale price. They should pay you an advance[1]. That gives them some skin in the game, and keeps you from eating up your runway making money for somebody else.

[1] Be careful that things are constructed such that you keep the advance if they screw up in any way.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's why I was suggesting a sort of penalty clause like "you must sell x units or you owe (large dollar figure here) by this date."

This would force them to have some skin in the game, no?

<comment><USER3> Only if you're willing and able to sue them to collect, if it comes down to that. Assuming they have any assets by that point ... after all, they don't have enough to pay you for the three months of work.

<comment><AUTHOR> Great point. The last thing I need is payment that requires legal action.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> 1) get them to show you a big list of pre-sold clients....then discount that by 10x 2) contact a few of these clients and see if they would be hooked on it like crack 3) use 1 and 3 to estimate the value 4) demand control of the price at the end. if the service is a loss leader for your partner, you can make them pay the price. remember that value created does not equate to value captured. 5) create milestones: ie 'you sell $X in Y months OR you give me your client list and I KEEP all rights to the tech and brand'

<comment><AUTHOR> Great ideas, thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Generally love these types of arrangements (i.e. partnering with someone who brings domain expertise and connections), but are there are a lot details that you shouldn't overlook:

      1) Do the numbers make sense to you? Learn enough about
      the margins and the market that you are comfortable
      with the business opportunity.

      2) Get the terms right. Be sure to address any equity
      stake, timing of payments, expenses and record
      keeping/trakcing. Take a look at Amazons affiliate
      program agreement for examples of the kinds of issues to
      keep in mind.

      3) Greater Risk = Greater Reward. If you expect a
      "minimum tech wage", do not expect to reap the full
      fruits of your efforts.

Good luck.

P.S. Depending on your level of trust/confidence/req'd investment in this project and your partner, consider having a legal document drawn up to address your biggest concerns (but I wouldn't even bring this up until talks get much more serious).

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the insights, will have a look at affiliate programs to see what types of safeguards are built in. Thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This won't be the last deal you ever get offered.

There is nothing to suggest that the same opportunity won't be here in a year...particularly with a developer at risk approach. And the fact that they're not throwing a little cash at it upfront means maybe it's not a critical issue (or they don't have the cash).

Based on the idea that you don't have cash in hand, it's hard to see how it meets your immediate needs or allows you to develop your current enterprise.

Just structuring and enforcing a no money down deal itself is going to take time, energy and lawyers. Could those resources be better invested in your startup?

There's nothing wrong with passing on a deal due to timing.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think you're right. Based on your opinion and the others here, I starting to think structuring it will be more hassle and cost (time and money) than it will be worth.

Might consider just a billable rate to get some cash reserves and build the relationship, but may just pass and cite bad timing. Thanks for your input!

<comment><USER6> There's a lot to be said for just sticking to your standard form of agreement.

Taking a project on spec is basically making a loan. Makes sense when there's collateral (or if you're a bank).

When your work product has no value to you, then there's no collateral.

There's no reason to formally "pass." Just propose on terms that meet your goals.

If they take it, you'll be happy.

If they don't, you have still been responsive and that will leave the door open.

Good luck.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> If you think their idea is better than yours, then maybe you could scrap your original startup idea and instead build their product. You would own the company/product and they would be your first client. They could prepay for the product which would cover your initial expenses, or even invest money in your startup if your R&D costs exceed their initial license fee or if they want the chance of a payoff if the idea sells well.

If their idea isn't better than yours and they're not willing to pay you, then why are you spending time on it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks Flemlord,

So they are using my standard product services already, but would like me to develop this for them as sort of a joint-venture since they trust my expertise in this area.

The idea isn't better or worse, it's related but it's custom. So I can't scrap my startup for this product - it's very much a unique design that only will work for them and _their_ clients. No reselling opportunity but possible money while I build my business.

I'm considering working on it because during these lean months it might be nice to have a side gig that can turn into another revenue stream while I continue to build my primary business.</comment></comment>


Microsoft Accidentally Sends Secret File On Journalist, To That Journalist. Oops - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/03/28/microsoft-accidentally-sends-secret-file-on-journalist-to-that-journalist/ <comment><USER2> Hilarious! While it is obvious for a company to keep tabs on how to act around certain news fiends it is amazing that someone would send those notes to the person.

This is truly a laugh riot.

</comment><comment><USER3> What's scary is this reveals how Microsoft basically wrote a Wired story. Yet another reason why "blogs" will win out, not even Microsoft can control them all.</comment>


Limited Liability Is Causing Unlimited Harm - <AUTHOR> https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/limited-liability-corporate-shares-by-katharina-pistor-2020-02 <comment><USER3> I was not surprised at the low quality of this piece, but was shocked that the author is a law professor, and at Columbia no less. The professor should know better.

Limited legal liability is not the essential aspect of incorporation, legal personhood is. The ability to sue and be sued as its own entity is the one unique aspect of the corporation that distinguishes it from what came before.

Limited liability, on the other hand, is commonly used in contract law. The entire insurance industry is based on this idea. It even has a respectable, legalese name: indemnity.

In a world of shareholders having unlimited liability, shareholders would buy insurance against any loss beyond the cost bases of their investments, or they'd require the corporate entity - again, still a legal person - <USER2> indemnify them for any losses beyond the investment, or maybe the clever lawyers - including the professor's own students - would use indemnity to make even more innovative agreements and tools.

By creating out of whole cloth a market for insurance that heretofore has not existed, we'd probably see even more of a culture of haves vs have nots in the investment world. Those with more money and prestige would be able to buy better protection; ordinary people would be less well-protected.

In the end, we'd have a less equal system, more uncertainty and no change in the behavior of corporations with respect to liabilities of their shareholders.

<comment><USER4> > [...] we'd probably see even more of a culture of haves vs have nots in the > investment world.

There are no have nots in the investment world. The investment world, intuitively, is made up of have and have mores.

<comment><USER5> The have-nots are people who buy a few shares in an index fund. That doesn't require significant time or thought, so you can do it even if all you can spare is €1k and very little time.

<comment><USER6> as someone with a tech job, I don't consider myself a "have-not" but I basically just buy index funds with whatever surplus income I have every few months. if my losses weren't limited to the cost basis of my shares, it would basically be too risky for me to invest at all. this would drastically change my retirement prospects.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The shareholders are not usually the ones making the decisions, the _managers_ are. Rather than going after Joe Average's pension when he put $100 in an index fund that turned out to own Dow Chemical, go after the managers.

Perhaps a rule that anyone in a decisionmaking position who earned over $1m total comp last year is partially liable for fines against the company?

In the UK a few decades ago there was a huge fiasco when Lloyds, one of the few remaining places whose investors have unlimited liability because the company dates from 1686, dumped liabilities relating to asbestos onto them. [https://www.theguardian.com/money/2000/nov/04/business.perso...](https://www.theguardian.com/money/2000/nov/04/business.personalfinancenews1)

Was Sir William Jaffray responsible, in the 1980s, for the actions of those marketing and installing asbestos in the 1970s? He ended up _liable_ for it anyway.

<comment><USER8> > Perhaps a rule that anyone in a decisionmaking position who earned over $1m > total comp last year is partially liable for fines against the company?

Limited liability is almost always irrelevant to megacorps, because they're large enough that any given liability doesn't actually bankrupt them. Which also means that managers in a company that size would still expect it to never happen and it wouldn't impact their behavior, and they would just carry insurance against it anyway.

On top of that, it doesn't even really help the victims, because if you have a claim which can bankrupt a $100B corporation, the few million in additional assets you could get from the managers is a rounding error.

If you're really trying to affect behavior, criminal penalties for the managers would tend to be more effective, but they also tend to already exist in cases of malice rather than negligence. Negligence tends to be punished with financial penalties rather than prison, and then we're back to the money getting paid by the corporation itself or insurance.

<comment><USER9> > they would just carry insurance against it anyway.

