Zuckerberg's Hawaii estate: battle's latest turn 'devastates' local family - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/06/zuckerbergs-hawaii-estate-battles-latest-turn-devastates-local-family <comment><USER2> I love Kaua'i and been there many times and consider the garden island my spiritual home. What Zuckerberg is doing to all those that are poorer than him is evil. I closed my Facebook account earlier this year and I think that people who still are on this platform should take some time to reflect about their values and where to place their trust.

The source of money that powers all these actions, from world-wide democracy wrecking algorithms, to the lack of any kind of decent oversight, to hundreds of Hawaiians losing their land, it is ultimately from the usage of Facebook and its sister products. If that kind of behavior is not OK with you folks, then, why not vote with your wallet and leave? There is a whole decentralized web in the making and and it feels much like the blogosphere. Leave those sillos, stop funding evil people.

<comment><USER2> ... And sorry for the personal post. I often avoid posting from the heart here but I spent the last 16 years going to Kaua'i, basically a large part of my adulthood and what I perceive as myself is linked that to the experiences in that island. I get a bit emotional when multibillionaires go wrecking the place (which already has its share of crap millionaires to be honest).

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> It interesting that Hawaii's land ownership rules were intended to protect small owners but have in effect made it so that only the rich can afford to wade through all the bullshit to actually acquire new property.

<comment><USER4> that's the consequence of most rules and regulations supposed to "protect the weak"

<comment><USER5> Definitely going to need some kind of citation on that one. Pretty much all regulation is to protect the less powerful from the more powerful and to stop people in advantageous positions exploiting others. The rich and powerful can't (in many countries, at least) openly wander around killing and stealing, for example, and the range of regulations down from there covers an enormous amount.

<comment><USER6> It could go that way but it's usually the most powerful to have the connections with lawmakers and suggest what to write (or not to write) in some laws.

About unintended consequences, check this article about GDPR after one year [https://truthonthemarket.com/2019/05/24/gdpr-after-one- year-...](https://truthonthemarket.com/2019/05/24/gdpr-after-one-year-costs- and-unintended-consequences/)

I quote a couple of sentences but there is much more there

> After the rule took effect in May, Google's tracking software appeared on > slightly more websites, Facebook's on 7% fewer, while the smallest companies > suffered a 32% drop, according to Ghostery, which develops privacy-enhancing > web technology.

> The fact that Google's compliance strategy has ended up hurting its > competitors and redirecting higher demand back to its own marketplace, where > it can guarantee it has user consent, has unsettled publishers and ad tech > vendors

<comment><USER7> If you are an adtech company who's primary business was selling personal information of users, then yes, of course GDPR will have had a big impact. Google has put a lot of effort into being GDPR compliant, so I'd assume a lot of busineses switched away from smaller competitors for that reason.

I run a small SaaS business, which doesn't do anything ethically questional with user data, and becoming compliant involved:

\- writing a document on GDPR compliance

\- changing a few settings so IPs aren't logged or are at least anonymised

\- verifying log files aren't kept longer than needed and don't contain personal information that isn't needed

I don't even need a popup asking for users to give permission to store personal information, because I'm not doing anything that needs that.

<comment><USER4> did you not get any requests for DPAs, additional certifications, etc?

<comment><USER7> You don't need to get any certifications to be compliant, it's not like PCI where you need to be certified by a third party. This site has a simple checklist of what you need to do to be compliant:

[https://gdprchecklist.io/](https://gdprchecklist.io/)

Most of the actions you need to take are just respecting the user's privacy and being explicit about how their data is shared. If you use your laptop in a coffee shop you wouldn't expect the barista to stand behind you and watch what you are doing, then share that data with their colleagues and suppliers.

I'd say for a small company it's actually easier than a large company, as you have fewer processes that need to be changed. In my case it was a lot simpler to become compliant for this than VAT MOSS.

I haven't had any requests for data, so I don't have an automated way to export it yet, but if anyone requests it I can build it quickly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The use of "ancestral land" gives the misleading impression that the claimants are Hawaiian natives, but in fact they are descendents of a Portuguese immigrant who bought the land in the 1880s. The analogy to colonialism — the taking of indigenous property by invaders - is farcical if not outright appropriation.

<comment><USER9> You can say that about any land, in any time in history. Humans kept moving and killing each others for 1000 of years. There is not a single place that haven't been taken from somebody else at some point in the last 10k y.

Not to mention immigration, assimilation, raping and slavery that ensure the bloodline of pretty much evrybody was mixed up at some point.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> "By the time Zuckerberg purchased the surrounding acres in 2014, the title to the four parcels was divided between hundreds of descendants."

I just don't see how MZ is in the wrong trying to sort out ownership and purchase, for a presumably fair price, such a piece of land.

<comment><USER11> I really don't want this to come across as rude, but consider this.

Your comment is pretty extreme capitalism apologia. You don't have to be a complete socialist to reasonably consider the idea that maybe a private individual being able to use their power to seize any land they want, points to some major problems in the current social system you have.

I don't want this necessarily to get super political though, so if I've stepped over a line feel free to vote me down into oblivion :)

I just think stories like this are interesting because if you put down your ideaologies and look at the situation you realize nobody is right, but there's some obvious _policy_ changes that are necessary.

<comment><USER12> He bought the land for more than fair value. He didn't seize anything.

<comment><USER13> I seized a really nice dinner tonight. Don't worry, my server seized 20% of the total bill from me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> There is a line here that Zuckerberg suggests this is to protect his privacy.

I can't even begin to sort out how messed up that is!

<comment><USER13> I'm the biggest critic when it comes to user privacy of Facebook (and Google) of anyone in my friend group.

I say that first because I want to establish my bonafides- I genuinely care about user privacy and feel that Facebook has dropped the ball left and right on the matter. What's worse, it appears that the company and (judging from some of his comments) Mr. Zuckerberg himself don't believe in such a thing as meaningful privacy in the first place. So it's not just a case of mistakes made, it's that Facebook stands opposed to some of my own most cherished values.

Having said all that, I think it's important to separate Facebook's corporate actions from Zuckerberg's private life. Just because his company is engaged in questionable practices doesn't mean he isn't entitled to the same benefit of the doubt anyone else enjoys.

And I have to say, if I had his wealth and his fame/notoriety, I'd bloody well want as much real-world privacy as I could get. I think it's disingenuous to judge him for that or pretend it has any relation at all to Facebook's policies.

<comment><USER15> >...judging from some of his comments) Mr. Zuckerberg himself don't believe in such a thing as meaningful privacy in the first place.

>Having said all that, I think it's important to separate Facebook's corporate actions from Zuckerberg's private life.

Those two statements don't jive. If he doesn't believe in meaningful personal privacy then your argument is just a distinction without a difference.

I think the reality is that he cares about his privacy and also likes to make money by monetizing the personal details of other people.

<comment><USER13> As a serious advocate of online user privacy I hesitate to point this out, but on a really important level there's a difference between one's privacy when it comes to one's online browsing habits and one's privacy when it comes to paparazzi photographs taken from the neighbor's house and sold to the highest bidder.

<comment><USER16> I would strongly disagree. Most people have something revealed about them in a fb post that would likely be more damaging than some ugly half-naked photos floating around.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> "In the UK, I would not be able to take on a client seeking to purchase a property or business in excess of a rational review of their wealth or earning history."

comedy gold

<comment><USER18> Funny but at the same time the UK branch of our company has to do a lot more diligence when they on board a new client than we do and that's due to EU regs.

<comment><USER19> You are right.

Then the trick used in the UK is that it's not "a person" buying a property, it is "a company" (could be registered in the UK or elsewhere). It could be even a company owned by other companies

Example: [https://www.transparency.org.uk/press-releases/bbc- panorama-...](https://www.transparency.org.uk/press-releases/bbc-panorama- exposes-dirty-money/)

There is a good amount of brexit supporters that want to make these regulations even laxer.</comment></comment></comment>


Visualizing 1500 messages - <AUTHOR> http://blog.neax.de/messages/

<comment><USER2> Cool project; interesting to try to visualize something like a personal relationship. It's not clear, though, if the "transit time" \-- the period between when the message is sent and when it is read -- of the message is accounted for; that is, all the message "comets" seem to move at the same speed, and in many cases the recipient appears to fire off a new message before the incoming message has even arrived.

Maybe there are some external circumstances that frequently caused both users to simultaneously message one another, but I would have expected to see more of a clear back-and-forth pattern where each message provokes the following response.</comment>


The Perfect Desktop - Ubuntu Studio 9.04 - <AUTHOR> http://www.howtoforge.com/the-perfect-desktop-ubuntu-studio-9.04 <comment><USER2> Finally one made it to the home page!

<http://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=joschi>

<comment><USER3> That _is_ an impressive list, but honestly I'd take self-submitters like this over the infoworld articles.

<comment><USER2> I'll see your infoworld and raise you a Techcrunch.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm not really sure how this is any different than any other Ubuntu or Debian installation. Installing the required packages for multimedia playback and GIMP and such is fairly simple on any Deb/RPM based distro anyway, and its a skill that any user will have to learn at some point.

</comment><comment><USER5> Wishful thinking aside, The Gimp < Photoshop.

