Crispr now cuts and splices whole chromosomes - <AUTHOR> https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/08/forget-single-genes-crispr-now-cuts-and-splices-whole-chromosomes <comment><USER3> It seems like there has been more hype around synthetic biology in the tech press the last year or so, but it still feels like this field is being slept on a bit. AGI gets a lot of press but is at best decades out, however one could argue that the potential (for good and bad) of synbio is close to as large, but the tech is much more real. In many cases it already exists -- we can modify human embryos, the first human study of CRISPR in the US kicked off a few weeks ago -- and in others it doesn't seem too far out

I'm a non scientist and have been excited to learn more about this field, but to find out the most exciting stuff you need to read scientific papers. The details are the coolest parts IMO. A bit of self promo here, but I recently wrote a blog post summarizing a Stanford synbio paper in layman's terms [0].

[0] [https://www.baybridgebio.com/blog/synbio-laymans- terms.html](https://www.baybridgebio.com/blog/synbio-laymans-terms.html)

<comment><USER4> (Full disclosure, i run a YC startup selling to synbio + think that it's undervalued)

The field really doesn't do blog posts, it's a shame.

For some interesting stuff in synbio that's approachable to your prototypical HNer, check out [1], a Verilog-to-DNA compiler that works with small logic circuits. [2] (Not really synbio) but using reed solomon codes to better do High-Throughput Screening. [3] PACE, a way to ask evolution to implement a particle filter for us. [4] A remapping of the base pair 3-tuple to amino acid that maximizes edit distance, filling in the gaps with STOP codons - <USER2> something from evolving, and [5] some cool people working on wholly synthetic cells.

[1] Nielsen, A. A. K., Der, B. S., Shin, J., Vaidyanathan, P., Paralanov, V., Strychalski, E. A., … Voigt, C. A. (2016). Genetic circuit design automation. Science, 352(6281). [https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac7341](https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac7341)

[2] Erlich, Y., Gilbert, A., Ngo, H., Rudra, A., Thierry-Mieg, N., Wootters, M., … Zuk, O. (2015). Biological screens from linear codes: theory and tools. BioRxiv, I(1), 35352.

[3] Dickinson, B. C., Leconte, A. M., Allen, B., Esvelt, K. M., & Liu, D. R. (2013). Experimental interrogation of the path dependence and stochasticity of protein evolution using phage-assisted continuous evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(22), 9007–9012. [https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1220670110](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1220670110)

Esvelt, K. M., Carlson, J. C., & Liu, D. R. (2011). A system for the continuous directed evolution of biomolecules. Nature, 472(7344), 499–503. [https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09929](https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09929)

[4] [https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/695569v2](https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/695569v2)

[5] [http://buildacell.io/](http://buildacell.io/)

<comment><USER5> Well if you have time to waste (or to invest) I've made an analysis of how to cure ageing.

I have some unanswered questions about what is feasible in DNA editing, maybe your knowledge could enlighten me? [https://github.com/LifeIsStrange/An- algorithm-for-curing-age...](https://github.com/LifeIsStrange/An-algorithm- for-curing-ageing/blob/master/README.md)

I would like an answer for e.g: [https://github.com/LifeIsStrange/An- algorithm-for-curing-age...](https://github.com/LifeIsStrange/An-algorithm- for-curing-ageing/issues/4)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> People who work in or near genetic engineering:

CRISPR seems to solve the problem of editing DNA to contain arbitrary human- designed data. Are there major caveats or limitations to this that people outside the field don't recognize? e.g. is delivery to the right cells a major obstacle?

If editing is solved, it seems like the major remaining problem is designing the right data to insert. I'd imagine this is a much vaster problem than editing. What are the major subproblems there? What does the frontier look like?

Besides the mechanics of editing and designing the sequences to insert, what other major problems stand in the way of sci-fi level genetic engineering?

<comment><USER3> I'm not a scientist but have friends who do research in this field and I've worked at startups in this field.

Delivery is a major obstacle. DNA, RNA and proteins don't typically get into cells on their own. Typically you use vectors, often viruses or lipid nanoparticles, to get DNA into cells, but these vectors have their own challenges. One of which is that they aren't typically very specific to particular cell types. It can also be tough to get vectors to the right tissue. So most early gene therapy efforts focus on blood disease, liver disease and eye disease because it is easier to deliver to those areas. CNS has also become a popular target because a particular viral vector, AAV9, tends to get into neurons pretty well

But viral vectors are commonly "immunogenic", ie the immune system learns to reject them as foreign after one dose. These are viruses after all, and the body is designed to reject them. Some people have pre-existing antibodies to many popular vectors. And often you can only dose a viral vector once, so if you don't dose it right, or if the effect isn't permanent, you don't get another shot

I can't speak to some of the other more technical problems, but one limitation is that you are limited as to how large your DNA payload can be. But it seems this paper is a big step towards removing that barrier. Which I believe is why this paper is such a big deal (others more knowledgable should correct me)

Also CRISPR works best to cut DNA as of now (which renders a gene non- functional), but it is a bit harder to insert DNA reliably from what I understand. Again, a scientist in this field would much better understand the state of the art than I do, but this is my understanding

Another major unknown is the degree to which gene editing tech causes off- target edits. If your DNA editing tool accidentally snips a gene that protects you from getting cancer, it can lead to cancer. I'm not close enough to the science to know what current thinking is on this risk or how to best mitigate it, but it is very real. More primitive gene therapies did in fact cause cancer in patients (often children)

In many ways sci-fi level genetic engineering is possible. We just don't do it because we don't know the risks, and the risks are huge. We can already genetically modify human embryos, and our toolkit for doing so grows every day. Editing human embryos is a very scary proposition.