A lot of people in this thread keep citing insurance, as if you can _just carry_ insurance for anything. This completely ignores the actual insurance companies in the equation.

Insurance companies are not limitless pits of funds, they won't just give insurance to anyone for anything. If a manager has a track record of damaging behaviour or works in an industry that does obvious harm, why would somebody give them insurance?

People are talking like the results are useless unless it personally bankrupts the managers responsible, the goal is not to hurt the person responsible as much as possible, its to actually provide compensation for victims, and provide a market force to reduce harmful behaviour.

You can't just "get insurance" for anything. If you were legally liable for harms, and you had a track record of harmful decisions or work in a obviously harmful industries, then the insurance companies are unlikely to provide you insurance or will charge you high enough premiums that those who are more responsible or do safer work are economically advantaged.

<comment><USER8> > If a manager has a track record of damaging behaviour or works in an > industry that does obvious harm, why would somebody give them insurance?

If a manager has a track record of damaging behaviour or works in an industry that does obvious harm, why would somebody hire them? The liability to the corporation as things are now is the same as what it would be to the insurance company.

And that's assuming that actuarially the people who have made mistakes in the past are more likely to make them in the future. Maybe the people who have made mistakes in the past are the people who have learned what not to do and are a safer choice than someone with less experience, or at least are not sufficiently more risky that the difference in insurance premiums would be prohibitively large.

> People are talking like the results are useless unless it personally > bankrupts the managers responsible, the goal is not to hurt the person > responsible as much as possible, its to actually provide compensation for > victims, and provide a market force to reduce harmful behaviour.

Making the managers responsible for corporate liability doesn't do much for victims because the managers typically have far less money than the corporation itself. All it can really do is try to motivate the managers to avoid the liability, but it doesn't even do that when it's the insurance company and not the manager that pays in the event of liability anyway.

<comment><USER9> You're ignoring the fact that shell corporations used as liability shields are widespread. Look at all those abandoned oil wells that nobody will pay to clean up because the corporations that owned them don't exist anymore.

Managers have assets, insurance companies have assets, shell corporations designed to shield other corporations and managers do not have any assets.

> And that's assuming that actuarially the people who have made mistakes in > the past are more likely to make them in the future.

Moreso I'm assuming that the actual actuaries will be incentivized to assess this correctly when somebody actual has to pay when things go bad.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The article conflates a lot of things that are not connected to limited liability (unsafe airplanes and pollution!?). And it misunderstands limited and zero liability, pretending the former is the later? Then it fails to understand liability all together.

I understand why there is a human need to hold someone accountable for everything. But that's not realistically possible. Trying or pretending it is leads to very weird results (like the article)

There are so many failures here, I'd go as far as to call it "not even wrong". It's just a mess of accusations and (incorrect) assertions. The cynic in me wonders if its intended to just appeal to people's prejudices. But maybe I'm just cynical...

<comment><USER11> You are misreading or misrepresenting what the article says. It is arguing that "limited liability" for shareholders _de facto_ means "zero liability" for anything the company does. While that's not strictly true, a shareholder in a public company indeed suffers no consequences for said company's actions other than potential loss of their initial investment. The author is saying this is insufficient, as it leads to companies taking legal risks like building unsafe airplanes and causing pollution.

Does this not reflect the world outside your window? When I can put money into a company, then sit on it over a period of years and just watch it grow, what's my incentive to prevent the company from doing bad things? When I can do that for hundreds of companies at a time, in the form of an index fund or ETF, and be virtually assured my money will grow over the long term, why _would_ I do anything to prevent the company from taking risks?

TL;DR: "Zero liability" is not zero, it's just so small it doesn't discourage bad behavior.

<comment><USER7> Counterpoint: as a Boeing investor, exactly how much foreknowledge of and ability to prevent the 737 MAX disaster would you have had?

<comment><USER12> You probably wouldn't want to invest into something unknown if you then were liable for damages caused by it. Which is, I think, the point of the article.

<comment><USER13> As a passive investor, every investment option is an unknown, and therefore no investments could be made where the investor doesn't have direct control over the decision making process at the firm.

<comment><USER12> Exactly. Capitalism would be completely transformed.

<comment><USER11> Sounds good to me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I fully support this. Next time an Exxon spill leaks oil into the ocean, we should gather up our teachers and mail carriers whose pensions are invested in oil and put them in jail. That'll really show those polluters!

Sarcasm aside, this strikes me as the kind of vague solution waving that sounds great on paper and has no connection to reality.

<comment><USER11> The correct implementation of this is to apply more personal liability to executives and directors making the decisions that lead to oil getting dumped in the ocean. When decision makers go to prison as a result of negligently bad decisions, they will not be as negligent as often.

Is that specific enough?

<comment><USER7> Yes. But that's nothing to do with the normal meaning of limited liability.

<comment><USER11> Yes, it does. Limited liability protects directors of a company as well as shareholders.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> > Markets are supposed to measure and allocate risk, yet shares in companies > that pollute, peddle addictive pain killers, and build unsafe airplanes are > doing just fine.

This has nothing to with limited liability shielding investors, and everything to do with the companies themselves not being adequately punished for their wrong-doing. The market _is_ accurately measuring the risk of these activities and determining they are low risk, because their consequences are lower than their gains. If you fix that, I guarantee you that the stock prices will follow.

Now investors will still end up making some profit of off harmful behavior of companies before that behavior comes to light, and thus the market reacts to it, but I don't know that investors should be punished in that situation. It is at most negligence, but it is hard to blame them for lack of due-diligence when regulators and law enforcement, whose job it is find wrongdoing, hadn't yet discovered it either. Leave the liability on those who performed, agreed to, or at least had knowledge of the wrongdoing.

<comment><USER16> I think it has more to do with one's definition of "doing fine". Boeing lost money. They can continue as a going concern since their 150k employees have a ton of other things going on that investors expect to make money, aside from one particular flawed product.

It seems wrong to me to require punishment to scale with the size of the company, as opposed to the size of the "wrong doing". If Boeing has ten other subsidiaries doing defense contracts, satellites and whatever else, that should require them to be fined ten times more?

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I'd rather see criminal penalties for execs who commit such actions. A good example is Boeing's CEO. He's the one whose policies led to the unnecessary death of 300+. He knew what he was doing and instead of a golden parachute, should be spending life in jail or even getting the death penalty as the number of people he murdered is enormous, eclipsing most serial killers. Have real accountability and real consequences and what happened will not happen again. Instead, he gets millions and a nice retirement for murdering hundreds. He's living the American dream: making profit off other people's misery. The same can be applied to other disasters that could have been avoided if the executives weren't negligent, uncaring, greedy assholes. But let's face it. Justice like this is a fantasy that will never happen because as a society we believe corporations can do nothing wrong. Or maybe it's just Washington that makes it seem that way. The distinction is almost irrelevant since Washington is supposed to represent our people.

</comment><comment><USER13> The lack of regulation and enforcement by government agencies and a disinterested or powerless consumer base seems to be the root cause of almost all her issues, not limited liability.

Because the repercussions of catastrophic events aren't enough to bankrupt companies like Exxon, Dow, and BP, limited liability is irrelevant in those cases.

In my opinion, a more coherent argument for her position (which I don't agree with at all to be clear) would be to find examples of companies that did go bankrupt after some negative event they caused and highlight how the limited liability of the corporation shielded bad actors from punishment they arguably deserved.

</comment><comment> kube-system When a pharmaceutical company makes some opioids that kill people, it's my mom and her 401(k) account that should be liable? And this will reduce inequality?

Not sure I'm buying that one.

<comment><USER18> I mean, she profited when the company sold all the opioids that caused the stock to go up, why should she be off the hook on the negative end?

<comment> kube-system She didn't realize any profit if she still holds the stock. But that technicality aside, we already do hold her liable, but only to the amount of her investment. The point of my comment is, why would increasing her liability (from the amount of her investment, to everything she owns) decrease inequality?

