Why I won't steal your idea - <AUTHOR> http://stritar.net/Post/Five-reasons-why-I-will-not-steal-your-idea.aspx <comment><USER3> In his article about not stealing ideas, Grega Stritar mentions karma and being a good person by not stealing. Yet for some reason, he also chose to use an unlicensed watermarked image from iStockphoto at the head of his article.

Perhaps I am reading to much into it, but it really seems to undermine his credibility and trustworthiness in this regards. He claims he is not willing to steal ideas, but he is willing (apparently) to steal images?

Where is the line actually at?

<comment><AUTHOR> Actually, stealing the photo was intended as a joke... Do you think that if would steal a photo, I would leave a watermark on it? :)

<comment><USER4> LOL, is it from here: <http://nicholasnoel.me/tag/hacker/>

Good article anyway! I think it's mostly fair. Although when people a secretive of their ideas, it's also that they don't want their incomplete or incubating idea out there amongst colleagues and friends. Inevitably someone asks, (and it might be your mum who asks) "so how's the internet-enabled frypan idea going?", and then you have to talk about it as if it's real to someone who probably can't help you with it anyway.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It is true that most random Joes/Janes won't be interested in stealing your ideas but the issue is not about them. It's about your competitors who are already in/near your space, who definitely want to see what others are doing and thinking. If you are not careful who you talk to, there is a chance that your ideas may end up in their hands.

Beside, I heard that in EU and Asia, if you disclose your idea to anyone without an NDA, you immediately lose the right to patent it.

So don't be naive to believe in Cinderella fairy tales.

</comment><comment><USER6> I have/had an idea from 99/00 that I developed while in R&D at my work that they signed the rights over to me because the technology wasn't there yet...technically still isn't.

A few years back, I was talking to my mechanic/friend who was telling me about his son and this idea he and some of his buddies were working on in their off- time at 3M...it was like a Roberta Flack song it hit me so hard. My idea, from another person's mouth who had no knowledge that I had thought of the same thing.

Flash forward to Super Bowl Sunday. For kicks and giggles I was on Twitter because a room with the lights off is absolutely not interesting television. A particular thread sparked my interest when one person accused a news reporter of RT'ing his joke without attribution.

After that, I started watching the #blackout stream and sure enough, everyone on Twitter who thought they were witty also thought they were original. People were spouting off the same jokes simultaneously that it would have been impossible many of the lame jokes to have spread that fast.

Whereas many people thought they were purely genius for coming up with a joke about the lights being killed and Ray Lewis, many others in the mass of 7 billion people were thinking the same thing.

TL;DR: The idea is a small piece of the Success Pie. Execution is everything. Also, I like slashes.

</comment><comment><USER7> One of the things I do is be a speaker in game development, targeting newbies.

Another is game design consulting.

I hear a lot stuff related to ideas.

First, there are a handful of paranoids, that want to know if they can patent their cool game idea ( no, you can't, especially ideas that are a story, not a game system ).

Then I have those wanting advice. Of those about 80% are in two fields: some want my help, but fearing that I will steal their idea they will request me to sign some crazy NDA or they will keep giving vague explanations.

Others want me to do their idea, some just want to see their idea done so they can play, others think their idea is so good that I would buy it, or code for free and give them later 80% of the revenue.

All of those people don't understand that ideas are cheap, making a game is crazy hard, and even I already have lots of my own ideas, I will only make your idea if you give me craploads of money.

</comment><comment><USER8> Of the people who have approached me to possibly work with them, I have yet to encounter one totally original idea. Often, they'll tell me it's original, but a quick Google search will turn up a few to a few dozen competitors already in the space.

It doesn't mean the idea is bad, and it doesn't mean that a good execution of the idea won't be successful. But, there's no reason for an NDA, and there's no reason to be concerned I will steal the idea.

The implementation is key. If the person with the idea also figured out what the user interactions will be like, what types of data are needed, and what separates the product from direct or indirect competitors, I might be interested. If the person only has a vague idea of a project management system that addresses the market between Microsoft Project and Basecamp (an idea I've been pitched more than once), I'm not interested.

I'm also no longer interested in signing an NDA before discussing an idea. If we get further into business plans, financial information, and specific implementations, sure. But by then, I've already agreed to work on the project, and I'm getting compensation in return.

</comment><comment><USER9> "3. Your idea probably requires specific passion and know-how"

This exactly. It was hard enough building a great team of freelancers to help me relaunch my site. A LOT of research. I threw out every mockup and every business detail I could to get great people on board. Many of these people are booked solid for months -- the last thing they're going to do is drop what they're doing and build my product. And they're probably not the right people because my idea is specific to my community and past experience.

If you end up finding some bad apples on your quest to build your product, chances are they aren't the ones who will execute on it well. For the slim chance something could go wrong, you'll be spinning your wheels not being transparent about what you're trying to build.

</comment><comment><USER10> I generally agree but from first hand experience, I know this isn't always true. Before, I'd be happy to announce/show prototypes of stuff I was working on but it's clear that there are developers out there who take parts of the concept and release it. It may not be as full as the original app since it's a case of rushing something out but it undermines my USP. Of course, it could've all been coincidence, but I personally doubt it considering similarities and timing.

Having said that, that's what the market's all about so I'm not really complaining but just saying that the article isn't always true from first hand experience. I think a lot depends on the nature of the app (i.e. web app, game, smartphone app etc..) and what parts are "copied".

</comment><comment><USER11> I'm a big believer in not operating in so called "stealth mode" so i try to share as much as I can, but lately i've been working on two separate products, one of which is an MVP at the moment. For some reason - and rather irrationally - I started to get worried about it when discussing with other developers. I'm currently considering bring a second person on board to work on the code with me.

Can you re-assure me that most developers think like you do? I am genuinely nervous about it bringing someone else to work on the product for this reason alone. I realise how pathetic it may sound, but a little re-assurance would give me a big enough nudge to go ahead and do it.

Unless there are specific cases where this shouldn't be done?

<comment><USER12> Speaking as a developer: I like to build things that are successful and I like building things for passionate people. I'm not a thief, I'm a developer. I love bringing ideas to reality.

The people who are out there making money are doing so because they executed their ideas or helped to execute ideas with someone else. They aren't just sitting around waiting for the next person to screw over, they have better things to do: like work on things. Of course: there are always malicious people out there, but I would be extremely surprised if they were in the majority in this particular example.

Of all of the startups that get featured here, even the multi-million dollar ones, how many times have you heard of someone genuinely "stealing" someone's idea? I mean to the point that someone was put into financial hardship without a way to reconcile? I can only think of a couple off the top of my head, and frankly: the events and legal BS surrounding them are so far above and beyond anything I'd ever want to do in my life. I have a feeling that I'm not alone in that sentiment amongst a profession of reasonably rational and intelligent individuals.

<comment><USER6> I'm going to stretch my definition of a startup and say Michael Arrington and FusionGarage.

I'm not up to date on whatever happened with it, but Arrington announced on TechCrunch the CrunchPad, kept everyone abreast with its development, and when it came time to launch FusionGarage decided to go it alone and cut him out (allegedly).

Also, you can stretch it even further and use Jonathan Coulton's latest spat with the producers of "Glee"

I think it happens, we just don't hear about it as much.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> It depends who you're sharing the idea with and how complex it is.

Certainly the vast majority of ideas require some real specialization and can't be emulated by anybody.

Also, an unproven idea which only "sounds like it could be great" really is a dime a dozen.

You should be more worried about HOW you accomplish your great idea. Maybe you've found a way to pull off some PROVEN product, but using 1/10 the labor, parts, etc. This is a competitive advantage that can pull you from zero to a million in revenue, buying you time to "properly" develop your Version 2 idea from the ground up. This, I have seen people stealing. If this is what you've got, then keep it secret. Sell your prouct by all means but keep that "special sauce" closely guarded.

</comment><comment><USER14> Reason 6: I don't have time to steal your idea.

I'm so busy working and trying to find the time just to spend with my family, and sometimes play with a project on the side, I haven't got the time to steal your idea. Not even if your idea is the best since sliced bread.

