Bitching About Basecamp - <AUTHOR> http://blog.sentientmonkey.com/post/708447989/bitching-about-basecamp

<comment><USER2> The author of this post doesn't want Basecamp. He wants something that does fine-grained project management. I'm sure Zoho ( _or, late edit, Pivotal Tracker_ ) does something closer to what he needs.

It's one thing to complain that Basecamp is too drag-and-drop. But _not_ having detailed schedule management features is practically Basecamp's calling card. _He's using it wrong_.

Basecamp is awesome when your workflow is "generate some kind of file, post it, talk about it, repeat". A surprising number of projects boil down to that. For that workflow, Basecamp is the best thing I've used. For any other workflow, look elsewhere.

<comment><USER3> I agree - I don't think I want Basecamp. But I don't need Zoho either. My point was that Basecamp is missing a few (very small) features that would take it from "Ok" to "Awesome". Even though this may be against much of the 37 signals philosophy of keeping things simple and lean.

I thought Basecamp is also designed to solve the distributed project management problem in a simple, easy way. I like the appoach, but the Deadline/Time tracking doesn't work for me in it's current implementation.

<comment><USER2> No, Basecamp is missing a couple "small" features that would take it from "Ok for 'swindsor" to Zoho.

Seriously. Not kidding. You want a different app. Basecamp don't want you. There's nothing wrong with that. Or you.

<comment><USER3> I think I'm okay if Basecamp doesn't want me. Really, it's a product, and if it doesn't fit my needs, I'll move on. But I'm sure I'm not the only one. But really, it's up to 37Signals to listen to the feedback or keep the product as is. Keeping it as is will keep their market share low, and ultimately make them less money. But I might be missing the point.

<comment><USER2> Of course you're not the only one. There are literally tens of thousands of professionals like you that are not a good match for Basecamp. It's perfectly normal. Basecamp only works for a tiny fraction of what I do.

One of the reasons why 37signals has managed to be so successful with so little code and so few team members is that they are extremely disciplined about what customers they cater to. Catering to people like you and me might kill them.

Like 'nexneo said upthread, you want Pivotal Tracker.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The OP is truly missing the point of Basecamp, and some of the points don't make that much sense if I'm reading them correctly:

"No time estimates" - if you upgrade to the next highest version of Basecamp you will get time tracking functionality for all tasks, which would work just fine for basic time estimation. If you don't want to upgrade to the next highest version, then just put your estimate for the time a task will take into the comments for that task. The idea is to figure out a way to make this simple system work for you, and that's why they can cast such a wide net to so many different types of industries without catering to them specifically.

"Tasks have no correlation to Milestones" - this is not true, but probably mentioned because of the OP's brief interaction with the app. When you create a todo list you can choose which milestone it relates to. You can even set it to complete that milestone when all the todos have been checked off.

"Too much Drag & Drop" - this point is really pretty nit-picky and more a matter of personal preference. I don't claim to be a UI expert, but I could make equally compelling arguments as to why the drag and drop functionality they have in place would be better than up and down arrows.

"Why 6 categories of messages?" - This one is just laziness on the OP's part. Right at the bottom of the messages dropdown menu you will notice an "-- Add New Category --" option which allows you to customize categories. You can also globally customize categories so that they show up for other projects too.

I'm really surprised this post hit the front page of HN. It iss a cursory glance at a piece of software and a seemingly offhand damning of it. I wouldn't doubt that a few of these up votes came from people just reading the headline and having a general feeling of bitterness towards 37signals, for whatever reason. There's been a spate of anti-37signals posts over at reddit.com/r/web_design too so it wouldn't surprise me.

Basecamp is great software because it's extremely simple. They purposely keep the feature-set small and are very opinionated about how they do things. The result is a very solid tool that isn't bloated and can fit many different niches because of its accessibility. Before they came around you were stuck with overly complicated all-things-to-all-people solutions. Kind of like Rails and Apple products...

</comment><comment><USER5> One of the issues I've seen with Basecamp is that it's bought quite a lot - I've done contracting work for a number of companies large and small in my area, and _most_ of them had used basecamp in the past or were still paying for it when I got there. Problem was, no one was using it 'right'. Based on the comments here, and other critiques I've read, it seems to be a good fit to a _far_ smaller group of orgs than people think (especially the people who buy it). They end up beating their heads against the wall, or abandoning web-based PM tools altogether - "well, we tried the leader and it doesn't work for us - we're too unique and special, so we'll just keep doing everything on paper" (not actual words, but the gist I've heard before).

So 37S ends up being phenomenal marketers that have a service many people want to buy, but more people buy it than can get real value out of it because it wasn't built for their needs in the first place.

Certainly 37S is not ultimately responsible for people continuing to pay for something that doesn't work, but they do a pretty good sales job via word-of- mouth evangelism, even when it's a poor fit for an org's needs. Maybe too good?

</comment><comment><USER6> I think the real value proposition from Basecamp is that it replaces e-mail. Some of us don't really need all that fancy stuff, so much that we may even use e-mail to manage our projects (I still do use e-mail when it's something very small).

So Basecamp does not try to solve everything, it's just the best thing after e-mail.

<comment><USER3> That I really agree with. It's a great group collaboration tool, and a much better replacement that email.

But for task management, it still isn't better than a shared Google Spreadsheet, which is weird to me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I get 37S's philosophy, and I thank them for being so transparent about their goals, so that I can be sure never to use one of their products.

Entrepreneurial companies, by their very nature, change. It's hard for me to fathom why a startup would build their software development process around a tool optimized for inflexibility, no matter how enticing, when that might inhibit their ability to fix something broken about their business later.

</comment><comment><USER8> I've long been a fan of 'Getting Real' and now 'Rework' but I'm pretty sure I'm not their target customer -- I've found all of their products lacking in functionality. And, it just doesn't seem like they're listening to my customer type, or my problems. So, I've just relented and have assumed that I'm not their target, and they they're doing an awesome job with whoever their actual customer target is!

<comment><USER2> For the record, and yes I'm repeating myself:

Their actual customers are service practices (designers, copywriters, event planners, marketing organizations, business consultants) whose workflow consists of "1. discuss some kind of file, 2. create some kind of file, 3. upload file, 4. discuss file, 5. goto 1". For that workflow, it's great.

It does _not_ work for projects with multiple independently timeboxed steps, or for projects that have complex dependencies. The dependencies need to work like "step 2 depends on file from step 1; step 3 depends on files from step 2".

<comment><USER8> I might be repeating myself too, but go check out who they market themselves to, and how they describe their product:

<http://basecamphq.com/buzz>

<comment><USER2> I really don't understand what you're trying to get at. I'm telling you what Basecamp works well for, and what I believe it was designed to do. You're telling me that you disagree with the marketing copy on their website. I didn't write that marketing copy, and I'm not interested in critiquing it.

Regardless of how your mental mapping of their marketing copy works, they've been completely explicit about the fact that Basecamp is _not_ designed for people who want fine-grained schedule-based management. They've written extremely popular blog posts about why they think that kind of project management is evil. You can agree or disagree with that (I do both), but you can't tell them they have to add features they don't want to add just because you have a different definition of "project management".

<comment><USER3> I think my issue is that I totally agree that fine-grained project management is evil, meetings suck, I read the books, listen to podcasts, drink the kool- aid, etc.

But, Basecamp is a project management tool. It allows you to track tasks (and due-dates), and milestones. I don't care about task dependancies, or gannt charts.

I do care about agile development. I do need to see the status of my project in an aggregate way (are we close yet?) Even understanding that estimates are wild guesses, task-level timeboxing is better than working backwards from dates. I can't image the due-date feature working well except for in some very narrow circumstances.

I guess overall if my definition is "project management" is different, then wouldn't they want their product to work to handle users like me? Or not, and that's okay. I'm just saying that I'm cut out of the niche of users they are looking for, whether it be intentional or not.

<comment><USER2> I don't think Basecamp is a particularly good way to manage agile software development projects, or really software development projects of _any_ kind, and especially not software development projects that have multiple cooperating team members.

Like the commenter downthread said, you want Pivotal Tracker, not Basecamp.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> For as much as we all love 37s and their preaching, Scott brings up some very valid points about their actual products outside of their books and brand.

<comment><USER9> In that they don't solve everyone's problems? I don't think 37S ever proclaimed to do this.

<comment><USER8> I disagree -- their value proposition on their BasecampHQ homepage says "the leading web-based project collaboration tool". That sounds like it should be pretty generic, and applicable to many different use cases, and definitely to the small web development startup, right?

<comment><USER9> Coke says it's the leading soft drink. I don't really think it's their issue if you happen to like Pepsi better.

The fact that 55% (or whatever) of the market is using the tool, but you aren't part of that 55% makes the claim accurate and the tool not right for you at the same time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> the biggest thing for me that basecamp is missing is email. I would want to have a direct integration into my email, so I can set tasks and organize projects directly from there. I think the likes of producteev and taskforceapp.com are probably on to something.</comment>


North Sentinel Island, home of isolated indigenous tribe, to be open to tourists - <AUTHOR> https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/restricted-area-permit-eased-for-foreigners-visiting-29-andaman-islands/articleshow/65311535.cms <comment><USER2> For the curious:

Images: [https://duckduckgo.com/?q=north+sentinelese&t=ffsb&iax=image...](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=north+sentinelese&t=ffsb&iax=images&ia=images)

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

 _A group of indigenous people, the Sentinelese, live on North Sentinel Island. Their population is estimated at between 50 and 400 individuals. They reject any contact with other people, and are among the last people to remain virtually untouched by modern civilization._

I think they should be left alone.</comment>


Show HN: resize pictures online - <AUTHOR> http://www.picresize.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> Wanted to share a sweet little tool I've been using a lot lately for my blog, (since I work off multiple computers and don't have GIMP installed on all of them). Pic Resize saves to multiple formats (jpg, bmp, png, gif), can add filters, crop and rotate images off your desktop, a website or your clipboard! There's no watermark, and no limits on bandwidth/usage currently. But it's a busy website with some ads, which we tune out anyways.</comment>


Why China just bought one-twentieth of Ukraine - <AUTHOR> http://qz.com/127258/why-china-just-bought-one-twentieth-of-ukraine/

<comment> guard-of-terra Nitpick: Kerch isn't a center of anything, it's just a "bridge" from Crimea to Russian Caucasus. Having a real bridge there would boost tourism and exports.