<comment><USER19> > we already do hold her liable, but only to the amount of her investment

That's the thing, though - we don't. Her liability is limited to effectively zero. Her investment may lose value, but that is another risk entirely. If the company in which she is invested goes bankrupt with a billion dollar debt, she isn't on the hook for a penny of it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> We need a corporate death penalty: when a corporation has been convicted of murder out other acts, the corporation should be dissolved, the assets sold off, and the proceeds distributed to the victims families. As it stands now, the execs get their gold, the corporations get a slap in the wrist, and then it's business as usual.

<comment><USER8> A corporation's assets are typically worth more as an operating business than as a disjoint collection of vehicles and land, so the buyer would tend to be someone who wants to continue operating the business and would buy the whole thing. In many cases the value of the business would also exceed the liability, in which case the difference should presumably go to the original shareholders. They might then want to use that money to invest in the new business.

That is effectively what already happens. You're basically just asking for the amount of liability for particular behavior to be larger than it is, and then in more cases it would cause the corporation to go bankrupt and have to raise new capital in order to continue operating, because the result would be the same.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> It occurs to me I should consider the following.

The author is a lawyer arguing to expand the field of defendants in a lawsuit. Most of those defendants would be likely to settle rather than be dragged into court. Who would be the beneficiary in that scenario?

(I am not a lawyer.)

</comment><comment><USER22> If companies are persons. Should we arrest them? Tax them like individuals?

<comment><USER23> Corporations are taxed like individuals. The individual tax is the tax borne by the entirety of shareholders of the corporation as individuals. Corporations are then taxed again. They are doubly taxed entities unlike a passthrough LLC or sole proprietorship</comment></comment>


I Quit a Six-Figure Existence to Create My Own Destiny. (Why You Should Too) - <AUTHOR> https://joebalcom.blog/2020/07/08/destiny/ <comment><USER2> The numerous subtle boasts are really a turn off.

A lot of it is also just... wrong.

> You will never be truly free or become wealthy by working for someone else.

Simply not true, at all. People with family, loved ones, etc would disagree. People who want to work 8 hours a day disagree. Most people, I'd imagine, would disagree that this is what "freedom" is.

Really not HN worthy IMO.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for your feedback, Matchbox. Maybe this wasn't meant for you then. Move along.

<comment><USER2> Also, the writer clearly has an attitude problem. Move along.</comment></comment></comment>


Democracy's Midlife Crisis a Conversation with David Runciman - <AUTHOR> https://thepointmag.com/2019/dialogue/democracys-midlife-crisis-a-conversation-with-david-runciman <comment><USER2> The more I consider these issues the harder it is for me to escape the conclusion that what we're witnessing is actually the structural inadequacy and failure of democracy as a form of government.</comment>


Sharpening Critical Thinking Skills - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Any context on what are you trying to get better at?

Farnam Street is my favorite blog about it. I would recommend 3 articles:

\-- Second Order Thinking - [https://fs.blog/second- order/](https://fs.blog/second-order/)

\-- Implications of Second Order Thinking - [https://fs.blog/2020/03/chestertons- fence/](https://fs.blog/2020/03/chestertons-fence/)

\-- How to Think - [https://fs.blog/2015/01/thinking-about- thinking/](https://fs.blog/2015/01/thinking-about-thinking/)

This should be a great start on how to improve your critical thinking skills. Then, I would explore decision-making biases and how to avoid deal (by yourself or in a group).

</comment><comment><USER3> Clickable - [https://www.criticalthinking.org/ctmodel/logic- model1.htm](https://www.criticalthinking.org/ctmodel/logic-model1.htm)

</comment><comment><USER4> Read or listen to many perspectives on the topic at hand. Try to play devil's advocate against your own current opinion. Don't be afraid to change your mind. Participate in online debates.

I believe you can find some free online resources if you search for critical thinking or systems thinking.</comment>


A Chinese company now manufactures stainless steel tip cases for ballpoint pens - <AUTHOR> https://qz.com/881960/the-humble-ballpoint-pen-has-become-a-new-symbol-of-chinas-innovation-economy/ <comment><USER2> I don't really think "innovation" can be defined as replicating manufacturing processes developed 100 years ago. This is simply playing catch up in terms of manufacturing processes and quality control.

<comment><USER3> There is also the material science of the rolling ball itself. I assume it has similar constraints to high quality bearings.

<comment><USER4> Good point. But if they can't manufacture ballpoint pens, how can they make bearings? Maybe it's due to their small size?

<comment><USER5> This article is talking about the tip _casing_ , not the actual ball.

<comment><USER3> I took that to mean the ball and the housing around it. The casing would function similarly to a bearing race and the ball to well, a bearing ball.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> So what this is saying is that the government of China gives money to fund the development of very specific industries which in reality could count as a subsidy under WTO rules. Yet, they want free access to our markets, but close off theirs? Something seems wrong with this.

</comment><comment><USER7> It sounds to me like the time and energy it took to develop this pen tip could have been better spent elsewhere. Rather than highlighting Chinese innovation, for me this highlights an overly politicized Chinese economy that puts independence from foreigners over efficiency and specialization. I guess you could possible say the same thing about the US these days though.

</comment><comment><USER8> The west biggest mistake - thinking that you could outsource the bottom layers of the value pyramid and there won't be local layers forming on top of them.

And when china achieve scale on something with good quality - game over man, game over.

<comment><USER9> _And when china achieve scale on something with good quality - game over man, game over._

Why do you think that will happen? The chinese labour force is rapidly shrinking, lower end manufacturing is starting to move south, and they've just figured out ball point pens. I don't see a bright future for them at all.

<comment><USER10> The expertise and supply chains for mass scale manufacturing are in China. There are many products that can't be economically manufactured almost anywhere else. They graduate many high quality engineers and researchers and they spend a huge sum on R&D annually (more than many developed nations with/without PPP adjustment). They are addressing labor shortage with robots.

China's R&D budget is 2nd in the world (only behind the US and ahead of the EU) when PPP adjusted: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_researc...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_research_and_development_spending?wprov=sfla1)

"In the five-year plan it announced last year, the national government said China would boost its annual production of industrial robots to 100,000 by 2020.

At the current rate, the country is on track to exceed that target, assuming the numbers from the statistics bureau can be trusted—not a given in China (the bureau did not respond to questions Quartz sent by email). Meanwhile, over 3,000 industrial robot makers have surfaced in the country in the past five years, according to the China Robot Industry Alliance, a trade group.

China is already the world's largest producer of industrial robots, supplying about 27% of the global market since 2015, according to the International Federation of Robotics (IFR). It's also the largest buyer of robots. According to the IFR and Bernstein Research, China's factories spent over $3 billion acquiring industrial robots in 2015."

[https://qz.com/922742/china-is-rapidly-making-robots-that- wi...](https://qz.com/922742/china-is-rapidly-making-robots-that-will-one-day- manufacture-everything-you-buy/)

<comment><USER6> There are some companies that are moving out of China because of large increase of cost of manufacturing and a decline in the quality of the talent. A startup I was at started in San Jose for prototypes, China for production for a few years then moved to Penang, Malaysia. It was a very high tech product with a large supply chain.

Also, there have been a few stories in the past year on HN discussing the quality of engineers that the Chinese education system is turning out.

The contract manufactures in China like Flextronics and Jabil have locations outside of China now and are expanding them. Heck from this map - Jabil has more outside of China:

[http://www.jabil.com/locations/](http://www.jabil.com/locations/)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Tintin – A soft documentation website generator for Haskell - <AUTHOR> https://theam.github.io/tintin/ <comment><USER2> I started learning Haskell a few months ago and am currently going through the later chapters of Haskell from first principle. A major hurdle when it comes to libraries like quick check or Trifecta (the topic of the current chapter) is precisely what is alluded to in the readme for Tintin: type signatures are probably totally fine for experts, but for someone still relatively new to programming and especially new to Haskell they are kind of the 2nd step. The first one is just figuring out where to start and what are the typical use cases for the library. Which type signatures should I even be looking at first, what is typically used together,and so forth.

