Is it possible to change a culture? - <AUTHOR> http://gothamgal.com/2016/06/is-it-possible-to-change-a-culture/ <comment><USER2> Top -> down? Maybe.

Bottom -> up? Never.</comment>


Retailers are disabling NFC readers to shut out Apple Pay - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2014/10/25/7069863/retailers-are-disabling-nfc-readers-to-shut-out-apple-pay

<comment><USER2> The Verge has buried the lede here: major retailers are banding together to compete with Apple Pay, with their own system made out of QR codes and direct access to your checking account. Given the security track record of US retail the past few years, one might wonder what could possibly go wrong.

<comment><USER3> Security from credit cards isn't really any better, it's just that they established very strong fraud detection mechanisms and have accepted eating the losses from credit card theft as a cost of doing business. When I lose my credit card and someone starts using it to make purchases, so long as I notify my issuer promptly, they absolve me of being responsible for the fraudulent transactions.

So long as this new system accepts that this is a cost of doing business and implements a customer service policy where the risk is spread among all retail participants, this would be competitive with the status quo.

These merchants aren't going to get out of paying fees, but they should be able to reduce those fees to the cost of providing a competitive service to the credit cards. The benefit is that they won't have to also pay higher fees than necessary to get the benefit of the system.

If they provide this basic safety feature, than upgrading security will be a given since it will reduce a major cost on their balance sheet, which is dealing with fraudulent transactions.

<comment><USER4> The credit card servicers aren't eating the losses - they offload these onto the merchants. So retailers are already eating the risk while also paying fees.

<comment><USER5> They're also getting the benefit of easy and quick payment.

If a big chain tried to go cash and check only, how well do you think that would go over? Even if they included debit cards, my guess is it would be a big problem. I bet shareholders would revolt. The only reason they may get away with this is Apple Pay isn't established yet so there is no perceived 'loss'. Another commenter was right that if Apple pay impacts their growth numbers they may be forced to reconsider.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> As I understand it, all the major payment processing companies have their weight behind NFC payments (Visa: paywave, Mastercard: paypass, Amex: expresspay). What's to stop them from all writing into their contracts that if you want to accept payments from our cards you need to accept them via NFC as well? I'm surprised they haven't already.

<comment><USER7> Payment processing companies might have got into NFC as a "just in case it takes off" measure.

If NFC is going to cut their fees or remove them as intermediaries, they might be happy to see it killed off.

<comment><USER8> Why would NFC kill payment processing fees? There still fees involved when you use it with your contactless credit card. Apple doesn't ask fees, sure but they still need to pay credit card fees nonetheless.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Seems like an easy retaliation for Google and Apple would be to just block the CurrenC applications from the app stores when they are released. It's very similar to what the retailers are doing by blocking Google Wallet, Apple Pay and paywave by disabling NFC.

Also, I just don't see the banks simply rolling over and losing their beloved credit and debit card fees. They will definitely find ways to make their money (sgentle mentioned through contracts requiring NFC, etc).

I've had a paywave for a while, and have used it at CVS quite a bit. Sort of annoyed it won't work anymore due to this issue.

And giving retailers direct access to your checking account via ACH..uffda.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, they could do that, and if they do, I honestly hope this whole thing boils down to a standoff where government gets involved and regulates against blocking competitors from markets using app stores. Users should be free to install apps from other sources or other app stores. This is so obviously an anti-trust issue. Security is achievable without gatekeepers, but there has been no innovation in this space because their is a market incentive for abusing the monopoly power of app stores.

<comment><USER10> Apple or Google don't have to block their apps for it to fail. It's going to fail because it requires customers to give up their credit cards (which many people love because of the benefits) and connect their bank accounts instead. Also the UX of using the app versus Apple Pay will also prevent adoption.

<comment><USER11> People in the US love their credit cards????

<comment><USER12> Absolutely. They don't love their credit card companies, but it's crazy how many people (me included) have moved to an almost completely cashless existence.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> The problem is that Apple completely played their hand in the markets they entered in early: music with iTunes and mobile apps with the AppStore.

Now that everyone has seen how much the experience has sucked for many participants in those markets, participants in other markets Apple wants to enter, such as ebooks, movies and tv shows, and now payments, are extremely wary about cooperating. They want Apple's solution, but I don't see any new market playing along unless Apple changes their strategy to one that permits openness and competition as a poison pill in the case that Apple continues to treat its "partners" like shit.

Openness is great because it forces the best solution out there to always compete on being best instead of competing by abusing its market position. No market wants to let Apple establish a strong market position anymore.

<comment><USER13> They are shutting down NFC terminals so this also impacts Google Wallet and any other method that would use NFC. If they want to use their own implementation, let them, I'll be taking my business elsewhere.

<comment><USER3> Interesting. Funnily, I don't care either way. With the exception of eating out, entertainment and clothing, all the money I spend is spent online, so none of this impacts me either way.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I work for a retailer that has a card-to-check form of payment already, and I'm required to use that for my discount. I don't love the idea of having my checking account tied to a piece of plastic, but since it stays all in the family (card is only good at the retailer, and the only plastic card is in my wallet), I live with it.

That all said, there's no way I'd introduce a third party to this, well, party, and give direct debit access to my checking account to someone I don't know, who's security practices I don't know, and who's primary form of interaction is a freaking QR code - and I have nothing against QR, but I would never trust this to a single barcode of any kind. And the retailers are all going through all of this effort simply to avoid interchange fees and the impact ApplePay will have on them.

To me, the winner will be whoever balances security with ease of use, and ApplePay is the winner right now (and I say that having used Google Wallet). I use my existing cards and retailers I already go to, so it feels the same, but no actual, useful information is being transferred, so I'm better protected. All transactions show on my statement as if I'd swiped. If retailers shut me out in favor of proprietary systems that require work on my part, I will vote with my dollars and shop elsewhere.

</comment><comment><USER15> As soon as I have to fumble around looking for an app to launch, it's already easier to just pull out my credit card. I'll just be doing that.

Apple Pay is just easy enough that I will use it.

<comment><USER16> Google Wallet launches as soon as you tap your phone to the NFC reader.

<comment><USER17> Google Wallet and Apple Pay both have special status on their phones.

The CurrentC app will be just another app I assume, and so will be trickier to use than Wallet or Pay. I'm guessing the retailers disabling NFC at the moment are just trying to stall things until CurrentC is ready. i.e., they don't want people to get comfortable using alternatives before they have a chance to launch their app.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Apple describes the security features of Apple Pay (and the security features of iOS and Apple mobile devices in general) in the document "IOS Security October 2014"[1].

Of particular interest:

iPhone 6 includes a separate chip, called the "Secure Element", that is used as part of Apple Pay. Here's how Apple describes this chip:

        The Secure Element is an industry-standard, certified
        chip running
 the Java Card platform, which is compliant
        with financial industry requirements for electronic payments.

Here is how Apple Pay uses the Secure Element:

        The Secure Element hosts a specially designed applet
        to manage Apple Pay. It also includes payment
        applets certified by the payment networks. Credit or
        debit card data is sent from the payment network or
        issuing bank encrypted to these payment applets
        using keys that are known only to the payment
        network and the payment applets' security domain.
        This data is stored within these payment applets and
        protected using the Secure Element's security
        features. During a transaction, the terminal
        communicates directly with the Secure Element
        through the Near Field Communication (NFC)
        controller on iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus over a
        dedicated hardware bus.

The information stored in the Secure Element, which is what is used to actually make payments, is restricted:

        Full card numbers are not stored on the device or on
        Apple servers. Instead, a unique Device Account
        Number is created, encrypted, and then stored in the
        Secure Element. This unique Device Account Number is
        encrypted in such a way that Apple can't access
        it. The Device Account Number is unique and
        different from usual credit or debit card numbers,
        your bank can prevent its use on a magnetic stripe
        card, over the phone, or on websites. The Device
        Account Number in the Secure Element is isolated
        from iOS, is never stored on Apple Pay servers, and
        is never backed up to iCloud.

The system these retailers want to push, CurrentC, will just be an ordinary app. It will have no access to the Secure Element. Doesn't this considerably limit how secure it can be?

[1] [https://www.apple.com/privacy/docs/iOS_Security_Guide_Oct_20...](https://www.apple.com/privacy/docs/iOS_Security_Guide_Oct_2014.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER19> Let's see how this bold move plays out for them when Google and Apple block their mobile apps from the App Stores. Doh.

<comment><USER20> Sounds like a perfect way to trigger scrutiny of how the app approval process mixes with anti-competitive actions and maybe even an antitrust investigation.

Edit: (Unfortunately. I find this story utterly infuriating as a consumer who used Apple Pay at CVS just a few days ago.)

<comment><USER21> I suspect we will see there will be additional criteria for these sort of payment apps with the App Store soon -- which will include criteria about privacy/security at CurrentC will be unwilling or unable to meet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> As with Coin, this seems like another rather US-specific situation.