<comment><USER6> Not everyone is a professional graphics designer. Sometimes you just want to resize and sharpen your photo before you put it on your blog.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Apparently, not everybody is happy with the graphics performance etc.,

[http://renesd.blogspot.com/2009/04/ubuntu-jaunty-half- speed-...](http://renesd.blogspot.com/2009/04/ubuntu-jaunty-half-speed- graphics.html)

<comment><USER8> Yeah, I had the same experience (after upgrading to 9.04 b0rked and I had to reinstall).

<comment><USER9> My fiancee had a similar problem. I used some X.org black magic and avoided a re-install. ("Black magic" because I did not know what finally made it. The steps outlined in the blog-post did not suffice.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> what's the "studio" for if this stuff has to be installed? Consider included some information on how to modify the color theme. I would think most creative types would want a neutral gray palette with minimal visual interference.

<comment><USER11> Ubuntu Studio does have a neutral grey palette. Modifying the color is easy, System->Preferences->Appearance.

I think it's called Studio because the Linux kernel was built with more aggressive real-time options turned on by default, to reduce jutter in audio+video capture.

<comment><USER12> Last I heard, the real-time kernel is not part of the current version of Ubuntu Studio.

I tried it about a year ago, and it was unstable/crashed frequently. Switched to Ubuntu regular; been happy ever after.

I like the Dust desktop theme.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> That's a lot of work for a perfect desktop. I think the title should be "The Perfect Linux Desktop".

</comment><comment><USER14> I don't think most hackers are going to see much value in another tutorial about installing Ubuntu.

This kind of thing can be valuable, but I'm surprised to see it on HN.</comment>


Freemium and Freeconomics - <AUTHOR> http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2009/07/freemium-and-freeconomics.html <comment><USER2> If Chris Anderson accomplishes nothing else by releasing "Free", he will have at least started a really good debate.</comment>


Fast Ads Matter - <AUTHOR> https://web.dev/fast-ads-matter/ <comment><USER2> The fastest ads are the ones that never load at all. Not sorry Google, that ship has sailed long ago when ads became a delivery mechanism for malware and tracking.

> Since fast ads result in improved user experience metrics, a focus on > improving ad speed may decrease the incentive for users to install ad > blockers.

I think making this conclusion from the data in the linked adblock report is a bizarre interpretation of that data.

<comment><USER3> I get it that you (and many here) don't like ads, what do you mean by "that ship sailed long ago"? That Google should just close up shop and go home?

Advertising exists. You can't make it go away. You can make it less bothersome to most people.

And I'm having trouble understanding how you say their conclusion (which simply said it "may" decrease the incentive) is so bizarre. Are you assuming that everyone out there views ads the way you do?

<comment><USER4> You can't make it go away? Who made it in the first place? The natural state of the universe is no advertising. It's not as though a "You're the 1,000,000th visitor to this site!" banners popped into existence three femtoseconds after the Big Bang.

<comment><USER5> I'd disagree. Advertising exists in very subtle forms such as mere persuasion and even more subtly, plain information. The background radiation present in the cosmos advertises the big bang's existence.

<comment><USER6> I'm still waiting for the 2-for-the-price-of-1 sale on Big Bangs before I buy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I wouldn't block ads if they were only static images loaded from a web server, with the only click/impression tracking being web server log scraping. No JS, cross-site tracking, malware.

Bonus points for being SVGs and thereby saving my bandwidth and looking nice across all resolutions.

<comment><USER8> Just curious, what's your solution to frauds and bot clicks on static images without client side scripting/cross site tracking?

<comment><USER9> CPA (cost per acquisition) seemed like it was gaining steam over CPC (cost per click) and CPM (cost per thousand views) when I left Yahoo! in 2011.

Did that not go anywhere?

<comment><USER10> Vast majority still backs into a CPM. CPC/CPA is mostly by the affiliate/performance advertisers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It's been up for 2 days, and was removed sometime today.

Here's the archive: [https://web.archive.org/web/20191031023005/https://web.dev/f...](https://web.archive.org/web/20191031023005/https://web.dev/fast- ads-matter/)

<comment><USER12> It's still up for me.

<comment><USER11> If its up for you, that means there was a ~3 hour where it was down. That's odd.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Gwern notes an observed 10-15% decrease in traffic while A/B-testing banner ads, at [https://www.gwern.net/Ads;](https://www.gwern.net/Ads;) and those ads were quite discreet. That article contains a summary of some other ad-related results, all showing a similar decline in traffic in other places (including in an audio context), which weakly suggests that however fast your ads load, you're still going to drop >5% of your users simply by the fact of having ads at all.

</comment><comment><USER14> Well the 404 page for the story link loaded pretty quickly. ;-)

There really isn't anything wrong with sidebar ads served from the same domain. Simple image/text/html, loads almost instantly, cacheable, etc.. Bonus is that ads can be based on web page content and you don't need to track your users.

</comment><comment><USER15> I work in advertising, and have been for over 15 years. Two points to make:

a) Advertising is (and always has been), fundamentally, the application of data science to drive return-on-investment decisions. Any company that can do data science and understands RoI will eventually converge to be an advertising company. Calls for Google to "find a product to sell instead of being an advertising company" are calls for Google to throw away their data science expertise. Not gonna happen.

b) Breaking adblockers is a technically solved problem; just serve web pages as server-rendered blobs. (Think 'flash pages' of yore.) We're not doing it yet because the proportion of adblock users is still too small to make this profitable.

But if this proportion changes in the future, so will the web. So calls for more adblocking are just calls for a vastly more closed and proprietary web than today.

That is probably not what you really want.

<comment><USER16> >Breaking adblockers is a technically solved problem; just serve web pages as server-rendered blobs.

Can you elaborate on this a little? How does this win the ad-block arms race?

<comment><USER15> If your webpage is a binary blob - for example, several megabytes of webassembly that unpacks an encrypted payload onto a randomly-generated DOM - then adblockers would have to disassemble the thing and run heuristics to figure out which part of the page is ads and which are innocent images and text.

Which is impossible to do without horrible false-positives. The arms race between ever-increasing heuristics complexity on the adblocker side and the webpage cloaking ads as content is a race that the adblockers cannot win.

<comment><USER16> Ok. So, at that point, you are practically downloading a binary executable, which uses browser API's as it standard lib, per site.

You're right I think, it would become very difficult to create client side heuristics to identify the advertisement elements in the way it is currently done.

But who knows? Maybe machine learning based solutions will become necessary? Maybe dedicated recognition FPGAs?

The war will probably continue for some time.

<comment><USER15> Not really, because a) people aren't willing to put up with false positives (i.e., adblockers hiding the meme cat photos you were looking for), and b) people aren't willing to pay money to hide ads.

The real solution is getting rid of intrusive and/or annoying ads, but that would mean sites with tightly curated audiences; no clickbait, SERP spam and other stupid audience-inflating crap.

Ultimately intrusive ads happen because publishers are in a rush to monetize traffic that advertisers view as cheap/low quality. It becomes a downwards spiral of attract low-quality eyeballs -> ad spendings plummet -> devote more screen share to annoying ads -> viewership falls -> attract more low-quality eyeballs -> etc.

Maybe at some point we'll hit rock bottom and things will start improving.

<comment><USER17> > a) people aren't willing to put up with false positives (i.e., adblockers > hiding the meme cat photos you were looking for)

You can estimate the actual ratio of false positives by examining existing automation solutions based on image recognition. As a very rudimentary example, I have successfully used Sikuli [1] for various tasks including a program running "binary blobs". Unless you mix contents and ads altogether (and I personally think that it is fine as long as the ad is properly marked! It is at least a kind of contents, just that what I don't want generally though.) you can't ramp the false positive ratio up beyond a certain level.

[1] [http://www.sikuli.org/](http://www.sikuli.org/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Aside: that page loaded crazy fast but is anyone else seeing bad scrolling performance? It's strangely choppy on Chrome using my original Pixel XL in a way that HN and other sites are not.

<comment><USER19> Its noticeable on my chromebook as well.

<comment><USER18> Filed, they're gonna fix it: [https://github.com/GoogleChrome/web.dev/issues/1811](https://github.com/GoogleChrome/web.dev/issues/1811)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Slow ad popups are better. Often you can close them before they render fully.

<comment><USER21> Personally I just hit the back button on those sites. It's obnoxious behavior.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> The tracking scripts are what I hate most about modern adtech. Coincidentally, they are also the reason ads are so resource-heavy and slow.

</comment><comment><USER23> Yes users are happy when they see ads in some circumstances (when they are fast). This is a stupid premise.

</comment><comment><USER24> I'm getting a 404, maybe someone accidentally released it?</comment>


Should I apply to YC? - <AUTHOR> http://ryanhoover.me/post/98100172588/should-i-apply-to-yc <comment><USER2> Yes! I agree that many times one can learn a lot about the process even when the results are not favorable. If getting a rejection makes you quit then maybe you weren't meant for this. At the very least the application process teaches you how to evaluate your product and effectively communicate its value proposition.

