Growth as a false signal in Y Combinator startups - happy-go-lucky https://techcrunch.com/2016/12/18/growth-as-a-false-signal-in-y-combinator-startups/ <comment><AUTHOR> As a VC, the premise of this article makes little sense to me.

1) Investors aren't idiots when it comes to growth. No one expects today's growth rates to stay constant. Growth decelerates over time.

2) You can't take averages of revenue and growth across lots of startups and use that as your model. Here's an example with two startups:

* Startup 1: $4.99m annual revenue, grew 5% last month.

* Startup 2: $10k annual revenue, grew 145% last month.

"Hey look, if you average these growth rates out, you have a combined $5m in annual revenue growing 75% monthly. That'll be >$4b in annualized revenue in a year!!1!"

No, it won't.

The reason investors value high growth in young companies is that growth rates are an okay proxy for a lot of valuable things: product-market fit, execution ability, go to market strategy, etc.

<comment><USER2> One thing that confuses me about YC is that they're an _accelerator_ rather an _incubator_. In particular, this article talks about revenue growth which is an acceleration stage metric. Seed stage needs seed money to prove a hypothesis. Acceleration stage needs A money to accelerate. Stressing revenue growth at seed stage seems like it could be dangerous to a startup's health. (Yeah, ideally you would want the seed/acceleration transition to be c2 continuous.)

YC offers seed money for seed percentage, $120k in return for 7%, and attaches accelerator metrics. This transaction just doesn't make sense to me at all. Clearly it makes sense to others, given the number of YC applications.

<comment><USER3> > This transaction just doesn't make sense to me at all.

As a YC applicant I feel I am in a position to offer an explanation.

Money is very hard to raise for many first time founders; 120k is a fortune at this early stage. YC offers access to its rolodex and being accepted (whether the startup succeeds or not) is a badge of validation that opens many doors internationally.

The trade-off is worth it.

<comment><USER4> Also, the YC badge allows founders to raise a round at Demo Day at a MUCH higher valuation than even the 2nd best accelerator (and this has been shown to be true for almost every single company in each batch) -- the difference is staggering.

<comment><USER5> Source/data?

<comment><AUTHOR> I've attended dozens of YC and non-YC demo days as an investor. I can vouch for the grandparent's comment. YC companies have valuations that are 1.5-2.5x higher than elsewhere, but (in my opinion) have outcomes that are 3x+ larger on average. So they are expensive investments on the surface, but still relatively great deals.

<comment><USER6> As a complete outsider who has never raised money or set foot in the valley my feeling is that without data this sounds like some sort of buddy-buddy system. Where's the data to back this up?

Basically the way I read this is if I have a business model that is likely to require a series A eventually (i.e. not profit oriented) if I won't apply to YC I'm setting myself up for a massively worse deal later?

<comment><AUTHOR> 1) I have anecdata about returns: my first fund wrapped up earlier this year. About 30% of our investments were in YC companies. Based on investment multiples, 3 of the top 6 companies in the portfolio were YC. This is based on multiples, not absolute valuations.

2) Investors are strongly incentivized to be greedy, so buddy-buddy systems are not in their self-interest. Most funds take a 20% cut of the profits they generate, so they are typically investing in YC companies only if they think those returns will be as good as lower-valued non-YC companies

3) FWIW, the valuations are only substantially higher for YC, and not for other accelerators (many of which are quite good). I think that is also evidence against a buddy-buddy conspiracy.

As to your question about Series As, I don't think YC has a huge effect on Series A valuations, although I haven't looked at the data there. The effect is mostly on seed valuations. I think of the YC badge as similar to a going to Harvard. When it comes to getting your first job (seed round), having a Harvard diploma is a great signal of your potential and might get you a higher starting salary. When it comes to future jobs (Series A and later), people will look more at what you've done since graduating than where you went to school.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This data analysis is cheating. You can't provide an earnest data visualization and _obfuscate the data_ (the corresponding YC companies) at the same time, as it makes it impossible to validate. True, VCs can't disclose the metrics revealed in a Demo Day, which makes the existence of this article problematic.

Additionally:

> If we annualized revenue for each company on the twelfth month after demo > day, then annualized revenue per company would vary from $1 million to _$159 > billion_.

What the hell?

</comment><comment><USER8> Tangentially related to this article, a few growth number tricks I've seen from founders recently:

-Flying all over the country speaking at conferences giving away tons of schwag while claiming zero dollars spent on advertising. "It's all organic growth!"

-Hiring a PR firm to get you mentions on industry blogs while again claiming zero dollars spent on advertising. "We get 1000 new visitors to our website every day and we've never spent any money on advertising."

-Un-launching their product when they don't see the growth numbers they want, "Right now we have about 50 users in a pre-launch focus group." AKA "Our first launch failed, so we are going to pretend it didn't happen." Followed by a second "launch" so that growth numbers look good "since launch".

</comment><comment><USER9> It's popular to pick fights with YC and its ideas these days. Easy press. Other examples: Gab, CB Insights, various reporters. The recipe goes: Find someone or something famous. Find a bone to pick. Leverage famous something's name to generate headlines. People are going to click.

</comment><comment><USER10> I don't think that growth is a false signal. One major thing that kills startups is that people don't want what the company is building. The second derivative of revenue is a good way (i.e. signal) to measure product-market fit. The other major cause of death is cofounder breakups, and that's hard to predict.

Regardless, it's tough to predict the future.

</comment><comment><USER11> > Nick Mayberry, director of content at Tandem Capital, contributed to this > article.

This might explain why the article seems to try so hard to bash YC.

<comment><USER12> The article itself is written by a general partner at Tandem. It is pretty unusual in the business to have that kind of agenda frankly. Seed investing is the least zero sum stage in finance that I can think of. When founders win, seed investors win. I just can't see how this is a good tactic.

<comment><USER13> Garry, I wrote the article and by no means have any agenda against YC. Tandem owes much of its success to YC companies, and we don't intend to stop backing them now. The main point of the article (as some other commenters pointed out) is simply that not every company needs to be growing through the roof at demo day to be on track for success. Perhaps some don't think that warranted mentioning; I happen to think the reminder is healthy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Two points. One, my understanding of Paul's basic premise is that it's not the class quality that matters, it's the unicorns that matter. As in, in this game, you're not chasing good classes. You want the one or two superstars, even if they're in a crap class. Secondly, the analysis I'd find useful is one that looks at unicorns using hindsight. How early can you tell them apart? They are the ones we came here for, remember? It's a very hard task, like telling the gender of day-old chicks.

<comment><USER3> > Paul's basic premise is that it's not the class quality that matters, it's > the unicorns that matter... You want the one or two superstars, even if > they're in a crap class....

I used to wonder at this thinking and so apparently have many other observers until I hit upon the realization that the narrative from YC was misleading. It doesn't make sense to rest your entire strategy on seeking one or two superstars from a crap class. What is really going on, is that they organize the most promising applicants into a class then nurture and wait for unicorns to emerge. The midlings make returns too

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> The real point of this article isn't to be right, it's to generate more eyeballs and provoke discussions. More TC clickbait.

</comment><comment><USER16> TL;DR

Not every company that has a revenue chart shaped like a hockey stick is going to become a multi billion dollar business. Consider looking at metrics other than growth when investing.

Is this actually something that needs to be said?

</comment><comment> mck- Am I reading the second chart correctly? $44m in MRR across the 22 companies, ie an average of $2m MRR after demo day?

That sounds like Series B metrics? Why did they go through YC?

</comment><comment><USER17> Deleted</comment>


Ask HN: What are some resources for sharpening my EDA skills? - <AUTHOR> Over the past few months I've learned that exploratory data analysis and data wrangling skills are essential for doing quality data science work. Unfortunately, I am not sure <i>how</i> I can improve my skills in order to perform the art well. What are some resources that can significantly improve my skills? <comment><USER2> A few steps:

1) Find examples where people have gone through the analysis already. Blogs and books help.

2) First read the whole process from start to finish and then replicate what they did line by line.

3) Write extensive notes on why each line is necessary.

4) After you've done about 20-30 of these, level up into not reading the whole process. Just start at line one like they did and try to guess what should be done next. This allows you to check your thought process against someone else's thought process.

5) Do about another 20-30 of the #4 steps.

