Amazon met with startups about investing, then launched competing products - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/amazon-tech-startup-echo-bezos-alexa-investment-fund-11595520249 <comment><USER3> "An Amazon spokesman said the company doesn't use confidential information that companies share with it to build competing products"

Maybe...but in the past, AWS proactively looked at traction of products hosted on its platform, built competing products, and then scraped & targeted customer list of those hosted products. In fact, I was on a team in AWS that did exactly that. Why wouldn't their investing arm do the same?

<comment> former-aws Cannot up vote this enough. During my time both at Retail and AWS it was perfectly normal to trawl production customer data and come up with ideas to launch competing products. Prices were always set lower or free offering justified as data-driven and customer obsession. I hated the gas lighting their customers and left in disgust of the company and its leadership which encourages that behavior.

<comment><USER4> What types of AWS data would be trawled? Are we talking about data inside S3 buckets, database schemas, particular architecure styles, the fact that a product is consuming {x, y, z} amounts of cloud resources, or simply "spending $m / year" in gross?

<comment><USER5> I can confidently tell you that Amazon's employees cannot see customers data inside S3 buckets or EC2 instances. They are extremely serious about that stuff since they know that will erode their customer's confidence.

But there's probably other superficial business data that's helpful to evaluate that.

<comment><USER6> > I can confidently tell you that Amazon's employees cannot see customers data > inside S3 buckets or EC2 instances.

From a technical standpoint, that statement is false.

Every employee might not have the credentials to, but for AWS to function as it does, SOMEONE inside the company has to have those credentials.

If you change 'cannot' to 'don't', well then we've just gotta take you at your word, which is where we started anyway.

<comment><USER7> Except they get audited by 3rd parties on statements like that, and have controls tested. It's not like they're just ... digital ocean or somebody.

<comment><USER8> Do you have evidence of this claim re DO?

I worked with a DO on an technical issue, and they were steadfastly against me granting them temporary access to our servers even though it would have made the issue easier to diagnose. Cloud provider that verifiably get caught doing this will quickly lose the trust of all their large customers

<comment><USER9> DO doesn't have a great track record for customer trust. I run personal workload but couldn't recommend it over AWS to a larger company.

      - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23117660
      - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20064169

<comment><USER10> Sales != Engineering (in regards to the first one), AWS have had similar issues. The second one wasn't good.

[https://www.zdnet.com/article/aws-error-exposed-godaddy- serv...](https://www.zdnet.com/article/aws-error-exposed-godaddy-server- secrets/)

<comment><USER11> There comes a point where your pricing is so opaque and confusing that it's indistinguishable from lying.

Those people are jealous of AWS.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> There's no way to really know how true this is but it certainly feels true if you're on the startup side - however most startups just aren't being realistic with themselves, and thinking they are special.

For example, my previous company brought our 6DOF MonoSLAM SDK, 3D model processor and OpenGL viewer to Amazon from 2014-2017 pitching the "AR View" functionality that they eventually put in 2017 [1].

Was that a result of us coming and pitching it? Probably not because that use case and stack wasn't a novel concept even back to 2010. So the concept and stack was certainly there for them to do on their own.

What we DID provide to Amazon however was a significant data point (based on our user velocity/interaction metrics and the rate of increase of 3D model generation from retailers) about whether the market was ready for that feature - and so they said ok it's probably time to do this. It just so happened that the cost of implementing it crashed to basically "trivial" in 2017 with the introduction of ARKit and so it was a no-brainer for them to roll out for a few years.

What's the takeaway? These big companies aren't dumb, your idea isn't that novel and they probably have the team and technology to do it better than you for cheaper.

[1] [https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/1/16590160/amazon- furniture...](https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/1/16590160/amazon-furniture- placement-ar-feature-too)

<comment><USER13> Why even pitch the idea to big companies then? Seems like a no brainer to just avoid discussing technology with anyone on the M&A team of any large company with an development team, unless you went to the same college as their executive staff.

<comment><USER14> Because that's where the money is.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Amazon announced a copycat of us pretty quickly after we went through YC. I suspect it's not some sinister top-down thing (unless they are actually reading all YC company descriptions). Most likely, the copycats are ambitious, unoriginal PMs pitching some budget.

We facilitate subscriptions using a smart scale, and it works way better than a Dash button (Bottomless.com, YC W19). I'm actually surprised they haven't launched yet and are taking so long.

It's pretty wild, the hardware on their launch page is exactly like ours, only they're so slow that it's a copy of two versions ago and hasn't even hit the market.

<comment> throwaway-cdo Throwaway to avoid being ID'd.

I was on the team that was peripherally involved in building the Amazon Dash collection of products. The scale idea has been floating around within the company since 2015/2016\. It takes long to do this at scale and a cost- effective point.

There were also other similar products that were scrapped because there was no way we could sell them at a reasonable price.

<comment><USER16> Try saying this one three times fast: Smart Sally in Sales scales sales from a smart scale.

<comment><USER17> Peggy Babcock Peggy Babcock Peggy Babcock

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I was a senior manager on the very first product the article talks about. I was closely involved in designing the service and presenting it to Amazon senior leadership. WSJ quotes the CEO of a startup called DefinedCrowd as accusing us of stealing their ideas from a meeting 4 years earlier.

What a bunch of conceit. I don't remember our team discussing DefinedCrowd even once. We focused on the many other more interesting players that are doing the same thing, and researching them by trying out their service etc. like anyone normally would.

I'm sure someone talked with DefinedCrowd 4 years before that. Amazon, like all other tech companies, routinely has NDA conversations with startups that never go anywhere.

I can't speak to the rest of the article, but the very first example is totally false. WSJ is looking for an angle, and this startup is probably looking for a way to blame Amazon for their own execution problems.

<comment><USER19> DefinedCrowd is pretty successful actually, just so you know this isn't sour grapes. And it isn't about a meeting 4 years ago, the very first line of the article says that Amazon was an investor (at seed stage, probably a few hundred K).

So the problem isn't that someone heard about DefinedCrowd and decided years later to make something like it. Amazon made a significant investment in an early player in this space, and then started building a direct competitor while still presumably having both access and influence over that company. Doesn't seem responsible or ethical to me.

<comment><USER20> This comment chain appears to answer you: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23930812](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23930812)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Isn't this just what you would expect a company of this size to do?

"We want to launch a product in category X"

"Ok, should we roll it ourselves, or buy something?"

"Well, let's interview a few companies, see if there's any we like, and if not, we'll make it ourselves"

<comment><USER22> Yeah, given the resources, I'd want to pursue all the possibilities in a promising product/market in parallel. They may have even had working prototypes for some time or even be near launch and they are just feeling out whether the startup would be competitive and/or complementary. Doubt it's anything evil. Just sounds like business minded people at work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I worked on the Echo Show team. The product had been in development for over a year when we invested in Nucleus. I remember thinking it was very strange that Amazon was investing in that company when we were building such a similar product internally.

<comment><USER24> Thanks, that's a really helpful perspective.

I've definitely seen the same thing happen – an org that isn't sure it can build function X well might invest in a startup building X just in case.

Of course, they may or may not take advantage of that situation by misusing confidential information.

Either way the startup could lose (or just not have much negotiating power).

So yeah, sounds like this may not be a case of AMZN misbehaving. But I'm still not sure I'd want to talk to them if I were a startup, at least until I know they really need us and are willing to pay a lot.

<comment><USER23> Nothing I saw indicated that the Echo Show was in any way influenced by Nucleus.

I suspect, but don't know directly, that this investment was more about trying to jumpstart an ecosystem of third-party Echo devices rather than hedging bets.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> "In 2016, a group of investors led by the Alexa Fund bought a stake in Nucleus, a small company that made a home-video communication device that integrated with the Alexa voice assistant.

Nucleus's founders and the venture-capital funds investing alongside the Alexa Fund had reservations about collaborating with an Amazon-backed firm, according to some of the co-investors. "

"After striking the deal, the Alexa Fund got access to Nucleus's financials, strategic plans and other proprietary information, these people said. Eight months later, Amazon announced its Echo Show device, an Alexa-enabled video- chat device that did many of the same things as Nucleus's product.

Nucleus's founders and other investors were furious. One of the founders held a conference call with some investors to seek advice. He said there was no way his small company could compete against Amazon in the consumer space, according to people on the phone call, and began brainstorming ways to pivot his company's product.

An Amazon spokeswoman said that the Alexa Fund told Nucleus about its plans for an Echo with a screen before taking a stake in the company. Several people on the Nucleus side of the deal disputed that.

Before Amazon introduced its product, the Nucleus device was sold at major retailers such as Home Depot, Lowe's and Best Buy. Once the Echo began selling, those sales declined sharply and retailers stopped placing orders, said two people involved in the deal.

Nucleus threatened to sue Amazon, which settled with Nucleus for $5 million without admitting wrongdoing, according to people familiar with the settlement. Both sides agreed not to discuss the matter.

Nucleus reoriented its product to the health-care market, where it has struggled to gain traction, some of those people said."

Wow, Gavin Belson must be furious.

<comment><USER26> The Echo Show was conceived before the first Echo was ever released. I think I even saw a demo in 2014/2015\. Source: I worked on the first Echo.