</comment><comment><USER15> You could apply that thinking to a lot of other things too, especially around people being precious around an idea or creation and not letting go - <USER2> with coding, the same approach works with explaining that you're not going to ruin the code by working on or with it..

<comment><AUTHOR> haven't thought about it this way...

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> A lot of people say they believe in "karma" I have one simple question "why?".

I mean it stands to reason that if you go around being an asshole to people they might eventually start being an asshole back.

But I mean in the cosmic justice sense.

<comment><USER17> When people refer to karma, they don't mean it literally, it's meant more in the sense of "reputation".

<comment><USER16> I don't know, maybe that is true here but I've met a significant number of people who seem to think it is an actual thing.

I've heard arguments such as "I know god exists because karma exists" which just seems like nonsense to me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Here is a relevant question I recently posted that didn't get any attention: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5152827>

</comment><comment><USER19> 1 reason why I won't steal your idea: Ideas can't be stolen.

</comment><comment><USER20> I would add: if your idea is really unique the product will not be understood. First approachers usually don't succeed and only pave the way for others.

</comment><comment><USER21> An enjoyable read!

The only thing I would change is the overuse of bold text. When used too much, it detracts from the readability of the text as a whole more than it serves to emphasise any particular sentence fragment.

</comment><comment><USER22> 6\. I don't have an idea

</comment><comment><USER23> fix your anchor font.</comment>


Control.Monad.Inception - <AUTHOR> http://donsbot.wordpress.com/2010/12/05/control-monad-inception/

<comment><USER2> Props to anyone who watches a movie and thinks "Holy crap, monads!"</comment>


Elsevier is taking down papers from Academia.edu - <AUTHOR> http://svpow.com/2013/12/06/elsevier-is-taking-down-papers-from-academia-edu/ <comment><USER2> FTA:

> Lots of researchers post PDFs of their own papers on their own web-sites. > It's always been so, because even though technically it's in breach of the > copyright transfer agreements that we blithely sign, ....

Not true. Copyright transfer agreements vary a great deal. I've published a few papers, and these days I don't sign any transfer agreement without reading it. A fair number of them specifically allow for posting copies of papers on personal websites.[1]

Probably the Elsevier agreement does not allow it. But since they've gotten so much poor publicity, no one who publishes with them has any excuse for being unaware of the consequences.

[1] OTOH, I'm in math/comp. sci., and Mike Tayor is in paleontology; maybe things are different in that field.

\</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>---

EDIT. More FTA:

> Rich FitzJohn speculated: I wonder what their long game is here; petty > harassment like that makes me way less inclined to publish in an Elsevier > journal.

Seriously? After ridiculous subscription prices, aggressively making publicly funded research difficult to get at, revelations of fake "peer-reviewed" journals, paying for shill reviews, the resignations of several editorial boards, more than a year of a widely publicized boycott, and now this, he's just "way less inclined to publish". What does it take to get people to stop?

Alas, I know the answer. It is that tenure & promotion committees stop considering publications in journals like Elsevier's to be worth a lot more than publications in journals that are run ethically.

</comment><comment><USER3> Alicia Wise, from Elsevier, claims this is only final versions. That they _never_ go after preprints on authors' own hosting.

This claim is, of course, false. [http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4527505&cid=4562...](http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4527505&cid=45622313)

I have asked her for an explanation; I'm sure it will be of interest.

</comment><comment><USER3> This has also made the news:

[http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/posting-your- latest-a...](http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/posting-your-latest- article-you-might-have-to-take-it-down/48865) [http://science.slashdot.org/story/13/12/06/1945224/elsevier-...](http://science.slashdot.org/story/13/12/06/1945224/elsevier- going-after-authors-sharing-their-own-papers)

Those defending Elsevier need to keep in mind Elsevier's fraudulent pseudojournals, blatant scientific fraud for marketing cash. Elsevier passed the "reasonable doubt" event horizon long ago. [http://kmccready.wordpress.com/2013/12/06/elsevier-shoots- it...](http://kmccready.wordpress.com/2013/12/06/elsevier-shoots-itself-in- the-face-again/)

</comment><comment><USER4> Actually, this totally makes sense to me.

If you post on papers on your ~home/ page it is fine, but if you give your papers to a third party which operates a for profit website then it is not the same.

I am generally not a big fan of Elsevier, but in this case I am totally with them on the matter.

<comment><USER5> I am actually not a fan of academia.edu, they seem like the scribd/slideshare of academic research. They are another paywall speedbump in the free exchange if ideas. Whenever I hit their page I immediately look for another source.

If they had been more like stackoverflow and less like experts exchange ... but they are not.</comment></comment>


Astronomers now doubt there is an undiscovered 9th planet in our solar system - <AUTHOR> https://phys.org/news/2020-05-astronomers-undiscovered-9th-planet-solar.html <comment><USER2> On the other hand, 'If Planet Nine Is a Tiny Black Hole, This Is How to Find It' [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23132488](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23132488)

> The black hole in this scenario is neither infinitely massive nor infinitely > small... 10 times more massive than Earth and five cm across.</comment>


Y Combinator Top Companies – 2019 - <AUTHOR> https://blog.ycombinator.com/y-combinator-top-companies-2019/ <comment><USER2> I noticed that there is a checkbox filter for the list called "All female team". What a strange filter. Are these companies that will not hire men?

Edit: after looking at some of the team pages of the "All female team" list, some of the companies on the list do not have all female teams. So what does that filter mean?

<comment><USER3> It means all the founders are female. The box next to it lets you select companies with at least one female founder.</comment></comment>


Understanding Uniprocessor OS Scheduling Policies - <AUTHOR> https://spin.atomicobject.com/2015/02/26/uniprocessor-scheduling-policies/

<comment><USER2> As someone who is self-taught/switched careers into a job as a software developer but mostly works very far from the machine/OS, I found this interesting and really educational. Since I rarely need to do system work, I accumulate most of my knowledge of how the OS does its jobs from articles like this. Thanks!

<comment><USER3> I'm so glad you enjoyed it! Thanks for reading :D</comment></comment>


Milton Friedman: How to Cure Health Care (2001) - <AUTHOR> http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3459466.html

<comment><USER2> MSAs were expanded into HSAs in 2003. As of now there are some 8 million enrollees.

IMO the most interesting effect of the spread of HSAs is the emergence of clinics which forego the overhead of the insurance system altogether[1], dealing with patients directly in a more value-conscious way. These clinics tend to be both more available (longer appointments, weekend appointments) and more flexible (phone, chat, email communications w/ the doctor). They also tend to use technology to reduce overhead. Hello Health doesn't need any support staff for their doctors, rather than the 4-5/doctor average, because they use an online system for managing appointments, communications & billing.

I'm pretty excited about the spread of this system - in a month or two, Hello Health will be opening up their web platform to doctors across the country, which will enable them to more easily transition their practices and also provide a facebook/amazon for medicine. They claim they've been contacted by thousands of interested doctors.

If you're interested, take a look at HSA/HDHP plans (<http://hsainsider.com/>), or if you're relying on your employer for care and they don't provide an HSA option, it's worth bringing up, as the HSA option can be much less expensive ([http://blog.jayparkinsonmd.com/post/70104332/high- deductible...](http://blog.jayparkinsonmd.com/post/70104332/high-deductible- health-insurance-saves-you-54-395-60)), so they should be amenable. Even if you don't have a cash-friendly doctor in your area already, I predict most will by the end of the year.

[1] e.g. Hello Health in Brooklyn (<http://hellohealth.com/>), Qliance in Seattle (<http://qliance.com/>)

<comment><USER3> I am going to argue with you sideways. :-) I dont think Hello Health is an argument for HSA's so much as a streamlined reimbursement system with some kind or reasonable accountability for costs. The current structure optimizes for assembly line medicine rather than good patient care. Most people go with factory doctors, because of the small co-pay. You can go to a doctor outside your plan, but you typically get only 50% reimbursement. My doctor costs me $100 out of pocket instead of $25, but she is worth it because I get a one- hour appointment instead of 15 minutes.