The reason you want to do the above is that a) it'll teach you how others people think about EDA, b) it'll force you to explain to yourself why people did what they did, c) you can wrote through already written out solutions, and d) once you get to steps 4 and 5, it allows you to see what has sunk in and what you're forgetting.</comment>


Travel blogger comes clean about the 'dirty little secrets' - <AUTHOR> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4497724/Travel-blogger-comes-clean-tactics-used-Instagram.html#ixzz4hdabsXjw <comment><AUTHOR> If bypassing Daily Fail is of interest, link to blog:

[http://behindthequest.com/](http://behindthequest.com/)</comment>


Ask HN: What is your experience/review of Lift.do? It's backed by Twitter  - <AUTHOR>

It's back by Twitter founders and I haven't seen/heard much about it on HN. Wondering what the community thinks of the service and if it actually worked for them. <comment><USER2> I was under the impression that it had a large number of bots to try and create a fake network effect.

The idea itself though si good and I like the service.</comment>


1060-hour image of the Large Magellanic Cloud captured by amateur astronomers - <AUTHOR> https://astrospace-page.blogspot.com/2019/04/1060-hours-image-of-the-large-magellanic-cloud-chile.html <comment><USER2> Hi Everyone! I'm glad to see so much interest in this Image in this amazing community. I'm the CTO of Observatorio El Sauce, the observatory where this telescope is located. This place is a fully robotic observatory that provides a service called "Telescope Hosting", which basically means that people send their telescopes and observe remotely from wherever they live. Why would they do that instead of observing from their backyards? That's because in that part of Chile we have the best sky quality for astronomy in the world, in terms of amount of clear nights a year (320 clera nights a year), light pollution (class 1 en Bortle scale), and in something called "seeing" (average below 1"), which is a measure of the smallest thing the sky would allow you to image (the smaller the better). Thus, from our observatory our clients get the best possible image they can get with their telescopes.

Also, a good friend of mine developed this digital scope so you can zoom in the picture easily without going back to the 90ties internet experience: [https://scope.avocco.com/case/20/eWKcUiIXpuQU9V0z](https://scope.avocco.com/case/20/eWKcUiIXpuQU9V0z)

I'd be happy to answer to your questions :) Enjoy!

<comment><USER3> Cool service! Can you say anything on how many telescopes you host, and ballpark price, and any history of how the observatory got started (land, permits etc)?

<comment><USER2> Hi! Thanks :) We have already 30 telescopes for different purposes, mainly for science and astrophotography. Our standard plans, which include maintenance and most of the support you'd need, cost around 7500 usd/year. The project started in 2012, we spent a couple of years finding the land, doing all the necessary paperwork and getting permits, getting internet, etc. Our first telescope arrived in the beginning of 2015. Our goal is to be a professional alternative to the big scientific observatories, but mainly purposed for small and middle-sized telescopes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The robotic telescope mount they use (Paramount MX+) is made by a small company in Golden, CO called Software Bisque [1].

These mounts are amazing pieces of engineering. I want one just to fondle the finely machined and anodized aluminum.

[1] [http://www.bisque.com/sc/pages/ParamountLandingPage.aspx](http://www.bisque.com/sc/pages/ParamountLandingPage.aspx)

</comment><comment><USER5> Full image [http://www.cielaustral.com/galerie/photo95.htm?fbclid=IwAR3G...](http://www.cielaustral.com/galerie/photo95.htm?fbclid=IwAR3GMt0zg_9VrcXH3moy7-lR7stH2Gb- ZOYPpvpTKMZooK7LpMBa97PQx2Y). (Linked in article) Really incredible.

<comment><USER6> For anyone with a shitty computer like me, zooming into that is currently crashing my browser ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯

<comment><USER7> I have random freezes. Firefox can't handle 200 MP, I guess

<comment><USER8> Works just fine for me. Loads in 2 seconds, zooms instantly. Maybe something wrong with your computer or Internet?

<comment><USER9> My first guess, not enough ram.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> " Indeed, astrophotographers used a couple of special filters which transmit narrow parts -lines- of the visible spectrum : the Hydrogen Alpha line at 656 nm, the Sulfur line at 672 nm and the Oxygen III spectral line at 500 nm"

Can anyone comment on how much the images produced by these filters differ from what the human eye would see if somehow it was able to look at these objects. Are they also taking in information from the non visible spectrum and coloring it or is this all just a focusing of a light that real humans would have been able to perceive?

I know they mentioned using different filters to achieve the two different images but was

<comment><USER11> There are several parts to the answer of your question.

First of all, emission nebulas are not very bright, so no telescope can give a picture as bright as a long-time exposure does. If you can see a nebula through a telescope at all, it will be very faint. Which triggers another effect in your eye: the cells for color reception are not very sensitive. Like with general night vision, you will see nebulas usually only with your light- sensitive receptors, which don't see colors. So it will appear in a grey- greenish color.

High quality pictures of nebulas are taken at very specific wavelengths, of common emission frequencies, you listed them. Even at high brightness, they wouldn't directly convert into a good color picture, as 500nm is turquise, 656 and 672nm are very deep red. A color image converting these wavelengths directly into RGB-values would be not very impressive, it would look more like the bottom image on the page. So usually a color mapping is used to generate impressive images which also show a lot of the detail information. With 3 different "colors" in the source image, you can apply an arbitrary transformation to generate an RGB-image. For example, most images from the Hubble telescope use a common mapping which is consequently called the Hubble- telescope mapping. Like shown on the page, you can create very different looking images from the same data set by choosing the color mapping.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I love that this was done by five amateur astronomers. Here is a description of the group and their set up: [http://www.cielaustral.com](http://www.cielaustral.com)

</comment><comment><USER13> It blows my mind to zoom in on just one part of the picture and see how many stars there are. And then multiply that by the entire picture. And then multiply that by all the galaxies in the universe. My mind just isn't built to comprehend numbers that large.

<comment><USER14> And some of those "stars" are actually galaxies themselves! Truly mind blowing.

<comment><USER15> Actually, most of those dots are galaxies. The dots that make up the large structures are stars in the LMC which is a collection of star clusters, but everything else that is not part of some larger structure must be a galaxy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The glowing up arrow this site displays is makes reading on mobile really annoying. Why distract from the content with a UI pulsar?

<comment><USER17> Maybe the designer believes the feature of scrolling to the banner image at the top is absolutely essential and should be done frequently! That's why they made it red and blink, it's very important!

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> While spending about 30 minutes zooming in and marvelling at it, i came across [https://imgur.com/fdb6JZH](https://imgur.com/fdb6JZH). Is this an exploding star?

<comment><USER19> This is DEM L316. It might seem like one object, but these are the remnants of two different supernovas (of different types: smaller is Type Ia, bigger Type II).

[0] [http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2005/d316/](http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2005/d316/)

<comment><USER18> Ah! Thanks for the link.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This was made with 3936 photos taken between July 2017 and January 2019, each of up to 20 min long, looking at several parts of the spectrum. Amazing!

</comment><comment><USER21> Here is a viewer for the images

[https://scope.avocco.com/case/20/eWKcUiIXpuQU9V0z](https://scope.avocco.com/case/20/eWKcUiIXpuQU9V0z)

</comment><comment><USER22> Does anybody know how expensive the setup described is?

\- Remotely-controlled observatory at the El Sauce Observatory in Chile

\- A 160-mm APO-refractor telescope and a Moravian CCD

\- Presumably hefty image processing requirements

\- etc.

I get that these guys are amateurs in that they are not being paid for this but presumably this costs some serious money? Or are the components they use in reach of a well to do hobbyist these days (all relative I know)?

<comment><USER23> All in USD: Scope 13k Camera 7k Mount 9k

Thats just the big ticket stuff. Theyll have a guidescope, colour filters, laptop (i assume), all sorts of paraphernalia supporting the effort.

Given that its remote controlled and in an observatory in Chile I suspect that adds another order of magnitude to the cost. But I'm unsure specifically how much, or if they're renting scope time.

You can buy much cheaper equipment and still do admirably, this set up is really quite extreme for a hobbyist.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Can someone give a quick explanation of the objects the picture? Are all the nebulas in the LMC or in the foreground? Is the LMC the reddish haze in the backround?

<comment><USER25> The LMC is effectively a galaxy that we captured and started tearing stars from. The white disk is the core.