</comment><comment><USER3> Yes. What's there to lose?</comment>


Ask HN: What skills are essential for a back end engineer? - <AUTHOR> What skills would you consider to be necessities when hiring for a backend engineer for the web? Soft skills, related software skills, programming knowledge, or anything else you can think of. <comment><USER2> (disclamer: I belong to the "show me your tables, and I don't need to see your code" camp)

\- Strong data modelling skills

\- Strong SQL skills

\- Fluency in at least two of PHP, Python, Ruby, Rust, Go, C, C++, C#, Java (more exotic languages like haskell, erlang, lisp a plus)

\- Basic unix (most likely Linux) skills (basic commands, ip-route, unix- permissions, acls, superuser vs normal users, unix sockets, sysv, systemd, basic bash scripting) and hands on of at least two different "families" (redhat, debian, arch, slackware, gentoo, exherbo, and many more - ubuntu is in the debian family for example) of linux (or BSDs).

\- Conceptually understanding of how networking works (ip-addresses (4&6), ports, unix sockets, subnets, routing, nat, ).

\- Curious nature and an ability to keep asking questions in a friendly fashion (if the answer is not complete or shows that the question has been misunderstood)

\- Basic HTML/CSS/Javascript skills

</comment><comment><USER3> \- Pragmatism \- CVS \- Ability to identity and isolate tasks and rely on CVS for incremental changes \- Strong Database knowledge \- Strong Algorithm & Data Structure knowledge \- Any kind of C-derived programming language \- Unix</comment>


Etsy Manufacturing Opens to Designers - <AUTHOR> https://blog.etsy.com/news/2015/etsy-manufacturing-opens-to-designers/ <comment> dj-wonk This is a matching service (e.g. a 'market' in some sense) to find manufacturers. Note that manufacturers are not vetted by Etsy:

> Manufacturers on Etsy Manufacturing are not vetted, but we do individually > screen applicants for their fit with the four production categories and for > in-house production, to encourage a better experience as designers begin > their search.

</comment><comment><USER2> On the one hand, this is a great development for people who want to make more things, but don't have the bandwidth to do it all themselves.

On the other hand, this seems to move away from the all-hand-crafted philosophy Etsy has had up to now.

I'm torn.

<comment><USER3> > all-hand-crafted philosophy

I write software for desktop CNC machines, and am a maker myself who periodically sells his work. I constantly am thinking about what it means to be 'hand-made'. The machines I write software for can only make one thing at a time, it isn't large scale manufacturing. The designs are hand-crafted, I suppose, but they are of course made digitally. The machine is controlled by the computer, so the process of carving doesn't involve any manual skill. However a piece is rarely 'finished' the moment it comes off the machine. An added level of complexity, for myself at least, is that I am writing the software that controls the machine. Does that make the things my machine creates any 'more hand-crafted'? I like to think it does, but I'm not sure!

<comment><USER4> I'd say the "source code" for your designs is hand-crafted, but the material coming off the CNC machine is not. It may not be mass manufacturing, but if additional copies are essentially a button-push away, I'd say that it wasn't hand crafted. Now if the setup time on the CNC machine took longer than making it on a manual mill/lathe, then we might have some grey area. BTW, what are you using for your "desktop CNC" machine? Do you have any recommendations? And what materials are you machining? Steel? Brass? Aluminum? Plastics?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Interesting development!

As an inventor aiming to build some prototypes, would it make sense to reach out to some of the 3D printing type companies for mock-ups?

I figure my ideas - consumer devices for home use - don't really fit the Etsy platform for sales. However, after a couple rejections from investor platforms, I'm definitely willing to strike out on my own with some patience. Does anybody think going to one of these entities might be a viable path?

<comment><USER6> You might reach out to the mechanical engineering department at a local university. Boise State University has some pretty nice equipment and they offer paid 3D printing services to the public. We have used their services multiple times for prototypes on products we are working on to pretty good success.

<comment><USER5> Thank you very much, I did not think of that avenue. Considering how many universities there are within an hour's drive (more than I have fingers!) I'm hoping one might do such things. Much appreciated.</comment></comment></comment>


Git commit -a -m $(curl -L http://whatthecommit.com/index.txt ) - <AUTHOR> http://whatthecommit.com/index.txt <comment><USER2> So now we have something to make our commit messages useful again?</comment>


Tesla Tests Self-Driving Functions with Secret Updates to Its Customers' Cars - <AUTHOR> https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601567/tesla-tests-self-driving-functions-with-secret-updates-to-its-customers-cars/ <comment><USER3> For those reacting to the headline and first few paragraphs:

>Tesla's engineers initially test new self-driving software against those records. Any that perform well can also be tested by secretly installing them onto customer vehicles and watching how they respond to conditions on the road, although the software doesn't actually control the car.

>"We will often install an 'inert' feature on all our vehicles worldwide," said Anderson. "That allows us to watch over tens of millions of miles how a feature performs."

The article is sparse on details, but this little bit buried in the middle certainly seems to allay the fear I (and others here) immediately felt. It looks like Tesla tests software, then pushes it out without giving up any control of the car; the software simply logs what it _would_ have done.

This is huge. No matter your in-house testing, there will always be bugs, but if Tesla can test software across 2 million miles a day, and in varied conditions, without any risks, I'd imagine a faster, less error-prone pipeline, leaps and bounds over the other teams.

<comment><USER4> Yep, whenever someone say that GM/Ford/VW is going to destroy Tesla with their better mfg experience this is one of the things I drive home as Tesla's real advantage(along with the supercharger network).

Seeing the changes in the ~1 year we've owned a Model S has been incredible. For each new feature they add/improve they increase the value across the _whole fleet_ (assuming AP hardware/etc).

Heck, they've said they already have a huge mapping network, you could start giving some of the major mapping companies a run for their money just with that data alone.

<comment><USER5> The networked transportation sensor suite is insanely valuable and it seems to completely be overlooked by both competitors and investors. Between this, the energy storage business, and obviously the vehicles, I am excited to see what they can do.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Sterling Anderson (Tesla Director of Autopilot Programs) was a researcher at MIT for a long time before joining Tesla. I'm surprised the article (MIT Technology Review) doesn't mention this. I'm also surprised they didn't link to his video presentation, since they are the ones that put on the event. Here it is:

[http://events.technologyreview.com/emtech/digital/16/video/w...](http://events.technologyreview.com/emtech/digital/16/video/watch/sterling- anderson-autonomous-vehicles/)

> he showed a chart illustrating how self-driving Teslas using the Autopilot > feature hold themselves much more tightly to the center of the lane than > humans do when steering the car.

There are a couple slides form Anderson's talk in this other article, including the one that this article mentions:

[http://electrek.co/2016/05/24/tesla-autopilot-miles- data/](http://electrek.co/2016/05/24/tesla-autopilot-miles-data/)

</comment><comment><USER7> This is a huge competitive advantage for Tesla. Google is running a few test cars around mountain view, while Tesla is gathering training data from 50k cars already on the road.

<comment><USER8> I would hope its not truly being done without notification and agreement of the customer. That is just rude and should be illegal.

The car should tell me each and every time the manufacture did something and what it was. I should have to actively agree to be part of any test regardless if my direct involvement is required or not.

<comment><USER9> Many modern cars have an "event data recorder" that holds information about pretty much everything when you're driving. Admittedly they only hold about 30 seconds worth of information (in case you crash) but the point here is that tracking what you do isn't a new thing and expanding the period the data is held for would be trivial.

<comment><USER10> [http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2013/03/20/174...](http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2013/03/20/174827589/yes- your-new-car-has-a-black-box-wheres-the-off-switch)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This article takes a lot of liberty in promoting the idea that "secret updates" are actually a thing. Sterling Anderson simply says "We will often install an 'inert' feature on all our vehicles worldwide," And from that, the author makes it out as some nefarious endeavor.

</comment><comment><USER11> If anyone at Tesla is reading this, can we see some information of what the car does when it senses that there is a motorcycle lane splitting. Most drivers will adjust to the far side of their lane, what do the autobots do? (unless someone has a Tesla and can tell me)

<comment><USER12> As a motorcyclist, if the Tesla just maintains its course that would be perfect. And when they get to switching lanes, if they signal before they move, that would be perfect.

I don't need cars to move over (what if there's a motorcycle on the other side?). I just need stable, predictable behavior.

If you are a driving a car and you move over when I come, I don't mind. Because that tells me you probably see me and makes you a little more predictable.

<comment><USER13> > Because that tells me you probably see me

Thats the main reason I do it, as well as to be polite and leave you a bit more space.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> "...secretly installing them onto customer vehicles..."

Do Tesla owners explicitly consent to this? As in terms and condition of sale state that they give Tesla permission to update the software on their car without informing them? If so, is that condition transferred to subsequent owners if the car is resold?

Where I am from, secretly installing software on a customer's hardware is really bad form, and would get you sued if discovered.

<comment><USER15> I believe owners sign a document at time of purchase permitting a wide variety of remote access and logging, but they can opt out if they wish.

Whether the owners are reading the privacy policy before agreeing to it is a different issue.

Source: [https://www.teslamotors.com/about/legal](https://www.teslamotors.com/about/legal)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> > "Since introducing this hardware 18 months ago we've accrued 780 million > miles," said Anderson. "We can use all of that data on our servers to look > for how people are using our cars and how we can improve things." Every 10 > hours Tesla gets another million miles worth of data, he said.