On to Milton Friedman. He makes a very good case for single payer health insurance (11% of GDP vs 17%) and then comes to the opposite conclusion. He is drinking the perfect market koolaid. He assumes that, if people have to pay their own money, they are going to make rational economic decisions about health care purchases and will shop around for the best price. This is such utter crap that it is hard to believe that an open minded economist would utter it. Health purchases are not rationally economic. They are made on other considerations like trust in the doctor and increasingly on patient evaluations of treatment options. If you have a kid with a high fever, you dont start googling for the best price.

A part of the conservative economic fantasy is that consumers have negotiating power in the market. Yes, I by drugs at Costco because they are cheaper, but that is because Costco has negotiating advantage, not me. A single payer would have a huge advantage in negotiating drug prices. There is a reason that drug prices in the US are the highest in the world.

Health care reform in the US is hugely complicated and a simplistic approach is not going to cut it, even a single payer system isnt enough. Drug costs need to be cut. Defensive medicine needs to be brought in line. (Practice to the patients needs not the doctors.) On and on. Hello Health looks to be a good start in the microcosm.

<comment><USER4> You don't think people respond to prices? Consumers are not perfectly rational, but that's a bit of a straw man argument. On average, in the aggregate, they do respond to incentives. On average, in the aggregate, a first-party consumer payer is more likely to be price sensitive than a consumer purchasing medical care by way of a third-party employer health plan. The fact that most consumers don't fit some perfect model doesn't seem particularly relevant.

Finally you say:

"Health purchases are not rationally economic. They are made on other considerations like trust in the doctor and increasingly on patient evaluations of treatment options."

Purchasing based on quality is not "rationally economic"? Have you studied any economics at all? That's just ignorant. You don't know the meaning of the words you are using.

This is why I stopped arguing with people on the internet.

Edit: Yes, this is a little mean and not within the style guidelines of Hacker News, but you will have to excuse me if I am not impressed by yet another person "disproving" the entire discipline of economics with the pseudo- intellectual observation that people make decisions on considerations other than price, as if that fact had been overlooked by every economist for the last three centuries.

<comment><USER5> Health insurance is a difficult thing to price. Do you know the probabilities that you will need treatment for any particular condition? Can judge how much more you should pay for a policy with a million dollar limit on total reimbursement than one with a $500,000 limit? Unlike most goods, we don't get lots of chances to evaluate the quality of the product and then switch providers if we're not satisfied. Once you realize your health insurance isn't good enough, you're probably already in trouble. There are a lot of factors required to ensure the proper performance of a free market, and health insurance fails to satisfy many of them.

<comment><AUTHOR> You don't know any of these things for car insurance either. That's what Consumer Reports and their ilk are for.

<comment><USER5> Car insurance is simpler than health insurance. There are fewer types of covered conditions, and it's easier to make direct comparisons. Health conditions are more numerous and vary more depending on the individual in question. It's also easier for car insurance companies to make predictions about the expected costs for a customer. People buying health insurance individually face increased costs because of an assumption that those seeking coverage are more likely to need it. In general, this is an area in which the conditions required for an efficient free market do not exist. And, this is one reason why, as Friedman notes, those countries with universal single payer systems spend less than the United States, which is closer to a market system (however imperfectly).

For more information, see, for example: [http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2009/03/adminis...](http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2009/03/administrative_costs.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> I find it hard to believe that the government can make a decision that is better on any metric than the consumer whom it directly affects.

There is a fundamental problem with medical insurance though. Insurance only works because of uncertainty about the future. As information about individuals' medical conditions becomes more detailed, this uncertainty is reduced. For that reason, it seems like, ultimately, this has to lead to the distasteful prospect of some kind of universal insurance that people acquire at birth. As knowledge increases, every condition becomes a preexisting one. (Except for injuries due to accidents)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This article is a pretty clear demonstration of what I dislike about popular economics (liberal and conservative) compared to hard science. Conclusions are drawn up based on ideological assumptions, then evidence is gathered, then public policy is changed. In any given case, several explanations are possible, but rarely is empirical testing done to prove that one is more feasible than the other. Instead they coexist as equals, gaining support based on random political futures. Perhaps this is a fundamental weakness in economics and cannot be overcome, but it seems to me that not enough pressure is being put on the field to make the ideas fully testable. As a engineer and numbers guy, I want to see my tax dollars spent (or not spent) only on ideas that have been rigorously examined and tested to be the most productive for society.

<comment><USER7> Fair enough, but how would you rigorously test economic principles without ruining the lives of millions?

<comment><USER8> I see some possibilities to test hypotheses like "$MEASURE will achieve $GOAL"

a) Gather historical data where $MEASURE was attempted and see whether $GOAL was reached. This can give results like "$MEASURE is positively correlated with achieving $GOAL".

b) Test it on a smaller scale. Instead of reforming the entire health-care system, search for something small but similar to reform.

c) simulate. Build a simulation of economic subjects and, before simulating the Friedman health-care reform, test it on past scenarios whose outcome is known.

<comment><USER9> These usually just result in people picking holes in the dataset/experiment/simulation -- and rightly so; circumstances change too quickly for historical data to be much use, simulations necessarily have some severe assumptions, and small-scale tests don't simulate macroeconomic effects very well.

This is the reason that I've long classified macroeconomics in with religion: they're both very influential ideas, but neither are really based on any evidence.

<comment><USER8> Hmm yes... fairly quickly, one runs out of large rich countries at the beginnings of twenty-first centuries to draw parallels from.

I liked A Mind Forever Voyaging, though, which is about an attempt to do c) properly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'll be the sacrificial lamb and remind people that if we start posting this sort of article, there will be a whole lot more like it, from reason.com, Krugman, Thoma, Cowen, and so on and so forth. They may be interesting and stimulating, but because of their ability to stimulate heated debate, they _will_ eventually crowd out other things unless they are controlled.

I mean specifically articles about politics/economics, things which people hold strong opinions about, and are of interest to pretty much everyone.

</comment><comment><USER11> Yes, bureaucracy is a terrible thing. But universal health care paid by employer and administered by the state is a proven and mature technology. In a lot of countries it works without much noise. And health care and basic education free for everybody is something I absolutely want.

People with low income are still motivated to work for food, clothes or a home. Threatening them with illness or death is not a more effective incentive, and has the colateral effect of upsetting people. and lowering general health conditions that could cause epidemies.

<comment><USER12> The fact that it works in many other countries doesn't mean it will in the United States. Agreed that it successful in many other countries like Canada, UK and France but if you look closer there are a lot of factors that will work against universal health care being successful in the United States. To see if this will work you also need to look at failures. Take India for example government health care in India is awful for the obvious reason, population.

United States population is growing at almost the same rate as India. We also have a new immigrant population every year. We also have the most expensive form of health care thanks to the system that rewards bad doctors. Given this if one were to start universal health care for everybody it would just mean a lot more taxes for all of us. Which is fine with me if I knew that it would work but these issues that I stated above cannot be solved by throwing in more money. There need to be a change in attitude of health care providers towards the business. It might be rewarding them for now but in the long run it is self destructive.

HSA like the earlier comment made on the thread is step in the right direction but it is mostly optimal for younger people. Also even in places like India people have come up with novel ways to solve this problem (<http://iaimtomisbehave.org/2009/06/04/healthcare-doctors/>). There are alternatives out there we should consider before taking this big step towards universal health care.

<comment><USER13> "United States population is growing at almost the same rate as India. We also have a new immigrant population every year."

There's no "also" to it. Reproduction of those already inside the US is below replacement rates. Immigration is our only source of population growth.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Mr. Freidman discounts a little too quickly the incredible changes and advances in technology in the past 60 years. If you consider per capita technology spending in the last 60 years, I suspect there might be a suprising correlation to health care spending.

In 1946, oxygen administration was considered "advanced". Penicillin and sulfa antibiotics were just begining regular use in World War II. Before that people died from infections like pneumonia very frequently. Diseases like polio, smallpox, measles, tetanus, mumps, were devastating and crippling diseases. We rarely see those any more. Advances in microbioligy and pharmacology have greatly reduced morbidity and mortality. It's harder than it used to be to die from an infectuous disease in a country with modern healthcare.