<comment><USER27> Agreed. I worked on the first Echo and was one of the participants in the conversations about what became the Echo Show in 2012/2013.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> If I'm reading commentary correctly, Amazon would _invest_ in other companies using its Alexa fund in order to gain access to their data and then actively operate in a way that undermines the success of the company. Sounds like they're essentially enjoying most of the benefits of purchasing a company but for a fraction of the price. Rather than spend their own capital to do the hard legwork of building and validating a product idea, they're effectively spending others' and then swooping in for the bait and switch kill.

If I were a founder or board member I'd be super skeptical about ever taking money from Amazon in light of this news.

If this isn't illegal it at least seems wildly unethical. If it's neither of those and considered an acceptable tactic, then perhaps companies are generally undervaluing themselves otherwise it wouldn't be financially feasible?

</comment><comment><USER29> This is a bit complicated. I'm not in Amazon but work for a (very large) org. Often we will have some product in mind and approach/maybe even partner with a vendor while at the same time having an internal effort. Occasionally we go with an internally developed solution, sometimes we go with vendor solution. I am sure some vendors feel bad that suddenly they are forced out by a "similar" internal product. However, in every case I've been involved it wasn't sinister. There was a business need and the company actively invested into multiple parallel solutions, eventually an internal solution won after we used a vendor solution for some years(but sometimes it is the vendor that wins!).

<comment><USER24> Yeah, I haven't read the article (paywall) but from the first paragraph or two it sounded like AWS invested in the company and launched a competitor 4 years later.

To me, that sounds like the startup just wasn't able to perform well enough to beat an AWS-built solution, in the eyes of an executive.

Of course, if I were doing a startup that played in AWS's space, I'd view them as a pretty formidable competitor and I wouldn't expect to get a great deal from an investment or acquisition from them, since unless I have a really special sauce they can probably build whatever we've done and sell it better.

It's shitty, IMO, and probably drives startups away from a field in which they could sell to AMZN – since they know they won't get an awesome deal. Probably reduces innovation in the field overall.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Not from Amazon but this happened to me when I had an app in the top 10 of the AppStore. This a-hole from Silicon Valley flew over to London, asked me loads of stuff, saying he wanted to buy it, offering large amounts of cash and then just launched his own version and some copies of other things I'd made. I'm still not sure if it was his plan all along or not - He did try and recruit me to his company at one point but when I refused, his parting words were "if someone offers you a seat on a spaceship, don't ask which seat". Really glad I didn't take that seat.

<comment><USER31> > his parting words were "if someone offers you a seat on a spaceship, don't > ask which seat"

Lol what a jackass

<comment><USER30> It was good because it made me 100% sure I'd done the right thing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Am I the only one who thinks this is to be expected?

Stealing good ideas is literally amazon biggest strategy in retail. They monitor best selling products, then launch their own brand and crash the competition.

Why anyone expected them to change strategy with business ideas? This strategy served them well.

<comment><USER33> If nothing else, it doesn't come as a surprise because amazon consistently operates in an anticompetitive nature. I see this as building public understanding of why amazon should be broken up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> So this didnt come across in the title - but the first company they use as an example is one Amazon actually did invest in? And that was four years before the "competing" product (which is literally just providing data for AI training as far as I can tell)? I'm not sure what I'm missing, but that reads like if coke invested in an energy drink brand and four years later launched another energy drink brand. It's basically a commodity and it's 4 years after the fact- what's so controversial here?

</comment><comment><USER35> Amazon met with an unnamed startup I worked for to do this, luckily our investors warned us before the meeting.

</comment><comment><USER36> While I cannot comment on a startup's or Amazon's perspective on this matter, I had interactions with Amazon employees that was in fact deceptive.

Short story: Amazon representative tried to trick influencer into sending their traffic without compensation.

Long story:

At the time, I commercially represented an influencer (largest in a mainstream niche with an active targeted fanbase) who had been approached by Amazon to sell access to our online course on Amazon (as in: let customers buy a coupon code for our content platform). The paperwork we received to sign did not reflect the terms we had negotiated. It included some kind of fees etc. that had never been mentioned, basically shifting percentage in favour of Amazon using fine-print. This felt dishonest.

We decided to do it anyway due to their promises of considerable sales for our program including projections. Then the representative showed us a listing of a direct competitor and told us the number of sales this competitor was able to generate. While it's nice to be on the receiving end of such information, it's unethical. Who knows how truthful the numbers were anyway.

But then the week of deals started and nothing happened. No sales.

This could have had many causes but instead of revisiting the offer or the listing or just say "bad luck", the representative kept insisting that the influencer send their traffic to Amazon which is usually a business transaction but that wasn't part of the deal. They kept insisting anyway, even a second representative.

I'm not keen on doing business with Amazon after that encounter.

</comment><comment><USER37> There's a big difference between stealing actual IP and executing on someone else's idea (even if the idea was "stolen").

The sour grapes here seem to be coming from those who thought they "owned" having an idea but failed to fully execute on it. The winner is the one who actually does it.

</comment><comment><USER38> The meeting probably went like this. "I want (crazy %) for (low ball $) or we start one ourselves.

<comment><USER39> Well, I have been on both side (a company that wants to be acquired, and a large buyer), and yes, that's the discussion you have. It's normal and expected by all parties.

When you want to buy a company it's because you want to launch yourself into that field.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> As a startup, if a company is serious in investing or buying they will make an offer.

It's a common mistake to be lured into talks that drag out for weeks and months.

If they are serious it will start with an offer.

</comment><comment><USER41> This is like 1/2 the RFP world.

RFP, then build in-house.

I mean, I'm betting Facebook's "Small Business Grant" program is going to harvest that data and put it to use too.

As a startup, if your only defensibility is that you had a head start in product development, that's not much of a moat.

</comment><comment><USER42> History repeats itself. This is straight out of Microsoft's playbook from back in the day.

<comment><USER43> Yup. Here's something that was written in the 1990s.

[http://www.microbizz.nl/foodforwindows.htm](http://www.microbizz.nl/foodforwindows.htm)

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> [https://archive.is/ps8xv](https://archive.is/ps8xv)

</comment><comment><USER45> Silicon Valley is clearly not a comedy: [https://youtu.be/JlwwVuSUUfc](https://youtu.be/JlwwVuSUUfc)

<comment><USER46> I wonder if founders are as petty as Gavin Belson

<comment><USER47> You should listen to Michael Jordans hall of speech to see how pretty he was. He is considered the greatest basketball player in the world and he spend the whole speech belittling people.

<comment><USER45> In the docuseries he himself produced, MJ comes off as an absolute bully most of the time. It ruined a lot of the mythos for me.

<comment><USER48> I remember as a kid there was a child's book about basketball players and it mentioned that MJ was an aggressive, confrontational player who trash talked the other team. It shaped a conception of him as a champion who is fiercely competitive to the point of pettiness (not unlike Bill Gates, funnily enough), not a champion who is known for noble sportsmanship.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Standard advice to to not keep your startup secret but to talk about openly to as many people as possible. Eg, quotes about how only 1/1000 startups die to competition, and the rest self destruct or fail to get traction.

Is that still the case?

<comment><USER50> this is more than that.

I've seen people try to play this game. They'll pretend they want to buy you/partnership/invest/be a client and then ask pointed questions: "What dependencies are you using on your backend for XYZ ... have you found any issues with that? If you were going to rewrite it, how would you approach it?"

In the weeds questions about detailed implementation. "Do you have a detailed architecture diagram?" etc. People who haven't seen it are like "boy they are serious. Look at their diligence"

These people need to up their street smarts game: "Nah bro, they're just stealing shit."

How do you know? Check who's in the room/on the call. Ask yourself what kind of decisions these people would make. Find out who they are.

Amazon has been actually pretty light with this practice. They're pretty picky but the right people have been in the room and they haven't really gone deep into the spy questions. The real nasty violators are companies like uber and microsoft. I wouldn't be surprised if they had actual corporate spy departments.

We had GM try to do it but they were bumblers. It was kinda cute. It also seems to be mostly American. I've dealt with a lot of Japanese and Chinese businesses and they were all genuine. If they said they wanted a partnership for reason X, then they indeed want a partnership for reason X.

If they want to steal the tech and go to other markets then there's clear nonexclusive and rights parts of the contract. It's not the "100% lies all the way down" of Uber.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> Why are people surprised by this? There was a period of time in the VC world (~2001) where this was di-rigeur. You were caught between a rock and a hard place, as pitching literally meant potentially enabling a competitor.

</comment><comment><USER52> Google has done this and worse. Some of you may remember this one.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18566929](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18566929)

<comment><USER53> This. There are other instances too. Short story is that you need to be extremely careful talking to G/A/F/M

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> Wasn't this whole behavior spoofed in Silicon Valley?

</comment><comment><USER55> Almost every established VC is a potential competitor as much as a potential backer, because they already have backed ventures in/near your market, you won't get approached by one without expertise in your market. Any of their other backed ventures might be mulling over a new strategic goal and doing indirect research on you via their sponsors. Before you say NDA, it's practically unenforceable, you can't stop a VC chatting about what they've seen in confidence to a trusted friend, the bar to prosecute breach is far too high.

You can't stop someone seeing what you offer, and it's hard to prevent competitors from seeing how successful you are, especially giving the lack of privacy in consumer space. In this article, we don't know if Amazon used any IP, we are told they just copied the offering, which anyone is free to try.