I get the impression that in the US, credit cards are more common than debit cards, and the banks try to keep it that way. Debit cards are also somewhat expensive - customers pay 0.79% on average [1].

In the UK, and i believe in the rest of Europe, everyone uses debit rather than credit cards in shops, and they are much cheaper - interchange fees for debit cards are about 0.2% [2]. Most debit cards these days are also contactless payment devices.

If Apple Pay takes off here, it will be just another contactless payment option. I don't see any great reason for shops, banks, or customers to feel strongly about it.

[1] [http://www.federalreserve.gov/paymentsystems/regii- average-i...](http://www.federalreserve.gov/paymentsystems/regii-average- interchange-fee.htm)

[2] [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23431543](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23431543)

<comment><USER23> I'm inclined to agree with you here, but if I may question a couple of your points:

1\. Isn't Apple Pay/the tokenization it uses is a whole new ball game? The contactless that currently exists in the UK is only for transactions up to 20 GBP, which presumably won't be the case with Apple Pay. Do we know that merchants will only be charged what they currently are for contactless?

2\. Your statement that no one uses credit cards in shops seems anecdotal. Do you have a source? Most people I know in the UK do all their spending on a credit card, for a number of reasons. (Me included; I only use a debit card for the few things that have credit card fees - flights, council tax, ...)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> It seems very much like the browser wars of old. I think that soon your NFC payment system on your phone will have to be your choice, and not that of the carrier or manufacturer. Retailers however will always have a choice to accept or not, unless collusion is found that is. When large retailers are the payment system, as is what it seems here, I think they will be forced to accept more than just their own.

</comment><comment><USER25> I'm wondering why Apple keeps launching in the American market first. Both in mobile and payment the US has been pretty much the most backward and conservative of any of their primary Western and Asian markets.

<comment><USER26> ...because it's an American company? With Americans as their primary market?

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Bitcoin enthusiast wet dream:

Google gets behind bitcoin, integrates bitcoin NFC payments directly in Android, a la Apple Pay.

<comment><USER12> I'm not sure how this will help, given the issue is retailers turning off the NFC readers. It doesn't matter if it's via a credit card, bitcoin, or Google paying everyone's prescriptions—if the NFC reader is off, transactions ain't going through.</comment></comment>


12-year old researcher finds critical bug in Firefox and gets $3k bug bounty - <AUTHOR> http://www.mozilla.org/security/announce/2010/mfsa2010-65.html

<comment><USER2> see also: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1822116></comment>


You can learn anything - <AUTHOR> https://my.mindnode.com/KdeMPbxs8KPixsa5YUq5cphqJnQg81vpHaXcDX2i <comment><USER2> HN thread with more discussion (linked to the github repo this project): [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14314045](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14314045)

</comment><comment><USER3> Nice idea, although I would argue this is a comparably small subset of "anything".

A search function would be nice, e.g. if I search for rock climbing it would display something like

health->physical->fitness->rock climbing

<comment><USER4> The search engine for this mind map is in works and will essentially do what you have described. User types a query and it will jump to the correct place in the mind map.

If you want to help create it, please do. There is a slack group for the project.

slack group: [https://knowledge-map.slack.com/](https://knowledge- map.slack.com/)

search engine: [https://github.com/nikitavoloboev/knowledge-map-search- engin...](https://github.com/nikitavoloboev/knowledge-map-search-engine)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This looks interesting. I'll have to take some time and explore it later.

</comment><comment><USER6> how to use it?

<comment><USER4> You can just click the link ([http://bit.ly/learning- mind](http://bit.ly/learning-mind))

Choose a topic you would like to learn and click on it. Emojis have meaning and here is what they mean ([https://github.com/nikitavoloboev/knowledge- map#documentatio...](https://github.com/nikitavoloboev/knowledge- map#documentation-)). I hope you find something interesting.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Top Spot – your own personal Spotify greatest hits playlist - <AUTHOR> http://top-spot.stream/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hey y'all. I built this last week to scratch a very personal itch.

It looks back through all the playlists you've created, finds overlapping tracks, orders them by occurrence and pushes the top 30 into a new "Top Spot" playlist!

Quick tour: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=od42DRQghfA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=od42DRQghfA) Example playlist: [https://open.spotify.com/user/1191879751/playlist/41SpRrw97X...](https://open.spotify.com/user/1191879751/playlist/41SpRrw97XjSZTqOAQuGVC?si=Ig5yHf9URh6TNEDY_hhLdg)

I also recorded the whole sad sorry development as a screencast, which I'll be splitting up into a dozen or so videos (with post-production commentary to provide context) and posting to YouTube so people can see the very messy, copy/pasting flow of creating a React web app in just over 4 hours.

Hit me up with any other comments: [http://twitter.com/ben_howdle](http://twitter.com/ben_howdle)</comment>


BackTweets Searches What Twitter Can't: Short URLs - <AUTHOR> http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/backtweets_searches_what_twitter_cant_short_urls.php <comment><USER2> Why didn't I think of that?</comment>


Seven Databases in Seven Weeks: A Guide to Modern DBs and the NoSQL Movement - <AUTHOR> http://pragprog.com/book/rwdata/seven-databases-in-seven-weeks

<comment><USER2> To me this seems to be a commercial posting. Is that allowed?

<comment><USER3> Uh...aren't a lot of "Show HN: [my app/startup]" commercial postings in nature?

<comment><USER4> Yes. But I have to admit I was disappointed to see this was just a marketing link for a book considering how much the title sounds like an article or tech blog post.

I think the title could be a lot more clear that this is just a link to info about a commercial book and not a link to traditional web content, though in this case the title is so long I'm not sure how they could have conveyed that well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I would have loved to see Cassandra and an entrant from an ACID compliant Memory Only DB like VoltDB. Still it looks like a good read. Anyone selling a used copy ?

<comment><USER6> We considered Cassandra early on. After much discussion, Eric and I decided against including it. Cassandra implements a BigTable-esque API and also takes a page from the Amazon Dynamo playbook to implement ring-based sharding.

We felt that HBase and Riak more faithfully represented BigTable and Dynamo respectively. Writing about these two databases gave us a better chance to discuss the columnar and key/value genres independently.

It was definitely a tough choice though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Is "movement" really the right word here?

</comment><comment><USER8> Cassandra is missing. So is HyperDex, which offers consistency and performance not found in others.

<comment><USER9> Thanks for the heads up on HyperDex - I'd missed that. Do you know of a good web reference that tracks new datastore implementations?

I've got the book - its good heads up for someone like me who is mainly working in non DB areas and needs a quick summary of alternatives. I would have liked more on SQL and pre web era data stores.

VoltDB would have been nice. Redis is more interesting to me than most of the NoSQL solutions - as it offers me something different than I can coax an SQL DB into delivering.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Just got this book, and i'm loving it.</comment>


SortedContainers: Pure-Python sorted containers that are as fast as C extensions - cool-RR http://www.grantjenks.com/docs/sortedcontainers/

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for posting this! It appears to have all(?) the features of the blist[0] package but to be all-Python. All-Python is a definite advantage for use in an app that strives to be platform-independent.

[0] [http://stutzbachenterprises.com/blist/blist.html](http://stutzbachenterprises.com/blist/blist.html)

</comment><comment><USER2> How did I not find this sooner!

It's stuff like this that belongs in some kind of standard library addendum, a python "contrib" meta-package bundle of some kind...</comment>


Sometimes 1000 heads aren't better than one - against collective intelligence - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-19/sometimes-1-000-heads-aren-t-better-than-one.html

<comment><USER2> This has bad implications for democracy and Wikipedia.</comment>


Sir Roger Moore, James Bond actor, dies aged 89 - happy-go-lucky http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-40018422 <comment><AUTHOR> Not a big deal, but I'm not sure HN is the best place for this stuff. None of us were at risk not hearing about this from other sources (unless you only read HN, in which case maybe that's what you're going for). I tentatively suggest HN should only cover deaths of famous people when they have a direct connection to the tech community (e.g., Steve Jobs) or when the person had important intellectual contributions that can be discussed. This isn't a good place for pure nostalgia or entertainment news.

<comment><USER2> I still value the comments here more than anywhere else on the internet honestly. So i don't really mind the occasional off-topic post.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm sympathetic to this argument insofar as the seemingly-off-topic post can generate intellectually (rather than just emotionally) stimulating comments. That's why a small number of well-written politics articles should be here. Seems a lot less likely for celebrity deaths. You can never completely predict that in advance, but you have to draw a line somewhere.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> My dad took me to see most of the Bond movies in the late 70s/early 80s (The Spy Who Loved Me, Moonraker, For Your Eyes Only) and these were some of the fondest memories I have of growing up and spending time with him.

There was just something about Roger Moore as Bond. He managed to hit the perfect blend of suave and exciting, with just the right amount of irreverence and camp.

</comment><comment><USER4> It's subjective, but since Sean Connery starred in many other high profile movies and thus diluted his image a bit, Roger Moore's may be the one true James Bond. His James Bond movies were epic, e.g. Moonraker (launching several Space Shuttles at once anyone?).