</comment><comment><USER2> "roughtly the size of Belgium or Massachusetts".</comment>


Race in College Admission – FAQ - <AUTHOR> http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-admissions/1366406-race-college-admission-faq-discussion-10-a.html

<comment><USER2> Why in the hell do you keep posting these racial articles and who the hell is voting them up so they get in the RSS feed? Go make a reddit or something.</comment>


Ask HN: sensors that export data? - <AUTHOR>

I'm trying to manage the humidity in my new house, and have a humidity meter. But it doesn't export data over time. I'd like it to have a usb port so that I can get data over time and put it on my computer. I can also imagine wanting to do this with other data (temperature, walking data, sleeping data, ...) that various sensors gather.<p>Are there any tools like this out there? Open source hardware projects that I can hack? Commercial tools? <comment><USER2> We have just used something like that in our lab. You can check

[http://www.itwatchdogs.com/product-detail- minigoose_ii-8.htm...](http://www.itwatchdogs.com/product-detail- minigoose_ii-8.html)

it is a device connected with air flow/humidity/ Dew point/ temperature sensors and connected to the internet. The basic models starts from 200 dollars I think. If you want to contact me at my username at g mail I can link you to our lab's website to check the interface

</comment><comment><USER3> You can buy sensors for things like that, but they'll tend to be expensive for what you get, eg:

<http://www.tequipment.net/AmprobeTR300.html>

If you like to hack around with micro-controllers then you can build something that does all that more for about the same price, but have a lot more flexibility.

Google for things like "1-wire humidity sensor". The Dallas Semi 1-wire bus is widely supported with most micro controllers, and fairly easy to implement.

</comment><comment><USER4> Check out Bug Labs: <http://www.buglabs.net/>

</comment><comment><USER5> Is this what you are looking for:

<http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596807740>

Building Wireless Sensor Networks with ZigBee, XBee, Arduino, and Processing</comment>


California teachers lack the resources and time to teach science - <AUTHOR> http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-science-20111031,0,3957251.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fmostviewed+%28L.A.+Times+-+Most+Viewed+Stories%29

<comment><USER2> From the article: "At some Los Angeles elementary schools, teachers have drastically cut time for science because of pressure to focus on reading and math."

If they are that sorry in teaching reading and math, so that it is taking them that long to teach those subjects, it's time to get new teachers in those Los Angeles elementary schools. Teaching reading to beginning pupils is a solved problem. It's even a solved problem in countries that present unusual challenges to elementary teachers by requiring that elementary reading instruction be provided in a language that the elementary pupils do not speak at home. (My wife grew up in one such country, where the sole language of school instruction was the home language of no more than 10 percent of the population in her generation. Singapore, a country with FOUR official languages and English as the primary language of school instruction, had a majority of pupils in my generation who spoke none of the official languages, and certainly not English, at home but still did a great job of teaching pupils reading and math in that generation.)

What is described in the interesting submitted article is evidence that improving United States education by replacing some teachers in current classrooms with new teachers

[http://edpro.stanford.edu/hanushek/admin/pages/files/uploads...](http://edpro.stanford.edu/hanushek/admin/pages/files/uploads/Hanushek%202009%20CNTP%20ch%208.pdf)

is a viable strategy for improving United States education.</comment>


The Moral Horror of America's Prisons - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-12-28/prison-reform-law-doesn-t-go-far-enough <comment><USER2> I dealt with a lot of people who had legal problems. I eventually decided the criminal justice system has elements that are characteristic of a make-work program [0]. These are where the governments put people to work doing things of marginal utility, or where work is done inefficiently so more people have jobs.

[0] "America's Make-Work Sheriff: The Anachronism of Joseph Arpaio" \- [https://www.taxiwars.org/2017/09/americas-make-work- sheriff-...](https://www.taxiwars.org/2017/09/americas-make-work-sheriff- anachronism.html)

Towards the end of my taxi driving career, I picked up a woman who was on work-release from the county jail. She'd gone out to her car to take herself back to jail, and found that it'd developed a flat tire. She absolutely needed to be back at the jail by 6pm (iirc), so that she could remain on work release.

I did some mental calculations, and figured it was at least 20 minutes to the jail, if traffic didn't throw up any obstacles. Luckily rush-hour traffic was going the other way. There was a long line of people checking back in to jail, so even though we were a few minutes past 6pm she was still in compliance with the terms of her release.

I was telling my one passenger's son about how another got work release at his probation revocation hearing, and he was like, 'WHOA.... REALLY?' (his mom was sent off to prison for her not being able to cope with life when he was 12 years old, and has been sent to jail a couple himself). I later asked his mother what the big deal was. She said it was unusual to give work release at probation revocation, but that the judge figured my other passenger was not a flight risk, and wanted to do whatever she could to make the jail experience less traumatic.

Jail Medical was like, "haha, whatever, you have to submit to daily insulin injections and are therefore an invalid who is not allowed to have work release, or even work-duty."

If our politicians would dare point out that prisons are frequently just job projects that don't actually help people very much (beyond segregating a very small number of the most dangerous), then maybe we could figure out how to more humanely help people with their behavioral problems.

60 Minutes did a piece about German prisons this past year: [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/this-is-prison-60-minutes- goes-...](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/this-is-prison-60-minutes-goes-to- germany/)

Also... Shon Hopwood's story (Bank Robber -> Law Professor) is neat [1]. His federal prison had a library, and he found he had an aptitude for reading legal opinions.

[1] [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/meet-a-convicted-felon-who- beca...](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/meet-a-convicted-felon-who-became-a- georgetown-law-professor/)

Every prisoner should have meaningful opportunities to learn and develop in prison. That cases like Mr. Hopwood's are the exception rather than the norm is a tragedy.</comment>


Algorithmic Risk Assessment in the Hands of Humans - <AUTHOR> https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3489440 <comment><USER2> Just started reading, it's very interesting and worth looking into for anyone who's work involves modelling and decision making.</comment>


Huawei 5G kit must be removed from UK by 2027 - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-53403793 <comment><USER2> Discussion already in progress at [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23830867](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23830867)</comment>


Ask HN: Getting payed internationally as a freelancer - <AUTHOR> We are a group of freelancers from Europe that regularly work for US companies. Every time we send them an invoice there is a huge discussion about how to send the money starting. Somehow the Americans don't like wire transfer in Euros and so they always try to send us checks, which is something that doesn't really exist here. Our best guess is that nobody wants to pay conversion and transfer fees.<p>So my question: How to transfer the money from US to Europe? What is the cheapest way? <comment><USER2> I'm very happy with [https://transferwise.com/](https://transferwise.com/)

<comment><AUTHOR> This looks like what we need. thank u :)

<comment><USER3> "Note: Our fees below do not include charges that your bank or intermediate banks involved in SWIFT transfers may levy."

This could be tricky for US banks. Make sure you ask your bank about SWIFT charges before sending money otherwise you could end up paying additional for a SWIFT transfer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> "Somehow the Americans don't like wire transfer in Euros"

I'm really not surprised. It's the same with EU countries having to wire money to some non-euro currency.

Why not setup a US dollar account? After receiving payment in your client's currency, you can rather cheaply convert it to your own currency.

In my experience, US companies are interested in PayPal or TransferWise or other such methods only when for some reason wire transfer is not an option. I don't think you are in such a situation. Depending on the amount, using those services could be more expensive than handling a US dollar wire transfer with SHA (shared costs).

</comment><comment><USER5> I just invoice US clients in USD, and tell them to wire the money. My bank account is in Euro, so my bank converts the USD payment to Euro. Conversion + fees are usually around 1%.

</comment><comment><USER6> I've used Stripe or TransferWise with my US clients – I'm in Canada – with the former usually being less hassle for me and the client if we're dealing with small amounts.

A few clients also wanted to send me cheques. But you can convince them that these other options are better for your working relationship. As their trusted contractor you're expected to deliver results and not skimp on details or make compromises. You should expect the same from your client, including their accounting department, and working with cheques cross-border is a compromise in the working relationship.

</comment><comment><USER7> get a multi currency account from a singaporean bank.

<comment><AUTHOR> How much would be the conversion fees? Do you know?

<comment><USER7> Usually a flat fee plus forex. Insubstantial if you deal in thousands of dollars.</comment></comment></comment>


How Ably is embracing the serverless computing future - <AUTHOR> https://blog.ably.io/how-ably-is-embracing-the-serverless-computing-future-6697759c0b9d <comment><USER2> I'm excited by the possibilities. Interesting to see the different approaches different vendors are taking in this regard i.e. bundle in serverless functionality or integrate with serverless. APIs will of course always win out :)

Disclaimer: Co-founder of Ably</comment>


Do you live in a bubble? A quiz - <AUTHOR> http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/do-you-live-in-a-bubble-a-quiz-2/ <comment><USER2> I think the interesting thing about this quiz is that it implies that if you grew up or are in a "working class" family in America, that means you're not in a bubble, it's only middle class or higher that might be in a bubble. Seems odd that by this quiz definition someone who has lived their whole life in that environment wouldn't also be considered living in a bubble, just a different one than they're focused on discussing here.