I bet the problem with DefinedCrowd is not so much they revealed too much, rather they revealed too little. How so? The VC dance is really about demonstrating to the uncertain backer-competitor that you are so good, it's not worth competing. That's a main point to inviting outside parties in. I imagine these guys were just so weak, they made competition more appealing that partnership.

<comment><USER56> No startup is so good they can't get steamrolled by a company with Amazon's resources.

<comment><USER55> The decision isn't made by a trillion dollar 'Amazon'. It's made by a person inside Amazon with a limited budget, whose ROI is critical to their personal financial success. At the end of the day, the decision to compete will be an ROI question, _Is it better /cheap enough to roll-my-own, or is it has this outfit done a good enough job that it is better to partner_? Outstanding people are a precious commodity, so if the startup is really good, why wouldn't you partner with them? And if mediocre when you are really good, why would you?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> It's weird how questions of "is what we're doing, wrong?" can be so easily and inevitably obliterated by the profit motive.

</comment><comment><USER58> It's entirely possible they launched competing products because they know something everyone else doesn't. Did anyone bother to investigate why they didn't acquire these companies?

I've worked at several startups and you'll be surprised at why some corporations don't purchase a startup.

Some of them have awful cultures of psychological abuse, you walk in the door and you know something isn't right because the founder(s) have a cult-like environment that includes abusing his/her employees to the point where they are all afraid to say anything.

Some startups have founders and employees that are lying about everything and when you actually dig into their source code and infrastructure they aren't doing anything they say they are doing.

Some of them have the worst infrastructure imaginable and/or they have such poor software engineering practices that they will never be able to scale to meet the kind of demand a company like amazon has.

Just because they have a good idea and a company doesn't mean they have an implementation that is worth investing in.

</comment><comment><USER59> [http://archive.is/ps8xv](http://archive.is/ps8xv)

</comment><comment><USER60> VCs will often meet with startups to get market analysis done for them. Maybe it's not the primary motivation of a meeting but information has to be presented to make the case for the business, so it gets recorded and used anyway. It can be used to look for alternative investment targets. Pitches have inherent risks to them, that have to be taken into consideration.

Also I get that Amazon has much more resources but if they there able to copy it after one meeting... Was your project really that valuable? And would not be copied then you launched?

</comment><comment><USER61> Makes sense.

They look if they should buy or build.

</comment><comment><USER62> Good friend of mine said his company invented the book preview and had tons of publisher relationships due to their service for public libraries and preview snippets. They sat in a meeting with Amazon executives early 2000s - <USER2> similar story. They were first offered a partnership then Amazon canceled all talks after getting a good grip on the business and launched their version shortly thereafter.

</comment><comment><USER63> If your business is so fragile that all anybody needs to do to out compete you is the description of your business idea, then I'd say you don't really have a business that is long for this world. If not Amazon, someone else is going to clone and eat you from San Francisco, Seattle, Hyderabad, or Shanghai.

Ideas don't really mean much if you don't have excellent, industry leading execution.

</comment><comment><USER64> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6QvIrruZjw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6QvIrruZjw)

</comment><comment><USER65> Rocket Internet in Germany do that too. They gas lit us about wanting to invest and then launched a competing product. I wasn't surprised.

</comment><comment><USER66> Isn't this what Google did with Yelp? IIRC, google was in talks with yelp to buy them out. They either pulled out or lowballed them. Then a few months later they launched "Google Places"

At the time, this was referred to as a "brainfuck" of smaller companies for their IP.

</comment><comment><USER67> Startups shouldn't be working on things that they can't do better than the big companies

</comment><comment><USER26> I think what is missing here is an insider's perspective.

The volume of concepts that are being actively worked on, let alone conceived, is pretty incredible. I've been in Amazon meetings with startups before/during talks of investing. Usually it goes something like this:

There are multiple principle engineers involved. There are multiple engineers from potentially related projects involved. Most of the decision making boils down to: \- the obvious: would this investment likely be profitable? \- does investing/acquiring this company enable us to ship sooner/gain a competitive advantage?

Often times Amazon prefers to acquire companies not directly operating in the space Amazon needs them to, and then steering them to do what Amazon needs. Often times it's just talent acquisition.

For all we know, Amazon already had competing products in the works (and let's be real, given how slowly Amazon moves, this is the most likely scenario) and decided that this investment wouldn't be worth it.

</comment><comment><USER68> I worked at a startup that made a VoIP product in the early 2000s. Microsoft was interested but declined after a technical review. Later they bought Skype instead. No hard feelings. But giving up too much technical detail was definitely a concern for us.

</comment><comment><USER69> Have a colleague who said the same. They had come in for reasons I can't remember, and shortly after launched a product that worked strangely similar to their offering. People got laid off, including my colleague, not long after that.

</comment><comment><USER70> I wonder how this will hurt general product innovation in the long wrong? Seems like it could have a trickle down effect of diminishing companies money for research and development to come up with new products that benefit consumers.

</comment><comment><USER71> I worked for a gaming startup that had Amazon do this to them. Pretty scummy.

</comment><comment><USER72> I'm a serial tech startup founder who has seen all sides of this up close. I've had startups I founded or co-founded IPO, be acquired by a Top 10 valley tech giant, acquire smaller startups, and (of course) go bust. I've self- funded, VC funded, angel funded and had corporate investors. In the acquisition, I ended up working for the Top 10 valley tech company for over a decade reporting directly to a key C-Suite exec and was deeply involved in company strategy, multi-billion dollar M&A, partnerships and investments.

In all that time I never saw any hint of anything even remotely unethical involving investments or M&A at my acquirer/employer. The company always played strictly by the rules, sometimes to an almost excessive degree (avoiding even the possible appearance of impropriety). This was both innately cultural, constantly preached from the BOD to CEO on down, as well as tactical since the reputational cost of negative perception was simply considered too high. Word gets around the valley fast. The invisible cost of the potential partner or startup that chooses to pass on meeting with us due to reputation could be very high.

That said, we would negotiate hard and do our due diligence, gathering public information in every legit way possible as we evaluated potential markets, product areas, acquisitions, partnerships and investments. Tons of startups were always contacting us to meet regarding investment, licensing, partnership, etc. So many that we'd actually meet with far less than 1 in 10, and even we'd usually just send a junior staffer to the mtg for a "first pass".

Those first mtgs were almost always set up as NNPI (No Non-Public Info). We'd actually have the startup sign a doc in advance stating that they wouldn't share anything with us that wasn't already public info. This was then re- iterated at the beginning of the mtg. Afterward the junior staffer would then circulate a brief memo on the mtg outlining if there were any areas of interest and recommending whether there should be any follow-up with actual business unit or tech people with domain expertise. Most such mtgs had no follow-up. In the cases where there was follow-up, before mtg again we'd internally specify what our possible interests were (acquisition, investment, partnership, etc) and if acquisition or investment we'd have at least a first- pass thesis on what our interest was, usually at the level of "interesting tech", "good talent", "cool product - might slot into XYZ product line."

Back when I was a fledgling startup founder on the other side of all this, it was sort of mysterious and I remember my first mtgs with Big Cos (including Google, Apple, Intel, Microsoft, etc). It was all very exciting until I realized that most of these 'first sniff' mtgs are with junior people and never go anywhere.

Even if my acquirer/employer was unique in being highly ethical, the reality is that any startup founder who isn't intensely aware of the risk of Big Co becoming a competitor is incredibly naive. If senior Big Co execs are taking time to meet with you (vs junior Big Co staffers), it's because they are interested in something. As a founder, your job is to figure out what why they are interested. Sometimes they are just making small investments to foster an ecosystem their primary business relies on. Or they might be interested in acqui-hiring your startup. Or they might be looking at moving into the emerging market you're in and doing a Build vs Buy analysis or even considering a roll-up of smaller firms. Or they might be looking at buying one of your competitors and doing market due diligence. As a Big Co exec, I'd usually just tell a startup founder point-blank what my interest was, as it tends to save everyone time.

Often the startup founders I'd talk to as a BigCo exec were actually too guarded, to the extent they'd hesitate to even informally have a 'get acquainted' drink at a conference or trade show. It's good to be cautious but at the same time, many of my most lucrative exits and deals began with such meetings. As a founder, I also often learned invaluable info from Big Co people at such informal mtgs. After all, Big Co folks tend to hear all the industry scuttle-butt and they actually subscribe to ALL those $10k market data reports us startup guys could never afford.

Bottom line: when engaging with Big Cos, ask good questions, rationally evaluate the benefits vs risks, plan for the worst and hope for the best.

<comment><USER53> Your particular experience does not mirror that of others.

The risk here isn't Big Co Exec. It's the aspiring PM who wants to make a name for themselves at the Big Co.

NDA's aren't worth the paper they are printed on; when it comes to that, you'll just discover that Big Co has retainers in place with all the law firms you'd want to work with.

<comment><USER72> Sure, that's why I said "Plan for the worst, hope for the best". It's always possible, even if mtg with an ethical company, the junior person you're meeting with that day _could_ be a new-hire who's an idiot and tries to get actionable information.

NDAs aren't deterrents. At the same time, any secret that can be casually conveyed in a mtg, typically isn't all that valuable. If you have a strategic investor as an outside board member, a smart founder will ensure nothing disclosed in a board mtg or board materials is specific enough to be competitively actionable. If you do it correctly, they shouldn't gain any non- public info more specific than broad sales growth, and there are a lot of completely legal ways for interested Big Co competitors to get good intel on sales growth which are much cheaper and easier than investing.