If more Haskell libraries had just a bit of soft documentation at least I would be extremely happy about that. It's pretty much my major hurdle when it comes to Haskell. The syntax I not only got used to, but really love now. The concepts that are taught are just complicated. Frankly monads expressed in my primary language, Javascript, are even harder to understand because of all the syntax noise. But the one thing that at least personally consider needlessly complicated is the lack of beginner friendly documentation.

<comment><USER3> Wow I didn't realize Haskell beginners would learn to use Trifecta. Megaparsec is much more beginner friendly (and expert-friendly too). It has tutorials that guide you gently through the process of writing a parser. See [https://markkarpov.com/megaparsec/parsing-simple- imperative-...](https://markkarpov.com/megaparsec/parsing-simple-imperative- language.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Fair warning: doesn't work at all with JS disabled or disabled for cross- origin (which is somewhat sad, especially for tech documentation).

<comment><AUTHOR> We are in the process of fixing it, see [https://github.com/theam/tintin/issues/7](https://github.com/theam/tintin/issues/7)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'd just like to point out, in case OP hasn't already considered it, that TinTin++ is one of the most popular MUD clients (not that MUDs are particularly popular these days).

<comment><USER6> >not that MUDs are particularly popular these days

There's no good reason for that though. Shameless plug: [http://icesus.org](http://icesus.org) (we need players :-/)

<comment><USER5> Probably shouldn't be upvoting this as it doesn't have much to do with the topic, but I will anyway cause you're fighting for a lost art worth saving.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The site theme could use a bunch more contrast.

In the docs sidebar, I can literally not read the section names until I hover, and then squint some.

</comment><comment><USER8> Haddock documentation tends to be fairly inscrutable at first glance, so I'm in favour of anyone trying to remedy that.

On the other hand the Haddock aesthetic and simplicity is awesome, whereas I find the Tintin website nauseating.

<comment><USER9> I'm with you on both counts. I mean, look at those shades of colour on the sidebar to the left: [https://theam.github.io/tintin/01-getting- started.html](https://theam.github.io/tintin/01-getting-started.html) Give me something concise (and designed for desktop: small fonts, small buttons).

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm a big fan of fssnip. [http://www.fssnip.net/u/title/Pipeline-list- processing](http://www.fssnip.net/u/title/Pipeline-list-processing)

Hover over the lines and you get type information right there. One of the cool features of F# that I wish was present when reading docs in other languages.

<comment><USER9> Oh wow, that's great!</comment></comment>


11 February Will Be a Day of ACTA Protests - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/02/02/11-february-will-be-a-day-of-protest-in-europe-against-the-controversial-acta-treaty/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheNextWeb+%28The+Next+Web+All+Stories%29 <comment><USER2> ACTA does not do most of the things they think it does. It's generally a good idea before protesting something to actually understand it, or you end up looking silly.

Here's some information on what it actually does and does not do: [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/internet- awa...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/internet-awash-in- inaccurate-anti-acta-arguments.ars)

<comment><USER3> Here's EFF's take:

Some of the worst aspects of the previous draft of the ACTA agreement, such as a provision requiring ISPs to adopt a Three Strikes Law,[3] were removed from the U.S. Trade Representative's final version of the instrument released in May 2011. ACTA suffocates collaborative creativity and innovation, and less explicitly, but just as gravely threatens free speech through provisions that may lead to Internet access restrictions for the "sake" of combating "imminent violation" of intellectual property laws. Worst of all, the secrecy of the negotiations sets a dangerous precedent for future international agreements, in creating powerful trade agreements that both skirt existing international discussions on intellectual property and allow it to go through with little or no input from civil society organizations or the public.

From [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/12/2011-review- developmen...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/12/2011-review-developments- acta)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Sadly the internet community has already spent all their protest capital on the SOPA blackout. ACTA will be lucky to be a footnote in the mainstream news.

<comment><USER5> Maybe in US, not elsewhere. In Poland, we already had some nice anti-ACTA protests on 24-26 of January, pushing our govt into panic mode, and if word spreads we will kick butts again on Feb 11.

<comment><USER6> Yep, but I have actually been to the friday protest in Warsaw, and I must admin that attendance was poor and consisted mostly of youngsters who don't really get what they are protesting against (still kudos for caring enough to get out of home at -15'C, current weather doesn't help, really).</comment></comment></comment>


Common Lisp: The Untold Story - <AUTHOR> http://www.nhplace.com/kent/Papers/cl-untold-story.html <comment><USER2> Great article. At first I thought "What a nice read for my morning coffee". But it certainly has gotten me thinking about my own experience with standards and committees and working groups. I should note now, I've never been a big player in any of these, but have participated - so my experiences are a bit different than Kent Pitman's, but related.

I think a big takeaway from this should be: if you are interested in a subject and get involved, you can influence it in unexpected ways. My name is not on any major specs or standards, but some of my ideas or suggestions are there. Not because I am all that important or super smart, but because I was involved and therefore able to influence and help decisions. Simple things like asking questions about ambiguity can have unexpected influence. One time I asked a question about a line and it turned out half the people involved thought it was one way, and the other half thought the opposite. Clarification ensued, but what a mess it would have been if no one had asked!

Another thing that I find to be a useful lesson in this article is that sometimes the dog wags the tail, and sometimes the tail wags the dog. Frequently you see people on committees arguing over some detail that matters, but not as much as you might think. Frequently the decision comes down to someone just implementing it one way in a pre-release. Those implementations will become either a great example of why the other option is better, or of why the choice taken is better (or at least that the choice wasn't that big of a deal after all). Committees take on a life of their own, and exist in a bit of echo chamber, so sometimes scoping of issues gets disproportionately wrong.

A final personal observation that doesn't come through in this article, but I think is important. If you do research or cutting edge work, just hanging out at these types of meetings provides tons of fodder for exploration and research. Ideas are usually just floating through the air in the form of "if $THING works we could $X, but if it doesn't we would have to $Y". Every time you hear that, there is a paper to be written. Other times you hear great ideas for companies - "The $PROBLEM is a major source of concern", but it turns out $PROBLEM isn't really a problem, it has been solved in a different corner of the world nicely. Porting $SOLUTION from one domain to another is a starting path to profitable companies.

There is a downside though, is that there is a bit of self-hyping that needs to be done in these processes. If you have been paying attention, writing papers, doing exploration, sometimes your contribution gets lost into the general idea space. People will start talking about the concepts of your work as if they came from nowhere. This isn't intentional, ideas seem to have a life of their own like this, but if you wrote a paper, and someone is now touting the concept as something that just came to them (even in changed form), you need to gently point them at your work, so you can get some credit. Basically it's personal branding, and a bit uncouth, but necessary unfortunately.

</comment><comment><USER3> What has never been clear to me about Lisp is how these implementations differ. The syntax is so simple it doesn't seem to be that, so that would leave builtins and libraries. Surely builtins can be emulated and libraries can be ported.

So why doesn't there exist some macro (Lispers always brag about them) that could transmogrify code written for one set of builtins and libraries to another?

<comment><USER4> That is not so easy to do if the differences can be as huge as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scope_(computer_science)#Lexica...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scope_\(computer_science\)#Lexical_scoping_and_dynamic_scoping).

It becomes a nightmare if your are trying to transmogrify code that itself already transmogrifies code. Such code will make assumptions about how the lisp it runs on behaves.

<comment><USER3> I still don't see how the scoping is difficult. Since macros can see the whole structure and usage of symbols why can't it rename or insert/remove necessary declarations (eg local or set)?

I can understand how each level of transmogrification makes things harder to grok but in general wouldn't there only be one level. eg if code was written for LispA and you are running LispB then you just need one level to fix that. (Sure if you are running LispC then you might need A -> B -> C but there aren't that many different Lisps listed!)