<comment><USER3> The quiz is basically asking whether you know any white suburban Evangelical Christians.</comment></comment>


Why tech leaders think Second Life could be a gold mine. - Jan. 22, 2007 - <AUTHOR> http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/22/magazines/fortune/whatsnext_secondlife.fortune/index.htm <comment><USER2> I used to work for Linden Lab, makers of Second Life. A few months ago I resigned to work full time on this game within Second Life, <http://flurbils.com>. I'm actually making more money now than I did working for the man. Plus this way I get to give fun directly to people around the world, and it's great fun.

I actually know quite a few people who make their entire living in Second Life-- some of whom do astonishingly well. The great thing about making your living from micropayments is that you have lots of customers. This is much better than past solo gigs I've done, where the majority of my income is from a small number of customers, at times as small as one. Much easier to feel confident about the income stream when it comes from thousands of users instead of few.</comment>


NoSQL is What? - <AUTHOR> http://blog.zawodny.com/2011/07/23/nosql-is-what/

<comment><USER2> Clearly, we have to identify the non scaling or performance related qualities of NoSQL for the debate to make any sense. I don't think it is possible in general to define those qualities, because NoSQL systems don't have much in common. Using a negation to name the category is telling in itself.

You mention schemaless, but non of the BigTable derived systems are schemaless. Key-value stores are schemaless but RDBMS can do key-value storage just fine as can file systems.

I think this whole debate boils down to whether or not you need to normalize data. If you normalize, you need joins and that's the weak spot of most NoSQL systems. Doing joins in procedural code requires all data to be transferred into application process memory, which is only viable for modest amounts of data. (I'm not saying that only RDBMS can ever do proper joins, just that the popular NoSQL solutions in use today don't)

Normalization is also what mandates ACID because normalization means you're losing what I would call the "physical unit of consistency". Normalization, joins and ACID go together. It's all or nothing. (Of course pragmatically it's never all or nothing but it's useful to highlight the general point)

So, my conclusion is this: Use RDBMS or don't normalize (much). All the debates around RDBMS or NoSQL being simpler or more complicated turn out to be implicit debates about the need for normalization. When some people say this or that model is simpler, they either imply or don't imply a need for normalization.

In my view, whether or not you need to normalize depends primarily on whether or not the data is single purpose or multi purpose. If it's one app and its own private data island, then not normalizing often makes sense for simplicity and performance reasons.

If the data has it's own seperate life cycle, idependent of any individual app, then not normalizing is a terrible mistake that brings down everyone's productivity no matter how simple it may appear initially.

Having worked on data integration and anlytics projects for many years, I'm leaning towards the view that most data is multi purpose even if it's not initially expected to be. But that may well be survivors bias as apps that die young never cause integration issues. That doesn't mean they haven't fulfilled their original purpose.

<comment> St-Clock I really like this idea of basing your decision on the need to normalize or not. It certainly fits document-oriented databases and key-value stores, but I'm less sure about column-oriented databases (I have no experience with them, except many hours trying to understand them...).

The single-purpose vs. multi-purpose that comes from denormalization vs. normalization would explain why certain companies stick to RDBMS for their main data and use NoSQL only for certain specific scenarios.

<comment><USER2> I agree. And using both has been the status quo for ages if you count the file system as a kind of NoSQL data store.

As far as I can tell, there are no significant qualities in the BigTable clones that are not related to scalability.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> "threw up in my mouth a little." "Gee, let me get this straight." "Bullshit." "Seriously?"

I have to say that one of my regrets about growing up in programmer circles is seeing stuff like this held up as an acceptable example of how adults communicate with other adults.

It took me a long time to realize that this style of communication is not necessary, is not effective, and reflects poorly on the speaker. C'mon, this guy appears to be in his 30s or 40s and has written books, so why does he write like he's an angsty teen? (I know Linus does it. I think it's lame when he does it too.)

There's still room for humor and snark, here are three of my favorite blog postings/articles ever, all very snarky, but not embarrassingly juvenile:

[http://wanderingbarque.com/nonintersecting/2006/11/15/the-s-...](http://wanderingbarque.com/nonintersecting/2006/11/15/the- s-stands-for-simple/)

[http://diveintomark.org/archives/2004/01/14/thought_experime...](http://diveintomark.org/archives/2004/01/14/thought_experiment)

<http://www.info.ucl.ac.be/~pvr/decon.html>

<comment><USER4> If you're a programmer of a certain vintage, you've been reading writing like this on mailing lists for years. It's easy to think programmers in particular produce embarrassing writing. However, most blogs are written in this style, not just blogs by programmers. This issue is not confined to the internet, or the contemporary age. The editorial page in my hometown's daily paper was not any better. If one reads historical letters to the editor in regional newspapers, you'll find that adults have been communicating in poorly written, juvenile language for centuries .

<comment><USER5> Not even just regional papers, lower level stuff.

It is very very very important to remember in this, that language which sound dignified and mature to us today, is in many cases just vulgar "crap talk" of a previous era. The reason it sounds so fancy and polished to us is because it is old more than because it is good in many cases.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Ok, whenever someone opens with something to the effect of 'I use MySQL, so I have experience with relational databases and can make a comparison with NoSQL' all credibility is lost.

MySQL is a 'relational database', but one in which JOIN is so expensive and poorly optimized that you almost have to use it as a key-value store, looking everything up directly with synthetic primary keys.

I've had this discussion several times. Some startup guys say 'we should look at NoSQL', and I ask questions to get to the bottom of why they think that. They will say something like 'we have this huge join we have to do, but it's too expensive, so we pre-compute it'. I ask more questions, and the 'huge join' is not huge at all, in fact it is just a reasonable join, something that you could expect to do on every page view without difficulty. Well, except they are using MySQL, and it can't join for shit. The MySQL query planner is disgusting.

So, although I don't expect to persuade the world to stop using MySQL (to be honest, I love that it is the go-to thing, those of us who use a decent database like Postgresql end up with a huge competitive advantage, better performance, more features, more scaleable, amazing query planner, top shelf performance analysis), I think we should at least admit that in practice, to get any performance out of it, you have to effectively use it as a key-value store anyway. And when comparing MySQL, which is a shitty key-value store, against real key-value stores, you can make a case for some NoSQL thing.

<comment><USER7> Totally agree

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I have to agree with one of the comments. All you did was rant and didn't say something useful. Perhaps you can tell your readers about your experiences so that you can convince them that NoSQL is useful (Of course, I am NOT saying it isn't) to implement in their projects?

</comment><comment><USER9> I did find this point from the original article to be very dubious:

 _In fact, I would argue that starting with NoSQL because you think you might someday have enough traffic and scale to warrant it is a premature optimization, and as such, should be avoided by smaller and even medium sized organizations. You will have plenty of time to switch to NoSQL as and if it becomes helpful. Until that time, NoSQL is an expensive distraction you don't need._

Consider:

\- how hard most organizations find it to refactor, rewrite, retest, especially in systems that are online 24x7

\- when would you prefer to climb the learning curve with an immature technology, when you are small and starting out, or when you are a large company with a large set of users and under "mission critical" constraints (and possibly stockholders and the like.)

My guess is that ongoing companies find it extremely difficult and expensive (and wanting for talent) to switch from one sql database to another, much less switch from sql to nosql.

<comment><USER10> It's not a matter of SQL vs. NoSQL. They are complementary.

The fact of the matter is, there are some components of systems for which Redis, Riak, etc may be better suited than SQL in the long term. Starting out, keeping everything in SQL provides less friction, but as time goes on it may be necessary to scale the component separately from typical relational data storage, and that's the point at which these switches are evaluated. These companies would be replacing SQL only in these components — not across the board.

The myth of a silver bullet datastore solution is just that: a myth. Different data stores have different strengths and weaknesses and it becomes necessary to mix and match at scale.

To quote Benjamin Black: "Scale is pain, princess. Anyone who tells you different is selling something."

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is opinion versus opinion. I'm sorry to say there's no real content here. The author went from Yahoo to Craigslist so there's no such thing as premature optimization at that scale and with the small staff at CL you can be sure that chasing NoSQL as a fad can ruin the company. Obviously he doesn't fit the bill of the essay he's criticizing but most devs don't experience the scale of his problems.

You can't do the topic of NoSQL vs SQL justice with an essay because it would just be semantic, we're talking about a different theoretical representation of data structure. You might as well scream "better taste!", "Less filling!".

<comment><USER12> Agreed. This is opinion.

Mine is based on years of experience, but I got the impression that the original article was written based on some cherry-picked reports of what a few companies said (as opposed to actually being there and doing it).

Maybe I'm being overly critical?

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> One thing that bothers me is people who talk about "SQL databases vs. NoSQL databases." That's like framing a debate on transportation as "Cars vs. Not Cars," where "Not Cars" includes bicycles, planes, buses, subways, boats, zeppelins, etc. etc.

If you take CouchDB, Redis, MongoDB, and all the other "NoSQL" databases and compare them, the only thing they share in common is that they do not use a relational data model or SQL. The way the word "NoSQL" is used, however, implies that they are some kind of united front against SQL databases, which is not the case at all. (It's why I am not a big fan of the term.)