<comment><USER26> Are the cloudy puffs remnants of exploded stars?

<comment><USER27> Some of them, yes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I'd love to print this on 15 foot wide wallpaper for the kids bedroom.

<comment><USER29> Well, that's what I'm doing tomorrow, but it will be for my living room. It's a 135x242cm piece of wall, which is a not as a square ratio as the image, so I had to crop it from its upper left corner down. Inkscape exported it to a 666MB PNG (ugh) I don't know why. So let's see...

<comment><USER14> How large are the sections that you're printing? And how are you printing them?

<comment><USER29> It's one section only which is 15945x28583px. I'll have it printed at a shop near home which is specialized in large printings for cars and trucks. Their printings are like peel out stickers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> What kinds of image processing are used for this? Do the images need to be aligned, or can telescopes be pointed precisely enough? Are the images combined using mean/median, or something more sophisticated than that? What settings are the original photos captured with?

<comment><USER31> There are several software options on image processing for astrophotography. Do a search for 'astrophotography image stacking', and you'll get a list of software, tutorials, videos, etc. A couple of the popular ones are Deep Sky Stacker[0] or PixInsight[1] or even Photoshop. They offer different options/capabilities.

The main thing about the capture settings is to use RAW. Other settings ISO/exposure time/etc is dependent on camera being used. However, whatever you can do to capture as much light as possible within each frame is the goal.

The software does image alignment rotate/scale/etc to do the stacking. You can stack images taken of the same object from different physical locations. Spend a weekend in the desert shooting an object, then spend another weekend the next month at the top of a mountain shooting the same object, and all of the images can be stacked.

The telescope alignment precision is important, but less so than it used to be for a couple of reasons. With gear available today, you can take "portable" telescopes into the field, do a decent polar alignment and then allow the guide scope/software to correct for any imprecision of the main scope's alignment and even tracking issues from manufacturing issues with the mount's worm gear. A guide scope is a second smaller telescope (wider field of view) attached to the main scope with a camera attached to it. That camera is connected to a computer running the guide software, and will track a designated star. The guide software will talk to the telescope's motors, and can speed up/slow down the motors to keep the guide star to within a 1/4 pixel deviation.

Also, with digital cameras, images of shorter exposure times are taken and then stacked in software. There's multiple benefits to doing this. Consider exposing a single frame for 60 minutes, or 12 5 minute exposures, or 30 2 minute exposures. If anything bad happens during that exposure (a plane or a satellite crosses your view, someone uses a laser pointer through your frame of view, a bug lands on your primary, etc) it's not "that big of a deal" to capture it again. Also, digital camera sensors tend to get noisy with longer exposures due to heat build up around the sensor (a problem film cameras do not suffer).

[0] [http://deepskystacker.free.fr/english/index.html](http://deepskystacker.free.fr/english/index.html) [1] [http://www.pixinsight.com/](http://www.pixinsight.com/)

<comment><USER32> _> Also, digital camera sensors tend to get noisy with longer exposures due to heat build up around the sensor (a problem film cameras do not suffer)._

Maybe worth pointing out that film has its own issues with long exposures, though. If I remember right, film's response to light isn't strictly linear with exposure time so you get less and less useful additional exposure as you expose longer.

<comment><USER11> Yes, with film there is the Schwarzschild-effect which causes the sensitivity and the color reaction vary with the exposure time.

While digital camera sensors usually pick up noise for long-time exposures, this is less an issue for astronomical cameras, because they fight this noise by cooling the CCD-chip. Usually the chip is cooled via a Peltier-element to temperatures below -20C, where thermal noise is very low.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> It is not possible to ever see a scene like this even if one were sitting in deep space is it? These sorts of images are the result long exposures, but a human would only see blackness and stars, and maybe some faint puffs of light here and there.

<comment><USER34> You wouldnt ever see the colors. They are far too dim without magnification. If you were standing in the cloud you would probably see it a little, like we see our galaxy as a blurry cloud, but only on the darkest nights.

<comment><USER35> There's some astrophotography that fills in bands of the wavelength we can't see with colours to give us the perception of being able to see gas clouds etc. I'm not sure if this is done here but it's probably worth mentioning that not all space images you see are realistic in terms of human visible wavelengths.

<comment><USER34> Then we should also mention that human color vision changes depending on light levels, with us being more sensitive to some colors than others. So when you over-expose an image you aren't just making it brighter but changing the ratios of perceived colors. (A big deal for eye witness reports of crime at night.) At very low levels our vision becomes essentially black and white.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Lol, nostalgia. Watching that image load slowly from top to bottom is so 1994 for me.

<comment><USER9> Are you using zmodem? Believe it can resume a broken transmission. ;-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> With these hi-res images I'm always curious which of the stars actually belong to the galaxy and which ones are "noise", i.e., stars that are from our own galaxy "blurring" the view.

I think filtering out "local" stars should be very doable given ML/CV progress.

<comment><USER37> With images taken 6 months apart, spanning earths orbit of the sun, you might be able to detect some parallax motion of the nearest stars.

<comment><USER38> Propper Motion is usually the greater of the two effects that cause stars to appear in different places. So it's not quite so simple.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I would love to see a version of this with the "noise" of the stars cleaned up and the brightness/saturation of the clouds increased.

</comment><comment><USER40> The actual title is: 1,060-hour image of the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) captured by Amateur Astronomers

It should probably be changed to a shortened form of that.

</comment><comment><USER41> Are there areas of the world with no light pollution where you see anything remotely like this with the naked eye? Any parts of the Milky Way?

<comment><USER42> No, the best you can do unaided is just a general view of the Milky Way.

But if you're willing to accept some optical aids like a reflector and eye piece, a large amateur "light bucket" dobsonian telescope can unveil deep space objects to the naked eye.

I don't think it's possible to get anything like these photos though, the sensor is collecting light over a _very_ long duration to present as a single image. The only way to get more light into your naked eye real-time is with more aperture, obviously there are practical limits there.

<comment><USER43> I've seen the Magellanic Clouds with my naked eye. I worked at an observatory in rural Argentina (location because light pollution). One night, I went out to one of the telescopes for emergency maintenance. When we got back out into the dark and hadn't turned on the headlamps of the car yet, the Milky Way stretched like a band across the sky, and you could see both Magellanic Clouds as small but macroscopic objects, indeed looking like clouds.

This was among the most breathtaking things I've ever seen (the other being a particularly vivid showing of northern lights in Alaska). The southern hemisphere's sky is infinitely more exciting than the northern one.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> The fractalness (is that a word?) of the universe never ceases to amaze.

<comment><USER28> Fractosity?

Fractal nature of?

<comment><USER45> Fractality.

<comment><USER46> Sounds like Mortal Kombat finishing move.

<comment><USER47> or something Andy Samberg would say on Nine-Nine.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> What is the very bright object with a bluish hue in the top left?

<comment><USER49> The Beam Nebula N11 as per [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3c/Eso1021d...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3c/Eso1021d.jpg)

<comment><USER45> It says "Bean" there.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> It certainly has a Van Gogh feel to it. Really awesome :)

</comment><comment><USER51> That link redirects to a spam site for me. Anyone else?</comment>


25 highest paying companies for software engineers 2013 - <AUTHOR> http://www.glassdoor.com/blog/25-highest-paying-companies-software-engineers-2013-glassdoor-report/

<comment><AUTHOR> I would like this adjusted by local cost of living. A lot of the highest are in the Bay Area, where $150k ain't what it is in cheaper cities like New York. (Not a joke.)

<comment><USER2> Link is broken for me.

Yes, cost of living is differently something to consider when talking about salaries. I think a person living in the middle of no where not spending near nothing on rent making $40K probably saves more than a person living in San Francisco making $100K.

I would much rather live in the mountains getting paid $50K than live in San Francisco getting paid $100K+, but that's just my personal preference.</comment></comment>


Phishing attacks taking advantage of automatic Google Calendar events - <AUTHOR> https://www.androidpolice.com/2019/06/22/google-calendar-phising-scam/ <comment><USER2> "It's quite sad some people are finding such ingenious ways to extort money out of naive users."

To me, it's quite sad that some (Google) people even consider implementing something like automatic event creation from untrusted sources. It's not 1980 anymore, we have known for a long time now that there are indeed bad people on the Internet.