My question still remains - what was it that made these Lisps so incompatible and couldn't be addressed using the existing much vaunted facilities already in the language?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> There is an interesting bit (section 6.2, "ANSI and Copyright") in which the author relates a phonecall that involved the copyright issue for who owns a spec. It's an interesting read.</comment>


Nearly 20 Years After Windows 95, Microsoft Is Lumbering Toward Cool Again - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/magazine/2013/04/microsoft/?cid=7357764 <comment><USER2> This feels like a puff piece, I am worse off for having read it.....</comment>


A Dark Consensus About Screens and Kids Begins to Emerge in Silicon Valley - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/26/style/phones-children-silicon-valley.html <comment><USER2> I have friends with kids on all side of this coin:

Group A is tech parents with screen time control ( uses parental controls)

Group B non tech parents with physical screen time ( takes phones away)

Group C parents that let the child decide ( kids have full control over own devices)

And without a doubt one can notice developmental diviations in the children av group c. They are not very active, hard to socialize etc.

Group bs children are usually way more phydicsl about things.

But bottom line is that tech is negatively impacting children if left unsupervised.

And i honestly think much of that comes down to design patterns in apps. We make stupid apps be addictive to adults to optimize engagement and these same physiological hooks work on children except way more potent.

<comment><USER3> From personal experience as a parent, I've learnt that withdrawing computer/tablet/YouTube access is a good strategy to improve behaviour. Our seven year old went from almost being thrown out of swimming lessons due to naughtiness, to near perfect behaviour, once we started saying "if you don't behave at swimming you are having no computer for the rest of the day" and it became clear that we really meant it.

Similarly, he kept on being sent home from school early for misbehaviour. The school introduced this system where the teachers give him "thumbs up" for being behaved and "thumbs down" for not. We told him that he has to come home every school day with at least five thumbs up and no thumbs down to get his computer, and we demonstrated to him that we meant it. And since then, every day he gets at least five thumbs up and no thumbs down. (We have to ask the staff when we pick him up, because we know otherwise he'll just claim to get five thumbs up even if he didn't.)

<comment><USER4> The kid isn't learning to not act up at swimming, it's learning not to act up in front of you.

<comment><USER5> The other kids at swimming lessons, other kids at school, instructor and teachers all likely appreciate not-perfectly-self-motivated improvement in behavior all the same.

It definitely is much better the the kid who misbehaves regardless of whether someone is looking or not.

Because this way, swimming lesson continue and they can enjoy swimming. School goes on and they don't have to sit and wait till teacher deals with this one kid.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This article focuses exclusively on tech yuppies and their neurotic overanalyzing about "screen time".

For everyone else, there has never been a better time for children of any income level or location in the world to access high-quality education and content for free (Khan Academy Kids, PBS Kids, etc.)

That's the real power of tech: the great equalizer of access to information. Now we have it and apparently some people want to go back to what, buying expensive sets of encyclopedias?

<comment><USER7> >That's the real power of tech: the great equalizer of access to information.

access to information isn't relevant. If you don't believe that ask a few people if they'd rather want the MIT degree without having any of the education or the education without the degree.

Information on its own is useless without any capital or network to turn that information into something tangible, in that way it's like oil. And that's also why the more information dependent our society is the more centralized it is, as a small amount of players can leverage information to create outsized returns on capital.

<comment><USER8> Let's ask a more legitimate question, without the fancy and highly specific "MIT" modifier, and without shifting to highly optional education (I have a college degree, I went to grad school, I continue to live next to and participate in an academic university ecosystem... I can easily sympathize with how useless the whole thing is): "how many people would prefer to have a high school education without a high school diploma over having a high school diploma without a high school education?" <\- the answer to this one is probably "almost everyone".

<comment><USER9> That seems ambiguous and non-obvious to me. A very underdetermined question.

Without the diploma, are you locked out of any job that requires it? Are you assuming that a GED is available? Do you realize some jobs that pay incrementally more than minimum wage in fact require you to prove you graduated high school even if it was, like 30 years ago and you've been in the workforce since?

Conversely, does "without a high school education" mean never having gone to high school classes, or does it mean being completely ignorant of everything those classes would have taught?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> (2018)

</comment><comment><USER11> This is behind a paywall and so I can't read it.

I think HN should have a rule that any link that is behind a paywall cannot be posted unless a way around the paywall is provided.

</comment><comment><USER12> [2018] please

</comment><comment><USER13> If anyone here has been around kids around the age of 7-11 years old recently then they know exactly why this consensus is emerging.

The internet isn't built for parental guidance, and parents don't know how to lock their kids devices down. Now, because of Covid I am living in a big joint family again and my 7 year old niece has been caught watching male strip teases on YouTube.

These devices and the content on them (much like television) is designed to be addicting and to appeal to all the immediate gratification systems in our body. Lots of adults are addicted to the internet, and it's not surprising that parents want to take steps to keep their kids from being so too.

But now with stay-at-home and online learning, kids have an excuse to be online all day. On a tablet or some similar system, and most parents have no idea how to track what their kids are doing or block bad websites etc.

Not to mention kids who download video game apps and then charge their parents cards with $100s in microtransactions.

Most people don't want to reckon with how much these devices shape our worldview and the way we live, but when we see it happening to a child, it begins to dawn on us that we've maybe bought in too much on technology.

I don't know the way forward. Devices have been an equalizer. That's true. But it's also true that their purpose is to divert our attention from important things to advertising. Their purpose is to be a mini TV that we carry with us everywhere. And who can blame parents for being unsure which side of that they want to stand on?

<comment><USER14> There's no denying that kids can do things on an iPad you don't want them doing. But for of those of us who mostly grew up with the Internet, "screen time" is just a very strange category. From my perspective, it's like noticing that kids who start reading from a young age often skip homework to read or read dirty fanfics you can't approve of, and arriving at a dark consensus about books.

<comment><USER5> It is strange untill you actually have to deal with kids long term. Then it starts to make sense.

Also, kids who read a lot tend to be the ones who also do homework. Yet also, today's kids who engage in reading a lot tend to be the ones who have "screen time" policed.

When kids spend too much time reading, parent do treat that as issue too. There just is no peer pressure currently to read, reading is less addictive and people tend to rage less while reading or post reading.</comment></comment></comment>


Microsoft's Photosynth Makes Photos a 3D Experience - <AUTHOR> http://www.pcworld.com/article/150100/must_see_microsofts_photosynth_makes_photos_a_3d_experience.html

<comment><USER2> The really impressive thing about Photosynth is how far it has come in the last year. It used to take hours to weeks to create synths from hundreds of pictures. The processing time is dominated by

1\. Keypoint detection (SIFT or a similar algorithm)

2\. Keypoint matching for each pair of images with approximate nearest neighbor (ANN) search on kd-trees

3\. Structure from motion to recover rotation and the relative location of photos

<comment><USER3> Any details available on how they're speeding up each of these steps? The only research publications I see are the original work and the new 'finding paths' paper presented last week at Siggraph.

<comment><USER2> Yeah, the papers only discuss how they combine known algorithms[1]. They could be speeding up the process using any combination of these:

1\. Using the order of the images to reduce matching from O(N^2) to something closer to O(N) since people are more likely to take pictures sequentially instead of randomly. I'm going to run some tests next time I boot into Windows.

2\. Running keypoint detection as the images are uploaded and potentially slowing down the upload speed to make it appear more seamless.

3\. New keypoint detection algorithm for constant-time speedup. SURF, for instance, is about 5x faster than SIFT.

4\. Using GPUs. The keypoint detection and matching steps are perfect for running on parallel GPUs. A couple recent papers showed 10-15x speedup for keypoint detection and KD-tree construction and search on GPUs, compared to similarly priced CPUs.

Any other ideas?