<comment><USER5> I concur. Moore's epoch and completely over the top plots gave us most of what was later fuel for spy satires, and even though Connery (and now Craig's) era became more "realistic" (even as the Cold War faded), Moore's smirk and deadpan were iconic.

<comment><USER6> Connery mostly had the role before Moore, with it going back and forth several times.

( _Never Say Never Again_ and _Octopussy_ were both released in 1983)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The Bond of Sir Roger Moore, enjoyed being James Bond. The Bond of Daniel Craig, seems to hate being James Bond. I for one prefer the escapist Bond of Roger Moore.

On a different note, whenever I watch those old Bond movies and see the photos of the actors, I am reminded again of how short life is. The actors in the James Bond movies were picked to be some of the most glamorous people available when the movie was filmed, and now they are gone or else very old.

It seems like the modern day Ozymandias.

</comment><comment><USER8> My favorite James Bond. RIP.

      Nobody does it better
      Makes me feel sad for the rest
      Nobody does it half as good as you
      Baby, you're the best

<comment><USER9> This and You Only Live Twice are the best Bond songs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Not just a man, but also The Persuader, The Saint and last but not least James Bond. Live and let die, Mr Bond, you are a legend.

</comment><comment><USER11>
        M:           007!
        Gen. Golgol: Triple X!
        Sir Gray:    Bond! What do you think you're doing?
        Bond:        Keeping the British end up, sir.

RIP

</comment><comment><USER12> I know this is an unpopular opinion, but I always preferred Moore over Connery.

<comment><USER13> That seems to be a fairly common opinion, hardly unpopular.

Unpopular is preferring Dalton.

<comment><USER14> Unpopular, but defend-able. Preferring Pierce Brosnan on the other hand...

<comment><USER15> Brosnan is the Bond of my generation. I loved Golden Eye, but I think the later films were just bad, not because of the actor(s) but because of the script and plot.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This is kind of nice:

[https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/05/roger- moore-...](https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/05/roger-moore-met/)

<comment><USER17> So is this: [https://twitter.com/teamfaceplant/status/867117969113055232](https://twitter.com/teamfaceplant/status/867117969113055232). Be sure to read through to the 23 years later bit (which you have to click on to see).

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> He did impress me in interviews where he talked about imitators of the Bond franchise and how Bond changed over the years. This included the comment that it changed with the time and it was correct it did. He had praise for Daniel Craig and his version of Bond. His self depreciating humor was always good, like when he called Craig and actor and those interviewing him were like, and you?

</comment><comment><USER19> Look, it's very sad that this man died, but this isn't reddit; why is this post here?

</comment><comment><USER20> While not directly related to tech, Bond films actually do have a great deal of tech, some was SciFi, but now real some still SciFi. Such articles are iconic and can give people ideas for tech.

</comment><comment><USER21> Connery will always be Bond for me... Moore, unfortunately had some terrible source material.</comment>


Ask HN: If I want to learn programming should I start with mobile or Web app? - <AUTHOR> Hi HN,
I want to teach myself how to program and build a simple app but don't know where to start. Should I build a mobile or Web app? Google is a bit overwhelming because it gives so many different options so I was wondering if someone can point me in the right direction?
Thank you <comment><USER2> I would start from the beginning using something like C. Get familiar with the fundamentals and how programs work before moving on to something higher level.

I always see people starting off with python, Java, or JavaScript, but I feel that if you do that you are missing some core concepts which will take you a long way. This knowledge you will gain by struggling with memory management in C will give you an appreciation when you finally decide to move on. It will also provide you with a foundation for deeper understanding when exploring how things work in these higher level languages.

It may be a pain, and an unpopular opinion, but I think it is the best way to learn the basics, and the basics are important.

</comment><comment><USER3> Between mobile and the web, I'd recommend the web. In terms of learning programming however, I'd recommend starting in a language ecosystem where the community values teaching programming to new comers. In my opinion, Racket and Processing are good places to start learning to program:

Racket: [https://docs.racket-lang.org/](https://docs.racket-lang.org/)

Processing: [https://processing.org/](https://processing.org/)

Most web development tools and nearly all mobile development platform assume that the developer is a professional. The tools are complex. The documentation assumes significant familiarity with programming.

Good luck.

</comment><comment><USER4> It depends on what to want to do. If you are learning because you want to get a job in the market I would suggest picking up web application development. Web application developers are in higher demand than mobile developers. This is based on me working with multiple web agencies and observing their hiring ratio. Usually it's 4-5 Web App developer to 1 mobile developer. Another thing is good web developers are a rarity. Mobile developers have flooded the market.

There is more demand for Web App developers than Mobile Developers

But if you are starting a company and want to build your idea which is a mobile focused product I would suggest start with mobile, you will be able to execute on your idea faster.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you. Really appreciate the advice.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> > I want to teach myself how to program

Great!

> Should I build a mobile or Web app?

As artellectual says, it depends on what you want to do, between those two.

But there are many more types of software beyond web or mobile apps. You could write personal programs that run locally, for your own use (and which are a good way to learn, since you're scratching your own itch). There's math, science, embedded, financial, etc. Any of these might be standalone programs, or they might run on a web server with a browser front end. You might program on the front or the backend.

If you want to learn "to program," here are a few resources:

[https://docs.python.org/2/tutorial/](https://docs.python.org/2/tutorial/)

[https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/documentation/](https://www.ruby- lang.org/en/documentation/)

[http://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/](http://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/)

[http://racket-lang.org/](http://racket-lang.org/)

[http://docs.racket-lang.org/htdp-langs/index.html](http://docs.racket- lang.org/htdp-langs/index.html)

[https://duckduckgo.com/?t=lm&q=learn+c+programming&ia=web](https://duckduckgo.com/?t=lm&q=learn+c+programming&ia=web)

[https://www.khanacademy.org/computing/computer- programming](https://www.khanacademy.org/computing/computer-programming)

More broadly:

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

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

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

</comment><comment><USER6> Neither, you should start on a desktop/laptop learning a core language like C/C++ before moving on to mobile.</comment>


Albert Einstein: Why Socialism? - <AUTHOR> http://www.monthlyreview.org/598einstein.php <comment><USER3> "The action required to sustain human life is primarily intellectual: everything man needs has to be discovered by his mind and produced by his effort. Production is the application of reason to the problem of survival.

Since knowledge, thinking, and rational action are properties of the individual, since the choice to exercise his rational faculty or not depends on the individual, man's survival requires that those who think be free of the interference of those who don't. Since men are neither omniscient nor infallible, they must be free to agree or disagree, to cooperate or to pursue their own independent course, each according to his own rational judgment. Freedom is the fundamental requirement of man's mind."

-Ayn Rand

Socialism is fundamentally opposed to this view.

<comment><AUTHOR> "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, is The Lord of the Rings."

<comment><USER3> I was 19 when I first read Rand. I'm 29 now, and I still love her philosophy and her novels. I'm willing to be that you haven't read her very closely.

At any rate, your quote is a mere ad-hominem attack, and I don't think that anyone here will mistake it for an actual argument.

<comment><USER4> No, an ad-hominem would imply an attack on the character or worth of Rand personally. gnosis's comment was merely a bald assertion about the novel, though indeed not an argument as such. Of course, your Rand quote was also pretty much just a bald assertion without any supporting argument, so I guess it works out.

<comment><USER3> His comment is an ad-hominem attack on Objectivists (e.g., people like me.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Socialism was very popular around the turn of the last century and for several decades before and after. Especially among intellectuals.

Then people saw what happened when you tried it.

The foolhardy still believe it has never been tried successfully.

Karl Popper saw this flawed reasoning and how it was never satisfied with any experiment (especially around Marxism) and made a strong case for a firm definition of the word "science"

 _la plus ca change le plus le meme chose_

<comment><AUTHOR> _"Socialism was very popular around the turn of the last century and for several decades before and after. Especially among intellectuals.

Then people saw what happened when you tried it."_

Yeah. All the citizens got full medical care, and they had a strong social safety net that protected their welfare. What a nightmare!

Oh, maybe you're not talking about socialism but about totalitarian communism (aka "state capitalism"). That really was a nightmare. But not because of the economics. Rather, it was because bloodthirsty dictators managed to wrench power away from the people and used it to oppress them. This is exactly the opposite of what socialism is about.

As for socialism not being a science... so what? Neither is capitalism.

<comment><USER6> > Oh, maybe you're not talking about socialism but about totalitarian > communism (aka "state capitalism").

The problem is, the path to socialism was laid out by Marx as violent uprising against the capitalists. Then people are surprised that the newly minted generals and blood-covered revolutionaries aren't wise and decent rulers? I mean, what the heck did people expect? Castro, Pol Pot, Lenin, Kim Sung Il - <USER2> think these guys really, honestly, truly, legitimately had socialist utopia intentions. The problem is, when you overthrow the current regime in a bloodbath - well, what the heck do you expect after that? Peace and harmony?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, a bloody revolution must inevitably result in an oppressive dictatorship. Just look at what happened after the American Revolution. Oh, wait...