At this point, dismissing such ideas should be as instinctive as not putting your hand into the fire.</comment>


Atomically thin LED opens the possibility for invisible displays - <AUTHOR> http://news.berkeley.edu/2018/03/26/atomically-thin-light-emitting-device-opens-the-possibility-for-invisible-displays/ <comment><USER2> > By laying the semiconductor monolayer on an insulator and placing electrodes > on the monolayer and underneath the insulator, the researchers could apply > an AC signal across the insulator. During the moment when the AC signal > switches its polarity from positive to negative (and vice versa), both > positive and negative charges are present at the same time in the > semiconductor, creating light.

This is highly simplified, but essentially the LED is now capacitively coupled to its supply on one side, _through_ the insulator*. As a result it has to be driven with AC. Neat trick.

<comment><USER3> That's similar to how electroluminescent displays work. Except those use an insulating layer and electrode layer on both sides of the light producing layer instead of just one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The standard showcase for such things are usually transparent displays. While looking cool, they would be pretty annoying: There's always interference with the background. That's also why no one uses transparent whiteboards as seen in movies.

But of course, it would also be neat to just have displays on surfaces where not visible when turned off.

<comment><USER5> On-screen keyboards are pretty annoying, that didn't stop them from becoming the only option available.

<comment><USER6> They're the only option available because tiny mobile keyboards were pretty damned annoying, too, while also carrying the cost of dozens of potential points of failure, taking up a considerable amount of real estate regardless of how long the keyboard is actually used, and forcing a particular key layout on the user. I honestly don't think I'd buy a phone with a hard keyboard, even if there were decent options for one.

<comment><USER7> Slide out keyboards are an option. Combine with an on screen keyboard for the other layout and the only cost is a slightly thicker device.

<comment><USER8> I had a Blackberry Torch [1] for a while in the early 2010's. The keyboard was great, and you could use a touchscreen keyboard as well (it would seamlessly switch the app to fullscreen if you slide it open). It was thicker and heavier than most comparable phones, but with modern tech that would be less of an issue.

The biggest problem with it at the time was it was running Blackberry OS, which was a reasonable e-mail client, mediocre (and later, noticeably outdated) browser, and abysmal app store and selection of 3rd party apps. I remember saying it would have been a great phone if they had dropped their own OS and went to Android (and spent their software dev time making their version of Android better and building their e-mail client etc on top).

My next phone was an Android something or other, and by then, I was more than happy to give up the physical keyboard to get something more useful than an e-mail interface brick in my pocket.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BlackBerry_Torch_9800](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BlackBerry_Torch_9800)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Some more pictures from the article itself: [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-03218-8/figures/4](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-03218-8/figures/4)

</comment><comment><USER10> Float-in-the-air 3D displays/images are in the labs already! [https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-01125-y](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-01125-y)

</comment><comment><USER11> If you can layer enough of such invisible screens, you could make a nice 3d display, although I'm not sure if it would actually look nice (you could probably see through objects).

<comment><USER12> WE could build a real Voxatron!

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> This did not inspire confidence:

 _Commercial LEDs consist of a semiconductor material that is electrically injected with positive and negative charges, which produce light when they meet. Typically, two contact points are used in a semiconductor-based light emitting device; one for injecting negatively charged particles and one injecting positively charged particles._

Isn't that a bit too simplified?

That said it sounds like very cool technology although hard to see how electrical wires to each pixel would be as invisible at wall-sized scales.

<comment><USER14> _although hard to see how electrical wires to each pixel would be as invisible at wall-sized scales._

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

<comment><USER15> ITO isn't really transparent... it's pretty yellow (80-95% transmission) and it doesn't carry current well (20-100ohm/sq). You'd be better off with a metal mesh with large pitch electrodes. You're going to need some wires to address the display as well (whether active or passive matrix).

With a large pitch Cu or Al conductors you can do 5ohm/sq with good transparency. That will let you do 200nits (candela/m2) with the efficiency of these thin LEDs. ITO would be 10x lower conductance and only works in LCDs because they are inverting voltage light valves (not light sources).

If everything worked out you could reasonably view thin LEDs in a dim office environment. That's not really interesting unless it's 3D.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Can't wait to wake up with ads on my windows...

<comment><USER17> That's been happening for a while now: [https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/17/14956540/microsoft- window...](https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/17/14956540/microsoft- windows-10-ads-taskbar-file-explorer)

<comment><USER18> I don't think the parent poster you replied to thought of -Microsoft- windows, but the ones in your home.

<comment><USER17> It was a knowing play-on-words; forgive the triviality, but it was too perfect an opportunity ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Well what's the point of the display if you can't see it? ;)

<comment><USER20> Google glass without mirrors?

<comment><USER21> I think it still needs optics so your eyes can focus on it correctly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> [https://hackaday.com/2013/12/31/case-modder-builds-lcd- windo...](https://hackaday.com/2013/12/31/case-modder-builds-lcd-window- causes-lsd-flashbacks/)

</comment><comment><USER23> Isn't heat a current major concern with LEDs? If so wouldn't this have to be hooked up to a heatsink in practice making the transparency irrelevant?

<comment><USER2> Heat is entirely dependent on brightness. It's only really an issue when using LEDs for illumination at multi-watt levels.

Tiny thin LEDs are necessarily not going to have a huge power output. If the substrate is glass it will have decent thermal conductivity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Can it show black pixels? What is the contrast ratio?

<comment><USER25> This is just a single LED. And you are asking about specs of some future product that may use it.

I think you can make background dark (from transparent) by using good old LCD technology. Because that's basically what LCD is about.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Once it becomes cheap enough, this might give a huge boost to indoor farming.

<comment><USER27> Not being familiar with the area, what problem would this solve for indoor farming?

<comment><USER28> At a guess, being able to easily augment sunlight in parts of the world that get few hours of sunlight during local winter. Sun shines through when it's there, LED takes over when not.

However in practice I don't think this would be useful - they're considerably less efficient than existing LEDs (currently 1% vs 25-30%) and I think that efficiency is more of a problem than transparency.

<comment><USER29> They aren't diodes either

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> This isn't an LED (in fact it isn't a diode at all). Can we rename the submission title?

<comment><USER31> Looks like they meant LED as in _l_ight _e_mitting _d_evice.

<comment><USER30> That simply isn't what the acronym LED means. It's equivalent to using WMD to mean 'weapons of mass disruption'.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Looks like they figured out how to make LEDs with atomic layer deposition

</comment><comment><USER33> Apple will love this, a screen that breaks even easier.

<comment><USER34> Seems to be bendable so maybe breaking it is harder than current screens.

> "The materials are so thin and flexible that the device can be made > transparent and can conform to curved surfaces," said Der-Hsien Lien, a > postdoctoral fellow at UC Berkeley and a co-first author

<comment><USER35> I expect once the material has conformed to a curved surface it would have to be rigid from there on out.

<comment><USER2> Maybe, maybe not. Flat flexible circuits are established technology. LG already have a flexible display, although apparently it has a dead pixel problem. [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35230043](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35230043)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Transparent OLEDs (TOLEDs), Transparent Quantum Dot LEDs (QD-LEDs), Transparent Inorganic LEDs, have all been around for a long time now:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJQzPrkkH6A](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJQzPrkkH6A) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lv46YU-X9Xs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lv46YU-X9Xs)

I'm confuzzled by the 'news', although the AC drive, vice DC is interesting I suppose.

<comment><USER37> Feature wise they sound similar, but we're talking about three atoms thick here. This could be world-changing tech if it gets efficient enough.</comment></comment>


America's Most Underappreciated Right: Public Assembly - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/americas-most-under-appreciated-right/603910/ <comment><USER2> Something I wish was addressed is what the right to peaceable assembly even looks like in the age of technology. I guess the same could be said about free speech, but I feel the greatest threat to these rights isn't from the government, but from tech monopolies whose platforms have become defacto "town halls" or "town squares". If Reddit, Twitter, Discord etc, are how people assemble and communicate in the 21st century, then what are the implications of these companies being able to shut down groups unilaterally?

<comment><USER3> The "Town square" has never given you a global audience.

Reddit, twitter, and discord are not the equivalent of a Town square, they're a global square giving normal people access to an audience they never would have previously had access to.