[1] There's also a new paper called _Skeletal graphs for efficient structure from motion_ that discusses a neat graph algorithm for the SfM step.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Great work by Microsoft, has to be one of the very good products of 2008.

</comment><comment><USER4> More details on Research of Photosynth <http://phototour.cs.washington.edu/findingpaths/>

</comment><comment><USER5> Of course, Windows only...

<comment><USER6> Photosynth is a website, not a desktop app.

<comment><USER2> I think he means that it's a (Windows) plugin for your browser. Both the picture uploader and the viewer are Windows-only for now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Videosynth...</comment>


Ask HN: How do you protect the IP of proprietary platform, toolset, and SDK? - <AUTHOR> Our scenario is such that we have developed a comprehensive SDK, platform, tools and processes -- toolset. Our toolset enables us to be competitive with regard to time, budget, and quality. We have successfully used our toolset for our projects and we are exploring using our toolset to build software projects (SOW) for clients. Customers will need our toolset to maintain and operate the software systems we will build for them.
We do not want to lose control (ownership, right, etc) of our toolset. We do not want customers to use our toolset to build new products to compete with us.
We are thinking that a good approach would be to license our toolset to specific customers for use for specific products that we built for the customers or that the customers will build themselves.
How would you protect the IP of proprietary platform, toolset, and SDK when you have to use said toolset for contracting work or when you want to limit the scope of usage?
All your thoughts and feedbacks would be most welcomed and appreciated.
Thanks... <comment><USER2> Sounds like you need an authorization solution for specific aspects of the toolset. Is there a reason you can't lock down specific functionality (e.g., "Create New Project")?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, we are thinking about specifying the licensing term such that clients cannot use it to create new project.

We are looking for the proper phrasing, wording, template and general experience of folks who have been on either side of the table on this issue. The more we know, the better we will negotiate so to speak ;)</comment></comment>


Clickbait spasm: Gizmos I used in 2015 - <AUTHOR> http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2015/12/clickbait-spasm-14-gadgets-i-u.html <comment><USER2> Does anyone reading this happen to be familiar with Linux compatibility within the current Fujitsu ScanSnap page scanner line? (Stross mentions specifically the ix500 model and Windows, Mac, iOS, and Android compatibility, as does the Fujitsu product page.)

I looked into them a number of years ago; at that time, I was left with the impression that buying a higher end model was desirable if not necessary for full(er) support. Something to do with TWAIN support?

<comment><AUTHOR> Haven't tried it, but vuescan [http://www.hamrick.com/](http://www.hamrick.com/) claims to work on Linux.

<comment><USER2> Thank you!</comment></comment></comment>


Good place to find a coding mentor? - <AUTHOR> I had troubles writing a virtual machine. Need to find someone who can help me out. I don't think IRC will help everything was handcrafted also I need someone to help me in the far future. <comment><USER2> A local user group?</comment>


How do they achieve this? - <AUTHOR> http://www.airtel.in/cricketonyoutube/

<comment><USER2> The ISP is simply raising the speed cap on accounts for a specific URL (<http://www.youtube.com/ipl>) during a specific time period.

Their expression "no buffering" is simply marketing speak for "you won't notice if it buffers for 2 or 3 seconds".</comment>


Soviet PCs - <AUTHOR> http://rbth.co.uk/multimedia/pictures/2014/04/07/before_the_internet_top_11_soviet_pcs_35711 <comment><USER2> In 1985-87 I worked on plant that manufactured personal computers with russian-translated DOS in Minsk, Belarus.

The cost of this computer was close to the cost of car so blue collar workers established multiple schemes to steal either parts of computers or the whole computers.

The best plan by far was to throw computers out of the windows of factory so it would land on the soft grass right outside of the secure perimeter fence. Then whatever was thrown - would be picked up by co-conspirators and drove away immediately. Usually during the night shifts.

Clever, simple and working scheme that took a while to discover and crack for local security and law enforcement.

<comment><USER3> Lol, classic Soviet Union story. It worked well in soviet-influenced countries, too. Widespread corruption was inevitable with everyone doing this stuff (I still blame the shit government) :-)

<comment><USER4> _Lol, classic Soviet Union story._

I have been thinking about this.

In general people tend to work on greed and fear.

Could we build a system that is based on peoples goodwill or it would be doomed?

 _I still blame the shit government_

Quote: "The cadres determine everything."

<comment><USER5> > _In general people tend to work on greed and fear. Could we build a system > that is based on peoples goodwill or it would be doomed?_

 _Some_ people work on greed and fear, while some others do work on wanting to improve the world.

In my experiences and observations, the ones who work because they want to improve things were the ones who grew up in stable and loving households and were taught to be nice.

<comment><USER6> There has actually been a great deal of work trying to find the best predictors of generosity and trust; people who have grown up in free markets have more of both than do those who grew up in more socialist countries. Interestingly, the first people to make this finding were socialists who thought the games (such as 'the dictator game' and 'the ultimatum game') would show how socialism improved fellow-feeling, kindness, and understanding.

<comment><USER7> That's very interesting, any suggested reading? Were the socialist researchers able to publish their results in their own countries?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> So this post was original posted this morning, but after HN requested I repost it got to #1:

[http://s.gsc.io/hn-repost-request.png](http://s.gsc.io/hn-repost-request.png)

<comment><USER8> Wow that's quite interesting. I've never gotten one if those so I don't know if it's new or I just never post anything interesting?!

<comment><USER9> We've only recently built software support for this. Before that we did it manually for several months to test the idea.

More on this at [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10395389](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10395389) and the links from there.

<comment><USER10> As cool as it is you guys are giving good stories a better chance of hitting the front page. I can't help but wonder: 1\. How a post is determined to be "good"? \- Is it just if any of the moderators like it? \- Is there a voting system for mods to determine this? \- Would these not require a lot more work for the mods for possibly little benefit? 2\. How do you ensure that feature isn't abused by a "bad" mod to promote their own content or views?

<comment><USER11> In the linked comment, dang writes:

>> We use a combination of software filters and human review to find good-but- overlooked stories. "Good" here means by HN's definition of "gratifying intellectual curiosity".

Hopefully that answers your first point. Second, HN mods are hired to work full-time on improving and polishing HN. This requires that they be professional, and professionalism in this sense requires ignoring your personal views. Having any kind of motive not based on improving HN would be unprofessional.

This is a way in which HN is distinguished from Reddit: YC puts money into guaranteeing that HN works well. Only well-known people can be mods, not everyone on the Internet. These people have reputations for being "good," being fair and impartial.

Mods have something at stake (jobs, reputation). So does YC. They're not going to make a mistake.

And in my experience, (although I realize that the plural of "anecdote" is not "data") dang et al. have been nothing but totally neutral in every action (that I've seen, so far) on HN.

<comment><USER12> Just curious if you guys have also tried seeing what happens when you run the meritocracy approach to articles? Ie, let the upvotes decide.

I think most of the inmates here would be surprised that they're not running the asylum :)

<comment><USER11> The upvotes do decide here, though. Mods rarely manually pull posts that aren't spam. Most are flagged by users, which either kills them or pushes them into the bottom of the rankings.

And at least HN is clear about where the moderators stand. Meritocracy doesn't function. Either you have reddit, where users circlejerk into oblivion in smaller communities because votes don't matter (and larger communities don't work either, because their bigger mod teams do things like [1,2,3]) or you have StackOverflow, where upvotes and downvotes are extremely powerful and either allow you a lot of power or allow you to zap others and keep them in line.

HN allows you to easily amass some karma so you can say something that isn't in line with others' opinions. Sometimes people will even upvote you and make your minority opinion prominent. Downvoting requires at least 500 karma, making sure you have the lay of the land down (and prevents spam accounts from taking down comments immediately).

HN has a lot of transparency. Try enabling "showdead" in your profile. Forget uneddit, that's built in on HN.

We're not inmates. We're here for the conversation. We like cool stuff and we like to talk about it.