That's why we generally passed on even evaluating most startup investments. They just weren't worth the time to manage plus if we really planned to be active in that space the legal exposure would require a formal "Chinese Wall" between our investment and our business unit, usually managed and audited by an outside law firm. If we were truly interested in the space, I'd always argue we should just acquire the startup now, buy one of their competitors or tilt up our own 'build it' version.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER73> I'm surprised they haven't been hit by antitrust laws yet.

</comment><comment><USER74> Why would anyone with a brain hand over proprietary information?

</comment><comment><USER75> Yeah Amazon does this every year, it's called AWS Re:Invent.

</comment><comment><USER76> You could replace Amazon with Kodak or Open Text or 100 other names and hear the same story. It happens to customers and suppliers.

</comment><comment><USER77> I think I've seen this on the show Silicon Valley. Braindrain they called it I think. So it can't be that uncommon...

</comment><comment><USER78> I know this is not constructive, but they really are a horrible company and people should avoid using them whenever possible.

</comment><comment><USER79> um, duh? it happens everywhere all the time are you kidding? hey did you know google can read your email lol

</comment><comment><USER80> As a startup, you ought to protect your ip.

Its the job of Amazon to guesstimate your worth.

A billionaire will get away with shit, if they can.

</comment><comment><USER81> People in here like to shit on the patent system... but this is what it's designed to protect against.

</comment><comment><USER82> reminds me of this entertaining article [https://thehardtimes.net/culture/jeff-bezos-announces- plan-j...](https://thehardtimes.net/culture/jeff-bezos-announces-plan-just- beat-shit-small-business-owners/)

</comment><comment><USER83> Weren't they doing this a decade ago too? Might be mistaking it for another company...

</comment><comment><USER84> This is business tactic 101.

Yes, they were definitely naive if they shared confidential data easily.

</comment><comment><USER85> we need a pure-play cloud provider like TSMC.

No one should trust the big three. (AWS, GCP, Azure)

<comment><USER86> I think that was supposed to be OpenStack. It failed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER87> Why is anyone surprised? Microsoft was doing this in the 80s.

</comment><comment><USER88> Isn't this exactly what Amazon does with AmazonBasics?

</comment><comment><USER89> Yes, this is often times how business operates.

Guess what, we meet with potential competitors in our market and sometimes even contract with them to provide services on our behalf, and use that to gauge the market and current solutions!

</comment><comment><USER90> "Earth's most customer-centric company"

</comment><comment><USER91> This just sounds like a failed acqui-hire to me.

</comment><comment><USER92> Microsoft is famous for always doing a "better" copy than their competitors. :D They always come second but then start to overtake.

</comment><comment><USER93> You as as a startup should be fully aware that a big player can enter the space at any time they want. This is not Amazon's problem. It's your problem.

Also, it's a flawed abstraction to view large companies as a monolith: the investing arms are usually very separated from product teams.

TLDR: If a large company wants to enter a space, that's their choice. Accept this as a fact of life if you want to go work on a startup.

</comment><comment> tekcyb-org I bet you Amazon thought of this before that company even formed. That's not an original idea.

<comment><USER94> For the longest time (more than a decade) I ran a small company (< 50 employees) that fielded a video chat service. The whole thing revolved around a minor bug that just happened to be present in all major browsers.

All that time I thought: next week someone else is going to clue in to this, it is so obvious. But nobody ever did.

You can read more about it here:

[https://jacquesmattheij.com/the-several-million-dollar- bug/](https://jacquesmattheij.com/the-several-million-dollar-bug/)

So I totally believe that the seed for the idea came from somewhere else.

<comment><USER95> Isn't this more to do with how TCP and the socket interface is implemented (or more accurately its intended semantics) than a bug in browsers? Not draining any inbound data on a new connection prior to sending my request doesn't sound like a bug.

<comment><USER94> Yes, that's the practical reason. But a browser could of course have implemented HTTP in the way described in the RFC, instead they all took the easy and obvious way out. That's also why the bug was present in all browsers that had marketshare, it was the obvious thing to do, it is not as if they independently made the same mistake, they independently decided that it wasn't important enough to implement the protocol to the letter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER96> Wpqcs

</comment><comment><USER97> The article is behind a paywall, is there a TL;DR?

</comment><comment><USER98> MSFT well know for this

</comment><comment><USER99> Chinese Wall = Maginot Line

</comment><comment><USER100> Not as sinister as it seems. You could also not be approached for investment, launch your product, then get killed by a competing product from a big company, all the same.

<comment><USER28> But you would hypothetically be accounting for that outcome in your strategy. If I'm understanding the commentary correctly, Amazon would regularly _invest_ in companies in order to gain access to their data and technology while another team used the info to undercut and kill their product. You don't generally assume your investment partner is actively planning your demise by pretending to support you while siphoning off your life blood.

I agree though that it's not as sinister as it initially seems. Companies create competition at times to stimulate product development even though it's a shitty operating mode for the ground soldiers involved. In that case though they're spending entirely of their own resources and not leeching off other investments to actively undermine a successful exit.

Perhaps startups are undervaluing their IP if this behavior is able to manifest easily. And in light of this news I'd be super hesitant as a board to allow any money from Amazon whatsoever.

</comment></comment><comment><USER101> Let's be honest tho, what did they expect? In this case, Amazon gave them funding and a 4-year head start. The point of Alexa fund was to use Amazon money, and Alexa as a launch vehicle, to grow a product. Obviously Amazon had to gain something back.</comment>


Finally, a (Properly) Free Web UI for Apache Kafka - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/obsidiandynamics/kafdrop <comment><USER2> Looks neat. I also want to point out KafkaHQ ([https://github.com/tchiotludo/kafkahq](https://github.com/tchiotludo/kafkahq)) which is another FOSS web interface for Kafka. Happy user of KafkaHQ here.

<comment><USER3> Thanks @rickette for pointing it ! Always proud to see people suggesting my work !</comment></comment>


How To Get Me To Hang Up On You - <AUTHOR> http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2009/12/how-to-get-me-to-hang-up-on-you.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+AVc+(A+VC)&utm_content=Google+Reader <comment><USER2> I used to get this from time to time in a previous job. I always (without exception) immediately hung up. Sometimes I got remonstrations from whoever was trying to place the call and I would respond as gently as possible - if Mr X (it always was a Mr) wants to talk to me then they will pick up the phone and call me. If they can't be bothered then I can't be bothered to hear from them

This is not arrogance but a matter of common civility.

<comment><USER3> What's uncivil about asking you to do me a favor by waiting 30 seconds?

<comment><USER4> In effect, they are asking for a favor in the middle of the favor.

<comment><USER3> The first favor is answering my call?

<comment><USER5> Yes. A phone call is an interruption. More people should treat it that way.

<comment><USER6> Yes, thank you! My cell phone is set to emit no sound when I get called, nor do I notice the vibrate all the time. When I'm busy I just don't notice it's "ringing". People actually get annoyed with me.

It really irks me when people assume I should always answer the telephone whenever they call.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Easily solved: when they put you on hold, transfer the call to YOUR assistant (or some willing co-worker if you don't have one). When the caller comes on the line, your accomplice says "OK, please hold the line and I'll get him." Turnabout is fair play.

<comment><USER8> I hope this does not escalate.

<comment><USER9> I hope it does. What would the next level be?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> A polite way to do it would be for the assistant to say: "Hello, my name is Bob. I'm calling on behalf of Alice who would like to speak with you on the phone. Might you have a moment to speak with Alice now or may we schedule a phone appointment for later today?" Of course, if the matter is not urgent but can't be handled by email, an even better solution is for Alice to send email requesting a phone appointment in the first place.

</comment><comment><USER11> I'd hold that line if the person calling were important to me, i.e. _they_ were the VC, or press or the president. If they were selling me something I wouldn't wait.

<comment><USER12> Same here. Irony is, some people in certain cultures don't respect you if you pick up the phone and call saying you are the owner of the company. As I posted in the OP, we closed a deal after putting my friend in between the deal to act like my secretary. Until we did that, we weren't perceived that highly even by the secretary at the other end.

But seriously, I am not letting a deal go because I am irked by a practice like this, no matter how annoying it may be.

<comment><USER13> " _we closed a deal after putting my friend in between the deal to act like my secretary_ "

That's brilliant. I'm going to try that too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Let's say someone makes an average of 20 calls every day. Since no one answers their phone anymore only 5 of those get picked up. That's 15 voicemails to leave and 5 calls to take. Those 15 calls/voicemails took at least 30 minutes probably. That's 30+ minutes per day his assistant can save him. So 2.5+ hours of his week he can save, just by making you wait 30 seconds for his assistant to transfer the call when you do pick up.

It doesn't seem arrogant or lame in that scenario. Now, if they make you wait more than a minute for the called to be transferred that's not cool in my book. They should be ready to immediately handle any calls that do get answered.

<comment><USER14> A more appropriate way (and what a lot of VCs do when talking to entrepreneurs pitching them) would be to have your assistant set up a call time via email, then make the call yourself.

<comment><USER3> I agree, that is better. It only works when you know well in advance that you need to talk to someone though. You still have to handle all the other unscheduled calls somehow.