Anyway, I should be clear that I am not advocating bloody revolution (I'm against all violence except in clear cases of self-defense). And I very much doubt bloody revolution was what Einstein was advocating either. For that matter, I think you'll find very few advocates of bloody revolution among today's socialists.

The trend is towards peaceful, gradual change towards a more socialist system. Northern Europe and particularly South and Central America are proving to be valuable models in this regard. Unfortunately, the latter has been distorted by bloody American intervention over the last hundred years, and by the anti- democratic dictators the US has propped up. But even there there's hope.

<comment><USER6> Edit: Ah, you edited and added more detail that you're more in favor of a peaceful transition. Okay, I'm with you on that - I think the bloody guerella communist takeover is always going to be a real mess. Rest of comment still stands if you're up for discussing, hope it's interesting and informative a bit.

> Just look at what happened after the American Revolution. Oh, wait...

Let me ask, seriously - I've done a lot of looking into it, and I'm at this point firmly convinced that socialism is a bad thing. I have no desire to be under a socialist system, and I'd resist if people tried to put me under one by force. Is there any way I could convince you to abandon socialistic thought? You've made a lot of pro-socialist comments. If it is, I'll be happy to keep discussing.

The main reason the American revolution gave way to good government is that the leaders of the revolution were largely older and more experienced than any other revolution in history. Most revolutionaries are young, and have no idea how to govern once the takeover is complete. Ironically, I'd point to the large mass of successful businessmen, traders, and capitalists as the reason the post-war government was built well in the United States. People like Franklin and Jefferson knew how to build successful organizations. Washington was an actual conventionally trained British military officer, so knew a fair lot more about organization and leadership than the guerrillas like Che, Castro, Kim Sung Il, Mao, Pol Pot, who were largely lost when it came to traditional structures.

So let me ask, if you don't mind - what would it take to convince you either that (1) socialism is largely a bad thing, or (2) you ought to live and let live, and let people want to be part of a collective join, whilst leaving people like me who want to be individuals alone? Because I'll attempt to address those points and criteria you have, and discuss if it's possible to change your mind.

<comment><USER7> I think a great deal of confusion with this issue is the assumption that someone that advocates socialism advocates 100% socialism. I wouldn't want to live in a fully left-libertarian (also called socialistic anarchism) society just like I wouldn't want to live in a fully right-libertarian society.

Hybrid systems are just so much more pragmatic. The US is what, 30% socialist? And Europe is closer to 45% socialist? I think up to about 50% socialism (taxes used to redistribute wealth, not necessarily with welfare payments, but infrastrcture building, etc.) is probably desirable.

<comment><USER8> _"The US is what, 30% socialist? And Europe is closer to 45% socialist?"_

By what definition? Everyone seems to have their own.

Einstein sure isn't talking about anything that looks remotely like the modern US or Europe.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The problem I see here is that Einstein lacked any self awareness. He doesn't seem to grasp that his mind is an extraordinary one and hence an exception which has led him to conclusions like this...

===== This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career. =====

Now anyone whose actually observed real people knows that competition tends to bring out the best in people (at least in effort not necessarily in personality). But to someone like Einstein who was self motivated to spend most of his life doing "thought experiments" he doesn't grasp that most people need a push in order to perform.

He also falls into the trap of not subjecting his preferred mechanism (Government) to the same scrutiny as he subjects that which he is opposed to. Take this statement for instance...

==== Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. ====

It clearly didn't strike him that the U.S. Federal Government is controlled by an even smaller, more elite group (The Congress) and that they have more power than any private cabal really ever could. I mean, he says private industry "cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society" but Government can't be checked at all (effectively or otherwise). It is the ultimate power.

In the end Einstein had a theoretical mind and in the world of theory Socialism (and for that matter Communism) makes a lot more sense. That's why intellectuals have been trying to make both work for the last 100 years. But when measuring results Capitalism seems to come out on top.

<comment><AUTHOR> _"the U.S. Federal Government is controlled by a very small, very elite group (The Congress) and that they have more power than any private cabal really ever could"_

I suppose you are not familiar with the Executive branch, or the Judicial branch. They are, at least in theory, supposed to share power with Congress. In fact, it could be argued that at the present time (and especially during Bush Jr's term) Congress is the weakest of the three branches.

Then there are all the private interests that influence these branches (most obviously Congress), such as the corporate lobbyists which funnel massive amounts of money in to influencing the decisions of government.

High ranking executives and members of the boards of corporations regularly get influential jobs in government, and when they retire from government they go back to serve as executives in and on boards of corporations.

It's a mistake to consider the US government as a separate entity from that of the corporations. It's all highly incestuous. They are two sides of the same hand.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> The real world is full of emergent properties ... socialism is top-down control. Surely the idea of applying the mind of man to better controlling man is abhorrent.

"It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished—just as in the case of ants and bees"

Sure. But it seems as though Einstein is arguing against a _caricature_ of capitalism, ignoring the free and voluntary cooperation required among its participants for it to succeed. The _cooperation_ inherent in a functioning market economy so often seems to be overlooked.

<comment><USER11> This top-down thing is getting tiresome. Typically this sort of statement is given by conservatives and libertarians. I'm not exactly sure how they manage to convince themselves that their dual love affair with military dominance & patriotic zeal impose less social control.

[Edit:] Well, actually, Stockholm Syndrome is one likely factor. It's amazing what sort of legs that research has, there really should be more comparative studies.

<comment><USER8> _"This top-down thing is getting tiresome."_

Then _you_ figure out a way around the economic calculation problem. There's a Nobel in it for you.

Until then, I'm going to simply be amused at how it's unfair to note that Albert Einstein wasn't actually an economic expert, but it's _perfectly_ reasonable to engage in knee-jerk US political stereotypes.

<comment><USER11> Wow.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Next up: J.M. Keynes on quantum electrodynamics.

<comment><USER13> Bad retort. The prerequisites to understanding economics is hardly close to that needed to understand QED. Besides, economists have physics envy. Physicists can intelligently contribute to economics.

<comment><USER8> _"Physicists can intelligently contribute to economics"_

Someone should submit a link of an example; this does not do so any more than a blog rant about the "global warming hoax" contributes to climatology.

<comment><USER14> You mean like the 2000 Nobel prize in Economics?

        The deficiencies in my college preparatory training were
        quickly made up, and at age 19, I received a B.S. in
        Physics with highest honors.

        I continued my studies in physics as a graduate student
        at Minnesota, but was strongly attracted to the study of
        human behavior.

[http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2000/...](http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2000/mcfadden- autobio.html)

<comment><USER8> Exactly. That's actual contribution to a field of knowledge, not a political essay.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Hmmm - Albert Einstein was a moron. Who knew?</comment>


Everything's broken and nobody's upset (2012) - <AUTHOR> http://www.hanselman.com/blog/EverythingsBrokenAndNobodysUpset.aspx <comment><USER2> The "broken" items listed in Scott's 2012 blog are primarily personal productivity- and convenience-killing annoyances. Of far greater are the rather-more important things (like hospital operations, critical infrastructure and even medical implant integrity) that are broken, even though EVERYONE cares.

Software bugs cause more than lost inconvenience and productivity; they are an important vector for malicious activity that can be life-threatening.

Have things have gotten better or worse since 2012? Alot worse, I'd say:

2012:

The worst security snafus of 2012 – so far (NetworkWorld)

Worst security snafus of 2012, part 2 (Security InfoWorld)

2013:

2013 Raises the watermark of cybercrime worldwide (In depth Analysis) (Hack Read)

2014:

The year cyber danger doubled (Government Technology)

63 Percent of IT Security Pros Say They Can't Protect Confidential Data (eSecurity Planet)

79 Percent of IT Administrators Want to Quit Due to Stress (eSecurity Planet)

Average company now compromised every four days, with no end to the cybercrime wave in sight (ZDNet)

6 things security pros keep getting wrong (Security InfoWorld)

IT pros lack confidence in preventing cyber attacks, report shows (Computer Weekly)

2015:

Anthem says at least 8.8 million non-customers could be victims in data hack (Reuters)

US Office of Personnel Management Hacked Again (Slashdot)

Millions of records compromised in these data breaches (CSO Online)

2015's biggest data breaches: Were you a victim? (InfoWorld)

2016:

Hackers are holding a California hospital's network hostage for $3.6 million (The Verge)

Infamous French Hacker Calls Internet a "Digital Shantytown" (Slashdot)

Ransomware Expected To Hit 'Lifesaving' Medical Devices In 2016 (Slashdot)

OK, panic—newly evolved ransomware is bad news for everyone (Ars Technica)

Even the Dumbest Ransomware Is Almost Unremovable On Smart TVs (Slashdot)

Bruce Schneier: We're sleepwalking towards digital disaster and are too dumb to stop (The Register)

</comment><comment><USER3> There have been a few HN threads of late theorizing why ther are so many bugs. My lastest theory: AI in software _development_ will fix the quality issue. There's just too much being written at too fast a pace.</comment>


Why Google will stop developing Android - <AUTHOR> http://www.gearlive.com/news/article/google-will-stop-developing-android-q213/ <comment><USER2> > I remember Andy's second point. He argued that if Google did not act, we > faced a Draconian future, future where one man, one company, one device, one > carrier would be our only choice.