[1]: [https://archive.is/CFKgq](https://archive.is/CFKgq) [2]: [https://i.imgur.com/EWVH9RW.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/EWVH9RW.jpg) [3]: [https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/3hewwm/misc...](https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/3hewwm/misc_i_was_banned_from_roffmychest_for_submitting/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> There was another IBM PC soviet-made clone, somewhat similar to Iskra 1030 mentioned in the post. It was designed and manufactured in Kiev, Ukraine in mid to late 80s and was called Нейрон (neuron).

I was a part of that software team, porting IBM PC/XT BIOS code, so if you have any questions do not hesitate to ask.

There is a Russian language wikipedia article dedicated to it: [https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9D%D0%B5%D0%B9%D1%80%D0%BE...](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9D%D0%B5%D0%B9%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD_%D0%989.66)

<comment><USER7> Do tell more! How behind was the Soviet Union in computing (if indeed it was behind) compared to other countries at the time?

<comment><USER13> It was hopelessly behind in hardware. The processors were cloned by thinly slicing them and making pictures. This is how i8086 was "designed" anyway. [http://www.cpushack.com/soviet-cpus.html](http://www.cpushack.com/soviet- cpus.html)

There was very little original software written at the time, multiple teams were tasked with reverse-engineering popular software tools and programs and translating them into Russian for internal consumption.

The gap in software development is somewhat harder to quantify. Overall the software was rather decent in those rare cases when it was original.

<comment><USER14> Were they so far behind in VLSI design that decapping and reverse engineering was a better option than re-implementing the processor from a published spec?

<comment><USER15> They were much less behind than it is now (1-2-5 years max). The problem is that leadership of USSR wanted to take advantage of using existing software - hence demanded 100% exact copy of hardware (starting from IBM-360). By many these actions were considered a treason, especially in retrospective.

There were independent developments, they worked but never went widespread (because they needed an "order" from the state).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I wrote a blog post about a soviet start-up from 1989 that used SM-4, mainframe type computer.

[http://yansh.github.io/articles/rhythm/](http://yansh.github.io/articles/rhythm/)

A lot of the architecture was cloned from Western or nearby countries.

In any case, it was a fascinating period that in my mind produced some of the best programmers in the world. They did amazing things with little resources they had.

<comment><USER17> SM-4 was very much like PDP-11, running a lot of compatible software "appropriated" fromthe West.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> This is the first I hear about the Robotron 1715 being developed in Russia. All other sources I can find say that it was developed and built in Eastern Germany (Robotron was an Eastern German company that developed a number of computers in the 80s). Even the russian wikipedia say so. Wikipedia says that even the U880 processor, a Z80 clone, was produced in East Germany.

[https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robotron_1715](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robotron_1715)

[http://www.old- computers.com/MUSEUM/computer.asp?c=864&s...](http://www.old- computers.com/MUSEUM/computer.asp?c=864&st=1)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U880](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U880)

<comment><USER19> The article doesn't say it was developed in Russia, it says "The computer itself was developed at a research institute outside Moscow, and production was transferred to the German Democratic Republic"

<comment><USER18> How do you read "The computer itself was developed at a research institute outside Moscow" to mean anything other than that the computer was developed in Russia?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> For anyone interested in more info about this topic, my father and his friend run a fan site for the BESM-6 (including an emulator!), a Soviet-era mainframe computer:

[http://www.mailcom.com/besm6/](http://www.mailcom.com/besm6/)

</comment><comment><USER21> Relatedly, the German Democratic Republic had an arcade machine:

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

<comment><USER22> They also had full VAX 11/780 clones! [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robotron_K_1840](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robotron_K_1840)

Oh and wonderful art ( [http://imgur.com/GPPI56E](http://imgur.com/GPPI56E) ) but that's another topic.

<comment><USER23> I still think Robotron is about _the_ coolest name of any computer manufacturer EVER. Imagine how cool it would be to own a laptop or smartphone or whatever with that name on it.

<comment><USER24> Since there were jokes further up, this reminded me of another one:

 _A delegation of Japanese visits the GDR and of course is shown many important companies and places. At the end, they are asked "What did you enjoy the most?"

"The three great museums: Pergamon, Pentacon and Robotron"_

<comment><USER23> Hehe, that is a good one!

Earlier this year, I visited the Heinz-Nixdorf museum, not far from where I live, which actually has a mainframe built by Robotron on display (a clone of an IBM S/370, I think).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> БК family is missing, the bestselling Soviet computers. CISC architecture. [https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/БК_(семейство_компьютеров)](https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/БК_\(семейство_компьютеров\)). I wrote my first programmes on that Bulgarian made ISKRA 1030, that was nice but very poor performing comparing to ЕС mainframe with PRIMUS OS. Also ЕС desktops family is missing in this article. The latter sibling of that had a cast iron mouse, I kid you not.

<comment><USER26> ZX Spectrum clones (the big hit at the time) aren't on the list as well.

<comment><USER27> And Russians develop a lot the ZX Spectrum architecture (and keep doing)

<comment><USER26> there days it's mostly demos, though.

see f.e. [http://media.assembly.org/vod/2011/Seminars/1203_arttech_sem...](http://media.assembly.org/vod/2011/Seminars/1203_arttech_seminars_digital_resistance_east_european_demo_art_h264_1024kbit.mp4)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> ... and some Bulgarian ones: [http://www.pravetz.info/](http://www.pravetz.info/)

A broader overview: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_computer_hardware_i...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_computer_hardware_in_Soviet_Bloc_countries)

</comment><comment><USER29> UNIX-UNAS realy reads as a very funny joke for russian speakers

<comment><USER30> ROFL. Thanks for pointing that out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Feel like these in no small part explain why Russians seem to have a disproportionate amount of programmers compared to all other countries outside the US.

<comment><USER32> There's another former Communist country with a "disproportionate amount of programmers": Romania.

It even had its own PC clone: [https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_PC](https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_PC) (in Romanian, sorry, but you can probably figure things out just from the dates and numbers :) ).

Edit: How cute! At the bottom there are links to all the Romanian-made computers. There are at least 20 models I didn't even know of.

<comment><USER33> I'd wager a guess that most of the countries in the Eastern Block did have their own computers.

In Poland, for example, there were the 8-bit Meritums [1], the Elwro 800 Juniors [2], the Bosman 8s [3], the Mazovia PC clones [4] complete with their own Polish characters encoding that has the peculiarity of containing one character that had never existed in Unicode [5], to name but a few, not to mention the Odra mainframes [6].

[1]: [https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritum_(komputer)#/media/File...](https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritum_\(komputer\)#/media/File:Meritum_II_komplet.jpg) [2]: [https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elwro_800_Junior#/media/File:E...](https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elwro_800_Junior#/media/File:Elwro_800_calosc.jpg) [3]: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79YSyyV9f2Y](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79YSyyV9f2Y) [4]: [https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazovia_(komputer)#/media/File...](https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazovia_\(komputer\)#/media/File:Mazovia_1016_PC.jpg) [5]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazovia_encoding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazovia_encoding) [6]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odra_(computer)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odra_\(computer\))

<comment><USER34> > I'd wager a guess that most of the countries in the Eastern Block did have > their own computers.

There's this beauty from Sweden:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABC80](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABC80)

I'm guessing a lot of countries overall had their own computers, not just eastern block. We don't usually hear much about them because we base our computer history mostly on the canon of the US.

I was surprised to read in "The Architecture of Open Source Applications" that my former university's computer science department made a very prominent sendmail version back in the day (IDA sendmail) and that this was noteworthy in that context.

This field has been international for a very long time.

<comment><USER35> You are aware that Sweden was not a member of the "Eastern Block"?

<comment><USER34> That was exactly my point. Most likely every country (overall) had their own computer. It wasn't an "Eastern block thing". The degree of separation was obviously higher, but not all "western" manufacturers were American.