<comment><USER15> Text messaging.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'm sure if he got a 'Please hold for the president' he wouldn't be doing any hanging up, some people's time is more important than his.

<comment><USER17> Which is sort of the point. I hate when people do this too but people started doing it because other people put them on hold. So it's basically being preemptively rude to someone else to keep them from being rude to you.

Whether it's effective depends on who has the power in the relationship. As you say, if the President really did call I suspect he would wait (and if he didn't he'd be a fool). But when someone else calls him they're probably asking for money which means he has the power in the relationship and can hang up.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> there should be automated service for this... esp. for customer service calls.</comment>


Least worst golden key - <AUTHOR> http://www.tedunangst.com/flak/post/least-worst-golden-key <comment><USER2> >Why would we want to design such a system, given that implementing a golden key would be a disaster? ... I think having a good escrow plan ready is better than having none and being forced to design one on the spot.

I disagree with this premise. I think it's dangerous to publicly and unashamedly discuss how to build a broken system like this, because it reduces the cost of performing that design in the future.

For example, if you run an online service, you should spend your time building a system that makes it impossible to spy on your users, not writing an internal procedure that describes how you would spy on your users if someone forced you to.

That said, I think the best argument against escrow for those who trust the FBI is that it will chill innovation and free speech, and push consumers and businesses to purchase from companies that don't do escrow (because they're outside the jurisdiction of whoever does it).

</comment><comment><USER3> There's a slippery slope argument here as well -- i.e. once built, the natural human desire for convenience will slowly erode security features within the system.

Imagine if someone asked for a way remotely administer a nuclear power plant over the Internet. It's possible to build a reasonably secure system -- VPN, one-time passwords, company-issued hardware, etc. But security isn't exactly intuitive to a lot of people and there are a bajillion ways to screw this up. So given the dangers involved with a nuclear power plant, the smarter approach is to simply insist that nuclear power plant control systems be air gapped from the rest of network rather than to figure out a 'good enough' way to secure remote access.

</comment><comment><USER4> I think the question of how to make something reliably accessible, but very difficult to access covertly is an interesting one.

How about a system where you need n of m pieces of data to obtain a key, for suitably large n < m. Then you can split your key into m subkeys, and give each one to a different trusted third party, who would only reveal the key if presented with a warrant.

Then in order to decrypt the data, the government would have to subpoena, say, 20 out of 40 separate public organizations. It wouldn't be an easy thing to do, so hopefully they wouldn't do it often (and we would know if they did), but in extreme cases where someone's life depends on it, and everyone in the world agrees that it's necessary, it could still be done.

This system could also be made difficult to compromise if every week or so you would generate a new set of subkeys and send them out to the secret keepers, who would then delete the old keys they had for you. Then even if someone got one of the key stores, it would become useless after new keys were sent out, since all the other keys necessary to use it would be permanently deleted. To steal a key, someone would have to compromise all n of the key stores at the same time.

Something like this may even be useful for things that you want to be able to recover yourself. Say I have my bitcoin wallet stored securely on a flash drive, but if I lose it, I can get it back through this method by verifying my identity to say five organizations that I trust. Does anything like this exist already maybe?

<comment><USER5> You're talking of Shamir's Secret Sharing Scheme (alliterative translations in other languages left as an exercise to the reader)

It's really neat, actually and can be efficiently and easily implemented just going from wikipedia's description.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Dear author, how about a big no?

On which side are you on? Seriously - someone (WaPo) brings up a totally unaccecptable method and then someone brings up a slightly less unacceptable method. This sounds to me exactly the way some politics scheme works.

"There's my least worst idea. A per device backup key, split in pieces, stored on paper in underground silos."

Again, no thanks. Any form of key escrow is a backdoor.

</comment><comment><USER7> The paper really isn't _that_ secure. A large fire in a paper archive is only really a _once every 50 years_ phenomenon, tops. Besides, look at the already- existing boring-as-hell absolutely-paramount-to-nat'l-security _nuclear missile program_ to see the grunts running it will be _easy_ social engineering targets. None of them will care.

Be careful with your wishful thinking.

You want a least worst escrow? How about an escrow where the keys aren't written down. How about you just restrict your salt to N, N+1, .., M and have the TLAs brute force it? _Actually_ trust no one.

<comment><USER8> Great idea. If the assumption is that only a handful of keys will be needed pet year, it is much less expensive to require the government to brute force a key solution than storing and securing all the keys.

Just choose a key strength that costs about $10,000,000 to brute force it, and keep increasing key strength as more efficient methods are found.

<comment><USER9> _" Just choose a key strength that costs about $10,000,000 to brute force it, and keep increasing key strength as more efficient methods are found."_

Wasn't that the approach in the early days of computer crypto? Where keys bigger than X were verboten?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> How about we design our systems such that Law Enforcement (up to and including the FBI) cannot break into them, and therefore also lock out criminals as well?

That's what I want to see happen. Key escrow/giving law enforcement a foot in the door of our personal lives? No thanks.

"But what about criminals? And TERRORISTS?!"

Law enforcement has already been pretty effective at solving crimes without these capabilities. Statistically, terrorism is a minor risk.

(I would _also_ like this to apply to end-to-end authenticated encryption between parties as well.)

<comment><USER11> Statistically, terrorism makes nations go insane and start huge wars that kill many more. Not a minor risk.

<comment><USER12> That argument just boils down to "we overreact to terrorism, therefore terrorism is worth overreacting to", though.

<comment><USER13> Well, what says you are not overreacting over privacy concerns? Both scenarios paint a hypothetically hyperbolic picture.

<comment><USER14> The government already took your privacy but terorism probably hasn't affected you directly yet. One threat is real, the other is more virtual.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Where does it stop though. FBI, NSA, CIA will all want access. And local LE. And the UK, France & Germany. Then Russia will want it. And with the inroads finally made in China, Apple might have to share or risk being left out of the worlds largest market again. Of course the key is completely insecure now and we are left vulnerable to hackers and potential corporate espionage.

the simple truth is that any back door, whether secured with a golden key or not can be broken in to

<comment><USER16> "Can be broken into" is a red herring. Bad laws, bad governments, and rogue government actors are an even better reason not to have escrow.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Planning such an awful system gives it false legitimacy.

"Look, guys, I'm not saying New Earth Creationism is right; I'm just saying we should have all our scientists talk about it and find arguments in favor of New Earth Creationists."

<comment><USER16> Thank you, this is the exact problem with the article.

It's not well written.

It doesn't propose a good system.

And yet sadly it succeeds in advancing the bad side of the argument, just by spreading FUD.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> The proposed scheme would carry substantial expense compared to a single key. If Apple (for example) hosts the escrow keys, then who pays that cost? Who has the right incentives to build a very costly but more secure system?

I'm not saying it wouldn't be a good use of money, but it might make it difficult to build support for the idea. A cheaper solution which preserves much of the security would be to use cryptographic key-sharing rather than physical sharding. The escrow keys would still be created uniquely on a per- device basis, but now Apple, the FBI, and the Justice Department must each provide a fragment of the key. Perhaps the system could be designed to release keys only when provided with a valid warrant requesting a specific key... but this would probably require warrants to be better digitized.

<comment><USER19> > _The proposed scheme would carry substantial expense compared to a single > key. If Apple (for example) hosts the escrow keys, then who pays that cost? > Who has the right incentives to build a very costly but more secure system?_

I understood that was the whole point.

If you're going to build a key escrow mechanism that isn't prone to universal, zero-effort abuse, there are going to be all kinds external factors that need to be considered.

Ted's article lays out the requirements to show _just how bad_ the idea of key escrow is, including the measures that would be necessary to make it acceptably insecure. (Key escrow is - and remains - defective by design.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I love the approach that some perspectives consider this a problem waiting for a solution so we should at least try to be inventive and consider possibilities. The problem is everything about this is contingent upon perspective and there are too many to have a solution that captures all concerns. When your category is "Every Person In The World", or the not-so- tiny pool that is "Apple Customers", the only solution that fits all would be one that empowers the individual because it shifts off the burden of competing perspectives.

The problem is compounded by the fact a golden key scenario only works with the current web services model we've become dependent upon. What happens when encryption is the default everywhere all the time and computation is performed by blind services or smart contracts mapped together over a trustless network a la bitcoin style? Everything about the experience could feel the same with the exception being control over your data is shifted from a third party to you.

One possible solution would be to establish computational governance. At least at that point you have a communal opt-in which gets you away from the problem of perspective. In the same way all motorists agree to a set of rules for a given area, you could be given access to use services if you agree to a set of policies. One such policy would be to have access to your data shared to a third party if a reasonable process is followed (a dumb example would be if a majority of your peers agree that you should be investigated). Probably another can of worms but at least then we're operating from a workable premise.

</comment><comment><USER21> Keys on paper? If you're going to go through that kind of trouble, at least use golden metal plates, Book of Mormon-style.

</comment><comment><USER22> None of this matters. If (when) Apple/Google choose or are forced to implement backdoors, then smart people that care about privacy will confine their communications to apps that do not have them. Apps also have the added benefit of not exposing activities to phone companies that will readily turn records over to law enforcement. Even a simple web chat app accessed via Tor browser on a mobile device would bypass nearly all of our concerns about backdoors, pen registers, etc.