When exactly was this point supposedly made?

"One man, one company, one device..." is presumably a reference to the iPhone. So if Google did not act (by buying Android) then the iPhone would dominate? But Google bought Android before the iPhone was even announced.

This sounds like a big retcon to me.

<comment><USER3> Google had Eric Schmidt on Apple's board and knew about iPhone way before it was announced. He used this inside information to benefit Google, for instance buying up Android before iPhone was released.

<comment><USER4> Schmidt joined the Apple board 4 months before the iPhone's public unveiling: [http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2006/08/29Google-CEO-Dr- Eric...](http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2006/08/29Google-CEO-Dr-Eric-Schmidt- Joins-Apples-Board-of-Directors.html)

Not much of a heads up.

<comment><USER5> Very interesting and valid comments made.

Vic hosted at Google IO 2010, he made those statements public, perhaps to get the dev audience amped up to the idea of Android vs the establishment.

The first prototype Android is telling, it's said that Eric was given an iPhone prototype. Quick visit to the drawing board?

The crux, Google is about ads, can they monetize Android?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The site this is hosted on is bad enough to affect my reading of the article. Tiny text in a tiny sliver of the window, big glaring ad video up top, terribly broken layout.

On top of that, I doubt they'll stop developing Android any time soon... They have a nice platform that brings a lot of attachment, and huge marketshare.

<comment><USER7> Thy this: <http://evernote.com/clearly/>

And you are welcome. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> This makes perfect sense.

         1. Google's competitors are using Android to compete with Google. Look at Samsung and Facebook
         2. Google is providing free Android Support to it's competitors because of it's licensing structure.
         3. Google is a web company and they are a big supporter of web and web apps.
         4. Google is pushing Chrome packaged apps to make them ready for mobile. Dart is there for this reason I believe
         5. Chrome OS licensing do not allow abuse like Android

</comment><comment><USER9> This only deserves comment for being a monument to bad analysis. Let's keep it brief and take only the example of maps. How important is mobile revenue to Google's maps business? This article suggests Apple's flub cost it $1 billion, which Google just snatched up: [http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-12-13/finance/35791575_...](http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-12-13/finance/35791575_1_google- maps-apple-maps-ad-revenue)

<comment><USER2> Apple somehow lost out in $1 billion in ad revenue? Talk about bad analysis.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Android basically dominates I/O now. There's no way Google walks away in the near term, especially now that they have a UX team that understands how to build a compelling device. (Pre-FroYo Android was terrible, but from ICS on, it's developed a pretty solid interface.)

</comment><comment><USER11> Fascinating read albeit in a butt ugly environment.

Android makes Google no money and worse empowers companies like Samsung who could soon shut them out. Google has ChromeOS which has none of the baggage Android. Release a ChromeOS phone and see what happens?

<comment><USER12> for one, they will find it a bit difficult to retain the developers that have finally started taking android as a platform to target (when previously, iphone was king and first priority).

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I honestly am waiting for Ubuntu phone to arrive before I buy my next device purchase.

Much more interesting than Android from a technical point of view.

<comment><AUTHOR> I love the idea of the Ubuntu OS for smartphones--more choice and more competition is only a good thing. The only problem I see with it is that the gestures aren't all natural, so it will do way more than most people will know that it can do because they don't know that performing a certain gesture will do something...unless it comes with some sort of instruction manual or tutorial videos in the OS itself.</comment></comment>


Hacker News Live ...As a founder, what is your salary? - <AUTHOR> http://blog.onemonthrails.com/as-a-founder-what-is-your-salary-hnn10/

<comment><USER2> my salary is slightly negative :-) still putting some money to my biz :-)</comment>


Facebook-Goldman: Where Is the S.E.C.? - <AUTHOR> http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2011/01/facebook-goldman-where-is-the-sec.html <comment><USER3> I don't know if Goldman did this, but Morgan Stanley did: they sold silver bullion to their clients, then charged them an ongoing storage fee to hold the bullion on their behalf in their vault.

Problem was, as it came out, that MS never actually bought the bullion and thus was charging storage fees on non-existent items. If you went to remove or claim your silver, they just gave you cash as settlement, making the scam opaque.

The cynic in me says GS will do something similar, like put a very high valuation on the FB units they sell, both marking them up a great deal over what they paid FB for it AND inventing some of the units out of whole cloth (i.e. issuing 10,000 units for sale when they only bought enough FB for 1,000 units), then, over time, the FB units will be seen to "decline" in value and GS will pocket the profits twice, first on the markup of the units, then on the decline.

<comment><USER4> This process is essential to what the banking industry does. Banks are one of the few institutions authorized by law to do this.

When you deposit money in a bank, they create 9X the loans of what you've deposited.

I'd bet if you read the fine print on the MS offering it would tell you that this is exactly what they were doing. MS & GS are too smart and too big of a target to engage in outright fraud.

<comment><USER5> > When you deposit money in a bank, they create 9X the loans of what you've > deposited.

Source? I thought what they did is loan out 90% of what you deposited.

<comment><USER3> I think the poster is talking about re-deposits and how, recycled, that can end up being a multiple of what is deposited.

Example: you deposit $1000 in a bank with 10% reserve policy ($100 set aside as capital reserve of the bank).

Bank loans out $900 to customer for new office furniture; then that money is used to pay the office store, which is another depositor at the bank - <USER2> then counts as another deposit, 10% of which is set aside as reserve ($90). Another loan of $810 is then made, etc.

<comment><USER5> If I lend 20 bucks to my friend, then he lends it to his friend, who lends it to his friend, that's the same kind of multiplier. The total outstanding loans is $60. I really don't get what people make a big deal out of this. I guess it's b/c they aren't economists.

<comment><USER6> Except that's not the same kind of multiplier at all. I don't understand why you would make a comment without doing any research. I guess you're not an economist.

<comment><USER5> The total loans in existence is a multiple of the starting money. Same thing. And also the same is refusing to subtract the total debt for some reason. Unless you have some kind of, you know, argument?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Back when Berkshire Hathaway only had Class-A shares worth thousands of dollars, there were a few investment firms at work on similar vehicles to allow ordinary investors to buy fractions of a share at smaller prices. Berkshire responded by issuing their own fractions, at 1/30th of a Class-A share (since split to 1/1500th), because they wanted investors, not investment firms, owning the shares.

It's interesting that now Facebook is doing a sort of converse of Berkshire's actions; that the pain of a public company is so onerous that having a bank involved is apparently seen as an advantage.

<comment><USER8> Alternatively, FB may just want to keep financials a secret because they are worth a lot more when people are wildly speculating than they would be if they had to be as open as a public company.

(Goldman probably got a look under the hood, but I doubt they will pass that along to the investors they hope to sell Facebook investments to, so both FB and Goldman will benefit from uninformed speculation.)

<comment><USER9> Any prospectus put together by Goldman will have significant disclosure and results of their internal audits. Despite the hoopla, this is a pretty regulated area of commerce.

As to who will read such a prospectus, that's likely a different beast altogether.

It's my belief that FB is more likely to be in a pre-IPO Google situation right now, that is, that they're sitting on more than people realize, not less. I recall Google routinely requiring academics to cut the server and request numbers by a factor of 10-100x when giving talks about what was going on, pre-IPO. A luxury I'm sure they would appreciate still having.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The SEC is where they always are, fighting the last war. Investments create return because there is risk, not every investment is going to be a winner. When investing in startups with new business models there is a lot of risk and hence a lot of return. Hopefully the SEC stays out of it because the combination of the SEC, Federal Reserve and Federal Gov't create untold havok in the market. Even a GIC has risk because of the underlying fractional reserve system. The same thing that allows the economy to expand faster than the rate of gold mining also allows the leverage to unwind just as fast.

The Fed, SEC, and Federal Gov't collude to prevent the free market from working and bad ideas from failing. Look at a graph of global IPOs vs. IPOs on american exchanges since Sarbox was passed. You'll see how the overly onerous regulations prevent the market from functioning properly and create an environment of moral hazard where undue risks are taken, and investors who correct the market have their returns taken away from them. The investors who shorted AIG, Bear Stearns, GS, Citigroup, BOA, etc and recognized their impending fiscal collapse should be handsomely rewarded for their prescient view of the market. Having your company collapse is the right way to handle reckless investing.

Hopefully the SEC stays out of it, an ETF/Shell corp for Facebook shares is the ideal balance between public money and few onerous requirements. If an investor feels that the lack information available for Facebook prevents an informed decision from being made then perhaps they should not invest.

Yes, you may lose your shirt investing in Facebook, but you might also make a lot of money. I don't see a problem with either outcome.