(Also: danskjävel...)

<comment><USER35> I get it now. The context was ambiguous, though, so I don't quite get the downvote.

Yes, we danskjävels made som as well. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regnecentralen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regnecentralen)

<comment><USER34> > I get it now. The context was ambiguous, though, so I don't quite get the > downvote.

I can't even downvote, so it wasn't me. I edited my original post to be less ambiguous. Sorry.

> Yes, we danskjävels made som as well. > [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regnecentralen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regnecentralen)

There's something really beautiful about that setup. I like the splash of color in select areas and the keyboard looks amazing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Yup, I wrote my first Basic programs on the Korvet. And it was 1994.

</comment><comment><USER37> Curiously the only PC in my school in Moscow in 1988 was an IBM PC (the 5150?). Actually, that may have been 1987 or 86 even... Then we moved to the US. I've never seen or knew of existence of any of the machines in this article.

</comment><comment><USER38> It's too bad that no one is taking a risk on developing an entirely new desktop computer anymore.

<comment><USER39> Funny comment.

Precisely what is the incentive? With smartphones coming to the fore as the main platform of computing in recent times?

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> The professor that taught my compilers course used to tell us crazy stories about working in the Soviet Union before he immigrated as a reverse engineer, essentially copying western operating systems. He gave us by far the best explanations of real-world applications for the hardcore theory we learned in automata class.

</comment><comment><USER41> I just sitting @ the c3d2 hackerspace in dresden germany which is located in the old robotron building ^^ - but never saw one of those machines in person. No idea if here are still some in the building, guess not.

</comment><comment><USER42> I believe I heard that the soviets experimented in the early days with ternary computers, and took it further than anyone else did. Does anyone have more information on that?

</comment><comment><USER43> One popular is missing [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKNC](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKNC)

</comment><comment><USER44> These are actually pretty cool. Need to add this to my list for when I visit Europe next. Maybe find some in a junk/antique/thrift shop?

</comment><comment><USER45> Ahhh the memories. Pravetz 8d (with a cassete tape storage), Pravetz 16. The black green monitors.

I still keep some around here for sentimental value.

<comment><USER46> Fellow Oric/Atmos user checking in.. those Pravetz machines are cool!

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> I'm not sure I know how to feel about the fact that the author had to explain what a Light Pen was. Why am I so old?!

</comment><comment><USER48> Is the red color scheme an homage to the Soviet flag?

</comment><comment><USER43> I worked with the second one for ~3 years

</comment><comment> V-2 One thinq for sure, God were they dirty!

</comment><comment><USER49> Never touch the red keys.

</comment><comment><USER50> > __ _It could be had for 440 rubles - two average monthly salaries at that > time._ __

Which is .88 Euros today.

<comment><USER51> Soviet Rubles are different than today's Rubles, no?

<comment><USER25> You can compare Soviet Ruble to Sterling Pound of the 60-ies. A nice cottage in St. Albans was £500 back then, now its £250000 more like.</comment></comment></comment>


How Security Keys Store Credentials - <AUTHOR> https://duo.com/labs/tech-notes/how-security-keys-store-credentials? <comment><USER2> Hey folks! Original author here -- happy to answer any questions about credential storage or the nitty-gritty of WebAuthn.</comment>


Diamond particles discovered in candle light - <AUTHOR> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8706666/Diamond-particles-discovered-in-candlelight.html

<comment><USER2> Previous submission here: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2899191>

2 days old, 72 points, 12 comments, actual scholarly article is behind a paywall that many universities can get through here: [http://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleLanding/2011/CC/c0cc05...](http://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleLanding/2011/CC/c0cc05785a)</comment>


42 disease clusters in 13 U.S. states identified - <AUTHOR> http://www.nrdc.org/health/diseaseclusters/files/diseaseclusters_issuepaper.pdf

<comment><USER2> I just went to the Wiki page of the Santa Susana Field Lab and it is scary! Most people think of Three Mile Island or maybe Nevada Test Site as examples of the worst nuclear accidents in US history but I had no idea:

>The Hot Lab suffered a number of fires involving radioactive materials. For example, in 1957, a fire in the Hot Cell "got out of control and ... massive contamination" resulted. In July, 1959, the site suffered a partial nuclear meltdown that has been named "the worst in U.S. history", releasing an undisclosed amount of radiation, but thought to be much more than the Three Mile Island disaster in 1979.

> At least four of the ten nuclear reactors suffered accidents. The AE6 > reactor experienced a release of fission gases in March 1959, the SRE > experienced a power excursion and partial meltdown in July 1959; the SNAP8ER > in 1964 experienced damage to 80% of its fuel; and the SNAP8DR in 1969 > experienced similar damage to one-third of its fuel.

> The reactors located on the grounds of SSFL were considered experimental, > and therefore had no containment structures.

> Throughout the years, approximately ten low-power nuclear reactors operated > at SSFL, in addition to several "critical facilities": a sodium burn pit in > which sodium-coated objects were burned in an open pit; a plutonium fuel > fabrication facility; a uranium carbide fuel fabrication facility; and the > purportedly largest "Hot Lab" facility in the United States at the time.</comment>


Q&A: What Is Your Bedtime Story for Rebel Girls? - <AUTHOR> https://code.likeagirl.io/q-a-what-is-your-bedtime-story-for-rebel-girls-5865ca7343d2 <comment><USER2> Love reading all the "Code Like a Girl" stories. Start my morning off with them every workday morning :) Thank you for sharing and creating!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks so much. I am so glad you are finding value in them!!!</comment></comment>


Ask Github: Add button to merge pull-requests on github.com - <AUTHOR>

Github: Please add single-click merging of pull-requests on github.com. Thanks. <comment><USER2> This is the site you're looking for: <http://support.github.com/></comment>


How I Built a Working Online Poker Bot, Part 7 - <AUTHOR> http://www.codingthewheel.com/archives/how-i-built-a-working-online-poker-bot-7

<comment><USER2> This guy had dedication to learn and dig deep into the internals of esoteric windows api calls, artificial intelligence, and bot detection. And he was doing something that he thought was fun; he had passion for it. I applaud his success.</comment>


ForgeFed: An extension to ActivityPub for web-based Git services federation - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/forgefed/forgefed <comment><USER2> This has been discussed previously[1]. As someone from the outside, I'd be interested to know whether any actual spec has been started, or is it still at the planning stage and what could interested parties do to help speed up the process?

1 - [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17288727](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17288727)

<comment><USER3> I've been keeping an eye on the mailing list. There was an initial burst of activity when it started, but then it faded out. I'm not aware of any drafted specification, so it has to be in the planning stage still.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Federated Git Services would really help self-hosters of Gitlab/Gitea/Gogs/etc.

Github has the network effect; people can make merge requests because they already have accounts there.

On my instance they don't but if they had a Gitlab account and federation worked, they could!

<comment><USER5> Would Github/Gitlab/BitBucket et. al. have any incentive to implement this? I mean most of their business models are revolved around people getting on and staying on their sites.

However, Github could probably afford to do this, being owned by Microsoft now. If they implemented this, others would have to follow to stay in the game.

<comment><USER4> Github definitely not. Bitbucket likely too since they sell it as a primary function IIRC.

Gitlab would considering they have open core and it would make interop between instances easier.

<comment><USER6> The price of a github account for a company is often far less than the cost of maintening gitlab: people are expensive, and they come with taxes while spending are deductible.

My guess is that github is not risking much.

<comment><USER4> Well, people do maintain gitlab instances, so it's worth something to them. There is lots of reasons to do, usually corporate, sometimes activist.

GitHub would likely not risk much losses but people not using GitHub would immensely benefit either way, if GH implements it or not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> This "ForgeFed" thing is the same that was posted here a while back called "GitPub". It was just renamed [1], it's not a new specification.

[1] [https://dokk.org/ForgeFed](https://dokk.org/ForgeFed)</comment>