For those following the space, this is an amusing quote, because a RAND study recently came out pointing that given known human accident rates, to have a statistically significant improvement in safety would require data from - <USER2> - hundreds of millions of miles of self-driving car travel, and with an expensive testing fleet of as many as 100 cars, why, that would take decades!

Not that the calculations were wrong, but I think everyone kinda laughed at it, and this quote emphasizes why.

Anyway, this is the sort of method you would expect. Everyone who can records car telemetry and does training/evaluation on simulations using that data. The only surprising thing here, I guess, is that Tesla is doing evaluation live rather than recording everything and pushing to Tesla servers and running the simulations there.

<comment><USER17> It's not always straightforward to throw more data at an algorithm. Having so many miles might not benefit them so much.

Google is doing a lot of special testing in simulators - those corner cases that happen once in a million miles, that you'd have to drive quite a lot to collect hundreds of examples of. Also, Google is solving the much harder problem of full city and highway driving.

<comment><USER16> The point is that a whole fleet can rack up daunting numbers in a very short time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> This suggests Tesla stores a recording of every driver's traffic violations. Have they received any subpoenas for that data?

<comment><USER19> There is no suggestion that the human's driving behaviour is recorded.

How the telemetry works is an unknown. We might speculate about it, but I would not be surprised to see that Tesla has taken measures to prevent their tech being used to punish their drivers for driving.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Testing "inert" features like this is not necessarily a bad idea. The worst that could happen is it isn't isolated correctly -- maybe you introduce a bug that transgresses its sandbox. Certainly Tesla's software architects spend a LOT of time working to ensure this doesn't happen, but it is a risk.

But there is a recent case where Tesla pushed a software update that resulted in an accident, and it wasn't an inert feature. It was a user interface change.

In 7.1 they added a shortcut for the Autopark feature that worked like this:[1]

1\. Double tap the park button

2\. Exit the car

3\. The car starts moving forward

So... can you guess what could go wrong with this???

Yup, a user accidentally double tapped instead of single tapped and exited the car. The only safeguard against this was an alert on the center console.. but it wasn't a confirmation dialog, it was merely an option to _cancel_. Terrible UX. The user didn't notice it on the way out the door. And no other safeguards like having to hold onto the key fob to ensure you're paying attention.

So the car moved forward and hit something in front of it that its sensors didn't detect.[2]

What's even worse, Tesla _blamed the user._ [3] Not the kind of attitude you want in a company pushing updates like this.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-JoZL9edlA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-JoZL9edlA)

[2] [http://www.theverge.com/2016/5/11/11656496/tesla-model-s- aut...](http://www.theverge.com/2016/5/11/11656496/tesla-model-s-autonomous- summon-mode-crash)

[3] [http://www.theverge.com/2016/5/11/11658226/tesla-model-s- sum...](http://www.theverge.com/2016/5/11/11658226/tesla-model-s-summon- autopilot-crash-letter)

</comment><comment><USER21> With cyber warfare becoming a real thing, imagine a third party hacking into Tesla's update mechanisms and pushing a silent update to overheat the engine or crash into as many casualties as possible.

<comment><USER22> Imagine if a fiberglass-bodied junker from the 80s overheated it's engine...

Actually, now that I think about it, that probably happens every other week on the local stretch of the interstate.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> When did adaptive cruise control and lane keeping become "self-driving"?</comment>


Bob Taylor Has Died - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/14/technology/robert-taylor-innovator-who-shaped-modern-computing-dies-at-85.html <comment><USER2> Bob fully embraced the deeply romantic "ARPA Dream" of personal computing and pervasive networking. His true genius was in being able to "lead by getting others to lead and cooperate" via total commitment, enormous confidence in his highly selected researchers expressed in all directions, impish humor, and tenacious protection of the research.

He was certainly the greatest "research manager" in his field, and because of this had the largest influence in a time of the greatest funding for computing research. It is impossible to overpraise his impact and to describe just how he used his considerable personality to catalyze actions.

The key idea was to have a great vision yet not try to drive it from the funders on down, but instead "fund people not projects" by getting the best scientists in the world to "find the problems to solve" that they thought would help realize the vision.

An important part of how this funding was carried out was not just to find the best scientists, but to create them. Many of the most important researchers at Xerox PARC were young researchers in ARPA funded projects. Bob was one of the creators of this process and carried it out at ARPA, Xerox PARC, and DEC.

He was one of those unique people who was a central factor in a deep revolution of ideas.

<comment><USER3> "An important part of how this funding was carried out was not just to find the best scientists, but to create them."

Is anyone doing this today?

Bell Labs had this practice in the early 20th century, ARPA, Xerox PARC, and DEC it seems in the latter thanks to Bob.

"Create/develop the best" isn't a mentality or practice that I see in the tech world today. Unfortunately it's an idea and practice that also seems lost in my own field of education.

<comment><USER4> This is, in part, what Y Combinator hopes to accomplish through various arms.

<comment><USER5> I could be wrong, but my understanding is that Y Combinator works to help fund founders who have interesting startup ideas. This strikes me as materially different from funding pure research or, in some cases, gently guided research.

<comment><USER2> There's a branch of Y Combinator -- YC Research -- that has set up a number of non-profit R&D organizations

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> "My bias was always to build decentralization into the net. That way it would be hard for one group to gain control. I didn't trust large central organizations. It was just in my nature to distrust them." \-- Bob Taylor

<comment><USER7> It is just so utterly amazing that we've inherited an Internet built by people like this. Utterly amazing.

<comment><USER8> Yep. In almost any other alternate universe, we ended up with an oligarchy of private digital information services, each acting as gatekeepers to its own exclusive internet. It's hard to fathom the innovation that would have been prevented by the much higher barriers to entry in such a world, and just how much intellectually richer we are from Taylor's radical vision winning out.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Sad news.

My favorite Bob Taylor story is about the "class 1" versus "class 2" disagreement. Not sure which is which, but in the preferred case, the two parties are able to state each other's position to the other's satisfaction. One of his tricks as a manager was to help the parties get to that state.

This is either from Rheingold's _Tools for Thought_ or Doug Smith's book.

 _update_ : kind of but not exactly like this great scene from Horace & Pete [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iRM1iN-3a4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iRM1iN-3a4)

<comment><USER10> _In the 1970s at Xerox PARC, regularly scheduled arguments were routine. The company that gave birth to the personal computer staged formal discussions designed to train their people on how to fight properly over ideas and not egos. PARC held weekly meetings they called "Dealer" (from a popular book of the time titled Beat the Dealer). Before each meeting, one person, known as "the dealer," was selected as the speaker. The speaker would present his idea and then try to defend it against a room of engineers and scientists determined to prove him wrong. Such debates helped improve products under development and sometimes resulted in wholly new ideas for future pursuit. The facilitators of the Dealer meetings were careful to make sure that only intellectual criticism of the merit of an idea received attention and consideration. Those in the audience or at the podium were never allowed to personally criticize their colleagues or bring their colleagues' character or personality into play. Bob Taylor, a former manager at PARC, said of their meetings, "If someone tried to push their personality rather than their argument, they'd find that it wouldn't work." Inside these debates, Taylor taught his people the difference between what he called Class 1 disagreements, in which neither party understood the other party's true position, and Class 2 disagreements, in which each side could articulate the other's stance. Class 1 disagreements were always discouraged, but Class 2 disagreements were allowed, as they often resulted in a higher quality of ideas. Taylor's model removed the personal friction from debates and taught individuals to use conflict as a means to find common, often higher, ground._

The Myths of Creativity, David Burkus

<comment><USER11> We ought to do this on HN. Every week select someone to present and idea and we can all learn together how to fight over ideas and not egos. I think it would be really healthy and productive for the community.

<comment><USER12> In a way, we have something like this almost daily on HN. Regulars often end up back-and-forthing with other HNers about a topic they disagree on :).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> If you're not too familiar with the story, Where Wizards Stay Up Late is a good history of the beginning of the internet. [https://www.amazon.com/Where- Wizards-Stay-Up-Late/dp/0684832...](https://www.amazon.com/Where-Wizards-Stay- Up-Late/dp/0684832674)

<comment><USER14> Taylor had an immense impact both direct and indirect on the nature of computing as we know it today, it's a little sad he's not better known.

Dealers of Lightning does a great job detailing his role in it all - [https://www.amazon.com/Dealers-Lightning-Xerox-PARC- Computer...](https://www.amazon.com/Dealers-Lightning-Xerox-PARC- Computer/dp/0887309895/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1492224250&sr=8-1) that along with soul of a new machine really capture the spirit of that 60s/70s generation of computing.

<comment><USER15> Yet another book showcasing Bob Taylor's impact on personal computing and networking is The Dream Machine [https://www.amazon.com/Dream-Machine- Licklider-Revolution-Co...](https://www.amazon.com/Dream-Machine-Licklider- Revolution-Computing/dp/014200135X) .

This one tells the story from the precursors to time-sharing to PARC, using the figure of J.C.R. Licklider as a pivot, and was recommended by Alan Kay as better than Dealers of Lightning. I personally enjoyed both.