I get that you have opinions about this, but pretending that the right to have your tweets promoted to an audience of millions and the right to free assembly are in any way the same is just muddying the waters.

<comment><USER4> Well the first amendment also includes freedom of the press, which inherently involves the amplification of speech to reach the masses. So I think the Internet is easily covered.

<comment><USER5> No, it prevents the government from censoring the press. It does not require that any given press publish you. In other words, if you're going to consider that "Facebook" is like "The Washington Post", you have no right to be published in either.

And the government forcing either to publish you _is_ an attack on the freedom of speech of the publisher. Because forcing them to say something they don't want to is a clear and obvious violation of their freedom of speech.

<comment><USER6> Freedom of the press has nothing to do with publishers or institutions; "the press" is not a separate entity from "The People". All citizens may exercise freedom of the press whether they're a credentialed journalist or a rando with a camera phone. And I think the argument being made is that social media like Facebook is more akin to a public forum than a curated publication like The Washington Post.

<comment><USER5> I'm well aware. Of what the press is, as defined by the Constitution.

And my point is that such an argument is wrong, and furthermore dangerous. If you allow the government to control what Facebook can or cannot publish, well you're now saying the government can control the press.

If it's a monopoly, deal with the monopoly. Being a monopoly doesn't revoke constitutional rights.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Assembling peacefully is OK in the USA, unless the authorities don't like it, then it's not OK.

Like Occupy wall street when loads of people were arrested just for assembling.[1]

Of course, there's always the classic "arrested for resisting arrest" [2] too.

[1] [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/oct/19/naomi-wolf- arr...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/oct/19/naomi-wolf-arrested- occupy-wall-street)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeDsO5R8Xr0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeDsO5R8Xr0)

Even when you know the law, and follow it very closely, you can still be arrested.

[2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Moe1-8rguk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Moe1-8rguk)

<comment><USER8> It's important to remember that even fundamental rights are subject to things like time, place, and manner restrictions. The right to free speech does not generally include doing so at 150Db at 2am in a residential neighborhood. It also sometimes includes restrictions like not blocking public right-of-ways while assembling in public. Freedom of religion does not extend to freedom to engage in the practice of human sacrifice.

I understand that not everyone shares this understanding. I also understand that not everyone agrees that such restrictions are reasonable.

<comment><USER7> I understand and agree with everything you said.

My understanding is that around 2000 people were arrested[1] for peacefully assembling. It wasn't 2am, and they were not sacrificing any humans.

In the case of Naomi being arrested that I posted above, she very clearly knew the sidewalks are public, and she was very clearly not breaking any laws, and was arrested anyway. Of course charges were later dropped, because the Police very well knew they had nothing on her.

So when the Police in the USA don't like your perfectly legal use of 'right at assemble' they arrest you, fingerprint you, make sure you get a record and are out of the way for a while, then just kick you out the back door when they're sick of you.

That doesn't sound so great to me.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_Wall_Street#Arrests](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_Wall_Street#Arrests)

<comment><USER9> Then it would be up to a competent attorney to sue the arresting officer under 42 usc 1983 civil actions for deprivations of rights. The law provided for reasonable attorney fees to be paid by a defendant who violated your civil rights. The nice thing is that even though your suing the officer who violated your civil rights they are usually covered by an insurance policy so it's technically not an asset poor officer paying the judgement

<comment><USER7> > _Then it would be up to a competent attorney to sue the arresting officer > under 42 usc 1983 civil actions for deprivations of rights. The law provided > for reasonable attorney fees to be paid by a defendant who violated your > civil rights_

So you somehow feel better about your rights being deprived because "sue everyone". In the mean time the authorities have effectively shut down the protest, that was perfectly legal. But they stopped it anyway. So it achieved nothing, and the 'right to assemble' is a myth.

> _The nice thing is that even though your suing the officer who violated your > civil rights they are usually covered by an insurance policy so it 's > technically not an asset poor officer paying the judgement_

Ah, the _true_ American dream. Sue someone for a ton of money, and you don't even have to feel bad about it because it's not even their money!

<comment><USER9> Better that then the successful plaintiff being left holding the bag when their civil rights are horrifically violated. Excessive force cases can and do result in death and disability not including whatever mental trauma. Better the people that the state that employs law enforcement bear the cost associated with their actions, then victims of civil rights violations are unable to collect against a bankrupt defendant.

<comment><USER10> Any comment on the "In the mean time the authorities have effectively shut down the protest, that was perfectly legal" aspect?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> > Republicans have threatened to strip Planned Parenthood of its tax-exempt > status

What on earth has that to do with public assembly?

<comment><USER4> I'm not sure, but I do know the court ruled that defunding Planned Parenthood was a violation of their first amendment rights. But I don't think assembly was it?

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Digital surveillance has created somewhat of a dilemma for those that just want their voice heard and has perverted public assembly along the way.

As mentioned, when the topic of assembly is Okay, its fine and dandy, but if its only OK (ex. Pot rally) or deemed non-PC, the facial ID exploits, IMEI catchers and LPR's ensure a detailed record of attendees (more than in generations past) which is more than the "I got the t-shirt" souvenir most expect.

Data brokers (public, private,government) have weaponized the first amendment in many ways and it has been acknowledged in Hong Kong by the obfuscation needed for peaceful assembly.

Its better to offer surrogates and dark money in a system like that, which goes against the principles of democracy, but it is what it is.

Its the same way outside of America too:

[https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/this-student- attende...](https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/this-student-attended-a- protest-at-an-australian-uni-days-later-chinese-officials-visited-his- family-20190807-p52eqb.html)

[https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/german-student- jakob-l...](https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/german-student-jakob- lindenthal-iit-madras-1631479-2019-12-25)

</comment><comment><USER13> Worth mentioning this right is often shut down by bullshit police. In Berkeley they shut down protests over police brutality after Eric Gardner died by shooting tear gas into the crowds and beating whomever they could. I'll admit the next day they were more tame (thanks to all the videos catching their abuse) but I'll never forget seeing four officers beat up some female student twenty feet away. Disgusting.

</comment><comment><USER14> Strange to use the word "most" without much effort to compare to other rights.

And it also doesn't really define "underappreciated" very well.</comment>


Bursting the Vista sales bubble: 35% of sample "downgrade" to XP - <AUTHOR> http://weblog.infoworld.com/sentinel/archives/2008/08/bursting_the_vi.html

<comment><USER2> Representative sample or not, this is a real phenomenon. A lot of Vista's so- called sales are not really sales at all. Just last fall, I bought an Everex laptop that came with Vista and never even booted into the OS, immediately eschewing it in favor of Gentoo.

<comment><USER3> Dell is still offering the "Windows Vista Business Bonus" option on new PCs, which really means that for 99 bucks extra you get Windows XP pre-installed and a Vista disc and license for later.

I just recently ordered two of these for a local client that does energy research. They're running some older test software, some custom stuff, and TightVNC on a couple of other systems, none of which works (or works easily, or works well) on Vista. At this point, it's smarter for them to pay the extra 99 dollars to stick with XP.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The "print this page" link: [http://weblog.infoworld.com/archives/emailPrint.jsp?R=printT...](http://weblog.infoworld.com/archives/emailPrint.jsp?R=printThis&A=http://weblog.infoworld.com/sentinel/archives/2008/08/bursting_the_vi.html)

</comment><comment><USER5> "enterprise-class users" are generally clueless and very stuck in their ways.

This survey means nothing, and is classic (and tired) link/flame bait.

</comment><comment><USER6> I know it's fashionable to shit on Vista these days, but come on.

 _we had to find our own source of comparison data. Fortunately, one of the parameters we collect from the several thousand members of the exo.performance.network community using the Windows Sentinel monitoring tool is the name of the system manufacturer._

So basically they have taken a completely irrelevant part of the market, definitely thrown that whole "representative selection" thing which is crucial to proper statistic out the window, and extrapolated their way to a conclusion.

Has anyone here even _heard_ about the Windows Sentinel monitoring tool until now? I know for sure I haven't, and I am pretty invested in the Windows platform.

 _[ Join the exo.performance.network community, and monitor your PC's performance with the InfoWorld Windows Sentinel tool. ]_

So a quick read reveals its something you have to _install_. Something you have to be an _active_ participant in.

If not even techies have heard about it, you can be damned sure that your average Joe haven't, and that these data are worthless for making conclusions on any wider audience.