Just like you would not use bicycles, planes, subways, and boats for the same things, you would not use CouchDB, Redis, MongoDB, and Cassandra for the same things. If you're choosing a database just because it's "NoSQL," then you are completely missing the point.

<comment><USER14> I think the problem is the term NoSQL itself, originally was penned as Not Only SQL. But everyone now looks at the term with No being the actual word No in relation to SQL, as if there is some war between SQL and not...SQL. I think that alone is causing more heartburn than needed between the two camps.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Firstly, I can attest that migrating the datastore of an application which has scaled to require a NoSQL solution is no trivial task.

Secondly, I believe the author of the original posting really meant that "premature optimization is the root of all evil." Like this post points out, NoSQL solutions vary wildly in their abilities and usefulness. A relational database is a good place to start on the path to an MVP. And if you need features that a NoSQL solution can provide, and you understand the problem you're trying to solve, then use a NoSQL solution.

<comment><USER12> I think that most people who argue that such a migration "isn't that bad" haven't actually done it. Or at least they haven't done it for anything sizable.

<comment> j-kidd It matters little how bad the migration is, when you ain't gonna need it in 99.9% of cases. When you are big enough to need the migration, your company has enough resources to roll your own Hadoop distribution.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Obviously this doesn't really have any bearing on points the author is making, but a small nit for posterity's sake - I think the point Clayton Christensen was making in _The Innovator's Dilemma_ was not that people should adopt inferior technologies to gain leverage later.

I think the point in that book was more that new technologies are often inferior in many ways to existing technologies when they first start out, and the way these new technologies survive/grow is by appealing to niches that value the existing ways in which the new technology is superior. Then, when the new technology matures a little more, the market to which it appeals grows a little larger, and this repeats.

</comment><comment><USER17> The problem is that NoSQL is such a broad term for datastores. Some of them are simple (like redis) and some more complex (like Cassandra/HBase). They also have different targets for data types. Using one just because it is a NoSQL can be a premature optimization just like using a RDBMS can be a premature optimization. You really need to understand the data and how it will be used. Before you know what you want to build, it is easy to prematurely optimize for something you don't need.

Start simple, then iterate...

</comment><comment><USER18> Undertaking "optimization", in this case selecting and developing with a NoSQL datastore early in the process, should only be considered premature if the costs of doing so (which will be mainly represented by developer-hours spent) are greater than the value provided by having a datastore that can accommodate well the needs of the application itself, development team, and end-users.

Adaptability, flexibility (with regard to schema/key structure migration and maturation), as well as ease of partitioning data intelligently ahead of demand are all hugely important factors that can and often should inform the process of selecting a datastore.

If the datastore selected for use: \- shortens development time, \- provides improved performance for anticipated scale, \- better represents the data model needing to be captured, \- avoids re-work and "post"-mature optimization of data models & datastores, \- or accomplishes any combination of the above ... ... then the selection of that datastore should not be considered premature optimization.

Finding that your traditional RDBMS does not well support the data models you have developed, especially once the product is out of the gate, will not be fun. Having to engage in a refactor and data migration to move to a more appropriate or more performant datastore will be a time- and resource- consuming process.

As soon as the initial synthesis phase of development can begin, it may be well worth the effort to experiment with multiple datastores as a means of evaluating their performance and suitability. Depending on the scope and potential for the project to scale, modularizing distinct pieces of core functionality into separate services, each with their own most-suitable datastore, can also provide great benefit in flexibility of development processes, as well as adaptability of the product to the demands of the end- users.

</comment><comment><USER19> when there are arguments, like in the Jeremy post, commenting about tones and formal things is a huge FAIL. It is part of the expression of everyone to use the words and tones he wishes, as long as no one is going to be offended (if you are super-sensible this is your problem). One thing I always feel as a problem is that the programming community here in HN is a bit too middle class-ish, this is annoying: you are off topic, you are not polite, respect the fact I don't understand, blablabla. Hacking is in my vision connected with cultural freedom, and not being polite is not the only but one of the possible expressions. So reply to arguments and stop to be so childish.

</comment><comment><USER20> He's only experienced with MySQL? How can he judge the SQL vs NoSQL battle when he's never used a proper SQL system? NoSQL does not 'save development time' in general, it's just a different tool. A much younger and less refined one at that. Real RDBMSs do a whole lot more than execute your SQL queries for you.

<comment><USER21> I don't think there's a SQL versus NoSQL battle, whatever that means.

SQL refers to relational databases, which are databases using the "relational model" of representing data: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_model>

This means that any SQL database is very flexible in regards to what you can store in it, not to mention that it is based on proved theory and battle- tested implementations of various features, like ACID.

But the relational model also breaks heavily when wanting to work with data structures that don't blend well -- like graph data. It also breaks down heavily when you want to spread your data across many servers. It is also not well suited to storing and querying billions of records -- sooner or later, your indexes are going to go beyond whatever storage / RAM capacity your servers have.

Btw, MySQL is a real RDBMS. Even if it lacks some features, it doesn't lack anything essential to calling it "relational" and talk about advantages or disadvantages of RDBMSs versus key-value stores or other NoSQL types.

<comment><USER20> Facebook seems to be doing just fine with their graph data on SQL

<comment><USER22> There has been talk for sometime that they're MySql issues are crippling progress and development due to complexity of management and upkeep.

[http://gigaom.com/cloud/facebook-trapped-in-mysql-fate- worse...](http://gigaom.com/cloud/facebook-trapped-in-mysql-fate-worse-than- death/)

<comment><USER23> Stonebraker has something to sell them, though.

<comment><USER22> Very true.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> "Again, I think we need to talk about the best tool for the job, not the best tool for every job. Relational databases are not the best tool for every data storage job."

Pretty much disqualifies him as moron. Hell, he doesn't say anything.

<comment><USER25> Does this mean that you think that relational databases are the best tool for every data storage job?

<comment><USER12> Uhm, what?

I was trying to counter balance some of the crap I read in the original posting--was that really not clear?

<comment><USER25> The above comment by myself is in response to 'i_crusade', not you...

<comment><USER12> Ugh. Reply fail. Sorry. I was intending to reply to the parent comment, not yours.

<comment><USER25> no worries</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


IRC for DMs - <AUTHOR> https://icyphox.sh/blog/irc-for-dms <comment><USER2> At a glance, I read the title as "IRC for Dungeon Masters". Would have been a great union of nerdiness. I have no clue what a DM would do with IRC though. Has anyone ever tried playing DnD over IRC? It would probably feel like a text adventure. :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Haha, guess I should've been more specific. We zoomers you know… :)</comment></comment>


WSGI and the Pluggable Pipe Dream - <AUTHOR> http://lucumr.pocoo.org/2011/7/27/the-pluggable-pipedream/

<comment><USER2> That was quite a rabbit hole, but a good read nonetheless.

I was pretty surprised at all the criticisms that Pump received yesterday (<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2810373>). The general response was defensive and critical just because it was trying to replace WSGI. However, it would seem that WSGI isn't perfect for all applications and indeed there is a place for Pump. My question is: how can we resume encouraging people to contribute? Quite honestly, if I had posted that thread and received the response it got, I would be utterly discouraged from contributing to the community in the future.

<comment><USER3> WSGI is _not_ a framework. It's a _gateway interface_ , like CGI. Django is a web application _framework_. You don't (usually) write apps using a raw gateway interface like WSGI or CGI. You write web applications in a framework like Django or Pump.

The framework then needs to work with the web server -- but how? To be portable and useful, a framework it should support CGI, SCGI, Fast-CGI, ISAPI, HTTP, etc. That lots of work to do for every single framework. Big ones and little ones all need to support all those interfaces, and you know they won't. That's the whole point of WSGI: to be one single abstraction to bind all web servers to all frameworks.

If you want to write a framework, WSGI sets the bar pretty dang low. It supports pretty much everything you need to do HTTP without too many awkward quirks. You don't need to worry about how to implement a fast-cgi->nginx adapter. You just make your framework talk WSGI and plug it into existing nginx->fast-cgi and fast-cgi->wsgi libraries. Done.

WSGI was carefully designed to be as simple as possible, but no simpler. It is simple, but powerful and flexible. It's possible to write powerful composable middleware that works with _any_ webserver and _any_ framework, because middleware is just a WSGI app that wraps a WSGI app. Middleware can transparently add sessions, caching, compression, chunking, etc, that don't need to be tightly coupled to the framework or the webserver. So, just like WSGI can bind all webservers to all frameworks, any middleware can insert itself between any framework/webserver pair (I'm sure there are exceptions, of course). The framework shouldn't have to screw around with chunked encodings or compression. WSGI's design allows one good library to easily do that work regardless of the rest of your stack.

This article spoke about how awkward send_request() is. What it does is make it trivial for middleware to read, add, and modify headers without having to parse HTTP. Suppose you want to write a javascript obfuscator. One way to do that is to write some middleware that detects Content-Type="text/javascript" and obfuscates the response. Because of the way send_request() works, you detect javascript by looking at a variable, not writing an HTTP parser. Also, if you write that middleware for Django, it'll work unchanged when you get fed up and switch frameworks.

The whole write() vs yield vs return thing can is awkward, but it makes it easier to write a wsgi adapter for older cgi-based frameworks that respond via sys.stdout.write().

Only framework, middleware and gateway authors have to care about WSGI. If a framework author is complaining about WSGI, he or she almost definitely don't understand where WSGI came from or what problem it's really solving.

WSGI is minimal, composable, and elegant, even considering that it's backwards compatible with older frameworks. If everything supports WSGI, then everything can just be plugged into everything else without much screwing around. Composability and loose coupling are very powerful, especially at the levels of the stack where WSGI lives.