<comment><USER16> The Dream Machine was Taylor's own favorite of this genre.

<comment><USER2> And of most of the participants at ARPA-IPTO and PARC. "Dealers of Lightning" was too much of the "hero's journey" trope, and also very confusing in sequence (even to those of us who were there). Both books missed how and why researchers cooperated and coordinated across projects, but "Dream Machine" is much more clear and generally more accurate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> _"I went to see Charlie Herzfeld, who was the head of ARPA, and laid the idea on him," Mr. Taylor recalled in an interview with The Times. "He liked the idea immediately, and he took a million dollars out of the ballistic missile defense budget and put it into my budget right then and there." He added, "The first funding came that month."_

This must bring tears to the eyes of every researcher today.

<comment><USER18> Wow, that's enough to kill two ISIS militants.

[https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/14/moab- attack-...](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/14/moab-attack-isis- baffling-choice-cold-blooded-terms-cost-afghanistan)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I've just added a photo from flickr to the Bob Taylor Wikipedia article.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Taylor_(computer_scient...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Taylor_\(computer_scientist\))

(One of my hobbies is contact flickr photographers and asking them if they're interested in having their pictures used on Wikipedia.)

<comment><USER20> Somewhat OT, but from the second paragraph in that page you linked...

> Taylor was known for his high-level vision and invention of the "any" key: > "The Internet is not about technology; it's about communication and choice, > if you want to press any key. The Internet connects people who have shared > interests, ideas and needs, regardless of geography."

What? Am I understanding correctly that this is a joke about "the any key"? :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Damn, people were just praising his work on the other thread:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14108797](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14108797)

Then I see the black line and same name. Sad. Least he got to execute his vision, innovate, help change the world, and live a long life before he died. Best any of us can hope for.

</comment><comment><USER22> A very succinct professional summary here:

[http://www.computerhistory.org/fellowawards/hall/robert-w- ta...](http://www.computerhistory.org/fellowawards/hall/robert-w-taylor/)

>> In 1970, Taylor founded the Computer Science Laboratory (CSL) of the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center (Xerox PARC). Through the 1970s, CSL researchers became known worldwide for a number of important innovations necessary to the creation of the Internet. CSL invented and built Ethernet, the laser printer, and the PUP (PARC Universal Packet) protocol. PUP was introduced seven years in advance of the implementation of the Internet protocol, TCP/IP. Within Xerox, all of these technologies enabled the construction of the first internet.

</comment><comment><USER23> From a nice Alan Kay's post:

There were key figures. For example, Parc would not have succeeded without Bob Taylor, Butler Lampson, Chuck Thacker, and a few others.

The link: [https://www.quora.com/What-made-Xerox-PARC-special-Who- else-...](https://www.quora.com/What-made-Xerox-PARC-special-Who-else-today- is-like-them/answer/Alan-Kay-11?share=1)

<comment><USER24> Indeed, that Quora post was submitted to HN yesterday - a coincidence of the universe.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14108797](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14108797)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Respect to the black "top band" the HN site is wearing now. Have a pleasant journey, Mr Taylor.

</comment><comment><USER25> RIP. For you youngins ... you may want to read up on him. He is an example of a boss we'd be fortunate to get at some point in our life.

</comment><comment><USER26> Doug, Marvin, Seymour and now Bob. All my heroes are passing away. Mainly Alan is left holding the torch.

We lost a giant.

For all the bs in the valley about changing the world, here's a man that truly did it.

And to the ACM - you should be ashamed of yourself. How do you give Tim Berners-Lee an award and not the team st Xerox Parc. For the web? Are you kidding me? It's going to take another 25 years to correct what he's done. I guess teams don't play in as well as allure of the single creator individual.

To Alan and those that are left from the group at Xerox Parc - thank you. For the team at HARC - let this be a reminder that time is short and there's ton to do.

An incredible amount of positive energy was rereleased in a new form back into the universe. May your legacy shape others.

<comment><USER27> ACM Turing awards for Xerox PARC alumni: Chuck Thacker 2009, Alan Kay 2003, Butler Lampson 1992.

<comment><USER26> Correct. But that's the point. The award was given to them as individuals, not to the entire team, which to my count is at least 25. Why can't a team earn it? And if you were to ask those recipients, I can almost guarantee that they will say that their work is a reflection of the group dynamics at PARC; the same dynamics that Bob Taylor cultivated.

<comment><USER2> This is a key point to be made -- especially about the kind of research that ARPA/PARC did. We built all of ideas in quantity both in order to use them ourselves, and as the only good way to validate them.

This involves teams, and -- for example -- the award in baseball is a "world series ring" for everyone involved in the effort. The standard awards -- including the Draper, which does award to more than one person, are really more like "most valuable player" awards -- which quite misses the point in large scale edge of the art computing research.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> A wide-ranging summary at The Computer History Museum's 05/13/2010 video, "Robert Taylor: Network Visionary": [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0MsrrTo8jY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0MsrrTo8jY)

I echo luckydude's comment--sad to see him go. R.I.P.

</comment><comment><USER29> There is an interesting interview of him transcribed by the Computer History museum. It changed my perceptions of who the players were in the original internet and TCP/IP designs... greatly.

I highly recommend the read. He deserves a tremendous amount of credit for the results of his participation in all the technologies we use today.

</comment><comment><USER30> I saw him interviewed in a documentary on Fandor called, 'The Net.' The interview took place in his home about 15 years ago. There were a number of topics, but I particularly remember how he spoke of how fear is borne out of ignorance. Well worth checking it.

</comment><comment><USER31> I really wish we still had ARPA rather than DARPA. I'm blown away by the ambition of the projects DARPA does but it's hard for me to rationalize directly working on things that might end up in killing systems. Is there anything akin to ARPA today? Why did ARPA end up becoming DARPA (with the D meaning defense?).

Alan Kay seems to be here commenting; any insights from you Alan on the conversion of ARPA to DARPA and good non-defense alternatives to what DARPA does now?

<comment><USER2> PARC happened because of the added "D" which made it impossible for the agency to find open ended "problem finding" research. I don't know of funding since then -- or today -- that is on a reasonable scale and of the same quality and outlook.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Was listening to Walter Issacson's book The Innovators today afternoon about the birth of xerox Parc. A What a coincidence. RIP

</comment><comment><USER33> Does he have any writings of his own? I went looking but Robert Taylor is a hard name to get good results for.

<comment><USER34> The Computer as a Communication Device

J.C.R. Licklider and Robert W. Taylor

[http://memex.org/licklider.pdf](http://memex.org/licklider.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> damn. I was just reading about him this morning (in Where the Wizards Stay Up Late).

</comment><comment><USER36> :(

</comment><comment><USER37> This may downvoted (it's sort of off topic), and that's OK, but as I get older the speed at which people I know or admire go and die just gets faster and faster. Sort of sucks.

That said, if I could say one thing to young people about people dieing, it's this: find the people who matter to you and get a video camera and go get them to talk. Apply some wine if that helps, whatever. Get them loose and get them to talk. Ask them how they got to be where they are, ask them what they would like to pass on, let them talk. Old people are just you only ahead of you.

What I would give to have had the balls to go do that with Dennis Ritchie. I didn't know him that well, we talked about Unix stuff quite a few times but I doubt he would remember me. But I'm sure, 100% sure, that he would have let me go get him to talk on camera.

<comment><USER27> This is called "oral history" \- there is collection of transcripts from Ritchie and other Unix pioneers [1] and another large collection at the Computer History Museum [2]

1\. [https://www.princeton.edu/~hos/Mahoney/unixhistory.htm](https://www.princeton.edu/~hos/Mahoney/unixhistory.htm)

2\. [http://www.computerhistory.org/collections/oralhistories/](http://www.computerhistory.org/collections/oralhistories/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Is this why there's a black bar at the top of HN now?

<comment><USER39> They should make the black bar a clickable link to the relevant HN submission, or make it so that it has alt text that names the person who has dies, or both.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Until they are rate limited, which is almost immediately.

<comment><USER41> We detached this subthread from [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14119700](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14119700) and marked it off-topic.

<comment><USER40> You are a dreadful person.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Every week, some poor soul will sacrifice the entirety of their karma to the horde of unwashed masses. Perhaps these masses will know JavaScript particularly well. Maybe Java. It doesn't matter, we will have no peace.

<comment><USER41> We detached this comment from [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14119358](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14119358) and marked it off-topic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> Somebody must behind all these. Whilst without jobs none would happen (his personal computer and windows interface well known, but next was involved in www as well).

But somehow other than unix, there are many missing links. This is one Key one.

Thanks Robert. Unless if matrix come, thanks.</comment>


Move Over Kickstarter, Crypto-Equity Is the Next Frontier - <AUTHOR> http://panampost.com/belen-marty/2014/07/04/move-over-kickstarter-swarm-crypto-equity-is-the-next-frontier/ <comment><USER2> >What is the legal status of the investments promoted by your platform? How will they be treated by the Securities and Exchange Commission?

>Just like bitcoin, we're launching it entirely outside the system.

That's very naive. The government doesn't regulate 'The Dollar', and it doesn't regulate 'The Stock Market' \- it regulates transactions, exchanges & financial instruments. Just because you don't play within existing infrastructure doesn't mean you can play without any rules. As an idea this is really clever - but I don't think one should intentionally disregard the (often useful) existing boundaries. Nor say so in an interview.