<comment><USER7> I'm having miserable performance. Vista takes ages to load, and even then the system will not infrequently "freeze" (turn a zonked-out white and spin internal wheels) while I'm doing nothing more complex than surf the Internet. It takes about a minute after systems load until the cable modem is usable.

In terms of basic usability, Vista is hands-down the worst-performing OS I've ever had. I am genuinely curious how a company like Microsoft could let a stinker like this out the door.

I would downgrade if I could, but have a dual-boot machine and - frankly - don't want to risk letting anything coming out of Redmond screw around with my harddrive and systems while at least 50% (the Ubuntu portion I use most of the time) is the most powerful and stable system I've ever used. The only reason I'm ever in Vista is for audio editing work, so it is tolerable in that sense too.

<comment><USER6> That might be, but it's still 100% irrelevant. I'm not debating the merits of Vista as a OS, but the validity of these statistics outside the scope in which they were gathered.

If you, _a techie_ , which admits despite hating Vista still having it installed, what are the chances the average Joe's have gone trough with a downgrade?

Until we get actual, real numbers, I see no point in discussing the failure or success of Vista from a sales point of view.

<comment><USER8> I got Vista with a laptop and I couldn't use it either, but what I've noticed is that most normal users get Vista with new PC's and they are so used to spyware/malware/adware making their computer work like crap that they never even notice how much slower vista is. They just expect their computer to take 4 minutes to start IE and thrash the HDD the entire time its on.

They don't switch back to XP. It never even occurs to them. Most of them have a fairly dim idea about even the _difference_ between Vista and XP. Its just another computer that doesn't work very well. Like all of the other computers they've had.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Blekko Launches Izik, A Tablet-Optimized Search App - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2013/01/04/blekko-launches-izik

<comment><USER2> You guys crack me up. This is a wonderful app. The bar has been raised. But, I do have toput on my tinfoil hat. Why?

Izic = Issac.

And,

Nuuton = Newton.

Are you guys stalking me?I'm sure you are not. And this is something entirely different from what I'm doing. But it would be neat because Ive never had a stalker. ;)

Still, let me tell you that visual search is a trend that everyone should be paying attention to. Touch devices are changing the way people browse the web. Text links are being seen as less favorable than image links. Why? I think the connection comes from the icons used to launch apps. People now sort of see link images as icons instead of just images thta link somewhere. So, in the future, you might see search becoming more about a lost of website icons with a small description under it (if any).

Congrats to Chuck, Greg, and the gang at Blekko. This is very nice. You make me want to learn Perl and apply.

<comment><USER3> Heh. We've owned izik.com for more than 2 years now, and we almost launched with that name instead of blekko.

<comment><USER2> :) How does izic play in with rockzi? I suppose you plan on merging those two in the future. It seems natural to integrate social interactions into search, because that's what I'm doing in Nuuton (though differently from your approach).

<comment><USER3> Right now:

* blekko.com is "10 blue links", desktop search, slashtags used to eliminate webspam

* rockzi.com is [/category /date], date sorted results for a category (slashtag), with an image-heavy UI, social voting, and user submissions

* izik.com is search for the tablet, image-heavy UI for ALL of the categories (slashtags) that we think may be relevant for a search.

All 3 build on the same underlying crawl and index dataset. Rockzi and izik share UI elements.

<comment><USER2> I use roughly the same architecture. What I call the back-end (the crawling system and index) are just an API. Then the front-end connects to it to fill in the blanks. Though I don't know if you guys are doing logic in the front end part, but I'm definitely am. The ranking/rating can be modified from user input. Though this is abstracted and passes through various layers of security to prevent gaming. My front end is currently Django, but I will have to move to something faster if demands call for it. The back end is all custom stuff using async libraries.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Izik (pronounced "Itsik") is also a common Israeli nickname for "Yitzhak" (the hebrew origin for the English name Isaac; literally meaning "will laugh", and you can read the bible to figure out why).

But I guess you guys were going for "I seek"? (as in "ICQ" which was short for "I seek you"?)

Anyway, congrats! Looks great!

<comment><USER5> the translation of laughter seems appropriate for a search app designed to be playful and fun.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Someone leaked the names of their next few peoducts: Syzrup, Chkklo, Snopl, Crkol, Pawpl

<comment><USER5> good one "staunch"</comment></comment>


USPS loses millions each year on local delivery of mail from abroad (2014) - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/09/12/the-postal-service-is-losing-millions-a-year-to-help-you-buy-cheap-stuff-from-china/ <comment><USER2> > All of this is little comfort to McGrath, who chafes at the thought of the > Postal Service helping Chinese merchants poach his customers. "All of us > sellers are selling a lot of Chinese goods in America but at least we're > creating jobs, making money, and adding to the economy," he said. "But when > people buy direct from China that's adding nothing to the American economy."

I understand the seller's frustration - their means of supporting themselves has been taken away, but I'm not sure I buy the argument that we need the intermediary just to "add to the economy". To me it just seems like an unsustainable business model that was destined to die once global communication became much easier, not just because of the various treaties and agreements of postal services.

The moment that chinese sellers could get a site available to a global audience, the need for an intermediary vanished; before you essentially paid for the connection; an extra $18 on a remote controlled toy boat was paying for access to the seller's inventory, supplied by his Chinese connections.

Now, there's no need for that connection or that warehouse - the visibility for any foreign seller is much greater, even to the point that it probably would still be valuable even without the USPS trade deal.

It's unfortunate, but this just seems like a model that was destined to die.

<comment><USER3> But the core of the argument is that this isn't pure capitalist economics; the government is essentially subsidizing China's ability to compete in America. It'd be one thing if China could make it and ship it for legitimately cheaper, but abusing a treaty loophole in USPS regulations isn't the same. That's an unfair advantage.

There's also a second argument at play: If China can make a product for $10 cheaper, legitimate shipping included, because they're allowed to abuse their workers and pay them much less, do we trust pure capitalism to properly prioritize the values of the American people? This really is the case of, say, Apple's electronics plants in China.

<comment><USER4> As to your second argument, I'm still not sure why it is legal to buy or own materials in the US created by human rights abuse. Let's take a case of a Chinese good produced by political slaves in prison. By buying or owning that good, a person is financially supporting the abuse that went into creating that good. Same applies for something that is produced for cheaper due to an ability to pollute in ways that aren't legal in the US (or other countries, this argument need not be just for the US).

But there are some digital goods where we do not give this same treatment (namely digital material involving really bad child maltreatment). Regardless of the legality of where the material is produced, owning it in the US is illegal because it couldn't legally be produced in the US and funding such illegal action elsewhere is considered morally wrong enough to ban.

Simply put, I think the core idea should be applied to all financial transactions. If one is buying a good or service that would be illegal in the US due to harm to another human, it should be illegal to buy or own in the US, even if where it is produced is legal. The law should prevent a person from harming another human by shopping around and finding wherever has the least legal protections.

<comment><USER5> The problem is that the US has no moral high ground here. We too have prisoners manufacturing goods below minimum wage, and while you won't be jailed in the US because of your political affiliation, you definitely can be jailed because of your religion, ethnicity, etc.

If we applied this to foreign transactions, foreign countries could easily use the same grounds to block goods and services coming from the US.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> These costs were related to the terminal dues that USPS (and other postal services around the world) charge each other in exchange for distributing parcels in their respective countries. [1] The system dates back to the 1960s and was implemented to ensure people could exchange letters internationally -- and the massive increase in small international parcels from e-commerce transactions is now overwhelming it.

Things will change starting next year. The Universal Postal Union (UPU) has adopted a new revision of the terminal dues system [2] that classes bulky letters and small parcels differently from normal mail.

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

[2] [http://news.upu.int/no_cache/nd/member-countries-adopt- new-t...](http://news.upu.int/no_cache/nd/member-countries-adopt-new-terminal- dues-system/)

<comment><USER7> > Countries are currently classified by their level of development, meaning > those in the most developed groups pay contributions into the Quality of > Service Fund on top of terminal dues to those in the less developed group. > This mark up goes toward development projects in the recipient country.

Does this mean "less developed" China will end up being subsidized even more?

<comment><USER6> The change to the regime for bulky letters and parcels is not the same as the group mergers. I was referring mostly to the former, which will increase the dues for bulky letters and small parcels to a higher per-kg-rate than the current rate that applies to all mail.