<comment><USER4> I agree with you, but Pump is not a web framework. You are not supposed to write your application with Pump. Picasso is a framework I built on top of Pump (<https://github.com/adeel/picasso>) that's more suitable for that.

(I can see how you could get a mistaken impression from reading the discussion on HN, though.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "But before you blindly throw it away you have to understand why it was created in the first place."

This is an excellent piece of advice that I wish more people would use. If you find something that you disagree with (a law for instance) it is a good idea to first see how it came to be. The decisions people usually have some reasoning behind them that can't just be discarded when being evaluated.

</comment><comment><USER6> The last part was the most insightful for me.

 _Personally I am pretty damn sure that WSGI no longer carries the importance it had a few years ago. I think it no longer makes sense to merge different applications on the WSGI level together, it should be done on a higher level and JavaScript is a nice way to do that._

 _Just think about Google's gray bar. You can totally throw such a bar on top of different independent parts of the application by emitting a tiny piece of JavaScript that generates that bar and handles your user session._

I started thinking about it and was like "Right, you can make multiple async requests to hit multiple apps!"

</comment><comment><USER7> I like the conclusion about using http. This goes against the approach advocated in monolithic frameworks such as django. It would be interesting to see a web framework that separates components and connects them with http.

<comment><USER3> That's _exactly_ what WSGI does. Well, except for one brilliant improvement: It doesn't pass around raw HTTP, it passes around pre-parsed HTTP data structures. There are three structures: a response code ("200 Ok"), a list of headers, and an iterable that yields the body of the response (or older frameworks write to a filelike object that you can reimplement if necessary). Dealing in pre-parsed (or rather, not-yet-serialized) HTTP makes it much easier to write middleware.

If you _really_ want to plug stuff together with HTTP, there exist HTTP servers that serve wsgi apps, and I'm sure there is a wsgi app somewhere that is an HTTP client. So you plug your framework's wsgi-app (which you didn't write and don't have to worry about) into an HTTP server. Then you point a WsgiHttpProxy at your HTTP server. Plug that WsgiHttpProxy app to your middleware and plug your middleware into another instance of your HTTP server. Rinse and repeat for as many middleware layers as you want. Now everything is HTTP, like you want.

Or, you know, just plug all your middleware together, avoiding parsing, serialization, IPC, context switching and all that crap.

<comment><USER8> The author isn't arguing that this is a bad idea per se, just that it doesn't actually work that easily.

>> But what I do not believe in is that magical plug that is called "framework independent pluggable application". I don't know where this idea came from that it might work, but it does not. The idea that you can reused code on top of WSGI to work with Framework 1 and Framework 2 is not working out.

<comment><USER3> If it's not working out because wsgi.input can't be read twice, then write a middleware that turns it into a StringIO, and write another middleware that rewinds it.

Nothing is going to save you from the fact that you either need to buffer your response, or don't throw an unhandled exception after it's started. Yes it's a problem, but buffering is the only magic that'll help.

If the problem is that middleware authors can't be bothered to implement the whole spec because it's too hard, then submit a patch. I promise you that WSGI is easier to implement than HTTP/1.1 In fact, I would argue that it's as easy as possible. If it were easier, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion, because it wouldn't have been powerful enough to have been adopted.

Or write a middleware container that transforms the WSGI api into something you think is more sane, then implement middleware in thate.

Build the next great thing on top of WSGI, because in the end, the answer is either WSGI, something that's architecturally equivalent, or else each framework has to have its own compression, session, and other libraries. And no answer is going to save you from having to do a little bit of work to put things put together correctly.

<comment><USER7> I just don't understand why we need a single monolithic product that is at the core of the system. When you use any language specific API you are locking out possibly useful tools.

The overhead of asking each component to use HTTP is an acceptable price to pay for native compatibility with the Internet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> There are a few things I don't understand in this post

> neat nod to async systems that can use this neat trick to yield empty > strings to signal that they are not ready yet.

Can't the system just do nothing to signal it's not ready yet?

<comment><USER10> > Can't the system just do nothing to signal it's not ready yet?

In an async system that means you either have to suspect execution (for instance by yielding something) or to block. And blocking is bad.</comment></comment>


New Knowledge Sharing Site changing the way we connect with each other - <AUTHOR> http://www.knovvi.com/

<comment><USER2> Looks like a really interesting concept, especially if it can get some traction. That will be the biggest challenge.

</comment><comment><USER3> Looks pretty good, fingers crossed it picks up.

</comment><comment><USER4> Interesting concept thanks for the share.

</comment><comment><USER5> Looks good.

</comment><comment><USER6> Nice</comment>


Kevin Mitnick on NSA Leaks - <AUTHOR> Mitnick, who probably knows something more than the general public about the topic, has recently retweeted this link
http://blog.knowbe4.com/bid/297153/did-china-leak-prism-deliberately
source: https://twitter.com/kevinmitnick
(see the comments for an active version of the links) <comment><USER2> > That indicates that there is potentially some very significant leak of > someone who is violating their oath

Regardless if he swore to other oaths, this one is THE MOST important and succeeds all others: "I swear to protect US soil from enemies foreign and domestic". It says nothing as of how you are supposed to (or being forced to) execute this oath.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> [http://blog.knowbe4.com/bid/297153/did-china-leak-prism- deli...](http://blog.knowbe4.com/bid/297153/did-china-leak-prism-deliberately)

source: [https://twitter.com/kevinmitnick](https://twitter.com/kevinmitnick)

</comment><comment><USER3> Even if the scandal was a side effect of Chinese spying (a speculation at this time), what matters is that this broad surveillance is threatening democracy.

I think Snowden has chosen the best place to go. He wouldn't be safe anywhere in Europe. Likely not even in Iceland, where there is a US military base. The US has entered in Mexico and other countries to capture suspects without authorization. I bet they would do the same in Iceland, despite the political cost, but not in Hong Kong.

</comment><comment><USER4> Why does Kevin Mitnick know more than the general public on this topic?

<comment><USER5> I immediately had that thought, but he knows more than "the general public", he might not know more than "informed people on the internet".

Still a waste of time.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> two articles that may be someway related:

[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-13/snowden-links- being...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-13/snowden-links-being-probed- by-congress-focusing-on-china.html)

[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/06/11/obamaxi_presidential...](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/06/11/obamaxi_presidential_summit_fails_to_make_much_progress_on_cybersecurity/)

(see my other comment for the original links)</comment>


The Problem with Bicycles (2010) - <AUTHOR> http://newworldeconomics.com/the-problem-with-bicycles/ <comment><USER2> I found it difficult to make sense of that essay.

It used two polar extremes: "Suburban Hell" and "Traditional City".

But when people talk about bicycles in a city, they tend to look to Amsterdam and Copenhagen - places which are _not_ "optimized for bikes".

Oddly enough, the author classifies Berlin as "Traditional City". Yet it's regularly on the top-20-or-so list of bike friendly cities in the world. (Eg, [https://www.wired.com/2015/06/copenhagenize-worlds-most- bike...](https://www.wired.com/2015/06/copenhagenize-worlds-most-bike- friendly-cities/) )

The author makes comments like "People tend to wear much nicer clothes in the Traditional City." My experience with Amsterdam is that, yes, they tend to wear nicer clothes than in the US. And yet they are a very pro-bike place.

""That stripe on my back is where I rode my bike though the puddle."" ... Umm, that's because the bikes we have in the US are crap for real-world city bikes. The US has road bikes and mountain bikes. Neither are good for getting around the city. The European city bike has full fenders with mudguard flaps to keep that from happening. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_bicycle#Typical_features](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_bicycle#Typical_features) lists many more features to make it possible to wear nice clothes and bike.

"You would need bike parking for fifteen thousand bikes" \- which is what the Netherlands does. Multi-level bicycle parking next to the train stations.

"surround the train station with lots of free parking" \- except that they don't, ad least not universally. For the densest places, it costs money. [https://www.ns.nl/en/door-to-door/bicycle-storage/bicycle- st...](https://www.ns.nl/en/door-to-door/bicycle-storage/bicycle-storage-at- amsterdam-amstel.html) says €1.25 per 24 hours, starting after the first 24 hours.

It's as if the author isn't aware of what people mean when they talk about using a bicycle in the city.</comment>


Show HN: Know when your network is down - <AUTHOR> Panos here - cofounder of NetBeez. We started NetBeez because we were not able to detect who and where are the users experiencing network problems.
When the Raspberry Pi came out we immediately saw the perfect platform to use for our monitoring agent. And we decided to build the tool that would capture the end-user experience on wide area networks. The low cost of the Raspberry Pi enabled us to build a tool that can scale to dozens and hundreds of locations without costing an arm and a leg.
NetBeez does both wired and wireless monitoring.
You can try it for free here: https://netbeez.net/free-instance-signup/ <comment><USER2> Posts without URLs get penalized, so you'd be better off posting this with a link, then adding your text as a first comment in the new thread. Good luck!</comment>


CVS turned a tobacco ban into a financial win - <AUTHOR> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/courage-business-counts-how-cvs-turned-tobacco-ban-financial-sinek/ <comment><USER2> He missed a piece of the story. Caremark (the pharmacy benefit manager owned by CVS) also introduced an optional pharmacy network that increases copays at pharmacies that sell cigarettes -- that is, pretty much every retail pharmacy other than CVS's. [1] Whether this is just more "Courage to Lead", or a genius ploy to increase CVS's retail pharmacy revenue, or both, I leave you to consider.