<comment><USER3> Swarm founder here. We have a very unusual organizational model that allows people to represent the Swarm without having an "official" status within the organization, which means that we are always at risk of some degree of misrepresentation. After this specific interview I issued a "Legal Action Plan" that specifies the particulars of our near and long-term legal strategy, such that no one makes faux pas like "we're launching it entirely outside the system."

That said, a lot of these subtleties are lost on non-native English speakers, which at the moment is probably the majority of the Swarm.

The full letter can be read here: [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1b6krYF6rMECtTwmTjbcZWZ0l...](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1b6krYF6rMECtTwmTjbcZWZ0lrIbfuLO37NayMLmyVVA/edit)

<comment><USER4> I feel like you've likely come across this regulation-related op-ed penned by Skype's previous COO, but just in case: [http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin- regulation-lessons-early-day...](http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-regulation- lessons-early-days-skype/)

> To put it bluntly – every bitcoin actor should be reading the law very > carefully and finding the loopholes. You should all invest a great deal of > time in this – it is hugely important. For example, are you really moving > 'currency' or are you simply exchanging some sort of token?

> Companies need to just carry on doing what they are doing, if they can make > a case for themselves that they don't need regulation, they shouldn't even > go near it. ... [They] should read the rules, argue why they are not covered > by the rules and use that analysis as a defence, but they should only ask > for permission if they are sure it is necessary.

Regardless, great positions.

<comment><USER3> Yes, one of our legal counsels actually recommended that we read that article once. And then again. And again until it sank in.

It sank in. ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I feel sorry for the pre-sale investors, there is a very high probability that they will not see their BTC back. If you are considering investing, be careful.

The platform charges 2% fee to all projects funded, 1% to investors, 1% to founders. The investors hold a total of 100,000,000 swarmcoin and the presale is at a rate of 5250 SWARM/BTC. At that rate, the platform would need to do over $1 billion in sales to just get a ROI, something that took kickstarter over 5 years.

<comment><USER6> I do too. In the history of Bitcoin public offerings, never has a single company outperformed holding BTC itself over a modest time frame. SwarmCo is raising a boatload of BTC up front for a risky venture, and taking 1/3 of the funds to pay salaries.

Startups are all incentivized to do BTC public offerings, but no one is incentivized to actually deliver products. IPOs are the easiest way to "earn" BTC. It's cringeworthy how so many of these pseudo-IPOs focus on the marketing and the limited time buy opportunity without so much as producing a working prototype. I'm always astounded by the amount of BTCs that get raised. It just reeks of unsophisticated investors getting sheered.

From the perspective of SWARMCO, once you raise thousands of BTCs, you're golden. Your investors shoulder all the risk, because the moment they irreversibly send you the most liquid and stable crypto asset, you can effectively disappear, or keep delaying "two weeks" as Butterfly Labs is infamous for doing. If anything goes wrong, just ask Mark Karpeles for advice.

<comment><USER7> Source?

Satoshi dice outperformed holding btc, and that was during the period when btc skyrocketted from 10 to 100. Also, but I may be wrong here, asicminer did a similar trick.

<comment><USER6> Over a very short time frame, you mean? Show me a single example of a Bitcoin stock price chart that looks anything like this: [http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/bitstampUSD#rg730zczsg2012-0...](http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/bitstampUSD#rg730zczsg2012-02-01zeg2014-02-01ztgCzm1g10zm2g25)

ASICMiner is in the gutters, as is literally every other Bitcoin stock. Who benefited from the company going public? Over a short time frame, those who exploited the pump and dump; over a modest time frame of 1-2 years, the company profits at the expense of investors, every single time, without exception.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> There are very specific laws regarding the hawking of shares to the general public without variously being registered securities or having an offering document. While I could see this take off, I doubt it would be used by legal companies unless it could fit within some crowd funded equity carve out.

</comment><comment><USER9> If the actual business is still centralized, what prevents the operators from simply ignoring the crypto-shareholders and keeping all profits and assets for themselves?

</comment><comment><USER10> The problem with these tokens is that at the end of the day there is no direct link between a token and the asset they're linked to- Unlike a stock, which gives you voting rights and other privileges.

Mind you, there is nothing wrong with a completely "unlinked" asset per se (Bitcoin has proven that) but an unlinked asset's price will, all things being equal, quickly undergo a price-discovery process that will capture the majority of future expected returns. Hence, the price for these equities at any moment in time has no expected return beyond the early floating exchange rate. Therefore, its true future returns should be modest (the same as equivalent cryptocurrencies) and it will have only modest potential as an investment.

Bottom line: If the coin doesn't give me any "special powers" like a stock certificate does, it has little upside potential compared to any other cryptocurrency- Hence, it makes more sense to invest any capital I have in a more established currency, like Bitcoin.

(And for those arguing "Yes, hempcoin/newcameracoin/etc DOES have value and special powers beyond Bitcoin because my hempshop/newcamerashop/etc doesn't take bitcoins but does take this specialty coin" then it should be obvious that you'd be able to perform a JIT purchase this coin using bitcoins through an exchange, which means Bitcoin holders have access to the same "special power", without needing to be long-term holders of the asset.)

These types of coins will only become interesting once cryptocurrency contract technology becomes more developed, so that these coins can give holders more extensive special rights regarding the asset/project the coins are linked to.

</comment><comment><USER11> This would almost certainly fall under the definition of security under the '33 Act.

Besides this, the questionable practice of calling this coin "equity" and representing that it entitles holders that gives them some kind of ownership stake in companies funded with this coin on the website, while putting the disclaimers within another document, creates the impression that the issuers want people to think this is equity so they can raise BTC. As the founder has said in a comment, the majority of the swarm consists of non-native speakers at the moment, so this distinction would be lost on them. There seems to be demand for something like this, but the lack of details or research into relevant laws give me plenty of pause.

Can the founder (Joel) clarify his affiliation as well? His swarm bio at [http://swarmcorp.com/team.html](http://swarmcorp.com/team.html) lists "#Harvard #Brown #Penn" but his LinkedIn profile seems to indicate that he did not actually get a degree from all of these institutions.

<comment><USER3> There are lots of reasons for pause and our choice of the term "cryptoequity" was certainly because it does evoke the fuller idea of the potential behind these cryptoassets, something that you don't get with the weaker but more accurate "cryptotoken."

Although we've issued various statements clarifying the issues including a manifesto, cryptoequity whitepaper, and legal action plan, it remains fairly complex and something that is probably not approachable to the ordinary user. I'm hoping that changes with the video explanation that we are launching on July 10th.

As for me, I have my B.A. from Brown and M.A. from Penn and a smattering of various other institutions including Harvard.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> > The crypto-equity platform is enabled through bitcoin 2.0 technology

Oh, _please_ tell me this isn't going to start becoming a thing people say. Please. I can't bear the thought of another "Web 2.0" buzzword bubble.

<comment><USER3> I personally strongly dislike the term "Bitcoin 2.0" although I still use it quite frequently, primarily because I don't know of any other succinct way to describe all of the second generation functionality that is currently being built on top of the blockchain.

<comment><USER13> ... "Bitcoin-based"?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> There's nothing particularly revolutionary about this concept. It existed for nearly two centuries before the SEC locked down rules on investing.

The sole reason it hasn't existed the last 20 or 30 years is due to the SEC, not the lack of someone 'inventing' it. Their rules restrain the ability to do it.

Anonymous investing was extremely common prior to the SEC taking over full control of investing laws. It was trivial to set up anonymous shell entities and hide who owned what, making it practically untraceable.

</comment><comment><USER15> [http://swarmcorp.com/faq.html](http://swarmcorp.com/faq.html)

Is this Legal?

"We believe this falls into section 1(d) of our Cryptoequity whitepaper, meaning it is allowable under U.S. law and is probably not problematic elsewere"

This is 1(d): _People can redeem cryptotokens at some point in the future for some service in the network. [Legal assessment: Probably fine, may limit upside of "equity" growth]_

So it's "probably legal" which doesn't instill much confidence

<comment><USER16> I don't think Kickstarter was clear-cut legal, either, was it? I think they needed to have a law passed that essentially legalized "crowdfunding".

<comment><USER17> kickstarter doesn't allow you to offer equity, but the JOBS act + the SEC did change this year to allow non-accredited investors (people with less than $1M in assets) to buy into a company directly; and for a company to market equity in the style of kickstarter.

Here are the new rules: For income below $100,000, invest a max of $2,000 or 5% of income or net worth For income over $100,000, invest a max of 10% of income or net worth Investments made in a Title III crowdfunding transaction can't be resold for a period of one year

<comment><USER18> Note people, these laws are not yet in effect and are still liable to change. Equity Crowdfunding for the public (non-accredited investors) is ILLEGAL, unless done through a intrastate crowdfunding exemption.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> It may work, it may not. I have my doubts but I'm very happy this exists. We need more radical thinkers like this.

</comment><comment><USER20> @corpselord420: your interesting comment is unreadable by most HN readers, because you appear to be hell banned. Only people who have enabled "show dead" can see it (or any of your other comments--looks like you got banned with your first comment).