<comment><USER10> But this hack that GS created -- bypassing the 500 shareholder limit by creating a company that owns a stake in FB and then selling shares of said company -- completely undermines the law.

This is a temporary loophole that will be fixed. I don't begrudge facebook a thing. They get most the upside of an IPO with nearly none of the downside. But to act that it's perfectly alright because, hey, caveat emptor... i disagree strongly with that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> This particular SEC reg is designed to protect the investors, not the integrity of the market. Are we now expected to believe that Goldman --- or _any_ private client of Goldman --- is getting snookered by Facebook?

The same logic used by the SEC suggests that every limited partner of every VC that invests in any startup should also count to the total number of investors.

<comment><USER12> Yes, Goldman's private clients are getting snookered.

This is exactly how Goldman managed to be so successful in the subprime crisis. When they decided to unload their holdings, they were sold to their clients. There is a strong conflict of interest at Goldman between shareholders and clients.

My understanding is that Goldman can do two things to make money here: 1. charge fees on transactions and 2. decide when and how to sell/buy shares for themselves.

Whether the clients should be protected by the SEC is another matter.

<comment><USER11> You're missing my point. The SEC protects non-accredited investors by forbidding companies from selling them shares. Goldman doesn't trade for non- accredited investors. If you are a Goldman private client, you are by definition outside the purview of those protections.

Starting a big long thread about how Goldman is a vampire squid or whatever Taibbi called them is a waste of time, because I'm not arguing that Goldman is a good company or a bad company or that its interests are aligned with its clients.

I'm saying that the logic that assails Goldman's Facebook vehicle is nonsensical; Goldman is doing nothing more sinister than creating an ad-hoc venture capital fund and using it to invest in Facebook. Does every California public employee also count as a Facebook shareholder if CalPERS is an LP of a VC that invests in Facebook?

(Answer: no.)

<comment><USER13> _"Goldman is doing nothing more sinister than creating an ad-hoc venture capital fund and using it to invest in Facebook. Does every California public employee also count as a Facebook shareholder if CalPERS is an LP of a VC that invests in Facebook?"_

A venture capital fund is diversified over many investments -- that's why it's a fund. A venture capital "fund" that invests only in Facebook is a fund in name only.

Also, unless you're a lawyer specializing in securities law, I doubt you know the answer to your own question. State employees can (and do) initiate lawsuits against CALPERS, and CALPERS has sued public companies on behalf of state employees. The pensioners clearly have some rights as investors.

<comment><USER11> By your logic, CalPERS can't invest in any fund that invests in private companies, as that investment would instantaneously tip the company over the "500 investor" limit.

Meanwhile, what does diversification have to do with the structure of a venture capital fund?

<comment><USER13> _"By your logic, CalPERS can't invest in any fund that invests in private companies, as that investment would instantaneously tip the company over the "500 investor" limit."_

No, that's not what I said. I said that the investors clearly have rights -- presumably including the right to know the financial prospects for their investments. CalPERS invests some money in private equity funds and limited partnerships, but that just begs the original question. I don't know what the disclosure requirements are for companies involved in that kind of investment, but then, I'm not a securities law expert.

Do you actually know the answer, or are you just asking rhetorical questions in the hope that people will interpret your questions as statements of fact?

 _"Meanwhile, what does diversification have to do with the structure of a venture capital fund?"_

Risk.

<comment><USER11> You made a straw man argument that drew me into a straw man argument and here we are arguing about something totally irrelevant. Nobody is saying that investors have no rights.

Are you saying that if Matasano took funding from a VC that had CalPERS as a limited partner, we might have to make additional SEC-mandated disclosures to account for CalPERS investors? You're right: I can't tell you that I _know_ that we wouldn't; I can only call "BS" and wait for someone else to add facts.

<comment><USER13> _"You made a straw man argument that drew me into a straw man argument and here we are arguing about something totally irrelevant._ "

Not really. You argued that Goldman Sachs created a venture fund, and that therefore, Facebook is immune from disclosure laws. I'm saying that there's a substantial _practical_ difference between a venture fund and what Goldman appears to be doing here (not the least of which are issues of investment diversity) and that, _even if that weren't true_ , it's not clear that financial disclosure laws can be bypassed so easily (the CalPERS digression was yours). Other experts happen to agree on these points, so I don't think I'm coming out of left field.

But since I'm not one of those experts, and you don't seem to have any special knowledge beyond your own opinions on the matter, this thread is more heat than light. I'm done with it. Counterarguments aren't "straw men" just because they don't directly refute your original points.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I still don't get why anybody would invest in a company at $50 billion with no knowledge of how much money they are making.

<comment><USER15> You can bet that Goldman would have got hold of Facebook's financial statements from it before making that investment. You don't invest a few hundred million dollars before kicking the tires first.

<comment><USER14> Sure, _Goldman_ has it, but the sub-investors in their fund probably just get a "Very Good Valuation" assessment.

<comment><USER16> But isn't it the responsibility of the sub-investors to do their own due diligence? After all, the entire purpose of accrediting investors is to get them to acknowledge that they are being given less protection from the SEC.

It's a process where the SEC asks the investor, "OK, you have a million dollars. Are you sure you know what you're doing?" And the individual says, "Yes, I'm willing to accept the additional risk that comes along with less oversight (ie. more flexibility)".

If an investor is putting money into the pot based on just the "Very Good Valuation" argument, and they've acknowledged the risks, they are not eligible for certain protections (because those protections also limit certain financial vehicles).

In a similar vein, I feel no sympathy for the majority of the people who gave their money to Bernie Madoff. I do, however, believe that there should be legal consequences for money managers who make those types of investments without proper due diligence.

<comment><USER17> How can you claim to have done due diligence investing in a company that is notoriously reticent about any and all financial details?

<comment><USER16> You try to acquire the relevant information and data. You ask your broker (GS, here), what the information is that they have, rather than just accepting their "Good Value" label. If that information doesn't meet your requirements for "due diligence", then you don't invest in that company.

Also, it's not particularly important to be able to _claim_ due diligence.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Just to clarify (its in the comments) too but as the law stands, FB does not have to go public anyway but only disclose financial results. <http://www.sec.gov/about/laws.shtml> (Corporate Reporting)

</comment><comment><USER19> Interesting take from ZeroHedge : [http://www.zerohedge.com/article/goldman- creates-facebook-he...](http://www.zerohedge.com/article/goldman-creates- facebook-hedge-fund-hnw-clients-historically-ripped-such-vehicles-spits-face)

<comment><USER20> The only thing that's really left for one of these private share vehicles to do is pull a reverse shell merger with an OTC listed firm and let joe retail investor start day trading the result. Now _that's_ the bubble I remember.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I think people are missing an angle in this story. I don't think the interesting part is the $450 million they invested or the vehicle they're setting up for investors. It's Facebook's future IPO and Goldman likely just bought themselves the primary role in issuing that IPO -- of which they stand to make billions off of.

<comment><USER22> That's right. If they can hype Facebook enough, Goldman will cover their investment easily. It's less about what Facebook turns out to be actually worth in the long term than what GS can help make people believe it's worth in the near term.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> This is a fantastic, precedent setting move and a response to the political sector's irrational laws (see: Sarbanes-Oxley). It was presaged by the DST style investments over the last few years, and we can only hope that more companies follow suit.

If you want to reduce speculation and uninformed trading, at least one way to do that is to give companies rights over who trades their shares and under what circumstances. You're not forced to sell your house to anyone, so why should you be forced to sell your company to anyone -- particularly day traders who will just introduce volatility and aren't in it for the long haul?

A long overdue organic reaction to the silly laws passed in the wake of the _last_ financial crisis. No doubt we will see similar workarounds for the work of art that was "FinReg", though those workarounds may take the form of debuting on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange rather than the NYSE.

It's a little known fact, but Google also made use of certain legal workarounds to avoid going public for as long as possible (among other things, they split the company into two units of 499 people apiece, or so I recall).

<comment><USER24> While I get your point about volatility, I'm not so sure I agree with the idea that large companies ought to have absolute control over who owns their shares. That's fundamentally contrary to the idea of open markets, and sets up too much potential for abuse. It's not hard to envision a marketplace where pervasive use of this technique concentrates wealth even further than it already is.

<comment><USER23> > It's not hard to envision a marketplace where pervasive use of this > technique concentrates wealth even further than it already is.

Don't see how that follows. If you are restricting the market to only a fixed number of sellers, you are leaving a potentially significant amount of money on the table.

You're doing that to prevent the abuse of your company's shares by investors, who generally have more money than you do.

Imagine if you didn't have the right to turn down a VC who only wanted to put in money once you got hot, and then came to your board meetings as a shareholder and caused problems. Or to be criminally responsible if an accountant somewhere in your organization makes an error. That's what it is to be a public company in the post-Sarbox/Finreg US. This is about protecting the entrepreneur, not about protecting the old money.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> a company I recently left ran up against this same 500 shareholder rule. To get back down comfortably below 500, they performed a substantial reverse split, which caused many former employees to be taken down below 1 share. Apparently at that level, the company can cash them out as you can't hold only a fraction of 1 share.