[1] [https://www.drugchannels.net/2014/10/thoughts-on- caremarks-n...](https://www.drugchannels.net/2014/10/thoughts-on-caremarks-no- tobacco.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm disturbed by the author treating Jim Cramer as a representative of serious Wall Street opinion. There's no real evidence here that it was a good decision - all sorts of things go into the stock price.

<comment><USER4> I use to do some day trading. The joke among the day trading community in those days was that if Kramer recommends buying into a company, then usually a good idea to do the opposite.

<comment><USER5> That's probably true due to the size of his megaphone. Even if all his advice was great, his recommending a stock could quickly drive the price up to where it wasn't great anymore.

<comment><USER6> No, his secret is that he'll praise a stock one week and pan it the next (or vice versa) so that he can cherry pick his 'wins' later.

<comment><USER5> Ha, that's pretty smart.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I worked at a CVS in high school, and tobacco products were definitely a huge percentage (30%-ish) of transactions back then. But at the time, my CVS was also the only easily accessible destination for people in town without cars to buy those products. And it was a college town too, so there were plenty of those folks.

I do think that getting rid of tobacco products helps the brand image though. It always took longer to get customers through a line when you had to find their particular brand out of 30. It's also true that many of the customers buying tobacco were noticeably lower-class, so I could imagine this change making middle class and higher people more into CVS (sort of like the Target vs Walmart divide).

</comment><comment><USER8> Nicotine patch sales are growing and cigarette sales are declining in general in the US. There's not enough evidence or analysis here to show CVS made a big difference. Also remember this was a time where vape shops were popping up everywhere and people were switching from cigarettes to e-cigs.

<comment><USER9> They also quote the stock price and earnings per share as evidence for the decision being positive. But their quote was over a very bullish period for equities, without providing contrast versus other similar publicly traded companies, nor context (including: CVS' higher than average share buybacks in part fueled by tax cuts)

<comment><USER10> > _They also quote the stock price and earnings per share as evidence for the > decision being positive._

No, actually. There's a tiny but important distinction here: the author is merely saying that there was a certainty that there would be negative effects, and that the expected negative effects didn't happen.

The author even grants that there isn't a certainty that this decision caused a positive outcome:

"Of course, there are many other factors that have contributed to CVS's ... stock performance."

The article's only point is that ideologues and demagogues often assume with 100% certainty that there will be some negative outcome from some company changing some policy or another, but that this is a flaw in their thinking, because they're imagining the market to be something much more limited, simple, and rigid than it really is.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Meanwhile their shelves are flooded with homeopathic "remedies" that appear legitimate. These items deceive consumers that have been raised to assume items stocked in a pharmacy have actual medical benefits.

People offload their trust to an authority, a pharmacy, to stock actual medicine. Just like when they go to a grocery store they expect to buy actual food and not sawdust shaped and packaged as food.

Try looking for cold or flu medicine, or earache drops at CVS. You will find the tiny print "homeopathic" on nearly every item being presented on the shelf. All of them are mimics that have all of the trappings of medicine (official looking labels, colors, words) but none of the results.

I think this is an ethical failure that is worse than the sale of tobacco, because it not only dupes people looking for proven medical solutions to say, their child's earache that bring home a vial of water instead, it also continues to lend credence to the industry of swindlers and snake oil.

<comment><USER12> I hear you, but "ethical failure year is worse than the sale of tobacco" is a stretch. Tobacco killed millions. Homeopathic stuff is typically harmless and not a major killer.

Also I usually find Tylenol PM just fine at my cvs. Along with benedryl, ibuprofen and other routine "real" meds.

<comment><USER13> It is 100% fraud, taking advantage of ignorance and selling people false medicine. There is nothing harmless about that. It prevents people from seeking real treatments, and there are real long-term consequences to public health that come along with that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Will they ever get to the point where they decide to stop selling soda and junk food as well?

<comment><USER15> As somebody that discovered the USA not so long ago, this was one of the weirdest parts.

Pharmacies carry a lot of stuff that have nothing to do with health and that includes junk food.

<comment><USER16> The "pharmacy" is the window/counter in the back of the store. A typical CVS will contain a pharmacy, but generally the fridge full of cola is not considered part of that pharmacy. You find similar _" pharmacy within a more general store"_ arrangements in places like Walmart, many grocery stores, etc.

In other words, Walmart is not a pharmacy but Walmart _has_ a pharmacy.

<comment><USER17> That's true. When searching Google maps, the hours of the "CVS Pharmacy" are for the actual pharmacy inside the CVS store; which might close early than the general CVS store (under the term "CVS" only)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I remember leaving a CVS at one time. Seeing all the posters and health products. Then seeing an employee unlock the case for cigarettes. Really felt like a mixed message.

When I first heard the news I worried it would kill CVS. Tobacco companies at the time had famous tech company margins. It would really hurt them to do so. Still do it seems: Phillips Morris operating margin is 38%.

I am really glad it worked out for them. I hate it when other people can smoke because I can smell it downwind. I can smell it on other people. I could barely smell it on one guy who said he washed his hands and arms in the bathroom sink afterwards to avoid others smelling it.

<comment><USER19> The smell is only part of the problem for nom-smokers, if you spend any significant time around a person smokibg your clothes will get the smell of cigarettes embedded.

<comment><USER18> Indeed. If I have to walk through smoke I have to change my clothes or it gives me a headache.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Seems a bit odd given that the stores are still filled with alcohol, and they seem to target the pot smoking crowd with some of the eye drop products.

It seemed pretty clear to me their business was prescriptions and addictions in one convenient place.

</comment><comment><USER21> Good fucking grief. Courage? I don't need to regurgitate the discrepancies mentioned by many here, eg sugar snake oil, junkfood, ALCOHOL etc. I'll instead infuriate some guardian angels with a less pharisaic perspective on tobacco. Tobacco is a plant. Its use is not solely relegated to neatly packed, ugly boxes of pre-rolled toxic cardboard shavings. It can and does take the form of hand-rolled cigars and snus - which when not consumed fanatically, have low correlation with disease. Snus is not exposed to heat, neither in processing or consumption. This results in a product with negligible nitrosamines. Until a nephilim lands amongst us with enough courage to ban hotdogs and candybars, public danger thereof will probably exceed that of snus, if frequency of consumption is proportionate. The same ideology that impels such extreme measures as botanical bans, has humans suffering for decades in cages for possessing marijuana; another plant. I will be reasonable and suggest that one could easily go on a diet of hotdogs, beer and candybars and fare worse than one who enjoys a daily cigar, and they could do it shopping exclusively at CVS (not the cigar smoker though, who must shop at Walgreens and doesn't drink).

A more obscure but significant problem with some tobacco is psychology. The packaging, quantity and pre-rolling exacerbate it, making it too easy to effectively smoke a habit, rather than cigarette, ie some smoking is done less because of addiction and more due to habit. Cigarettes, and in some cases tobacco, are obviously problematic. Abandoning either rather than banning both altogether seems reasonable. However, I can no longer buy a cigar at CVS. I can get Rx for restless leg filled and wash it down with acetaminophen and beer and Skittles though. Meanwhile, cigars are legal, but CVS is at a higher level.

I know tobacco can be a problem. Is it a problem? Maybe some applications are problematic. Well, certainly some are.

<comment><USER22> I am in awe of your wordsmithing capabilities and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Are people who are happy about this also supportive of pharmacists who don't dispense drugs that terminate pregnancies because they have a moral objection?

<comment><USER24> Yes. I support the right of private enterprise to choose what products and services they offer.

<comment><USER25> Is it cool if they refuse to serve black people then? Where is the line in your mind?

<comment><USER24> No, it's not okay for businesses to decide who to serve. That's totally different than deciding what to serve.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The future of programming - <AUTHOR> http://www.samuellevy.com/blog/2012/04/future-programming

<comment><USER2> Amen and amen. I'm not even a professional programmer and I think this is the future. excellent post.

<comment><AUTHOR> I've long thought that programming education was extremely lacking, and rather elitist (Really? You need a 2500 page tome to learn the "Basics of Java"?)

Now that computers are invading more of our lives, people are starting to find ways past that, and learning how to program in spite of the poor resources available.

I think that this future is inevitable, and for me it can't come soon enough.</comment></comment>


What I learned about China by searching for the world's rarest bird - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/the-economist/what-i-learned-about-china-by-searching-for-the-worlds-rarest-bird-a1aae68da37#.goda6jikl <comment><USER2> I would actually recommend people to give amateur ornithology a try. When I was 12, my grandfather gave me a pair of binoculars and an ornithology guide and since then, every summer I go on hikes to watch birds. It's a wonderfully relaxing and fulfilling activity, my brain is weirdly active while watching birds and I end up doing a lot of reflection on those hikes. It's also incredibly satisfying to spot a rare bird.

I know you might think you will never be into it, but give it a try. It's also a great activity to keep doing well into old age.

</comment><comment><USER3> Birding is very popular in India. I think it was brought in by the British, which is perhaps why Hong Kong was the only Birding place in China.

A somewhat obscure trivia: the Indian National Congress party was established by the British Civil Servant A. O. Hume [1], who was an avid birder, ran a magazine called "Stray Feathers", and published "The Nests and Eggs of Indian Birds". [2] A. O. Hume was expelled from the British Civil Service for his sympathy and support for the cause of the Indians.