</comment><comment><USER23> I'm surprised how infrequently this is viewed from the monetary position. We would embargo a phone with a known back door for China's law enforcement because we tend not to trust their government. Similarly, nobody trusts ours. A law requiring unfettered US government access to US designed hardware would possibly remove us from that sector of the global economy.

<comment><USER24> Generally, when you backdoor hardware, you don't let people know it's backdoor'ed.

<comment><USER25> The discussion at hand is about a proposal to mandate backdoors in cell phones / OSes designed by US companies. Not a secret.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> >Let's try building the best escrow system we can, and then point out all the faults that remain.

No, let's not.

Key escrow is the magical happy pill for people who think that governments and other "trusted" organizations are incapable of:

* creating bad laws

* harboring rogue officials

* making mistakes

* becoming tyrannical, dictatorial, abusive, or corrupt

</comment><comment><USER26> I threw out "encryption doesn't kill people, people kill people" before, and it's feeling apt, due to police militarization and gun fetishes.</comment>


My favourite PG essay - <AUTHOR> http://www.paulgraham.com/procrastination.html <comment><AUTHOR> I really like this one because it explains how an undesirable human characteristic (procrastination) can actually lead to great things if channeled appropriately.

It also arms me with an appropriate response to my dear wife's objections when I push off things to work on my project.

</comment><comment><USER2> My favorites: <http://paulgraham.com/love.html> <http://paulgraham.com/essay.html>

</comment><comment><USER3> This is kind of ironic...</comment>


Constitution Compels Sessions to Dismiss Mueller Non Campaign Cases - <AUTHOR> https://lawandcrime.com/opinion/constitution-jeff-sessions-dismiss-robert-mueller-non-campaign-cases/ <comment><USER2> Interesting. So your claim would be that if the president was compromised due to money laundering, the special council would not be allowed to investigate the financial crime?</comment>


Ask HN: Why do cloud providers allow subdomain takeover? - <AUTHOR> Hi, So recently I did a successful subdomain takeover attack on a shopify domain and was appalled by the lack of response and knowledge the owner of the domain showed when I informed him. This led me thinking as to why do cloud providers let this form of attack happen? As I understand, most of them use some form of virtual hosting thus asking for alternate domain names. Why doesn't every cloud provider make verification of domain name compulsory? Some of them do, so I'm sure this is possible. Please help me satisfy my curiosity. Thanks <comment><USER2> It slows deployments, it needs to be retested from time to time as domains move / expire, and on balance has the potential to cause more pain than it solves for. It defends against an edge case (domain owner being irresponsible) at a cost (everyone else gets slowed down). It's a judgement call, largely.</comment>


Google's New Allo Messaging App Gets Its Edge from AI - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/2016/05/googles-new-allo-messaging-app-gets-edge-ai/ <comment><USER2> I usually don't congratulate people on their birthday on Facebook, because there are so many birthdays and it feels more fair to neglect uniformly. But then Facebook introduced a small widget that let me leave comment directly from my news feed, making it almost effortless to comment!

So I started writing a "Cheers!" in that box, because now it was so easy. Of course, it was so easy as to feel almost completely meaningless. It was so convenient to type into the box and feel I had fulfilled some social obligation without expending any effort! Now google is offering the same service for when I'm texting with my mom? Well, I usually care a bit more about her than most of my Facebook friends, but all right...

Meanwhile I don't get that small widget on Facebook anymore, but with the UI stability of "move fast and break things" perhaps I've just disabled it by mistake?</comment>


The Unbelievable History of the Express JavaScript Framework - <AUTHOR> http://thefullstack.xyz/history-express-javascript-framework/ <comment><USER2> There's something missing here, timelines don't align... So TJH sells express in 2014; Doug ploughs on for two years, with zero contributions from StrongLoop (?). Then IBM takes over and assigns two devs to actually do some work, and Doug quits...? Stating a problem of trust. So what happened? Did SL promise something that is not going to happen now that IBM is in charge? Did SL promise him a job or something?

Sure, Doug should be thanked for his tireless job; but the post is simply lacking or omitting important details.

<comment><USER3> I think what happened was that he (Doug) was trying to push SL into helping out more and to get some issues fixed, Doug felt like he was getting somewhere, but then SL was sold to IBM all conversations had to be started again. There is a github issue titled 'Is Express dying?' [1] that contains all of the events, issues and comments from Doug, TJ, SL and IBM.

[1] - [https://github.com/expressjs/express/issues/2844](https://github.com/expressjs/express/issues/2844)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Doug is a great guy and super helpful. He has personally responded to many issues on Express as well as the ecosystem of Express middleware. He is truly a treasure. Doug - if you ever read this I personally really appreciate you.

</comment><comment><USER5> Express is alive and well, I just developed two new middlewares for it in the last week. Koa has been straddling 1.x to 2.x rewrite for quite a while. In the meantime Express chugs along powering 1000s of websites. The performance difference is negligible and Express still beats Hapi by a long shot.

Long live expressjs.

</comment><comment><USER6> The characterizations of the framework author as "evil" and "dickish" seem a bit extreme, and unfair.

Otherwise, it's nice to see credit given where it's due.

<comment><USER7> If you're talking about TJ I don't think anyone said he was "evil" or "dickish". The selling of a repo on Github is questionable however it is no more questionable than Ryan selling NodeJS to Joyent. But frankly nobody really believes IBM gives a damn about Express, so people should move on and use something else, because it ain't gona be maintained seriously . For them Express is just PR for their platform Blue mix as they try to attract businesses based on NodeJS.

<comment><USER8> > I don't think anyone said he was "evil" or "dickish"

Dude, the article literally calls him both of those things and links to another article that is entirely about what a dick the author thinks he is.[0]

[0] [http://hueniverse.com/2014/07/30/open-source- dickishness/](http://hueniverse.com/2014/07/30/open-source-dickishness/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I tweeted. He deserves the recognition however we can give it.</comment>


How's My Driving?: Mediocre Games - <AUTHOR> http://atodev3.com/archives/2684

<comment><USER2> Ow. I'm not one to patrol grammar but attempting to read that article hurt my brain.

It's one thing to use the wrong syntax occasionally, but it's altogether a different thing to publish an article that reads like a core dump of your brain. For a moment I thought I was having a seizure.

<comment><USER3> At the bottom it notes that this series of articles is written while drunk.

A shame really, I'm sure this could have a point behind it, perhaps about any decline in video game quality, but as it is I just don't know.</comment></comment>


Free 2 day Berkeley "big data" class this week - <AUTHOR> http://ampcamp.berkeley.edu/

<comment><USER2> The piazza forum is for berkeley.edu email addresses only; that's a shame, I would have liked to participate.

<comment><AUTHOR> We'll invite everyone who fills out the form to Piazza.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Will this be available afterwards for download? I cannot possibly make these times having a full time job and living in the right side of the pond.

<comment><USER4> "If you miss any live or in-person event, you can return to this site to find archives of all materials."

So yes.

<comment><AUTHOR> Ya thanks we didn't have this before... all exercises and videos will be archived on the site.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The classes will be live streamed. I don't think there are any more "free" seats left.

<comment><USER6> Can the videos be made available after hours? I'm not able to get time away from work those 2 days. thanks

<comment><AUTHOR> Yep, videos and exercises will be archived for posterity. Will take a few days to get them posted.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The registration form doesn't seem to have a submit button...

<comment><USER8> just some poor design. Scroll down maybe?

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Awesome.

<comment><USER10> props to berkeley. Go Cardinal though!</comment></comment>


Dell's Predicament - <AUTHOR> http://dcurt.is/dell-s-predicament

<comment><USER2> When I think of Dell, I don't think of PCs. I think of negative working capital, printers and ink. The process efficiency doesn't help when people don't want to buy your products, and the printer market doesn't seem like the gold mine it once was. The company isn't in great shape because they lost on product vision and product quality.</comment>


Show HN: Bcash-instadump – dump your bcash, get more Bitcoins - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/shesek/bcash-instadump <comment><USER2> If you have a trezor they have a very easy to use claim tool and you can send your bitcoin cash to bitfinex or Kraken to sell them.

Or you can send them to me at

1UpEHMtJgZbsZvMwEhYfS46JPkansTTsN</comment>


Caught for the First Time: The Early Flash of an Exploding Star - ezequiel-garzon http://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/Kepler/caught-for-the-first-time-the-early-flash-of-an-exploding-star <comment><AUTHOR> Worth pointing out that the cool gif and video are just illustrations. I'm not sure what was actually "captured" when it happened. Maybe the chart on the side of the page which shows the spike in brightness?

<comment><USER2> Yes the chart is what they captured; the animation is inferred from the data and our current models of supernovae.

<comment><USER3> That breaks my heart :(

<comment><USER4> Recently we have started to see actual pictures (ie, not a point) of extrasolar stars. The keyword when searching is direct imaging.

[https://duckduckgo.com/?q=direct+imaging+betelgeuse&t=ffsb&i...](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=direct+imaging+betelgeuse&t=ffsb&iax=1&ia=images)

<comment><USER2> Indeed, see also [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HL_Tauri](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HL_Tauri) and [http://www.space.com/31497-exoplanets-direct-imaging-next- bi...](http://www.space.com/31497-exoplanets-direct-imaging-next-big- thing.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> ezequiel-garzon If I understand correctly, this data was recorded in 2011. It amazes me that it could take NASA this long to sift through its own (massive) data. As datasets are getting ever larger (outpacing gains in computing power, I feel) I wonder if some similar discoveries will take decades (centuries?) in the future.