Once those former employees were rounded into nothingness, they performed a forward split to restore everything to their previous levels.

I thought that was a rather clever workaround.

</comment><comment><USER26> "All problems in computer science can be solved by another level of indirection"

Looks like it works in finance, too. And a whole lot of other disciplines.

<comment><USER27> But there's always one nagging problem which it doesn't. In CS it is performance. In finance, maybe solvency?

<comment><USER28> In finance it's returns (ironically, also often referred to as performance).

Each level of indirection means a middleman somewhere is taking a cut.

<comment><USER29> Indeed. Investment banks do not make money with some magic computer program that buys low and sells high eight billion times per second. They make money by buying something, "adding value", calling up clients and asking them to buy it, and then taking a cut when they do. In some cases, this has changed the way the world works; consider options.

(In general, it's really not as evil as it sounds. I write software to help price interest rate swaps, and those don't really ring any ethical alarm bells: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interest_rate_swap>

I don't think the Goldman/Facebook thing is particularly evil, either. The government says that normal people can't buy Facebook shares, but normal people want to. Goldman invented a solution to the problem, and will profit from doing so. "Adding value" like this is great when it's a way to sell ads to web 2.0 users, but not when it's a bank? Why?)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I really can't imagine that this is the first time this particular move was tried.

Google had been a dominant search engine for years before they went public, and I can't imagine they turned down many $50 billion funding rounds simply to avoid turning public before their IPO.

<comment><USER31> The law was different back when Google was having its IPO.

<comment><USER30> From [http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/01/03/facebook-and- the-500-...](http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/01/03/facebook-and- the-500-person-threshold/):

 _The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 sets forth certain requirements for companies to register their shares with the S.E.C.

Specifically, Section 12(g) requires that a company register its securities with the S.E.C. if it "has total assets exceeding $1,000,000 and a class of equity security … held of record by five hundred or more … persons…"_

Sounds to me like this law has been around for a while.

<comment><USER31> That law has but Sarbanes-Oxely, which has caused Facebook to avoid an IPO and Google not to, was much more recent.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Anyone else remember when people were freaking at the $15b valuation of FB? Now it's not the valuation but rather the method of the investment.

<comment><USER33> Facebook has proven itself since them. When TV stations start promoting their facebook pages rather than their own websites you know they're onto something.

<comment><USER34> But they also did that with MySpace and look how that is turning out.

<comment><USER35> Second Life too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Govt fears big companies.</comment>


Live map of Russia advancing into Ukraine - <AUTHOR> http://liveuamap.com/?ll=48.11679266819489;37.739980468749984&zoom=8 <comment><USER2> I am continually astounded by the amount of support Russia receives from HN commenters. Is it that the Russian propaganda so strong that it reaches all the way to the Bay area, or are there a lot of Russians on here?

What I am wondering is when Russia will completely take over Ukraine and what will be the NATO position at that point? I have no delusions that NATO will not engage in any military conflict, since nobody wants to start WWIII, but this has to be disturbing developments for countries like Poland, Romania, etc.

Also, I wonder if Putin is really willing to continue this invasion at the cost of being ex-communicated by the US and parts of Western Europe? I suppose he is currently banking that most of Western Europe depends on his natural gas, so they cannot completely shut him out.

<comment><USER3> I'm in a position where I'm mostly exposed to non-western information regarding the situation in Ukraine, since my girlfriend is Russian.

It's funny to see the exact opposite story as the western media is giving. Stories about pro-russians being harassed by pro-western Urkainians and the government were (and are) abundant. From their point of view, a pro-russian government was illegitimately overthrown. General opinion seems to be that democracy only matters to the west as long as it's not too inconvenient to them. Constant allegations and sanctions against Russia while they feel they have very little influence on what pro-russians are doing in Ukraine. Mostly, it seems like there's a feeling of pro-russian sentiments being repressed, the west not giving a damn and Russia's hand being tied via international pressure.

Meanwhile, when I look at the western media, it honestly disgusts me. While pro-russian media generally seems to ignore a lot of stories that put them in a negative light, the western media seems to actively be painting pro-russian and Russia in a bad light. It's a general trend I've noticed in where western media is often on the offensive, and the "counter-party" on the defensive. I guess it's a cultural thing.

Regardless, the Ukrainian government has been making a fool of itself in both the western and eastern media. Since this whole thing started, they've done nothing but make unfounded allegations, trying to "poke the bear" (Russia) and instigate unrest. I feel that they're responsible for a large part of the needless escalation in this conflict.

PS: Your use of the word "propaganda" is an excellent example of how we view things. Everything the "other" side says is propaganda, anything "our" side says is necessarily the truth. This happens on both sides of the conflict, and I think it's a large barrier to actually start solving the problems. Rather than claiming "propaganda", we should consider it points-of-view, and the first thing we should do is ask ourselves: why does the other side hold this point of view, and how come they view it as a completely legitimate moral view to have?

PPS: My girlfriend is, at times, greatly distressed by this whole thing. Like many Russians, almost half her family is in fact Ukrainian. Surprisingly, this seems to cause feelings of sympathy for those family members by both sides, yet they remain quite harsh against other Ukrainian or Russian viewpoints.

<comment><USER2> I appreciate a reasoned response. However:

1\. Propaganda: in Russia, the media is very tightly controlled by the Kremlin. This is not the case in the US and most Western countries. Russia _can_ use propaganda easily, and it is in their interest. The stories come out of their media are suspiciously different from any other stories from anywhere else. Simplest explanation: they are using propaganda, or at least coloring stories for their benefit.

2\. The Ukrainian government is a joke. It was a joke when Yanukovych was in power too. It will continue being a joke until Ukraine is left alone to figure its shit out. You cannot expect a country that's been independent for under 25 years to do things perfectly. For a great example of countries that are democratic, yet get stuff wrong all the time see most Western countries.

3\. The Ukrainian government did not cause all of this. Putin has a motive to invade Ukraine (rebulding USSR as his legacy) and an opportunity: currently nobody will oppose him and he has the upper hand militarily. Do you think he is so easily offended that something the Ukrainian government said will cause him to do something like this?

<comment><USER4> Here's an air-strike on a civilian area, and a probable war crime committed by the Ukrainian government. It's gory, it's sickening. How many reporters from the Free Press covered this?

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=I91...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=I912NiRg8YA#t=38)

All sides must be held to account for any crimes committed. However, it's hard to have any kind of rational discussion when so many people have a Pavlovian reaction to the word "Russia" (and "China").

I have no dog in this fight, but it seems like even normally rational and logic-minded programmers and hackers are not immune to conditioning over a period of time.

<comment><USER2> This event, while tragic, was reported by CNN and BBC: [http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/03/world/europe/ukraine- luhansk-b...](http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/03/world/europe/ukraine-luhansk- building-attack/) and [http://www.bbc.com/news/world- europe-28292338](http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28292338)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Wow, I guess this is what would have happened online during World War II if it happened in modern times. Interesting historic landmark as far as information dissemination during confrontations/wars.

<comment><USER6> No, it's not at all what happened when the Nazi's advanced in WWII. If you watch the Vice News reports, it seems that the people are ambivalent to who rules over them, they just want the fighting to stop. In contrast, in WWII, the Nazis were not much liked by the occupied peoples.

<comment><USER7> > it seems that the people are ambivalent to who rules over them

Based on my contacts in Ukrane (4 colleagues), no, they are not ambivalent. They don't want Russia in their country.

Hell, we've had to help one of those 4 re-locate due to the invasion.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Additionally, Reddit's crowdsourced liveblog has more sources but no map. [http://www.reddit.com/live/3rgnbke2rai6hen7ciytwcxadi](http://www.reddit.com/live/3rgnbke2rai6hen7ciytwcxadi)

<comment><USER8> Also try grasswire's crowdsourced feed being curated and fact-checked in real- time. [https://grasswire.com/#/newsfeeds/1fece014-714a-4cd9-a9dd-6b...](https://grasswire.com/#/newsfeeds/1fece014-714a-4cd9-a9dd-6b980f8e0d47)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Am I the only one who feels uneasy about stuff like this? I can't quite figure out why.

<comment><USER10> Your not the only one.

Its a strange feeling that Russia can do whatever it wants and there are no consequences. They seem a little out of control.

They annexed Crimea. Nobody did anything. They shot down a civilian airliner (or supplied the missiles/training). No consequences. Send in caravans of "Humanitarian Aid" that Ukraine didn't ask for. Crickets..

Then they just get on their media and deny everything.

Its hard to watch it all fall apart.

<comment><USER9> I was more referring to the moral aspect of real-time spectatorship.

<comment><USER10> Its hard to watch things you have no control over. Especially war. But completely ignoring it is probably not better.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It's hard to analyse this kind of information considering that 100% of information on the site is pro-ukraine and mostly with citation of Ukrainian sources.

It may or may not be propaganda, but I don't feel like trusting the site.