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

[2] [https://archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22Hume%2C+Al...](https://archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22Hume%2C+Allan+Octavian%2C+1829-1912%22)</comment>


State Laws That Stop Cities From Installing Fast Internet - <AUTHOR> http://broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-roadblocks/ <comment><USER2> NC's law was practically written by TWC after Wilson, NC got fed up and ran its own fiber. For years Wilson had attempted to get its citizens decent broadband and TWC et al didn't want to invest in the city. So Wilson ran its own fiber. TWC didn't want to see that happen again, and after 4 years of lobbying eventually got a bill passed to ensure it wouldn't.

[https://www.wilsonnc.org/living/fiberopticnetwork/greenlight...](https://www.wilsonnc.org/living/fiberopticnetwork/greenlighthistory/)

[http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/22/time-warner-and-embarq- ca...](http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/22/time-warner-and-embarq-cant-compete- with-city-owned-isp-trying/)

<comment><USER3> Keep in mind that these regulations have advantages as well as disadvantages. Municipalities can easily prevent broadband providers from installing networks. So if they compete with broadband providers, they can easily abuse their position.

This can lead to worse internet availability.

E.g. these are municipalities, right, so porn filters and other forms of censorship for example are pretty much guaranteed if you let them install their own networks.

<comment><USER4> But this has never happened in any municipally provided internet service to date (in fact, even municipally-funded libraries are loathe to install filters). Nor has the government-sponsored Post Office ever refused to carry indecent mails (think adult magazines and videos).

And unlike corporations, government agencies are bound by the Constitution; any attempt by a municipal Internet service to filter based on content would face a First Amendment lawsuit overnight.

<comment><USER5> > Nor has the government-sponsored Post Office ever refused to carry indecent > mails (think adult magazines and videos).

I agree with your overall point -- I am aware of no attempt by municipal broadband providers to censor the internet they provide, and the First Amendment would seriously limit their ability to do so.

This, however, is not right:

>Nor has the government-sponsored Post Office ever refused to carry indecent mails (think adult magazines and videos).

It has done this on very many occasions and, in fact, these efforts are precisely how we got much of the First Amendment obscenity doctrine we have today.

Some examples: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Comstock](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Comstock)

[http://openjurist.org/276/f2d/433/grove-press-inc-v-k- christ...](http://openjurist.org/276/f2d/433/grove-press-inc-v-k- christenberry) ("'Lady Chatterley's Lover'...has been detained as unmailable by the New York Postmaster and, after a hearing before the Judicial Officer of the Post Office Department and reference to the Postmaster General for final departmental decision, was held by the latter to be 'obscene and non-mailable pursuant to 18 U.S.Code 1461.'")

[http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/1990/spring/es...](http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/1990/spring/esquire- v-walker-1.html)

Another good comparison might be broadcast (and, to a lesser degree, cable) television where, indeed, the government monopoly has generated pervasive content censorship. But this has been made possible by a peculiar First Amendment rule that really only applies to broadcast TV. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Lion_Broadcasting_Co._v._Fe...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Lion_Broadcasting_Co._v._Federal_Communications_Commission)

I, for one, would rather take my chances with municipal broadband than be stuck with the truly awful TWC service that I am currently stuck with in NC.

<comment><USER6> I'm also in NC (western part) and Time Warner is one of the two Internet services I have at my house. I have felt no problems with either (possibly because I have two and am ready to drop either if they start to suck). Is there something I should be looking for that I haven't?

<comment><USER7> Can you get 100mbps service for less than $100/mo?

If not, you're getting fleeced.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Love this part. Love it.

"While Blackburn is clearly overlooking the success of municipal broadband provider EPB from her own state, what's left out of the conversation is that largest percentage of funds for Blackburn's campaign came directly from the telecommunications industry"

<comment><USER9> I agree. This all seems so shady. I believe a municipality should have a choice, based on what the people vote for. The fact that this lady's funds are coming from telecom is a red herring to me.

<comment><USER10> I think you meant to say "red flag". A "red herring" is something that initially seems relevant to the issue at hand, but turns out to be unrelated.

A politician's campaign bankroll is very relevant to the issues that person chooses to champion while in office.

<comment><USER9> Hah, that crossed my mind before I posted but yes I should have said red flag. Thanks for the clarification.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Do the laws prohibit private companies from installing fast internet? I don't necessarily want a city government running my internet. Cities should not be in the telecommunications business. However, there SHOULD be laws promoting competition and thus restricting the de facto monopoly positions of many providers. Where I live in France, I have, in just my small town of Avignon, at least 5 high speed internet providers available -- resulting in my monthly cost for 120mbs + full cable (all the movie channels) cell phone with unlimited data, unlimited calls to over 49 countries in the world AND home phone (which I never use) for about 70 euro per month. The internet portion of that is something like 20 euro per month, the cell portion is about 15 or so (give or take 3 euro.)

Cities don't need to get in the telecoms business -- however governments do have a responsibility to promote competition. Cities getting into the internet business would be about as efficient as the Post Office getting into the letter delivery business -- a ton of public-union-related waste, bureaucratic inefficiencies as well as an inherit incentive to discourage private companies, thus reducing innovation. You also have the issue of city-run networks being subject to political pressures such as "I'll donate money to your reelection if you allow my content to have preference on the network." You also have the city having access to your usage records and they'd be nothing keeping them from using it for law enforcement purposes without a warrant or your consent. After all, you'd be using city-owned property, thus you really wouldn't have much leverage. The police would certainly leverage that. We all know that most internet traffic isn't going to be safe from NSA- types, however, there's a reasonable belief that NSA-level intercepts aren't filtering down to the local cop on the beat. Maybe it's a bit of paranoia, however based on my experiences with city governments in the US, they are some of the most power-hungry, corrupt sufferers of little-man(woman) syndrome I've ever encountered. These are the same twits that want to ban large sodas because they think they're your daddies and mommies. Yeah, count me out. Last thing anyone needs to do is give a city (or any) government more power to do anything.

<comment><USER12> What happens in the US is that municipalities will sign exclusivity agreements with certain companies (Comcast, AT&T, TWC) to encourage them to lay down the infrastructure.

Imagine you are the mayor of Podunk, Arkansas and you want your constituents to have access to high speed internet. AT&T and Comcast won't rush to lay cables to your town because there's simply not enough business for them to compete for. So, as mayor of Podunk give AT&T an exclusivity agreement for 20 years in exchange for them laying down the infrastructure today.

The problem is obvious: now AT&T doesn't have any competition and they can do whatever they want with their prices. Your population is hostage to the exclusivity agreement for the next 20 years.

One possible solution for this problem would be the government to build the infrastructure and then invite companies to compete for it's usage. That's what happens in UK and other countries.

<comment><USER13> Granting exclusive franchises for cable have been illegal under federal law since 1992.

<comment><USER14> While true, your statement is completely irrelevant, as is that section of the law to which you refer. Local governments simply switched to leasing right-of- way access; cable companies now simply pay for exclusive access to _that_ , instead of exclusive control of a given franchise area.

<comment><USER13> I don't know where you're getting that from. That is explicitly prohibited by 47 U.S.C. 253(a): "No State or local statute or regulation, or other State or local legal requirement, may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service."

See: [https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=KM_NU7Pg...](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=KM_NU7PgFYb5oASejoDwAQ&url=http://www.ctrc.maryland.gov/articles/pdf/Effect_on_Broadband_Deployment.pdf&cd=7&ved=0CCsQFjAG&usg=AFQjCNFRz09nyLt0GFcF1V7JjkD0ynhKwQ). Section III(A).

The NTIA has a 50-state survey of right of way laws here: [https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=KM_NU7Pg...](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=KM_NU7PgFYb5oASejoDwAQ&url=http://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/ntiahome/staterow/statelocalrow.html&cd=2&ved=0CCEQFjAB&usg=AFQjCNF3tJ0t8xc34iXN5KMyx3jOJdpjXQ)

<comment><USER14> It is explicitly prohibited and done all the time. Investigate the current situation with Baltimore, Maryland regarding its Comcast franchise as an example of how these things are still a problem, despite Congress' attempts to prevent it.

The executive summary here is that the laws you cite protect some services without protecting other services that may commonly be bundled. In the Baltimore situation I mentioned, only Comcast can provide cable TV. Verizon won't roll FiOS out to most of the city, because they wouldn't be able to sell television services alongside the internet and telephone services. It's rumored this also prevented Google Fiber from considering Baltimore as a target market. So, while the _letter_ of the law agrees with you, that any entity can provide service, the city has signed an agreement with Comcast that makes it financial suicide to attempt it.

It is not enough to parse the laws; you must also understand how they interact with the actual actions taken by real governments.

<comment><USER13> Its funny you mention Baltimore. I researched the issue extensively because I'm moving there in a month.

Baltimore's agreement with Comcast is non-exclusive for television service: [http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2004-09-21/news/0409210094_...](http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2004-09-21/news/0409210094_1_county- council-baltimore-county-franchise-agreement).

The reason Verizon doesn't offer television service in Baltimore is because it doesn't have a cable TV franchise from the city. The reason it doesn't have one is not because Comcast's contract is exclusive, but because the city won't give Verizon one unless they agree to build out FiOS to the whole city. Verizon won't do that because it makes no financial sense to build fiber everywhere in a city where a quarter of the population is at or below the poverty line. It dramatically increases their cost per actual subscriber, which is already iffy for FiOS to begin with. Verizon hsd built internet service only to a few high end communities, something that doesn't require a city-wide franchise.

Google won't enter Baltimore for the same reason Verizon won't. Google does not agree to build out requirements for Google Fiber. They demand the right to only build fiber in neighborhoods where enough people sign up to justify it: [http://www.oregonlive.com/silicon- forest/index.ssf/2014/05/g...](http://www.oregonlive.com/silicon- forest/index.ssf/2014/05/google_fibers_portland_deal_wo.html).