The latter change merges some groups but will, to my understanding, not affect China. Groups 1.2 and 2 (countries which joined the terminal dues target system in 2010 and 2012, respectively) will get merged; as will the countries in groups 4 and 5, which are currently transition into the target system. China appears to remain in group 3. [1]

[1] [http://www.upu.int/uploads/tx_sbdownloader/listCountryClassi...](http://www.upu.int/uploads/tx_sbdownloader/listCountryClassificationEn.pdf)

<comment><USER7> To keep it simple: will China finally have to pay more (because they are also shipping across the sea) to ship a package to middle America than an American at <wherever the port is where the Chinese goods are unloaded>? Or will it just be _less_ of a subsidy.

<comment><USER6> No.

China will have to pay more than today because a lot of their parcels will fall into the (now more expensive) bulky letter category. The US remains highly-developed, so you can expect terminal dues to remain cheaper than the retail rate. Finally, I suppose the Chinese government will continue to subsidize the transport from China to the unloading port in the US.

In essence: When sending from China, you can expect to just about pay the terminal dues; the international transport is subsidized. You can expect this to stay true for as long as the US is significantly more developed than China.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It seems like it would have been good for them to mention that the white paper they cite giving the estimate of $79 million dollars lost on delivery of inbound international mail at artificially low treaty prices in 2013 also estimates savings of $136 million on delivery of outbound mail at artificially low treaty prices in 2013 for a net profit of $57 million. Also, it estimates that the inbound rates will increase 13% per year between 2014 and 2017, while the rates the US pays foreign countries will only increase 3% a year over this period.

</comment><comment><USER9> The US postal service has had an inaccurate price model forever. Bulk mail (junk mail) has always been way cheaper to send than first class. It's for the same reason - they act like delivery is almost no-cost. They assume the system is already in place, that someone will swing by your home daily to drop stuff off and pick stuff up. Then adding an item to the pile is really of little consequence. The reality though (for a time at least) became that the mail was largely junk being subsidized by the high price of a few first class pieces of mail.

They've needed to fix the pricing model for a very long time.

<comment><USER10> Actually I think the article is just PR. While the post offices in north America and Europe deliver Chinese goods at no cost, at the same time Chinese people send millions of very expensive packages to China.

For example Chinese parents who are well off want to have genuine baby food from western countries since the milk powder scandal that hit China a few years ago. They pay tremendous surcharges for a package of baby food and it must be sent from the west.

The same goes for luxury goods. You want to be sure to get a genuine Louis Vuitton bag? Get someone you know to buy it in France and have it shipped to you. The French postal office will cash in 50€ while the costs are certainly far below that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Like every good entrepreneur McGrath wants globalization for (only his) company and isolationism for the consumer.

Economically, getting goods for as fraction of the former price to consumers for just 78million a year sounds like a fantastic deal.

</comment><comment><USER12> Australia Post has long had the same problem with shipments from the US.

They've recently opened a warehouse in Oregon, where they'll receive domestic US shipments, and deliver to you in Australia for a separate fee. [https://shopmate.auspost.com.au](https://shopmate.auspost.com.au)

<comment><USER13> And shipments from Asia. I recently found something for sale in Australia: $15 plus $10 shipping within Australia. I bought the exact same product direct from China/HK and it was under $4 _including international shipping_.

I imagine the labour cost is one contributor within Australia. Without volume, no one wants to be doing runs to the post office for a dollar.

With products from the US, I've routinely bought things from Amazon and shipped US-AU and saved money easily - hard drives, memory cards, and even things for which the shipping should make it cost prohibitive like a full-size baby pram.

<comment><USER14> It's the same in Europe. Local online merchants have no way to compete since just the national delivery costs multiple times the net price of a foreign import product.

It's good for consumers, but also means the domestic e-commerce is severely underdeveloped.

<comment><USER15> Actually, delivery costs in Europe are basically nil.

You can ship a package in 3 days all across the EU for under 4€ with DHL. I know, because I've done so several times.

Stuff that's small enough to fit in a letter even for 80ct across the entire EU in 2 days.

In fact, the domestic shipping market in the EU is actually cheaper than getting international parcels.

<comment><USER14> I got curious, and indeed looks like a package in Germany is domestically 4€ and within EU 8.89€. However, when sending a small package from Finland it's 22€ domestic and 40€ to Germany with DHL.

So a disclaimer to my original claim: applies only to a subset of European countries.

<comment><USER16> Companies that ship a lot of stuff get _much_ lower prices from DHL, UPS etc.

<comment><USER17> Yes, I habe worked at a company where we would ship a high amount of construction machine spare parts with FedEx, DHL et al. We had a ~90% discount on their regular prices.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> Const-me > In most cases, however, postal services still charge each other less than > they would charge their own citizens for moving a package across the > country.

Very likely, it costs them less. Own citizens don't drop their packages at cargo hubs, already sorted and payed for by wire transfer. Pickup, sorting and processing payments have costs.

<comment><USER15> Actually, with DHL in Germany, that's exactly what many people do. The cheapest version is paying by wire and getting the code to put on the package via their website, and dropping the parcel at a package hub, the second cheapest version s paying by wire and getting the code to put on the package via their website, then dropping off at a DHL store, the third cheapest version is getting it stamped and dropping it off at a DHL store, and the most expensive option (about 20$ more per parcel!) is getting it picked up by the delivery guy.

Which is why DHL can offer prices such as 4€ for a cross-Europe 1kg 30x30x60 package.

</comment></comment><comment> dis-sys Now this is boring. People keep complaining about the fact that China's cheap stuff is flooding the US market. How about exporting some expensive US made stuff to China to close the gap of trading?

Oh, you can't. Chinese living in China are not even allowed to buy Intel Xeon Phi cards, export license is required to safeguard your nation.

Maybe make the US short term visa more accessible to Chinese tourists so they can spend more cash in the US?

Oh, you can't. tens of millions Chinese with science/engineering degrees will have to go through the mantis check managed by FBI to make sure they won't steal your nuke techs when visiting the casinos in Vegas. It can take up to several years to get a US tourist visa.

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

<comment><USER15> And that's why millions of chinese tourists every year are all across europe, buying everything they can get.

Especially affected by this are cities known for quality products, for example Solingen, the city where most of modern high quality knives and scissors are from, is overran by chinese tourists.

And the other thing you mentioned also works here – we simply export lots of automation robots to China, e.g. Foxconn just made a deal with a German automation company to replace over 400'000 workers with robots.

Just to prove that your argument is not just valid, but actually proven in reality.

<comment><USER18> Are you talking about KUKA ? Because they just got bought by chinese [0].

[0] [http://www.reuters.com/article/us-kuka-m-a-mideamidea- group-...](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-kuka-m-a-mideamidea-group- idUSKBN14J0SP)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This is another example of WaPo's overly sensational piece. To be fair, USPS loses BILLIONS on retirement funding, reduced mailing due to the dominance of Internet age with emails and other competitions. [1] $79 million in fiscal year 2013 loss due to this type of shipments is a drop in the bucket comparing to the mishaps in operations and reduced volumes at $3B/quarter in 2011.

[1]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service#R...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service#Revenue_decline_and_planned_cuts)

<comment><USER20> To be fair, the USPS is only "losing billions" on retirement funding due to the pre-funding obligations imposed by Section 8909a of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006, _not_ obligations owed to current employees or retirees. [0]

There was some speculation at the time that this was a regulatory attempt to "tie their hands" on investments to address the online shopping market, which has more than offset the decline in carriage due to email. For example, during the 10 year period covered by the pre-funding obligation, UPS managed to increase revenues on domestic shipping by ~45%. [1]

Excluding these mandatory payments, the USPS is actually slightly profitable, to the tune of (conservatively) $92M as of 2015 [2]. In this context, a $79M loss is a major portion of their annual profits, although still a drop in the bucket compared to their gross revenue.

[0]: [https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hr6407/text](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hr6407/text)

[1]: [http://www.investors.ups.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=62900&p=irol- re...](http://www.investors.ups.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=62900&p=irol- reportsannual)

[2]: [https://about.usps.com/who-we-are/financials/annual- reports/...](https://about.usps.com/who-we-are/financials/annual- reports/fy2015.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> This is a global phenomenon by the way. European postal services have the same 'problem'. The way international postal agreements work mean that China's postal system is effectively being subsidised by the postal services in (at least) the US and the EU¹.