But, people in the US now have a cultural expectation that medicine can dramatically fix or cure a lot of diseases, like we did with microbial diseases. But, the diseases that we are left with tend to be chronic and a lot harder to cure: heart disease, diabetes, cancer. Low hanging fruit are easiest to pick.

15 years ago, when I started my nursing career the state of the art in emergency heart attack treatment was a $1000 single dose of a clot busting medication. 1 out of 20 people bled to death from that cure. So, $300,000 emergency heart catheterization and angioplasty was developed to limit the 5% mortality rate.

One of the big focuses in the US medicine is technological innovation and critical care, because that's what our insurance pays for. The focus in many other developed nations is primary care, prevention and cost effective treatments.

Also, other areas of technological innovation benefit from exponential decrease in costs because of Moore's law. Medical and biological technology have the inherit limitation of the human body. That's going to influence cost structures dramatically in comparison to other technologies.

</comment><comment><USER5> I don't get it. Friedman points out that while the U.S. government spends less on health care than almost any other OECD country, the country as a whole spends much more. And yet his solution is less government spending on health care? He points out a number of factors which allow a single-payer system to control costs, and yet argues against it. The conclusions don't follow from the facts.

</comment><comment><USER15> "Spending on medical care provides a reasonably good measure of input, but, unfortunately, there is no remotely satisfactory objective measure of output."

Seriously? An economist, of all people, is trying to convince me that we can't estimate the effectiveness of a health care system? At the same time he thinks he can estimate the effectiveness of a theoretical economic model for paying for a health care system? I call B.S.

His comment about Physicians earning much less in Canada than in the U.S. is also disingenuous. Canadian doctors spend the vast majority of their 40-hour workweek being doctors. In the U.S. doctors have to deal with both patients and insurance companies equally, raising the time they spend working and lowering the overall efficiency of providing care.

Besides, lawyers also make much less in Canada than in the U.S., as do senior executives. Is this also because of the health care system?

I like his thesis. I find it elegant and simple. It's too bad that any time he approached presenting a real fact in the article he did so dishonestly.

</comment><comment><USER16> I can't take any analysis of the American health care system seriously when it makes no mention of tort reform.

Compare litigation awards in the US and the rest of the world, or just Canda, and you'll see a huge difference.

This leads to much, much higher health care costs, and the practice of defensive medicine, and most perversely HMOs which can not be sued for denial of care.

That by the way is the only way HMOs can exists at all, by being put entirely out of the legal system.

I am not suggesting that tort reform is the ONLY way to fix health care in America, but it should at least be part of any discussion on the topic.

<comment><USER17> Some initial Googling finds one article putting malpractice claims at about half a percent of the total cost of health care in the U.S. ("The cost of defending U.S. malpractice claims is estimated at $6.5 billion in 2001, only 0.46 percent of total health spending." [1]). On the face of it, that doesn't sound like a place to look for serious improvements. Is there something non- obvious that makes it more significant than it sounds?

[1] <http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/24/4/903>

<comment><USER18> Risk preference? Individual doctors are exposed to a risk of many times their annual salary if something goes wrong and a patient gets a lawyer. If they have the choice between an operation costing $X with a 10% chance of failure, and one costing 50*$X with a 1% chance of failure, they may choose the latter so they don't need to worry so much about getting sued.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> He comes out on the side of Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs) as a political expedient alternative to the elimination of Medicare, Medicaid, and the repeal of tax exemptions for employer-provided health care.

I can't see how this would help control costs. Sure, it might reduce the individual cost of healthcare (pre-tax vs post-tax), but in aggregate the supply of available funds would increase (at general tax-payer expense) and push the demand curve out, raising prices overall. What happens to supply in all this?

<comment><USER20> One place a savings might be found is in reduction of tests done just to protect the physician from liability.

Also, the cost of keeping up medical billing companies is high enough that there might be a good savings if the local clinics and doctor offices didn't have to run all the paperwork for every checkup and infection.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Milton Friedman scares me almost as much as this article. Friedman's ideas have failed the proof is 60% of the shares of GM is in the hands of US Government, and a mega zillion tax dollars spent in buying the banking system, all for the lack of regulation. Free markets degenerate into speculative short sighted machines of stealing dollars. It's time to find the sweet spot between free market and communism. And the US will either do that or lose relevance once and for all

<comment><USER22> This stands in stark contrast to the political alternative. In our democracy, politicians are committed public servants who universally put the long-range well-being of the republic ahead of their own political interest. In this way we benefit from their wisdom, shown time and again to be superior to that of conventional public opinion, having carefully weighed and integrated the best ideas from leaders in every field.

</sarcasm>

Seriously, do you think that the US today is a free market? I challenge you to show me one area of endeavor that's not subject to government regulation.

The history of health insurance is completely dependent on government meddling. In the past, people were not dependent on their employers or any public assistance for healthcare. It was generally funded by the patients themselves, with help from mutual-aid organizations like churches and unions.

It was FDR's socialist wage freezes that forced companies to find other ways to compete for the most talented employees (the market always finds a way, despite government interference[1]). The way the income tax worked, offering healthcare benefits was advantageous. Thus, the government warped the existing market and changed the expectations of people. Now employees gripe that employees are greedy by not paying more and more for medical coverage -- but their offering any coverage at all is a very recent development.

[1] This is pretty much always true. Why do people drive gas-sucking SUVs today? Because CAFE regulations in the '70s killed the family station wagon, but exempted cars. People want big vehicles, and found a way around the regulations. And the work-around was worse than what we had initially.

<comment><USER23> _Why do people drive gas-sucking SUVs today? Because CAFE regulations in the '70s killed the family station wagon, but exempted cars. People want big vehicles, and found a way around the regulations. And the work-around was worse than what we had initially._

In that case, the problem is that the CAFE regulations weren't broad enough-- not that someone tried to regulate the market. "Government meddling" is necessary, and desirable.

<comment><USER24> see my comment on government subsidy of oil and burb living, which is a sister to yours.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> What everyone seems to miss in this is that maybe healthcare shoudl be an increasing percentage of spending. If your basics like food and entertainment are getting cheaper, spending on your health is a good investment (other than simply saving - which you want to eventually spend somewhere anyway before you die).

Would you pay all your life savings to live another five years? most people would.

Or put another way, would you work 20 and give 99 percent of earnings after tax/food/basic living to live another 5 or 10 years? at age 20 you might say no, but on yor deathbed you sure wish you had.

According to this scenario then, a government funded system would be better (a 20 year old would make poor choices thinking death is far away), but should in fact be increasing spending to far higher levels, maybe 50 percent or 80 percent of budget so that we can extend healthy lifespans

<comment><USER19> > Would you pay all your life savings to live another five years? most people > would.

Some would rather pass it on to their children, you know.

Besides, why should we be so scared of death?

<comment><USER26> > Besides, why should we be so scared of death?

Avoiding death is the one goal that's clearly built in. Why should we want to change it?

<comment><USER19> If you're 25, sure, but 80? When the choice is between spending down a lifetime's accumulation of resources, or handing said resources off to the next generation? I think evolution would have favored the latter.

<comment><USER25> Most retirees don't have much in the way of savings anyway, and their adult children tend to earn their own way through life. It's not necessary to "pass on your lands" as is done less industrialized countries. (Warren Buffet intends to give almost none of his wealth to his children).

The question could also be rephrased as would you move from your 2000 dollar mortgage home to a 1000 dollar rent apartment if it meant you live 5 or 10 more healthy years, much of consumer spending is on housing.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Eventhread - event discovery made easy - <AUTHOR> http://join.eventhread.com <comment><AUTHOR> Hey, I'd appreciate any comments on the value proposition and the landing page. Cheers!</comment>


Oculus Rift Goes from Virtual to Augmented Reality - <AUTHOR> http://hackaday.com/2013/12/09/oculus-rift-goes-from-virtual-to-augmented-reality/ <comment><USER2> Now this looks good. :)</comment>


Net Neutrality Won't Save the Internet. Competition Will - <AUTHOR> https://www.tomsguide.com/us/why-us-internet-is-slow-and-expensive,news-26251.html <comment><USER2> No, it'll get us several non-neutral providers offering odd assortments of "packages", none of which will include everying most people want, like TV. We need both neutrality and competition for different reasons.