<comment><USER21> We unkilled that comment.

We think there's a place for unkilling comments on a case-by-case basis and will probably implement a way for users (like, in this case, tzs) to indicate when to do so.

<comment><USER20> If you do that, how about also changing the style for killed comments made visible by the show dead option so that they are readable? Right now, they are given the .dead style, which has color #dddddd, making them hard to read.

If someone turns on show dead, presumably it is because they want to read the dead comments. Making them visible but hard to read seems kind of obnoxious.

<comment><USER21> Seems like a fair suggestion. I'll add it to the list.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I really am a fan of the idea of all these crowd-sourced equity ideas that are getting hatched.

As a boots on the ground business guy, however, the potential for fraud and abuse is staggering. I have seen things go down with 'accredited investors' trying to get into the startup gold rush that are unbelievable. To me, at least. And these same guys are on kickstarter right now, where there's no accountability whatsoever, cleaning up.

All I can say about the regulation of equities is that it's an ugly solution to a very real white collar crime problem.

</comment><comment><USER23> For anyone interested in micro-equity I found a site called [http://crowdcube.com](http://crowdcube.com) recently. It doesn't have any cool crypto aspects but it is basically kickstarter with real equity (rather than just a speculative pre-order).

It's UK only at the moment. I guess that must be because regulations make it difficult in the USA.

But there's no blockchain aspect so I guess it can't be as cool as SWARM...

<comment><USER24> Do you think that SWARM would operate easier in the UK?

<comment><USER23> As I understand it, in the USA you can only attract public investment either by gong fully public and being regulated as a public corporation, or by attracting individuals of high net worth. From what I understand this is considered a consumer protection mechanism, such that you can't lose the farm (literally) by investing in private equity schemes.

So far as I know, this restriction does not exist in the UK. So yes, if SWARM operated in the UK with UK investors it might have an easier time.

Personally I don't really see the need for the crypto aspect, and AFAICT investment regulations are usually a good thing, but whatever floats your boat.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Without some force of law to ensure dividend distribution back to shareholders, equity doesn't really exist except at the pleasure of management.

</comment><comment><USER26> Pretty sure it's illegal in most countries. So it can only work for businesses that are themselves illegal.

</comment><comment><USER27> [http://bitshares.org](http://bitshares.org)

</comment><comment><USER28> > Susanne Tarkowski Tempelhof on SWARM, a Revolutionary Crowdfunding Platform

I've learned to skip any article that has 'revolutionary' in the title or subheading.

</comment><comment><USER29> this reminds me of a metafilter comment from 2012 (because it's literally what is described in the comment): "There are very interesting things you can do with bitcoin that nobody is doing yet.

Bitcoin is fundamentally a globally synchronized ledger. Think of it this way, every single bank in the world has their entire transaction history available for the public, live. You can use that ledger for more than just exchanging a single currency on that ledger.

Because you can accurately trace the transaction history of coins, as everything is logged, you can overload the coin to have other contractual properties, simply by creating a document that says the 0.00000100 coins derived from this single transaction counts as 100 shares of freely tradeable common stock (you'd need something like a last-in-first-out order specified in the contract).

By tracing who owns individual shares, you can then give voting rights to those addresses (and because they have crypto signature built in, you can vote on board members, etc. Further, since you know the addresses for bitcoin ownership, you can issue dividends. The dividends can be priced in bitcoin, or more interestingly, the dividends can be denominated in US DOLLARS. You can specify 0.00000001 bitcoin as 1 share of an ETN, making 1 share equal to 1 USD backed by a bank.

Because bitcoin supports complex transactions, you can conduct a single transaction of 1 share for 1 USD in a single atomic transaction, with no need for complex clearinghouses as we do today.

Here's where things get crazy: by using distributed hash tables, such as what people use to find peers in bittorrent DHT, you can build a trading floor. The trading floor can have bid-ask spreads (although only the ask side can run without escrow), this means you can build an entire stock exchange with functionally no actual middlemen beyond the distributed bitcoin transaction ledger. All you would need to do is broadcast on the DHT peer-to-peer network an open bitcoin transaction that says "I will accept any transaction that pays me 3 bitcoin for this specially marked 0.00000001 bitcoin that is 1 share of stock in ABC Corp.", which is supported in bitcoin's protocol.

Here's also where things get creepy: if you had a nation-state that recognized this as a valid corporate structure, you could build a company in which ownership is completely unknown. Also, if a hedge fund that invested in these companies, and created a machine learning algorithm that invested successfully and bid on computing power (paid for in bitocoins), and the hedge fund owner was ran over by a truck, you'd have an independent entity surviving on the network with complete agency, with no human control.

There are a lot of creepy things that can happen, a lot of possibly good things (reducing middlemen in banking), either way, we've only begun to scratch the surface of what bitcoin means. If you think it's exclusively the domain for a bunch of wackjob gold bugs hating on the Federal Reserve, I think you're underestimating what bitcoin may be able do in the future." some other points: -undetectable stealth takeovers; this is a huge part of the sec's job and it will be fucking chaotic -- stealth sell shares to yourself to artificially depress the prices and boom. but that doesn't really matter because: -no legal accountability to shareholders woops! -stealth collusion and market manipulation across different corporations by stealth monopolists -like someone else said this literally only has utility for criminal enterprises because its baldly illegal in the US and probably every other country

</comment><comment><USER30> No its not.</comment>


The amazing intelligence of crows [video] - <AUTHOR> http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/joshua_klein_on_the_intelligence_of_crows.html

<comment><USER2> Joshua Klein makes a _hot_ presentation. And shows how one can turn an intellectual obsession into a potent scientific/societal contribution.

The crow-intelligence demo is also a great rebuttal to those who complain that scientific experimentation is necessarily the /enemy/ of nature or of species preservation.

This video might also serve well to encourage school kids to consider science careers.

</comment><comment><USER3> Nice talk, I wish there was more time at the end for him to talk about his ideas for mutually beneficial "arrangements" like the one idea of crows picking up trash after events etc.

<comment><USER4> Agreed. This has serious implications and I wonder if there are any other potential systems to be tapped.

Dolphins cleaning up the oceans?

<comment><USER5> Why are we humans always obsessed with figuring out how another living or non- living being can be leveraged for our benefit only. Why can't we just give them their space and live in 'mutual harmony' without expecting a favor. It is remarkable to provide crows with a way to get food.

But why do we have to train them to clean garbage? Can we know if they would really want to do it? Would that define their life, their purpose of existence? Are we just aiming at a crooked adoption of "survival of the fittest (read fit == helpful for human existence)"?

Imagine what would have happened if animals were as evil as humans.

<comment><USER6> The animals are free to find other sources of food, if they so desire. This is exploitation of the animals only to the extend that you don't believe in free will.

<comment><USER7> Free will is a difficult position to defend nowadays. If free will is physical, you have to explain away determinism and causality. If free will is supernatural, we have to go meta with the discussion and figure out why you believe in the nonphysical.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I would like to see some sort of website with information on how everyone can use these techniques locally, and tools share their experiences. As Joshua said, crows are everywhere. Anyone could do this. It seems like a relatively inexpensive hobby.

<comment><USER9> I used to have crows around my house alot and I'd try to trap them or shoot them with my bbgun or chase them or surprise them. But you can't they are too smart, looking back on it they were probably just playing with me. I've always been fascinated by them. A site like that would be great.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> My parents have an African Grey parrot Benny and his intelligence is simply amazing. First, he can talk sentences and he mimics my mom pretty good. Second, he can connect sentences to meaning, so for example, when I enter the room he'll greet me, when I leave the room he'll say goodbye. If he's hungry he'll also tell you that (actually, he is hungry most of the time :)) And I think that crows have a similar intelligence level like African Greys, so their potential is really huge.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> What was amazing in the video to me was that, apparently, crows are to other birds and animals of their (brain) size, what humans are to other primates and mammals: "they stick around and figure things out".

</comment><comment><USER11> makes me want train crows as well.

</comment><comment><USER12> Crow are not more intelligent than orcs in warcraft 3 which can, for example, patrol an area and autonomously engage any enemies that come near.</comment>


"Life After Y Combinator" Panel at SXSW - <AUTHOR> http://lanyrd.com/2011/sxsw/scqxk/

<comment><USER2> I flagged this. Apparently 64 people disagree with me, but we would not accept articles behind any other payment/registration wall, and I see no reason to make an exception for Facebook.

<comment><USER3> Here's the Web 1.0 URL: <http://schedule.sxsw.com/events/event_IAP7526>

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Also on Lanyrd: <http://lanyrd.com/2011/sxsw/scqxk/>

</comment><comment><USER5> You must log in to see this page. Why? Is this not a public event?

<comment><USER6> Its an event page on Facebook. For a public event description go here - <http://lanyrd.com/2011/sxsw/scqxk/>

<comment><USER5> I have seen the event description, my question still stands.

Why not just remove the RSVP panel and still display the information?

<comment><USER2> Because Facebook would not profit from that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Anybody willing to give me a ride to this thing?

I'm in the Wells Branch area.