Interestingly, this volume of shipping offers chances as well for (former) national postal services. In the Netherlands the privatised former national postal service is partnering with AliBaba to deliver goods in as little as two weeks from China to your (Dutch) doorstep (currently three to four weeks is common).

1: [http://fortune.com/2015/03/11/united-nations-subsidy- chinese...](http://fortune.com/2015/03/11/united-nations-subsidy-chinese- shipping/)

</comment><comment><USER22> In Australia it seems that USPS is charging us millions on imports from The US to discourage us buying anything from the US

Small items can be a fraction of the cost of the freight from the US.

</comment><comment><USER23> I've ordered very small camera accessory stuff on Ebay that arrived from China. I could never understand how they would be able to manufacture, package, ship this across half the world for less what I pay on postage to send my tax returns to IRS.

</comment><comment><USER24> Your competitive advantage is that you can deliver the same product within a more predictable window. Getting something from China by surface can take 7 days to 8 weeks. If you use USPS service domestically, you get quasi-tracking with a shorter delivery window of 1 to 3 days (usually).

</comment><comment><USER25> When you buy from a US seller, you're buying time.

A typical ePacket is about 7 to 14 days from shipment, while first class mail is generally about 3 days from shipment. China Post is worse, anywhere from 30 to 60 days is common. Yanwen economic mail is similar, as are the litany of other carriers used to exploit shipping restrictions on batteries and other items.

Is it a great model? Maybe not, especially for more expensive items. But for low cost, low value items shipped only via china post, there will always be a US based box-shifter willing to collect that 20% premium on time.

</comment><comment><USER26> So the Postal Service are willing to operate at a loss just to ride the e-commerce boom and grow its Asia presence?

Why? Am I missing something here?

<comment><USER27> They have to offer reduced price mail through this treaty, and they'd rather do the ePacket thing which is less of a loss.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I see this with many auctions which are direct from China. Incredibly low auction prices and similar shipping. Do a search for antique Chinese porcelain and sort by lowest ship/price. You will find many items starting at one cent.

I have won a few at a dollar or lower and always received the item. so I have to assume there is no real ship cost to the sender. even the packaging if done here would cost more than what I have paid; usually custom styrofoam that perfectly encloses the item but just remove tape and it opens.

Considering their dollar a package deal with Amazon for last mile I figure they have many ways to lose money

</comment><comment><USER29> > "But when people buy direct from China that's adding nothing to the American > economy."

Wait a minute... This argument doesn't make any sense. The post office is delivering to a US citizen that supports said postal services through paying taxes. If they choose to purchase from China, Amazon, or eBay that is their choice.

Maybe people who are not citizens and have not paid any taxes benefit from this but I suspect those are extreme edge cases.

<comment><USER30> The postal service is _not_ taxpayer funded!

Yes, they are indicated in the Constitution, and they must service each and every little town, and they must go to Congress to gain approval for rate increases, but they are _not_ supported by any tax revenue.

[https://about.usps.com/who-we-are/postal- facts/top-10-things...](https://about.usps.com/who-we-are/postal- facts/top-10-things-to-know.htm)

<comment><USER31> This is not true, but a common debunked claim from the postal union. The postal service gets $18 billion per year in tax benefits including exemption from property taxes and vehicle registrations as well as below-market borrowing costs.

[http://fortune.com/2015/03/27/us-postal- service/](http://fortune.com/2015/03/27/us-postal-service/)

[http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2013/jul/24/ame...](http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2013/jul/24/american- postal-workers-union/postal-service-claim-not-fully-target/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I simply don't buy from Chinese sellers on ebay. I sort by location distance and then work my way through that list or lowest price and skip china entries. I am not waiting 3-6 weeks for something just to save $2. Lets be honest, something that cheap, isn't even worth shipping back if its broken ( and most of the time they will just ship another ).

</comment><comment><USER33> I often thought the postal service SHOULD be a public service but it's publicly funded at a loss then no.

<comment><USER11> Think of it this way: every one of the 350 million americans chip in 0.22$ a year to get their iPhone cable for 1.80$ instead of 40$.

Still sound bad?

<comment><USER34> Why do some people write the dollar sign after the number? Similarly, why do some people write the percent sign before the number? I initially thought it might be a locale thing (like swapping commas and decimal points), but I've seen a lot of Americans doing it too.

<comment><USER35> > Why do some people write the dollar sign after the number?

For foreigners, that's easy, that's how you write currencies in other languages.

For American doing it, I guess it is just a typing artefact. You think "ten dollars", you write "10$", there is no autocorrect for that kind of things so you let is slide.

<comment><USER36> Could also be a holdover from using cents. I have always seen the cents symbol used after the number so 70¢ is a shorter way to write $0.70

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Nice case of peering agreements in the real world!

(Of course these peering agreements come from a postal union treaty rather that individual 1:1 agreements among private parties, but really they are the same thing).

The number of routes is small enough that there's no need for postal BGP :-)

</comment><comment><USER38> Wow, if they charged foregin deliveries as much as domestic deliveries, then maybe they could stop spam in mailboxes.

Does anyone know how to stop junkmail? Postal workers have told me they can't not deliver it - even if you pay for a PO Box.

<comment><USER39> [https://dmachoice.thedma.org/register.php](https://dmachoice.thedma.org/register.php)

Is recommended by the FTC.

<comment><USER38> News to me, thanks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> We should follow the lead of Sweden, Germany, Japan, and Great Britain and begin to privatize the US postal service. There is no need for the Federal Government to control pricing, delivery, or market entry for postal services.

</comment><comment><USER41> Bad link.

</comment><comment><USER42> > _The USPS inspector general's office estimated that the USPS lost $79 > million in fiscal year 2013 delivering this foreign treaty mail._

$79M is governmental chickenfeed, given how much this service improves the quality of life of its citizens. For perspective, it's moderately less than the cost of one (1) F35.

<comment><USER43> You're right that $79M is basically nothing when it comes to government spending as a whole, but the USPS doesn't get support from federal taxes - they have to generate enough revenue to pay their own expenses.

The government has already been trying to do everything they can to run the USPS into the ground, _something_ needs to be done about these treaty deliveries or a continual increase in volume is going to harm the postal service (I don't know what that something looks like, maybe make the federal government pay the cost difference for these treaty deliveries since the postal service is required to deliver them).</comment></comment>


Lucid Imagination Raises $10 Million For Apache Search Technology - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2010/03/10/lucid-imagination-raises-10-million-for-apache-search-technology/

<comment><USER2> At <http://ukclasslist.com> we just changed our search to use solr last night if you want to see how it works.</comment>


Optimize, Develop, and Debug with Vulkan Developer Tools for Android - <AUTHOR> http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2016/04/optimize-develop-and-debug-with-vulkan.html <comment><USER2> btw: [https://www.reddit.com/r/vulkan/](https://www.reddit.com/r/vulkan/) has been busy collecting any and all Vulkan info as it appears on the internet.</comment>


China now launches more rockets than anyone in the world - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/11/china-takes-commanding-lead-in-annual-orbital-launches/ <comment><USER2> I find it interesting that there is so much focus on Elon Musk polluting the view, when he's really only connected to a small portion of what's already up there and what's currently already on the way.</comment>


How to retire at 28 and travel the world (or start a startup) - <AUTHOR> http://myfamilyisnuts.typepad.com/theyearofbloggingdangerou/2008/02/how-to-retire-a.html

<comment><AUTHOR> Incidentally, the retire gambit works if you're bootstrapping a startup as well.</comment>


Why can I log in to my Facebook account with a misspelled email/password? - <AUTHOR> https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/214814/why-can-i-log-in-to-my-facebook-account-with-a-misspelled-email-password <comment><USER2> it seems nobody has a clear answer as to how this process is done, everyone is debating on if passwords are stored in clear text (which sounds terrifying) or hashes...

how much do you trust facebook?

<comment><USER3> Huh?

The top answer links [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dPRFoKteIU&feature=youtu.be...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dPRFoKteIU&feature=youtu.be&t=966), which explains exactly what they do: try a number of different errors client- side.</comment></comment>