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't really get his point, yes if we had more competition then prices would go down, but I don't quite get his argument for how removing net neutrality improves competition. Under net neutrality ISPs are not allowed to discriminate between high bandwidth and low bandwidth users, but I don't understand how removing net neutrality improves ISP competition. You could have smaller ISPs throttle video data as to be faster for all the other users but isn't the cost of this improvement that users have to pay for video?

Also it seems that ISPs by nature seem better suited to monopolies than competition, like the grid or utilities. Not saying that natural monopolies don't have their own problems but I don't understand why it's not less efficient to have the network broken up into multiple sections owned by multiple people.

Could someone help clarify?

<comment><USER4> The argument is that forced unbundling (ala telecommunications act of 1996 and examples in Europe) allows competition and will get us to better service and pricing. And net neutrality doesn't really get us better service and pricing.

I think the details of networks will make neutrality hard to enforce. For electricity it's easy to measure if a utility is providing good service -- is the voltage and frequency correct, how much of the time is the service available. For telephone it's pretty easy too -- is there dialtone, how many calls aren't able to be completed because circuits are busy etc. For internet it's much harder: there are many ways to run a network, and many places congestion can happen, and I don't expect the FCC to issue effective guidance on oversubscription and interconnection policies that covers what people think of when they want neutral results. Ex: maybe a national network runs all their transit interconnection through Chicago and Dallas, but does regional peering with 'selected high traffic partners.' if you're small, you can't compete on latency for their coastal users, because you're not big enough to peer, and transit runs in the center of the country. ISP claims it provides cost benefits and network management benefits to connect to transit it only two locations.</comment></comment>


AnyPerk (YC W12) Raises $1.4M To Help Startups Offer Perks To Employees - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2013/03/11/anyperk-raises-1-4m-from-digital-garage-and-others-to-help-startups-offer-perks-to-employees/

<comment><USER3> Every company I have ever worked at has had these "perks" of a discount store that has a mixed bag of "deals" from a bunch of random consumer companies - <USER2> can assure you that no employee is being retained because they get 15% off of movie tickets. Its not meant to be directed at AnyPerk but I have to wonder why these sorts of "perks" are offered at all. Amongst myself and other coworkers they are pretty much irrelevant and usually forgotten. Perhaps Ill use a discount on a cell phone or cable service contract if I remember but saving 10 bucks at Safeway is equivalent to the coupons I get in the mail.

<comment><USER4> Had this sort of stuff on offer at a (very) large corporate I worked for as well. I never heard of anyone using them, but I guess someone must have made something off the deal.

That said, $LARGECORP were very savvy about their finances, so I wouldn't be at all surprised if the external 'perk' provider got a small cut when they sent business to the movies or restaurants or wherever, and $LARGECORP actually took money for giving the perk provider access to their employee base.

Maybe someone with the knowledge can jump in, does the coupon provider (AnyPerk) get a cut of the discounted purchases?

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Is it just me or all these "perks" just discounts on things people shouldn't be spending their money on?

I assumed this would be actual perks like free gym memberships that when purchased in bulk lets the site negotiate for startups.

</comment><comment><USER6> Dear AnyPerk,

Please don't fuck it up like your predecessor BetterWorks by wasting money on a needlessly lavish environment, fostering a sexist brogrammer culture or hiring more people than minimally necessary.

Good luck and congratulations!

<comment><USER7> I know the founders personally and can tell you that they are down to earth, really likeable guys who don't have the brogrammer culture in them at all. :)

<comment><USER8> Seconded.

<comment><USER9> I knew them in japan before they were anyperk. you guys remember mieple?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Doesn't a service like AnyPerk ensure that all startups offer about the same perks, thereby defeating the purpose of having unique perks?

Also, their perks remind me of what you would typically find in a coupon book, with the exception of Getaround and iCracked.

</comment><comment><USER11> So now YC is literally funding coupon books? Why do people aim so low?

<comment><USER12> It's not just a coupon book... it's a coupon book _on the internet_!

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> These aren't really perks. They're group discounts, and they're not even as good as the one that my (old-school) employer or various bar associations provide.

BetterWorks at least offered a perk-style sytem: employees were given an "allowance" to spend each week or month and could spend it on whatever BW had in their system.

Here's hoping AnyPerk gets better soon enough to matter.

<comment><USER14> Wonder if they make money on the other side of the perk as well. Price per lead fee they charge their partners.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> In my opinion some of the best office culture/perks have been autonomy of task, ability to persue mastery and a sense of valued purpose. While hard to quantify and difficult to implement, such a work environment can be quite desirable from a motivational standpoint.

</comment><comment><USER16> Just remember: the greatest perk of all is flexible working hours and location. And a couch.

</comment><comment><USER17> We live in silly times.

</comment><comment><USER18> AnyPerk guys,

CSS styles is not loading on my computer (Firefox 19).

The CSS request is 301 redirect and I got this warning "This Connection is Untrusted".

See: [https://AnyPerkSSL-30563771.us- west-1.elb.amazonaws.com/asse...](https://AnyPerkSSL-30563771.us- west-1.elb.amazonaws.com/assets/application-58c69c5e35e1f7180c3874bb8931cee6.css)</comment>


Ask HN: How do I create a table in text (using hyphens, pipes and pluses)? - <AUTHOR> Every now and then I see people create fancy tables in plain text here on HN (either as a signature or in the comments). I remember seeing a lot of this in my UNIX days too and always wondered how it was done. I have a need for it now, so if you know how please help.<p>Thanks, <comment><USER2> The simple answer to your question is the obvious one: Manually. Use a text editor that has a "draw mode" or "draw mode plugin" emacs, or sublime text for example.

If you would like to create them programmatically, some languages have modules that help you create them easily. Off the top of my head PrettyTable in python works quite well.

[https://pypi.python.org/pypi/PrettyTable](https://pypi.python.org/pypi/PrettyTable)

Hope this helps.

</comment><comment><USER3> Emacs will handle this for you: [https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/emacs/Te...](https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/emacs/Text- Based-Tables.html)

</comment><comment><USER4> [http://www.tablesgenerator.com/text_tables](http://www.tablesgenerator.com/text_tables)

</comment><comment><USER5> Have you tried, uh, googling? "Ascii table generator" seems to give several relevant hits.</comment>


My book, Principles of PM, helps new product managers launch their careers - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/petergyang/status/1216418134527115264 <comment><AUTHOR> Hello all, I just published a book to help new and aspiring product managers launch their careers - [https://amzn.to/37wflQ0](https://amzn.to/37wflQ0). The book includes 200 pages of best practices from what I learned on the job at Amazon, Facebook, and other companies on:

1\. Principles: When your product fails to get traction, when your team falls apart, or when you get tough feedback - these are all opportunities to learn principles to become a better PM.

2\. Product Development: Learn how to work backwards from the customer problem, identify the right product to build, and execute with your team to bring the product to market.

3\. Getting the Job: Understand how to transition to PM from another field, select the right company, and prep for the three most common types of PM interviews - product sense, execution, and behavioral.

The book also includes interviews with product leaders at Airbnb, Amazon, Google, and more.

I dislike business books that repeat one idea ad nauseum or are written by consultants with no practical experience. Hope that you think my book is different :)

</comment><comment><USER2> This is really interesting and I might pick this up! I'm actually on the other side of the equation. I want to learn how to work better with the PM as an engineer. I'm working in a "startup" environment and we're having some issues working as a team and aligning well.</comment>


Switzerland switching off its first nuclear plant on Friday - <AUTHOR> https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/radio-inactivity_how-switzerland-is-dismantling-its-first-nuclear-power-station/45443302 <comment><USER2> I'm so deeply ashamed of my country. We voted against even research on nuclear. With Nuclear and Water energy we were one of the greenest energy producers in the world.