E-mail me at email@example.com.</comment>


Running Istio on AWS with Kops - <AUTHOR> http://diego-pacheco.blogspot.com/2019/02/running-istio-on-aws-with-kops.html <comment><USER2> One oversight offhand is the installation of kubectl v1.13.0. Kops currently only installs v1.11 Kubernetes.

From [https://kubernetes.io/docs/tasks/tools/install- kubectl/](https://kubernetes.io/docs/tasks/tools/install-kubectl/)

You must use a kubectl version that is within one minor version difference of your cluster. For example, a v1.2 client should work with v1.1, v1.2, and v1.3 master.</comment>


Ask HN: Can IP be shared on a custom software project? - <AUTHOR>

I'm embarking on a custom software project for an arts organization. The project is a CRM at the heart but ticketing (selling tickets) is a major component. There are not many players in the space and none that are starting from the CRM at the center, and working out.
Although neither organization, mine or the client, has the resources to market this as a product they are requesting some form of IP on the product. I'm trying to come up with a way that we both benefit, regardless of who owns the IP, in case we sell more than one.
I've already considered:
* Some form of exclusive distribution agreement * A commission arrangement * Forgetting about IP and just doing the job
I would love to hear what other suggestions you have for such a situation. <comment><USER2> You can go several ways on this:

      - work for hire (you sign over your rights)

      - give them a license, a head start and a discount (you have the rights)

      - make it a co-development and give them a stake in the
        future proceeds (you create some vehicle that holds the
        rights)

The difference between those should be reflected in the price, and that's how you can control the situation to your advantage.

If I were in that boat I'd offer only two payment options, one that looks like they'll have to go and find a second mortgage on their building and another one that is very affordable indeed but gives you the right to sell the solution to others with the exception of their direct competitors in that locality, and only after some time has passed (say 3 months, 6 months or a year).

Having a minority partner in a project like that that has a different core business is a recipe for trouble.

</comment><comment><USER3> In a lot of jurisdictions (California for instance) if you don't have any IP agreement then you are likely producing a "work for hire" that would mean the client owns everything (and you own nothing). So if you want to retain some ownership you will likely have to work out some (could be simple) IP agreement.

</comment><comment><USER4> i think the "right" answer kind of depends on their motivation for wanting IP. you know why they're asking for it?

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a great question. I guess I just assumed they didn't want to be left out if the project became a product and made some money. They're a non-profit and any additional revenue would be a huge benefit.

<comment><USER4> i think this is really the question to ask to them. splitting IP is a means, not an end.</comment></comment></comment>


Evolution of the International Space Station (animation) - <AUTHOR> http://i.usatoday.net/tech/graphics/iss_timeline/flash.htm <comment><USER2> I think there are now already two Soyuz docked all the time, not one as shown (there is now six people up there, Soyuz is the lifeboat).

</comment><comment><USER3> In the graphic it appears that the central S0 truss segment is attached to the Z1 truss, this is not the case, it is actually attached to the Destiny lab module directly.

The descriptive text for the Z1 truss is similarly incorrect, it contains attitude control gyros and served as a temporary mount point for the P6 truss, it does not serve as the central mounting point for the entire truss structure.

</comment><comment><USER4> I have Shockwave Flash 10.0 r32 installed in Chrome on this box, and USATODAY.com is telling me "To view this presentation, you need to install the Flash plug-in". Must be checking for Windows.

<comment><USER4> It has now decided to work and not tell me I need flash. Not sure why pointing out that a link is bad is worth a downvote.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I like how they moved modules around towards the end. Like they were refactoring it :) (even though I know it was always meant to be that way (remembering the computer animations from school))

<comment><USER3> It's good to remember that not all refactoring is cleaning up messes. Sometimes you need to build something in a certain way at a certain time because you don't yet have the supporting structure to build it the way it should be in the final structure.</comment></comment>


Hopscotch Teaches Kids to Code Without That Pesky Command Line - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/2016/05/hopscotch-teaches-kids-code-without-command-line/ <comment><USER2> Reminded of Randy Pausch's Alice: [http://www.alice.org/index.php](http://www.alice.org/index.php)

<comment><USER3> Alice was a big inspiration!

<comment><USER2> Curious about the differences in approach.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask YC: How do you know what to fix... - <AUTHOR>

We applied to YC and were rejected. Now we are considering re-applying but we can't figure out what area to improve so that we stand a better chance. The rejection email gives no specific reason.  Your thoughts? Especially folks who have reapplied earlier. <comment><USER2> In that same vein, how would we know what to tell you if you don't show us anything?

Generic advice: Get a lot of feedback from a lot of people.

<comment><AUTHOR> I just want to get an idea of how other folks who reapply reason this out. I am not showing the demo because its no longer stable - we are working on it.

<comment><USER3> Ah! Just put it in the hands of people and you'll know what to fix.

<comment><AUTHOR> Perhaps we will do just that. And maybe even put up the application we submitted.

<comment><USER3> I bet you don't because you're afraid of the truth. If your application sucks, why wait any longer to know? And if it's popular, you'll be glad to have released it now.

edit: I'm not trying to teach you lessons here, because I'm a programmer too and I know this feeling. But because I'm not talking about my application here, I can let my brain talk instead of my heart. You know what I mean?

<comment><AUTHOR> because

1\. its being worked on and the demo has been pulled down.

2\. It was a prototype not the beta, we are refactoring a significant parts which we had just hacked to submit in time.

3\. It is a job site, it wont pick up from just a demo :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think you'd be a much better candidate if they see you, and your team, pursue your startup, despite receiving a rejection, instead of waiting for the next cycle.

You should have the drive to pursue it internally. Don't wait for YC to push you. I don't think that's their purpose.

</comment><comment><USER5> There might be nothing to fix. PG did say they didn't understand some of the applications, they didn't get the "big idea" that the application writer was trying to convey. You might just rephrase your idea and make sure your programming team looks highly qualified.

</comment><comment><USER6> You bring up an interesting question. I would be glad to give my critique of your application (for what it's worth). I imagine quite a few others here would as well. With enough feedback, you could probably find common themes and have something to run with.

The big question: how to share you application with others? I don't see a problem of cutting and pasting it into a new thread and asking for feedback. You run the risk of sharing your secrets with the world. Also, this approach may not sit well with ycombinator themselves.

Any thoughts?

<comment><USER7> The goal of YC is to unleash the latent potential of hackers to change the world via startups. Why would it not sit well with them for people to use news.yc to improve their ideas and prospects for success?

<comment><USER6> Actually, I can't imagine anyone being against it. But I'm just a bashful geek concerned about stepping on anyone's toes with my crazy suggestions. There must be a 2x2x3 step program for people like me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> You should add a menu bar. Definitely a menu bar.</comment>


NY taxpayers to pay $48,000 per Amazon HQ job - <AUTHOR> http://www.fox5ny.com/news/48k-per-amazon-hq-job <comment><AUTHOR> My business is it of the Seattle area. I would be willing to hire workers for a subsidy of only $40,000 per job because I'm community minded!</comment>


How to Start a Cultural Revolution (2017) [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVVick2kf8c <comment><USER2> It's good that the phrase "Cultural Revolution" hasn't been poisoned, say, by some grotesque and cataclysmic series of events that scarred a whole generation in one of the largest countries in the world, or the title of this talk might have been considered in rather poor taste.

<comment><USER3> I understand the reaction, but this comment breaks at least two of the HN guidelines: the one that asks you not to snark, and this one: " _Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that 's easier to criticize. Assume good faith._"

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

<comment><USER4> On the subject of snark, I am not sure that it is possible to police it fairly without removing value from the site. I am also not sure it is possible to police snark fairly in any circumstances, due to how nebulous a concept it actually is. Many of the figures this community puts on pedestals would have a very hard time conforming to the snark guideline. I reckon Fritz Zwicky would have lasted about a week.

<comment><USER3> I'm not sure it's possible to police anything fairly. But most internet snark is dreck and has a degrading effect, so we do what we can. Were it to take over HN, nobody interesting would stay here anyway.

It's a mistake to compare other contexts, such as writers or scientists sparring amongst themselves, to an internet forum. A large internet forum is a mile wide, an inch deep, and never far from a swamp. It has its own odd dynamic and needs to be managed accordingly.

<comment><USER4> >A large internet forum is a mile wide, an inch deep, and never far from a swamp.

Fair enough. That is a very good way of stating your predicament, I can't really fault it :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> i don't want a cultural revolution!!!! please god no!!!!!</comment>


Three men make a tiger - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_men_make_a_tiger <comment><USER2> This brings to mind all of the absurd things that James Damore did not say in his infamous memo, but many people claim that he did. It doesn't matter if he actually said them or not; if enough people repeat that he did, then effectively, he did.</comment>


The day pain died - <AUTHOR> http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/06/07/the_day_pain_died_what_really_happened_during_the_most_famous_moment_in_boston_medicine/?page=full <comment><USER2> Yet another case in which something novel was first tried in a marginal field (dentistry rather than the much more prestigious medicine).

</comment><comment><USER3> Many times it seems culture or taboos or tradition seem to keep us from doing what's best. I've seen it in corporate culture in seemingly making the right decision for the company and I've seen it in life, too. People tend to resist change.</comment>