<comment><USER12> Would you care to argue or provide more information for the Russian side? Please tweet the information at livemap.The problem is that there is not much coming from the russian side - they keep on denying the obvious [1] or blatantly lying [2].

[1] [http://www.bbc.com/news/world- europe-28961080](http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28961080) [2] [http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28934213](http://www.bbc.com/news/world- europe-28934213)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is a really cool use of technology with a real world application.

</comment><comment><USER8> Note: This particular map has been less than completely accurate in the past, and is often carrying a significant pro-Ukrainian slant, including being blatantly false on a couple of really important occasions. It's not a particularly bad one, but make sure to compare it with [http://militarymap.info](http://militarymap.info) and [http://cassad.net/?do=warmarker](http://cassad.net/?do=warmarker) (Russian)

</comment><comment><USER14> This is what information war looks like. Disinformation, propaganda, FUD, distortion, lies, astroturfing, bias, plausible deniability and false flag ops - from ALL sides.

How are we as information professionals supposed to deal with this? I have no way to form an opinion on this conflict as everything I read has been filtered through a media (social media included) which has either no means or no motivation to prove the trustworthiness of their message.

<comment><USER15> "ALL sides", "no way to form an opinion", "information war".

Pay attention, this is how astroturfing to spread FUD looks like. The person is not trying to increase understanding, he or she is trying to promote apathy.

<comment><USER14> No, I'm appealing for help in trying to understand the situation. You seem to have a strong opinion on the matter. How have you come to that in such a hostile information environment?

Edit: on second reading, your comment seems tantamount to accusing me of being "one of them". Everyone seems to have picked a side and is part of the fight. Where's the verifiably objective and neutral commentary?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> As evidenced by the flame wars breaking out, this is 'current events' and thus off-topic for this site:

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

That it's "using tech to cover them" is a fig-leaf, at best.

<comment><USER17> Nothing in that link says "current events" are off-topic. Given that this is Hacker News and that the definition of news is information about current events, I'm not sure what you're on about.

<comment><USER16> Let's see: "Off-Topic: Most stories about _politics_ , or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. _If they 'd cover it on TV news_, it's probably off-topic."

<comment><USER17> Live mapping an invasion for the first time isn't an "interesting new phenomenon"?

<comment><USER16> It's been done before:

[http://www.britishpathe.com/video/raf-operations- room](http://www.britishpathe.com/video/raf-operations-room)

Note also that no one is talking about the map in and of itself because it's not all that interesting and nothing new.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> A quick scan on Russian sources shows no confirmation of a large scale invasion taking place. EU rhetoric also quickly changed since this morning and suddenly nobody is using the word "invasion" anymore. Ukraine crying "wolf", again until confirmed.

<comment><USER2> So Russia is known for having a strong propaganda machine. Moreover, Russia openly admitting that it is invading a sovereign nation though it's Kremlin- controlled media outlets (aka almost all media outlets in Russia) would mean trouble. So by Occam's Razor, Putin is telling the media he controls to cover up as much of this as possible.

The EU rhetoric is a bit more nuanced, but probably comes from a similar place: if Russia is "invading" Ukraine, EU might be compelled to do something, which would put them in the precarious political and military position: the EU depends on Russian natural gas. Also Russia has nukes which makes opposing them militarily very dangerous (think, starting WWIII dangerous).

What evidence do you have that Russia is not in fact invading Ukraine? How can you explain these events? Especially the NATO satellite photos showing Russian military forces across the border?

<comment><USER18> Source bias is always an issue.

I think we would all agree that western media doesn't have the best track record when it comes to "proof" either. Same goes for NATO imagery, I recall similar imagery as proof of WMDs in Iraq etc.

The images currently being circulated were actually captured on captured on 21-23 August 2014, a week ago during Russian military exercises near the border. The interesting thing is that the artillery positions are inside Russian territory and from what I can tell are pointing the wrong direction.

Time will tell. A much larger geopolitical game is being played here and Ukraine is just a pawn to be sacrificed.

<comment><USER18> Looks like somebody at ZH also knows how to use a compass.

[http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-08-28/nato-releases- satel...](http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-08-28/nato-releases-satellite- imagery-proof-russia-has-invaded-ukraine)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> A more reliable map, but not live, is updated daily on Reddit: [http://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/2esqrq/uk...](http://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/2esqrq/ukraine_map_827_rebels_take_novoazovsk/)

This live map is most often too optimistic for the Ukrainian side, but it's still useful to follow the general trends.

</comment><comment><USER20> Soundtrack: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tb- gI_pFog0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tb-gI_pFog0)

</comment><comment><USER21> Comments on the referenced twitter "sources" are hilarious. Shows just how sarcastic people are of any propaganda these days.

</comment><comment><USER22> Small script to make the map iterate day-by-day for a given month. Need to update it to move onto the next month.

a = setInterval(function() { var nextDay = 1 + parseInt($("[name='datac']").val()); $("[name='datac']").val(nextDay) $("#loadmore").click(); } , 3000)

</comment><comment><USER23> My personal concern in all this is that violence stops. Whether it's Russian or NATO intervention I think it's good and will eventually diminish the number of civilian casualties.

Also, a lot of the sources are not good at all.

</comment><comment><USER24> I wish it would loop the Imperial Death March starwars theme via a flash app or something. That would make this perfect.

</comment><comment><USER25> First, it's extremely hard to get real 'facts' if you are in US right now. I can't find a single reliable source.

I'm neither Ukrainian or Russian but I will provide a small insight into this conflict. Obviously if you have relations to either party you will be supporting that side.

The media is a total joke. Anything they say even if somewhat true will be discredited in some way or another by either side.

Situation here is complex, if you guys were following this the newly elected officials (after the coup) are not officially recognized thought out the whole Ukraine.

Think about it this way, there are republicans and democrats. Whitehouse get's stormed and Obama is thrown out and replaced with let's say Bush.

Bush is backing republican states (keep in mind, it's a bit less civil there), republican states start to fight democrats within those states and assault democrats within their own states.

Democrats start to fight back and shit storm ensues. Now if you flip that a bit, democrats in this case are part of another (powerful) country. That country is sending reinforcements to protect it's people against government that they do not recognize due to coup.

Both sides think they are right. In MY opinion, I think it's valid for cities that are completely Russian to refuse to recognize new president appointed by people who organized a coup. Especially when there could be ties to a nationalist party within Ukraine.

My 2 cents.

</comment><comment><USER26> Super mobile-hostile.

</comment><comment><USER27> World War III has really started :(

</comment><comment><USER28> so how do i know that the site is not propaganda itself. I mean if you look at how easily US could pull off the iraq thing by spoon-feeding propaganda to its citizens you shouldn't really trust anything political anymore without doing a ton of research beforehand. Also im Russian, and even if russia did take over Ukraine it would not be a big deal for Ukrainians since they are mostly Russians anyway, please downvote me i care so much about reddit.

</comment><comment><USER29> "Occupied Crimea" is a bit debatable isn't it? (seeing as the citizens voted for and celebrated joining with Russia)

<comment><USER30> Apart from the problems of holding referendums while occupied, the referendum itself was not legal under neither Ukrainian nor Crimean law [1].

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_status_referendum,_2014...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_status_referendum,_2014#Legal_aspects)

<comment><USER29> Legal or not they do seem to represent the will of the people, [http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2014/03/crimea- celebrat...](http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2014/03/crimea-celebrates- as-region-joins-russia-20143224139630640.html)

<comment> Tuna-Fish You do realize that when a region is under strict military occupation, those who oppose the occupation cannot exactly openly voice their protests, while those who like it, can. There is a portion of the population who support the annexation of Crimea, but you cannot make any real judgement of it's size by the data we have. (IMHO It's probably >50%).

<comment><USER31> What evidence is there that during the vote there was "strict military occupation"?

<comment> Tuna-Fish Among other things, the statements of Crimean Ukrainians and Tatars who have since then fled the place? If you were not part of the Russian majority you very much have to keep your head down.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Looks like propaganda.

Didn't Ukrainian president Poroshenko say he had hard evidence that the rebels and Russia shot down fligth MH17? Where is it? All gone a bit quiet hasn't it? Every few days he makes new claims but never backs them up with evidence.

Any Russian programmers want to comment? How does it feel for Russia to be constantly demonized? Even here on HackerNews, when was the last time there was any positive story involving Russia and technology? Maybe it was Tetris.

Yesterday Gazprom announced they are selling oil in Rubles and Yuan, no USD involved in the transaction, a story that might not make HackerNews but worthy of reporting in mainstream news, yet the headlines were that Russian hackers had targeted JP Morgan, and a few days before it was Chinese hackers.

Plus ca change, plus c'est la même chose.

<comment><USER32> So how do they pay you? Rubles?

<comment><USER33> RMB, to avoid volatility from sanctions against Russia.

<comment><USER4> HKD is pegged to the USD so it works well as a proxy, and if you hold for the long-term, you have the potential upside of exchanging to RMB (stronger than the HKD and trend is up versus the USD) if or when the peg is removed.</comment></comment></comment></comment>