Switzerland has such a long history with nuclear and its the exact thing Switzerland should be shining.</comment>


Intelligent Tracking Prevention 2.3 - <AUTHOR> https://webkit.org/blog/9521/intelligent-tracking-prevention-2-3/ <comment><USER2> The final nail in the coffin for client side companies that care about long term persistence. I see this as really hurting Recommendation companies and AB testing platforms in absence of some server side set identifier - which is quite the change in infrastructure - since not all platforms allow you to do that.</comment>


ITunes App Store: Buy the Numbers - <AUTHOR> http://labs.mindfulbear.com/itunes-app-store-buy-the-numbers/

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm the author.

I wrote an iOS App Store crawler, and have been picking through the results for the last few days. In this blog post I share some of the oddities and curiosities I found in there.</comment>


Internet Society CEO: Most people don't care about the .org sell-off - <AUTHOR> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/11/29/isoc_ceo_dot_org_sale/ <comment><USER2> I think the bigger point in the article is that most people including .org holders don't even know the sale is happening.

</comment><comment><USER3> Most people don't care if they will be slaves or not.

Most people don't care about anything. So what? Let's burn this planet to ashes?

Democracy can work only with people that do care.

<comment><USER4> Most people don't understand what it is or what it means. I refrain from voting when I'm uninformed. I rarely vote for city elections and some random state positions because I don't have time to research the options. That doesn't mean that I or most people don't care about the results, we just don't have the time to learn enough about everything to have a rational opinion on everything.

That's why representative democracies are better than strict democracies. I may not be an expert on everything, but I can usually recognize an expert when I see one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Most people don't care that Goldman Sach is behind the financing of .org takeover.

<comment><USER4> That doesn't seem relevant. Banks bankroll all sorts of things, but that doesn't mean the agree with them, it just means the financial details like advantageous for them. I'm more concerned about the motivations of the buyer and seller than the financier.</comment></comment>


At what time of day does famous programmers work? Part 2. Workweek vs. Weekend - sahin-boydas https://ivan.bessarabov.com/blog/famous-programmers-work-time-part-2-workweek-vs-weekend <comment> sahin-boydas part 1: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20468870](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20468870)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Do they have kids?</comment>


Hit by Ransomware Attack, Florida City Agrees to Pay Hackers $600k - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/19/us/florida-riviera-beach-hacking-ransom.html <comment><USER2> > A similar breach recently cost Baltimore $18 million to repair damages.

No. $18 million was an _estimate_ somebody gave once, who knows where it came from.

In fact, damages have _not_ been repaired in Baltimore. 6 weeks later, most city services are still down. You can't pay a parking ticket or a water bill online. (You can send a check in; I am not sure where they _record_ that you paid when they cash your check, and am not particularly confident they'll actually have a record I paid).

We in fact do not know how much money they've spent thus far, there have been no press briefings on this. Estimates of how much they will spend before it's over (will it ever be over?)... we all know how IT estimates work.

I think it will probably be quite a bit more than $18 million. And then there's estimating "damage to the economy." (There were two weeks when real estate transfers were frozen, because there was no way to check city liens. They can be done now, using a paper-based system that actually has those involved in the transaction sign an unusual contract agreeing to take on liability for unknown liens in unusual ways (I'm being vague cause I don't totally understand it), that some but not all title companies are willing to use).

The Baltimore ransomers only wanted ~$100K. If I were the mayor, yeah I'd pay it.

</Baltimore resident>

<comment><USER3> How can you separate necessary security upgrades out from the $18m? $100k wouldn't be enough to maintain a single critial app securely for more than a couple of years.

If you're running a bunch of critical services you need to secure them, and that takes millions every year, it's unavoidable. A single hack that exposes this is irrelevant

<comment><USER2> It is true that the cause of the pain is that they haven't been running their IT in a secure fashion, and this is the real problem.

I don't know how much of the money/time that will be spent (the "$18 million" figure is entirely imaginary) to instead try to recover their data/systems to functional... but I don't think it's a great use of money.

But indeed, actually running secure systems is what they got to be focusing on, and will be expensive. I think many organizations are going to find that they can't actually afford to do what's needed to reliably run the systems they already rely on, having not been running them reliably or securely.

I hope that the 'recovery' efforts, done in an emergency fashion, don't distract them from getting to that point and figuring out what they're going to do about it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Could they have avoided the ransom by having daily (or hourly) backups to non- rewritable (write once) media? So the malware won't encrypt the backups, obviously.

I think that the last day's work (or last hour's work) will be lost or will require a lot of manual fixing regardless of whether they pay the ransom. If they pay, they'll still have to fix partial database transactions, corrupt files, etc., for the attack date. If they don't pay, they can recover from earlier good backups and reconstruct that one day's worth. My reasoning is that the attack date's data is going to be corrupt and untrustworthy in either case, and it'll be equal work either way. (Or at least it'll be less than $600,000 of work to fix that one day.)

I imagine that they either weren't doing backups at all, or their backups were directly accessible and writable by the malware.

<comment><USER5> A very good solution here is ZFS. Office file server runs ZFS and makes regular ZFS snapshots (hourly, or more often). Snapshots are immutable so even if the employee machines get infected, nothing can be lost (except the last N minutes since the last snapshot). Obviously, still have to do backups (off of those snapshots).

<comment><USER6> > Snapshots are immutable so even if the employee machines get infected

Not really. You can easily extract data and overwrite the disk surface.

<comment><USER5> Not from the machines which typically get infected, which are the employee desktops accessing the file server.

If the malware manages to get itself running on the file server itself (and with root privileges), then sure. That's not a common case though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> >On Monday, Councilwoman KaShamba Miller-Anderson, the chairwoman of the board, asked Justin Williams, the interim information technology manager, for something seemingly simple. Could the elected officials' new email addresses be posted online for the public to get in touch with them?

>Underscoring the enormity of the city's troubles, Mr. Williams explained that the webmaster hoped to get to that soon.

>"He's been working very feverishly to get that done," Mr. Williams said.

...the webmaster is working feverishly to post a static piece of text to a website? I guess it really is hard to fire government workers.

<comment><USER8> It's the government. He probably needs to find long lost keys to SSH in, file four forms (each in triplicate), and receive approval from each person to get it out.

<comment><USER9> It's municipal government. There almost certainly were no SSH keys.

The problem is that the credentials that the webmaster needs likely only exist in an Excel spreadsheet that was saved on the desktop of the "Administrator" user account on one of the machines that got hit.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> maybe state governments should preempt this and make it illegal for municipalities or state agencies to pay ransoms, so they are less attractive targets

<comment><USER11> "We never pay any-one Dane-geld, No matter how trifling the cost; For the end of that game is oppression and shame, And the nation that plays it is lost!"

But the problem is that those that don't pay hurt even more.

The US makes it illegal to pay kidnapper ransom and, as a result, US citizens have much worse outcomes (often murdered) when they are ransomed abroad.

The theory that it makes US citizens less attractive targets is confounded by the fact that some families/friends of the victims can and do pay anyway (illegally).

Planet money did a podcast on it.

[https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2017/09/01/548032302/epis...](https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2017/09/01/548032302/episode-792-the- ransom-problem)

<comment><USER12> Another interesting podcast on the topic of kidnapping: [http://www.econtalk.org/anja-shortland-on- kidnap/](http://www.econtalk.org/anja-shortland-on-kidnap/)

Goes into the details of kidnapping as a business venture from the kidnappers perspective, and how a price equilibrium is found between 'buyers' (ransom payers) and 'sellers' (kidnappers).

On interesting story was when the partner of a small business owner got kidnapped as punishment for failing to pay some protection money. When the business owner went to negotiate the ransom, the kidnappers had had an accountant already go through the businesses fiances so they knew exactly how much they could ask for, without it bankrupting the business owner (so that the owners company could keep thriving and thus could keep paying protection money).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Note the specific detail here:

        the City Council unanimously agreed to have its insurance carrier pay

<comment><USER14> Seems like a classic case of moral hazard here.

I'm surprised cybersecurity insurance doesn't mandate best-practice auditable backups as part of the process to grant a policy.