Does anybody know if these teams make it a point to keep datasets "small enough" to be manageable in reasonable time frames?

<comment><USER5> It should be noted that NASA makes essentially all of it's data public. In the astrophysics community, this means that researchers write scripts to run over all of the data for exploratory research and then do more complicated analysis later. It's also important to note that one of the best and most accurate space telescopes ever made (Kepler) was keeping the entire photometric community very busy.

<comment> ezequiel-garzon Thanks for your comment! Do you feel that, in the medium term, as ever larger datasets are generated the overall computing power will be unable to catch up?

<comment><USER5> To be quite frank, the limiting factor is not computing power, it's code written by physicists. I'm a software developer by trade, and it's sometimes painful to see the type of code my supervisors write. I get the feeling that "our simulation takes half an hour" is acceptable and they won't try to optimise it unless they're near a deadline.

Obviously, that's not deriding them, they have much better things to do than to micro-optimise their code. But in general I prefer writing all of my analysis scripts from scratch after discussing what methods they used. :P

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It is a quite impressive. Kepler is pointed towards Milky Way disc and those stars are in other galaxy.</comment>


The Crispr Twins Had Their Brains Altered - <AUTHOR> https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612997/the-crispr-twins-had-their-brains-altered/ <comment><USER2> Although i share the intuitive reaction of disgust, the last statement "we're not ready for it" made me wonder : knowing the complexity of the genes expression problem, is there any point when we'll be able to say we're ready for it ?

Another question i wonder : is making a baby with someone else truely something responsible, knowing the number of things that we alter when we combine pretty randomly the DNA of two , sometimes extremely different, people ?

<comment><USER3> Another question, if we had the tech to improve the cognitive abilities of our offsprings, would it be ethical _not_ to do it?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm morbidly curious to see what the unexpected side effects will be.

Altering cognition like this can't be for free.

</comment><comment><USER5> It's probably something like configuring a kernel and enabling way too many options. The guy's probably flipped a shitload of switches and there's a chance neither of the kids will boot correctly.

</comment><comment><USER6> One relevant 'Twilight Zone' episode. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_12_Looks_Just_Like_You](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_12_Looks_Just_Like_You) ( clip: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d6h3kaQs6g](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d6h3kaQs6g))

and another [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Eye_of_the_Beholder](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Eye_of_the_Beholder)

</comment><comment><USER7> Memory is a two way street, I think the brain has a way to protect itself from painful memories as a way to keep us functional and sane.

<comment><USER8> LeBron James has an eidetic memory and has talked about being trapped by loops of bad memories, or haunted by them, both of which make him hesitate or underperform on the court: [http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/11067098/lebron-james- gre...](http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/11067098/lebron-james-greatest- weapon-brain)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> > We need drugs, but it's another thing to take normal people and muck with > the DNA or chemistry to improve them

In a sense, don't drugs do exactly that sans the mucking with DNA?

<comment><USER10> Yes. If we read that quote in 50 or 100 years, it'll seem hilariously antiquated.</comment></comment>


Show HN: A browser extension that displays HN/Reddit comments on all webpages - <AUTHOR> https://epiverse.co/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hi all, I'm one of the creators of the linked extension (Epiverse), a chrome/firefox extension for viewing Hacker News and Reddit threads as you browse the web. It's been stagnant for a while now but we've recently revamped it and released a new version. We will be actively maintaining the app, adding features and potentially new content sources, and would love to get your feedback.

A brief walkthrough: after adding the extension, the icon will display the combined comment count for the current URL across threads from HN and Reddit. When opened, the extension displays as a sidebar displaying all matching submissions and their comments.

With the latest version of the app we've focused on privacy (and user's ability to control it), performance, and usability. We've added the ability to have the extension auto-open on certain domains, which is great for sites whose own comments are famously shallow or offensive, like YouTube. Under the hood, we maintain and constantly update a database of all HN and Reddit submissions, which will allow the app to scale while preserving performance.

Our eventual goal is to transition Epiverse into a universal commenting system for the web with it's own authentication and commenting ecosystem, but step one is to grow the user base and stress test the UI.

Any feedback, good or bad, is very welcome!</comment>


How do you enable payments for your startup that is not backed by a big company? - <AUTHOR>

Who do you use for processing online payments for your side-projects? (in Europe)
I am working on a side project, that is to validate an idea I have about a product. I have a fairly good solution on how to validate my idea, without too much programming.
I believe that the only way to validate my idea, would be to ask for credit card information and process a given amount of money from my potential customers. I don't know any other way to be sure that people would be interested in a product.
So considering that the product is not yet ready, and I am about to setup a small marketing website, how do I approach a payment processing company? (Recurly, Spreddly, Wirecard or any other payment processor in Europe). I don't have any history of successful businesses, and all these companies are asking for "expected number of transactions", "expected revenue", etc. Unfortunately I don't have such information.
Furthermore all these companies expect a minimum payment of about 100 euros per month.
How do you enable payments for your start-ups that are not backed by thousands of euros/dollars? <comment><USER2> Paypal or Stripe

<comment><AUTHOR> Stripe is based only in the US. I heard they opened an office in Ireland, but I am based in the UK.

I tried to avoid PayPal, but it seems this is my only option right now.

<comment><USER2> Stripe are in closed-beta in the UK, but they've issued plenty of beta accounts. They made an open invite at the London hacker news event a few weeks for anyone who wants to join the beta just to email them, so if you ask they'll probably give you an account.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, I will into this as well then.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Translations for common words? - <AUTHOR> Is there some sort of "common gettext repository" for really common phrases such as Log in /Log out / Register / etc that exists somewhere with a reasonable licence in multiple languages, or should I end up trying to re-translate everything from scratch? <comment><USER2> The Microsoft Terminology Collection is a great resource for this. I'm not sure how the license works though but it's probably worth a look: [https://www.microsoft.com/language/en- us/Search.aspx?sString...](https://www.microsoft.com/language/en- us/Search.aspx?sString=Login&langID=en-gb)

</comment><comment><USER3> I recommend finding a project that is localized and has a license you like and starting there.</comment>


How much does it cost to run a startup - <AUTHOR> https://www.startupcosts.co/startups <comment><USER2> Maker here! Let me know if you a few qualms with this app.</comment>


Mars Colony: How Much Law Do We Take with Us? - <AUTHOR> http://marslegalcode.org <comment><AUTHOR> With plans for a manned mission to Mars off and running, what will be the legal regime governing people on Mars? Do we really want the same rules as Shanghai in the 1930's?</comment>


Writing User Stories Like It's 1999 - <AUTHOR> http://blog.assemblymade.com/writing-user-stories-like-its-1999

<comment><AUTHOR> We've seen a huge difference in contributions on Helpful after spending more time fully spec'ing out work to be done.

[https://assemblymade.com/helpful](https://assemblymade.com/helpful)</comment>


Ask HN: What do you look for in an intern? - <AUTHOR>

I'm currently a sophomore computer science student and am in the process of looking for internships for summer '12. I'm wondering what it is that big companies/startups look for in an intern. I'm extremely passionate about comp sci and would really love to spend next summer doing what I love. I have some of the necessities for standing out (extra curricular activities and projects, leadership, etc.). Just looking for some insight.
Thanks!
Tyler <comment><USER2> Has confidence, but not over-confident. Obviously knowledgeable about the work to be done, but not vaunting.

Someone that looks like they could potentially handle tasks on their own, be a good apprentice, and that you won't have to spend time arguing with to get them to do something simple.

Basically an intern should be a humble worker that gets the job done.

Interns come to work the first day feeling like they will be valued and a part of the team, but are hired because they are seen as cheap labor by the employer, and once they get there are usually not treated as a "real" employee. So they need to get work done, but in a way that doesn't rock the boat.

<comment><USER3> I would like to suggest for those in position to hire interns: either give them something to do, or blatantly tell them that you have nothing for them to do. And if there's nothing for them to do, make it clear that their job is now to study or tinker on their own projects until there is something to do.

I worked a semester as an intern at a big technology company, and was constantly pleading with people to give me something to do. They usually didn't, so I ended up just reading books or writing toy programs. And then management got mad at me for not doing any real work, so I went back to everyone I could find pleading for work. And so the cycle went. I hated it, and the most notable thing I learned was that I did not want to work for that company ever again.

<comment><USER2> This isn't just a problem for interns. Some jobs are just like that. They won't lay out what you need to do. It can be frustrating, but it is also an opportunity to learn either to function under frustration and duress or how you react to that. Learning about yourself otherwise may not happen until much later in life (i.e. midlife crisis). However, a smarter thing to do is to get a job that is more well-suited. Life is short.

<comment><USER3> I guess I've been fortunate to have had jobs with actual tasks to get done since then, and mis-attributed the awkward situation to the realm of internships. I stand corrected.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Dockerized Fullstack Mailserver - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/tomav/docker-mailserver/ <comment><USER2> I wonder how this compares to dockerized mailcow ([https://github.com/mailcow/mailcow- dockerized](https://github.com/mailcow/mailcow-dockerized)). Mailcow is quite a beast, because it provides a neat frontend for users to configure their mail accounts.</comment>


Dutch police are training eagles to take out drones - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/1/10884586/drone-vs-eagle-dutch-police <comment><USER2> How many times is this story going to be submitted?