<comment><USER14> All such agreements are non-exclusive, by law, as you pointed out. It is fairly universal in franchise agreements to require universal buildout and public-access channel service in exchange for certain amenities the local government can provide. In the case of Google Fiber, they chose not to pursue a TV franchise and Baltimore was smart enough to stick to their buildout requirements. It has the same effect: Google can't sell TV service on terms it likes, so Baltimore is not a market. In the case of FiOS, it's far more likely that Verizon would like to have -- and could not get -- a piecemeal franchise in the city, and simply decided that not being able to sell TV meant it was more cost-effective to try selling 4G access as broadband in the city.

In either case, Comcast signed a buildout/franchise agreement, and the economy has shifted since then to render such agreements less profitable. That, combined with Comcast's boilerplate 'most favored nation' clauses it generally gets into their agreements, renders all of your arguments moot, as far as the end result for the populace goes: there is only one game in town. The fact that it _technically_ shouldn't be that way is just academic.

The Sun article you linked regards Baltimore County. Baltimore is not in Baltimore County. I wish you better luck with your future research.

<comment><USER13> Give me a break, they both signed agreements in 2004 and I posted that at 2am... This page has excerpts from the city's franchise agreement with Comcast. As you can see, it's non-exclusive: [http://www.baltimoregrassrootsmedia.org/PublicAccessTV/Franc...](http://www.baltimoregrassrootsmedia.org/PublicAccessTV/FranchiseAgreement/FranchiseAgreement.html).

This directly contradicts your assertion claim that Baltimore gave Comcast an exclusive franchise for television.

> It is fairly universal in franchise agreements to require universal buildout > and public-access channel service in exchange for certain amenities the > local government can provide. In the case of Google Fiber, they chose not to > pursue a TV franchise and Baltimore was smart enough to stick to their > buildout requirements.

It is fairly universal, but it is also what suppresses competition in the market. Verizon and Google won't touch those terms with a 10-foot pole. Its not smart of Baltimore to stick to those requirements, because it means people in Baltimore won't get fiber.

> That, combined with Comcast's boilerplate 'most favored nation' clauses it > generally gets into their agreements, renders all of your arguments moot, as > far as the end result for the populace goes: there is only one game in town. > The fact that it technically shouldn't be that way is just academic.

Sure, there is one game in town, but my argument isn't about that. Your claim, an oft-repeated bit of misinformation, is that cities get around 253(a) by granting exclusive right of way to certain providers. Or maybe your claim is that cities get around 253(a) by granting exclusive franchises for television to a single provider. The implication is that a competitor is legally precluded from entering the market. However, the reality is that cities don't do those things. What they do instead is succumb to class warfare politics, and make the terms of getting a franchise unattractive for competitors.

The question is: who is to blame. People on HN like to make it seem like cable companies negotiated themselves sweetheart exclusive deals. But the reality is that municipalities are to blame. Between the build out requirements and random cash grabs for public access, cities put up massive roadblocks to potential competition. Only the incumbents are willing to put up with them.

The bottom line is that companies like Verizon and Google are ready and willing to build fiber in places like Baltimore. But the city won't let them unless they agree to ridiculous terms. The fact that even Google refuses to agree to such nonsense in Fiber cities should tell you who is at fault here.

<comment><USER14> I'm very sorry if you feel I've attempted to mislead you, but the end result is the same: in most US cities, there is only one television provider, and it's always one that has negotiated a favorable contract with the local government. I know you don't think this is possible, that it's been outlawed, and that you're prepared to spend your life asserting that there is no way for a government to cause an exclusive franchise to exist, but there is, and they do. In my city, for example, the government just outright sold land to Time- Warner. Time-Warner doesn't pay for access to the right-of-way because they don't have to any more. In return, my city (and the county it's in) got fiber rolled out city wide.

I'm also unsure why you think that a simple business decision by Google is some sort of Moral Designator. It is the job of a city government to protect the less fortunate. They're not going to achieve that by letting corporations serve rich neighborhoods and ignore poor ones. I'm not sure how a city can "make the terms of getting a franchise unattractive for competitors" by holding them to the same terms as the existing franchisees.

I'm not really interested in having some kind of politically-charged debate with you about it, and now that you're throwing around phrases like 'class warfare,' I've realized you don't have any other actual motivation here. Sorry to have wasted your time on the matter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Are these laws any more onerous than the ones the private providers must respect?

I don't dispute that they are anti-competitive, but I wonder these are laws (or similar) are also the reason there is not private-sector competition. Would like to see original sources, and comparisons.

Remember, most cable and phone systems were designed by municipalities _as monopolies_ , which is what got us here today. They were seen as utilities.

<comment><USER16> As far as I can tell, cable systems were basically not "designed" \-- it was a pretty shady industry in the early 80s, with a bunch of shoddy work, questionable ROW deals, etc. Consolidation happened and a bunch of regional carriers happened and maybe some of the later deployments were "designed", but very little of the early catv was built the way telephony was, which was itself usually different from water/sewer. Electric depended on where, and was either sketchy (in some of the East Coast cities), or some kind of "designed" system, or government (RE).

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> there's a few more states with restrictions of various sorts.

[http://www.muninetworks.org/communitymap](http://www.muninetworks.org/communitymap)

</comment><comment><USER18> The fear is that the government will start creating noncompetitive laws once they win the bid. I have no problem with government taking over local ISPs if they can deliver a service that's just as good without caving to gov employees when they fall behind. There must exist some shared infrastructure (or cities must allow for redundant service lines) if true competition is to emerge.

<comment><USER19> To this European some American laws appear just weird and, I dare say, corrupt.

The telecom - and cable industry in the city of Zurich - yelled "bloody murder!" and foretold all sorts of doom and mayhem if the publicly owned electric utility would build a publicly financed fiber network. This happened about ten years ago.

The same companies argued that fiber is not economically viable and the investment not worthwhile.

They pored massive funds into a NO campaign for the referendum, which was accepted by the public in a landslide, twice!

After construction started the biggest telco, Swisscom, actually jumped onto the train. Now, thanks to the foresight of a public utility and the spending of public money Zurich has one of the densest, most modern, high capacity fiber networks.

Oh, the argument that a public utility smokes out poor private companies? That's not happening and that's very easy to avoid:

EWZ (the utility) does not act as an ISP. They sub lease the network to ISPs under equal and transparent conditions, who in turn sell network capacity to the consumer.

This also avoids the "censorship issue", which, in my opinion, is a spurious argument, at best.

I'm aghast about some of the arguments used in order to keep the public from pursuing its best interest.

I'd wager that a private company, whom's business model is built on force and coercion provides rotten service and will not act in the best interest of its customers.

When you look at where broadband stands in the US, compared to the rest of the world, I think my argument has merit.

<comment><USER20> Besides, as the UK demonstrates, companies will happily implement "voluntary" filtering as soon as somebody in the government starts spelling "regulation", so it makes little difference either way.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> From the first sentence:

> over 39 million Americans have less than 2 wired broadband providers they > can get broadband service from.

The logical/programmer side of me reads this as "over 39 million Americans have _one_ wired broadband provider they can get broadband service from"

<comment><USER22> Zero is also less than two.

<comment><USER23> Agreed -- if your logical/programmer side interprets <2 as ==1, then be careful with your code refactoring. :-)

<comment><USER24> Maybe it's a signed int. :^)

<comment><USER24> Meant unsigned, thanks autocorrect. But anyway, there's still +0 so nevermind.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> > ...

> Combined these rules force municipalities to compete with for-profit > corporations, but with none of the benefits of being a municipality.

> ...

What an incompetent and one-sided summary of the laws! After reading all of these, point-by-point, all I am left with is the impression that these are all good laws, and are good for the fairness of the market. Why the hell should municipalities get kick-ins that are not afforded to the businesses?

Keep in mind, I came in knowing that most of these laws are very one-sided! So, to have such an effect...

Is the author getting funding from the big telco and cableco?</comment>


Apple releases iOS 11.2 with date crashing fix - <AUTHOR> https://9to5mac.com/2017/12/02/apple-releases-ios-11-2/ <comment><USER2> Wow. A pattern of mismanagement in Apple Software Engineering is emerging, and it seems to be getting worse. The spotlight is on Craig F. to turn things around quickly. Is he up to it?</comment>


How to Fix Authentication: Email as a Password Manager - <AUTHOR> http://sakurity.com/blog/2015/04/10/email_password_manager.html

<comment><USER2> This seems amazing. I, a noob in this field, would like to hear about the views of other peoples on this. The only flaw I can see is the lack of end to end encryption for emails.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is not new. And there are sites that do this already</comment>


The search for the killer app of unikernels - <AUTHOR> http://unikernel.org/blog/2017/the-search-for-the-killer-app-of-unikernels <comment><AUTHOR> Unikernels are not being held back by lack of a killer app. Unikernels are being held back by lack of required support from big cloud providers.

Unikernels are a natural fit for building FAAS function as a service applications.

Much of the imperative for Unikernels has been reduced because of the rise of serverless functionality on the major cloud providers.

Unikernels are a great technology, but they have a future only if the major cloud providers implement millisecond boot and teardown times for instances, along with suitable pricing.

Until this happens, Unikernels will remain a niche technology and unless cloud providers come on board with millisecond boot times, Unikernels will fade away. Technologies that meet a real driving need get propelled forward. This is not happening with Unikernels, despite the technology now being mature enough for real world applications - the reason is lack of cloud support for millisecond boot & teardown with suitable pricing.</comment>