<comment><USER15> I mean, do health insurance companies mandate best health practices in order to get health insurance? Of course not, they just charge premiums commensurate with the risk they're taking on.

<comment><USER16> Interestingly, basing insurance on healthiness seems to be a new trend happening right now.

I'm a runner, and recently I've seen a lot of ads for a company called HealthIQ (I think) that offers cheap life insurance, but only for people who can run a 9 minute mile.

I think breaking into health insurance would be much harder because a) the administration is way more complicated and b) most people get health insurance through their employers, and normal employers won't be able to guarantee that _every_ employee can pass a healthiness test, but I imagine they're working on getting around these problems right now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Look, virtually nowhere in the public sector is security taken seriously. And nowhere in local government is security taken seriously. City governments might as well be pinatas... the way their budgets work, they'd never be able to replace large systems that were compromised. Without legislation banning them from paying, paying the ransom is likely really appealing to them. Security should be bumped up, but let's face it... that's not going to happen given how nobody who knows anything about tech would be caught dead working for local government. So many things have to change.

<comment><USER18> It really doesn't make sense to me that software isn't created at the government level for cities and states to use. This way it's easier to make sure everything is functioning properly and the cost is only paid once.

<comment><USER19> > It really doesn't make sense to me that software isn't created at the > government level for cities and states to use.

What government level? The federal government?

> This way it's easier to make sure everything is functioning properly and the > cost is only paid once.

The federal government is no paragon of software virtue, nor is it likely to produce software adapted all that well to all of the needs of various states and cities, so what you'd end up with is software less fit for purpose, not particularly free from vulnerability, and where all of the vulnerabilities expose every state and local government in the country rather than just one jurisdiction.

And that's still assuming good intent, but in many cases the state and federal government have adversarial relations on particular issues, which might lead to the federal government actively designing software in a way to frustrate the needs of particular states.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> The laxness of infosec in government continues to astonish me. It's not like these types of attacks are new either. I can only assume that the people in charge of infosec in such situations are bureaucrats without much technical knowledge.

<comment><USER21> It's a failing of the American condition. The country was founded by radical conspiracy theorist farmers that didn't want to pay taxes. Distrusting government is in our national ethos. It pervades to this day in the form of governments generally being staffed with people too incompetent for private sectors. The pay sucks. It's hard to get raises. It's hard to do _anything_ because Americans hate taxes; they'll help their neighbors, but they won't help those they can't see beyond their porch. There's little personal incentive to work in local/state governments. And that's partly how we end up with events like this.

<comment><USER22> > _It 's a failing of the American condition. The country was founded by > radical conspiracy theorist farmers that didn't want to pay taxes. > Distrusting government is in our national ethos._

Not true at all. Distrust of government is a relatively new phenomenon in American politics. It can be traced back to Reagan's infamous "The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help" quote. This is because Reagan strictly believed in small government, and wanted to limit government interference in most things.

Before Reagan, Americans had no issues trusting government to solve big problems or accomplish major goals. See the Space Race, and Roosevelt's New Deal policies two decades before that. American people were largely optimistic about those endeavors because they trusted their government.

<comment><USER23> The Vietnam War did a _lot_ to destroy Americans' trust in their government.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Great, now they have encouragement to do it again.

</comment><comment><USER25> Will the attackers restore the attacked machines once the payment is made? They are just as likely to take the ransom and run.

<comment><USER26> If they want the next city to pay, they will restore the attacked machines. Gotta remember, this is a business for the attackers.

<comment><USER25> I think that time has passed. I've read about too many people who pay up but don't get their files back.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I would very much like to hear from the insurance carrier here, and know what the post mortem and preventive countermeasures will be.

Update: The servicer appears to be Gallagher Basset based on the 2018-19 budget and legal cases cited online.

City records (CC agendas, minutes) are painful if not impossible to navigate.

</comment><comment><USER27> Curiously, no open IT / security positions listed:

[https://rivierabch.applicantpro.com/jobs/](https://rivierabch.applicantpro.com/jobs/)

<comment><USER28> The first thing I do when I read a news article that includes any company or organization saying that they are 'serious about security' is go to their website and check their job listings. Sometimes they have openings for security-related positions, but what is actually telling is their software openings. They NEVER so much as mention a single thing about security or knowing how to create secure applications. I've literally not seen a single exception, personally. Most companies do seem to have reached a level of 'caring about security' but it amounts to hiring some people to play Patch Patrol and nothing more. I guess that's better than nothing, but it won't actually help much.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I've noticed outside software or technical companies IT is basically 100% turn key with off the shelf mostly junkware (even 'enterprise') software being used. I attribute this to the mismatch between HR and the position being hired for and what higher education teaches w.r.t IT. Honestly what needs to happen is interviews need to be farmed out to places that understand the respective industry and not just certifications and higher education.

</comment><comment><USER30> Let's look at this a bit differently - Ransomware is a type of malicious software designed to block access to a computer system or computer files until a sum of money is paid. Most ransomware variants encrypt the files on the affected computer, making them inaccessible, and demand a payment to restore access.

Ransomware is a type of malicious software designed to block access to a computer system or computer files until a sum of money is paid. Most ransomware variants encrypt the files on the affected computer, making them inaccessible, and demand a ransom payment to restore access.

Ransomware is rarely individually targeted, but rather a "shotgun" approach where the attackers (Clue I) acquire lists of emails or compromised websites and blast out ransomware.

Microsoft used a method to install software giving it superuser rights without a login. (Clue II) Most ransomware is based on this same install job. It is lightweight but identifiable.

Ransomware is a tripartite intruder and is based on what's already there on Windows (mscexe) in your compute and a substitution of legit program (outlook encrypt) Once the 3 parts are there your system is theirs and only a windows product key method "EFHST-G6ERT-VXWMT-FF8MB-MYERR" can free it - all thanks to Microsoft's product key methodology.

Oh and "backups" & PCmatic won't help and because Microsoft uses the same method to stop you from sharing software. You have seen the screen yourself => you have entered an invalid the product key!

Ransomware can be shipped with a NSA crack( EternalBlue ) forced onto the city of Baltimore (Clue III ) but the same code to create a superuser is open to the public is the end to all protection - because it hides using Microsoft's hidden directory method.

Well what to do now, pay the BTC? Yes and NO Yes buy BTC and NO this is where we create a pigeon drop for out NSA connected friends - we don't accept the face price and try to keep our BTC keys and Encrypt theirs.

For the FBI and NSA the profit from robbing Venezuela, Iran, Russia, Ukraine and Switzerland has been too great for them to stop. As witnessed with Venezuelan money gone and power outage.

That said, demand that Microsoft be held liable for product defects and to make all actions visible to the end user community ( no hidden files or directories ).

</comment><comment><USER31> So the US is willing to pay ransoms - just not for people.

<comment><USER32> > So the US is willing to pay ransoms - just not for people

A city government in Florida is not the US federal government.

<comment><USER33> Well now the various groups beheading people on YouTube know where to ask.

<comment><USER34> Those people care about creating a spectacle, not getting paid.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I will continue to smugly assert that backup must include an offline component. Given that total data loss is a non-zero possibility (and, increasingly, more and more likely) the argument that having even a simple offline component (say, some encrypted USB disks for a small business, tape or such for a larger business) is too expensive or cumbersome doesn't make sense to me.

</comment><comment><USER33> What evidence do they have that the hackers will actually send the keys? seems like a pretty big gamble on trusting proven criminals.

<comment><USER36> Ransomware relies on trust, because if you don't actually hold up your end and decrypt the data then no one will bother to pay you in the future. The entire "market" is best served by playing "fair", in so far as that can be applied here.

That doesn't mean some criminals won't just take the money, but it does mean that most of them wont and that the larger players have a vested interest in keeping that behavior to a minimum.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Lady opens a random email (most likely in her junk folder) from someone she doesn't know and end's up costing the company hundreds of thousands of dollars? In 2019? Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

</comment><comment><USER38> Apparently some people do negotiate with terrorists.

</comment><comment><USER39> Shouldn't the one responsible personally have to pay for it rather than the city and its taxpayers?