Here are some:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11016631](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11016631)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11016549](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11016549)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11016504](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11016504)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11015864](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11015864)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11015692](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11015692)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11015181](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11015181)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11014648](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11014648)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11013086](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11013086)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11011676](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11011676)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11011663](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11011663)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11011654](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11011654)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11007305](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11007305)</comment>


Ask HN:How do you get your daily news? - <AUTHOR>

Do you use RSS, Twitter, Hacker News, Reddit, other, or some combo? If more than one place, what would a site look like that could consolidate them? Or would that even be worth trying? <comment><USER2> 1) Approx. 100 RSS feeds read on _Reeder_ on iphone or ipad through out the day 2) Read Financial Times at lunch everyday 3) Check out Digg & Reddit when on the toilet (really great place to read news quickly, all joking aside) 4) Scan Twitter at night to see what I missed

<comment><AUTHOR> I an avid user of Reeder on the iPhone too. I use FeedDemon on the desktop. But honestly, when it comes to the deuce, I'm in and out - no time to read. Never really thought of the BR as a great place to chill, lol.

<comment><USER2> It has only been in recent that I started doing so as well.

I have even thought about changing the tag line on my Iphone when I send am email that says: "Sent from my Iphone" to "Sent from the john"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I use RSS with Google reader, in addition to HN consumed from <http://hckrnews.com>. Most of my general news stories come from <http://slatest.slate.com>.

<comment><AUTHOR> I like the Top 10 by Day view on that hckrnews site.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> To find out the latest news I go straight to Twitter, otherwise it's HN and Slashdot

</comment><comment><USER5> google reader. I read about 75 sites that way (including various craigslist searches to buy things)</comment>


Z3: A high-performance theorem prover from Microsoft Research - <AUTHOR> https://z3.codeplex.com/ <comment><USER2> In terms of applicability, SMT (satisfiability module theory) solvers basically allow you to do things which are slightly more complex than plain SAT solving.

If you're looking to learn more, Leonardo has a nice introduction to SMT and its applications over here: [http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1995394](http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1995394). To make a long story short, various problems in program verification and static analysis have seen success with SMT.

/some academic navel-gazing follows.

Yices ([http://yices.csl.sri.com/index.shtml](http://yices.csl.sri.com/index.shtml)) and Z3 are the two main SMT solvers used by academics today. Yices is the "original" solver and was developed by Leonardo de Moura and Bruno Dutertre at SRI in the mid-2000s. At some point towards the end of the last decade, Leonardo moved to Microsoft Research and for reasons which are unclear started working on Z3 independently. I am told that Z3 is a slightly faster solver today.

<comment><USER3> Pardon the relative ignorance... but I thought these types of problems (SAT and SMT) were NP-Complete in the general case? Does Z3 do something special (eg apply heuristics)? It looks very impressive!

<comment><USER4> [http://www.csl.sri.com/users/rushby/slides/jaist07.pdf](http://www.csl.sri.com/users/rushby/slides/jaist07.pdf)

See "SMT Solvers: Disruptive Innovation in Theorem Proving", Rushby, 2007.

> SAT solving is the quintessential NP-complete problem. But now amazingly > fast in practice (most of the time)

> SMT ... generalizes SAT solving by adding the ability to handle arithmetic > and other decidable theories

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Though the source is available, it cannot be used for commercial purposes.

[https://z3.codeplex.com/sourcecontrol/latest#LICENSE.txt](https://z3.codeplex.com/sourcecontrol/latest#LICENSE.txt)

You may not redistribute the source on a website intending to teach the use of Z3 for commercial purposes.

You also agree that MS can sell any modifications or derivative software that you produce.

<comment><USER6> Is it even legal to prohibit teaching something due to copyright infringment?

<comment><USER7> "...for commercial purposes"

<comment><USER6> Yeah, I got that first time, thanks.

It is not trivial to separate commercial and non-commercial purposes. Creative commons licenses still don't have a clear criteria. So as it goes with copyright, this just has a chilling effect on the education of some compsci fundamentals. I just dont get why MS would do that, is it a competitive advantage?

<comment><USER8> Commercial = I make money from using this; Non-commercial = NOT commercial

(In case the sarcasm was a bit too thick, although it was at no less a level than your reply, I think it's plainly obvious what the licence is dictating and hope you will go into a little more detail of your viewpoint that it isn't)

<comment><USER9> What if you don't make money from it now, but use what you learned to profit ten minutes later? How about 10 days later? Or 10 years later?

Non-commercial use for something that is directly involved in the production of something else is fairly easy to determine; it depends on whether that something else is sold for money or not.

But for analytical software like this prover, you could indirectly use it to improve something that is sold for money, but the process of improvement is not necessarily a commercial transaction. It could be performed by students at a university, for example. I have in mind formal verification of program invariants, with potential identification of breaks, as an example.

<comment><USER8> Is there a direct link between you using this software under such a licence and then gaining monetary advantage (if not money directly itself)?

Using your process of improvement for me it is quite clear there would be.

[Perhaps the solver could be used to figure the applicability of the licence]

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> It's worth noting that there are excellent Python bindings to Z3. [http://rise4fun.com/z3py/tutorial](http://rise4fun.com/z3py/tutorial)

<comment><USER11> There's also a tremendous Haskell binding, SBV ([http://hackage.haskell.org/package/sbv](http://hackage.haskell.org/package/sbv)) though it's specialized to bitvector theory.

<comment><USER12> ...and for Scala: [https://github.com/epfl- lara/ScalaZ3](https://github.com/epfl-lara/ScalaZ3) (/ shameless plug).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> If people are using this for interesting projects, I'd love some details.

<comment><USER14> Last week I wrote a fun tool using it (actually, any SMT-LIB 2 compatible solver, of which Z3 seems to be the only open-source-ish one that works out of the box) to search for optimal branch-free load-free C implementations of small integer lookup tables (i.e. something the compiler should do but doesn't). It's really a minimal use of an SMT solver, but it saved me from having to think of a more clever algorithm than brute force.

<comment><USER12> In case you or someone else is still looking, CVC4 [1] is a competitive open source alternative to Z3 or Yices.

[1] [http://cvc4.cs.nyu.edu/](http://cvc4.cs.nyu.edu/)

<comment><USER14> Thanks! Last I checked (maybe a year back), something-or-other about CVC4 didn't work for me (I wholly forget what it was). I will try it out again.

I don't know if you are associated with CVC4 at all, but unfortunately the hashes of the amd64 Debian stable packages (cvc4, libcvc4-1, and libcvc4parser1) don't seem to match? It is probably just a package error however it makes me hesitant to install the packages…

<comment><USER12> I am not associated with CVC4 directly (or Z3 for that matter). Something that is true for all these tools is that they evolve very quickly. As a result, you're better off building from source. In both cases, that means running `make` and nothing else.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> What are the advantages/differences between this and Google's or-tools ([https://code.google.com/p/or-tools/](https://code.google.com/p/or-tools/)), which is available under Apache license?

<comment><USER11> Without examining or-tools too much, I think it's solving a totally different problem. The Z3 guideis a good way to learn more ([http://rise4fun.com/z3/tutorial](http://rise4fun.com/z3/tutorial))

<comment><USER16> Z3 is about "satisfiability modulo theories", which basically means a SAT solver with smart extensions for things like floating point arithmetic that would otherwise die under a naive encoding. It's used for program verification, and in my group, program synthesis. OR tools like Google's choke on such problems that require reasoning about logic, recursive functions, etc.

For an example of a program verifier using Z3, Pex is amazing: pex4fun.com . It does 'whitebox' fuzzing (program analysis + SMT) to find inputs that break your assert statements and open-ended unit tests.

For an example of a program synthesizer, I spent the past few days writing a regular expression / sed script generator that infers the code from input/output pairs: [http://lmeyerov.blogspot.com/2013/09/sneak-peek-for-my- stran...](http://lmeyerov.blogspot.com/2013/09/sneak-peek-for-my-strange-loop- talk-on.html) . Underneath, it calls into a SAT solver (it goes through Rosette[1], which plugs in its own solver or Z3).

[1] [http://splashcon.org/2013/program/onward-research- papers/909...](http://splashcon.org/2013/program/onward-research- papers/909-session-3)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Weirdly enough, I've studying this kind of thing lately.

So it seems from the various papers Z3 is oriented around infinite precision real arithmetic. It's that kind of overkill for most practical problems?

How does it compare with iSat or similar approaches in speed? One of the problems with SMT, Satisfiability Modulo Theories, is that it involves a somewhat loose connection between a SAT problem and an underlying theory prover, which can slow down the whole process if the underlying theory prover is not very fast.

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

<comment><USER14> Z3 supports many more theories than just real arithmetic. I've primarily dabbled with difference logic and bit vectors, both of which I believe benefit strongly from SMT's SAT underpinnings.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Did anyone make a Javascript version of this with emscripten? I am currently using Z3 on the server side but would really like a client side solution to save computational resources.

<comment><USER19> The license is a non-commercial one, which makes it impractical for many use cases. Could be why it hasn't been ported yet (I might have done so myself, had the license been otherwise).

<comment><USER18> If you want to use it for commercial purposes, there is probably a way to get a license from them for that.</comment></comment></comment>