<comment><USER40> You mean the one who wrote the attacking code? Or the one who wrote the vulnerable code? Why do we even assume there is a "one" here?

<comment><USER39> Whoever made the decision not to take backups for example. The ones who will have to pay for their mistakes will be the taxpayers otherwise.

<comment><USER3> This is a public service, aren't the voters responsible? They could have voted in competent leaders.

<comment><USER23> This is it exactly. The voters are the ones who are ultimately responsible, and they'll be the ones to ultimately pay, just as it should be. They should be voting for competent leaders, and for sufficient taxes to pay decent salaries to attract good IT talent, but they don't, so this is what they get.

Every nation gets the government it deserves. - Joseph de Maistre

<comment><USER39> The voters are not one person. Sadly democracy ends up being the fascism of the many.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: FlyByChat, the site I'm working on. Looking for feedback. - <AUTHOR> http://beta.flybychat.com/

<comment><USER2> I'd suggest making a single, clear call to action. Perhaps "Chat anonymously with a random partner" would be the best option to drive attention to first, since it requires the least effort and commitment from the user. I'd make the button say something like "Start a Chat Now!", with smaller subtext to the effect of "100% Anonymous and Fun".

<comment><AUTHOR> Good feedback. I was worried about that. Thanks.

<comment><USER3> You should tell people that the global chat room isn't anonymous, and that their facebook profile will be linked in the chat room. It's always bad when users have to find out from other users that they aren't anonymous.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> \- UI is nice. Excellent idea. Was able to quickly use the site and chat with two people.

\- The space to say something is small. \- Can improve on giving more visual feedback \- First panel should be anonymous chat \- Easy way to enter your anonymous profile \- There was a javascript alert window that pop up (maybe debug message or something) \- .. Unable to connect.. \- .. Down for maintenance ... \- The icon to add more panel should be more clear. It sort of surprise me. \- Ability to maximize a panel (I suppose I can delete the other panels)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. Yeah, it was down for maintenance for a few minutes there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'd like to see when my chat partner is actually active (like in typing) and stuff or update the title bar of the window.

also an option to enlarge the chat window would be nice.

<comment><AUTHOR> When you say enlarge, are you thinking of resizing the windows horizontally?

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> To me (Safari 5/Mac) this site is a big blue screen with no content except an "About" link that doesn't work. I waited five to ten seconds before giving up.

I'm using a 3G connection which may be flaky, so maybe I'm just suffering from extreme latency. Nevertheless, you should probably try to show at least a sentence on initial page load to keep me curious enough to suffer through another few seconds...

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, the site works on Safari 5, so it must be latency. In particular, sometimes the external Facebook JS takes a long time to load. I'll add a loading message. Thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Nice idea, but it hangs on "finding partner", which kind of sucks (I closed the window after about 30 secs)

<comment><AUTHOR> I think the hanging is probably that there was no one else looking. You don't have cookies disabled, do you?

<comment><USER8> Might be a good idea to let the user know that's the case so that they don't mistake it with hanging.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Submitter here. Thanks for checking out my site. I'm looking for feedback on all levels: the UI and implementation, the product idea, and the market.

Particular questions: do you "know what to do" when you get to the site? Is it ugly? What would make you use a site like this?

The idea here is to iterate in the same space as ChatRoulette, towards the goal of becoming the best place to meet new people online. There are some obvious directions to go in, like adding video, dating features (FB' Interested In/Looking For), and locale support, and maybe some not so obvious ones, but I'd like to hear what you think.

<comment><USER3> isn't omegle anonymous chat too?

<comment><AUTHOR> ? Yes, Omegle supports anonymous chat.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> On chrome, it looks a little strange. The chat window is all compressed into one line.

<http://imgur.com/ldNpV>

<comment><AUTHOR> It doesn't do that on mine. :|

What OS + version of Chrome are you using? What happens if you resize the browser window?

Thanks for taking the time to get a screenshot, I appreciate that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> The ui is very nice, I really like the ability to add more chat windows side by side. The obvious problem is that there don't seem to be very many people online.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you. This post is the first place I've announced the site, so it makes sense that there aren't a lot of people on. I think I'll try to get some more now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Nice - the location features are something I definitely wanted while messing around on Chatroulette and Omegle.

</comment><comment><USER11> Looks great, the site. Would add sound notification on message arrival (optional).</comment>


How low does Uber have to go before we stop using it? - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/08/uber-customers-sexual-harassment-tech-companies <comment><USER2> I used to exclusively use Lyft, until one of their drivers nearly killed me. Lyft, of course, sided with the driver despite GPS evidence, multiple witnesses, and a police report.

Uber's horrific management notwithstanding, I've never feared for my life in an Uber, so I intend to use Uber until it dies or a replacement comes along that is superior to both Uber and Lyft.

<comment><USER3> The fact that this is the only downvoted/flagged comment so far supports my suspicion that it's mainly lyft/google/alphabet/waymo employees and fanboys and fangirls upvoting these stories to the front page.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Your average person is not going to pay attention or care about what Uber as a company does.

The only things that matters to the average user is the experience and the price - in order for people to stop using Uber something has to affect them personally.

<comment><USER5> I really do not think this is true. It may vary geographically, but I can say unequivocally that everyone I know in my city (Portland, Oregon) is aware of and annoyed by the apparent sexist culture and shady law-evading that has become associated with Uber. And it has _definitely_ altered their usage habits. And they talk about it. A lot. Having entered the market as a heralded White Knight, doing battle with entrenched and crummy Taxi companies, Uber had a high standard to live-up to. Yet they keep shooting themselves in the tires.

<comment><USER6> > And they talk about it. A lot.

That's signaling. It's a mating strategy. Whether that actually changes the behavior of all those who are signaling when they aren't being observed by others in their in-group is another matter entirely.

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

<comment><USER7> Cute attempt at trying to minimize people's concerns. If you want to play that game though, using services other than Uber is also signaling.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > Instead, Uber has entered that rarified portion of the market, alongside > companies like Ryanair and Sports Direct, where unpleasantness is now an > assumed part of the brand.

I don't think that's fair, because I don't have any expectation of unpleasantness when I interact with Uber drivers, who're my only contact with the company. The unpleasantness that exists seems to be at the corporate level. My experience with drivers and the Uber service has been very positive (and the same goes for Lyft).

</comment><comment><USER9> > In March, it was revealed that the company had been "greyballing" law > enforcement, hiding vehicles from them in an effort to fox attempts to catch > drivers in cities where the app is banned.

Is that wrong? If there's a police car set up on 6th, can I avoid it and go on 7th? Or does that mean I'm a criminal with something to hide?

<comment><USER10> Yes, it's wrong.

If Uber is banned in a city, that means it's against the law. Dodging cops while you're doing something against the law... yeah, that's wrong. It's wrong to be doing the thing that against the law, and you're proving that you know it by dodging the cops.

But you may argue that the Uber service is fine; the law itself is wrong. And that's a reasonable argument. (Not necessarily _right_ , but at least reasonable.) But the correct way to respond is with civil disobedience - deliberately disobey the law, _and accept the consequences_ , trying to win either in court of law or in the court of public opinion. You can't do that if you dodge the consequences.

Don't dodge bad laws. Either obey them (even while you're working to change them), or _publicly_ disobey them. Dodging the cops is not the answer.

<comment><USER11> I don't think the company makes any secret of operating in any city. As far as I know they are quite public and let elected officials know they are going to operate in their city. This means that the city can quite trivially subpoena the company once it starts operating. The drivers are just trying to earn a living. So basically the company was practicing civil disobedience, but was kind enough not to try and keep individual drivers just trying to make a living out of it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> As I've come to realize -- or, accept more fully -- in the last few years, morals take a distant second to personal welfare and convenience, for most people.

Uber is emblematic of today's world.

Which is the same world it's always been. Different day, same shit.</comment>


Maximizing Iterations - <AUTHOR> http://mike.posterous.com/maximizing-iterations

<comment><USER2> And totally forgetting that more iterations isn't necessarily better. If you push that to its limit, you can have an iteration ever second... And you'll get absolutely nothing done in each one.</comment>