EDIT: I will also add that if you are interested in learning about this field, try reading / struggling through a couple scientific papers, really trying to understand every detail. Ideally with the help of a scientist friend. It is time consuming and daunting to get through all of the jargon, but the papers lay out the design, engineering and testing process in some detail. Often they provide the derivation of the mathematical models used and the specific DNA sequences used. You can begin to appreciate how amazing this work is when you get into these details

<comment><USER7> This is a good summary, and I can follow up on a couple points. (I don't have direct experience with Crispr data, but I'm currently a PhD student in a computational genomics program, and have 4 years of experience in a lab that does crispr experiments in addition to my projects.)

Related to both the idea of inserting DNA and off target effects - the issue is that scientists can engineer a cut, but then rely on the cell's repair mechanisms to "stitch" the cut DNA back together. These mechanisms are inherently stochastic and error prone and are how many somatic mutations, such as those in cancer cells, arise. So for off target effects, even if you make the cut at the right place, you can still end up with new unintended SNPs and indels nearby. And for inserting new DNA, it's not a guarantee. You can provide the template that you want to incorporate, but it might get missed, or get copied in more than once or in the wrong orientation.

<comment><USER8> IMO the biggest concern is not whether CRISPR-Cas9, and DNA ligase, will do their job reliably (given appropriate guide RNA, and methodology)... the biggest concern to me is that we don't know what _else_ the target SNP tends to do, aside from whatever we've found from GWAS.

Here's an example...

APOE e4 is associated with Alzheimer's disease risk. People in Guatemala have a high prevalence of this allele. Some researchers from the US might decide it's a good idea to fly down to Guatemala and launch a CRISPR clinical trial to 'protect' newborn Guatemalans from this increased risk of Alzheimer's. So they do; come back to the US, have a toast to longevity for these children. It has recently come to light however, that APOE e4 confers protection against Malaria parasites. Not a big deal if you live in Norway - huge deal if you live in Guatemala. Suddenly, the risk of developing an age related dementia doesn't seem all that pertinent.

So, my 2 cents is that, if we're really going to start CRISPRing babies, we'd better be doing our due diligence, and for now limit to diseases that significantly and immediately impair wellbeing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Can this remove extra chromosomes and be used to reverse or mitigate Down Syndrome?

<comment><USER10> Once you have a multicellular animal, it's far too late. You have to do the gene editing before cell division occurs. You can't ensure delivery or uniform uptake otherwise. And beyond this, delivery itself is incredibly hard. You can't get eukaryotic cells to uptake genes.

It's better to screen beforehand.

<comment><USER11> > You can't ensure delivery or uniform uptake otherwise

That's all true (and I agree), but that's a practical/technical issue. That may be solvable, but even in that case, that's not the whole story. There are also developmental biology issues at play once you have a full organism (or even an embryo that is just a few cell divisions in). The way our bodies operate as adults is just as much a function of how our cells developed and grew as it is a product of genetics. There are a lot of processes that happen only at very specific timepoints in development. And once you're past those points, editing the genes required won't have any phenotypic effect.

We can alter genetics with CRISPR. We can't alter morphology in the same way. For example, in certain eye diseases, you can have a loss of a gene that is involved in how the retina processes light. But, the same gene is also involved in how the optic nerve is formed (or migrates) in the brain. You could use gene editing approaches to knock in a good copy of the gene, which might help the retina absorb light, but the nerves have already formed and are already in place. That isn't going to change.

And none of that actually addresses the ethics involved in changing the genetics of a person, which is non-trivial to say the least.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Does CRISPR still leave cells with a mess of disconnected strands after the fact? Read about this being an issue a couple years ago, but haven't seen any follow-up since then.

</comment><comment><USER13> There are two schools of thought:

1\. DNA is the hardware

2\. DNA is the software

CRISPR gets a lot of press because it seems to give biologists exactly what they've always wanted - a tool to mess with the DNA - to alter the hardware, i.e. move around transistors

Biologists love CRISPR because they are hardware people - that's how they were trained, that's how they think, and there are millions of them all thinking the same thing, yearning for the same.

Then there are the others who think DNA is software, the genes themselves are "merely" the CPU. For them, the hype around CRISPR is a distraction, and it only sets back scientific progress as it keeps channeling the focus and attention to the mere physical act of cutting pasting DNA as if that would ever explain anything.

In a nutshell, genes are probably not that important, it is the repetitive and seemingly senseless elements in between then that regulate the individual pieces. For an analogy think about how you can run radically different software of the same hardware.

See: "A 21st century view of evolution: genome system architecture, repetitive DNA, and natural genetic engineering"

[http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Shapiro.2005.Gene.pdf](http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Shapiro.2005.Gene.pdf)

<comment><USER14> > genes are probably not that important

Genes encode for proteins, which seem pretty crucial to biological functions of the cell.

<comment><USER15> Yes, but genes in and of themselves explain very little in terms of the overall functioning of a cell. The process that determines if and when a gene gets expressed is probably as important as the gene itself.

<comment><USER16> Genes determine expression though.

<comment><USER15> Sometimes, but there is a lot outside the specific gene that has an impact.

<comment><USER16> Yes, other genes. Transcription factors. Methylation. DNA accessibility. All determined by proteins which are in-turn determined by genes. Genes determine expression.

<comment><USER15> What about all that DNA that never gets transcripted?

<comment><USER16> To do anything, requires interaction with a protein, which in turn is expressed by a gene.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I look forward to the Red Rising.

In all seriousness though this is pretty amazing. Especially in light of how fast this technology appears to be progressing. Seems like we are rapidly approaching being able to utilize biological factories at a small scale.

<comment><USER18> The rising happens later, first we need a god-emperor to rise up and topple the Empire of the Rising Sun... Oh dear.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> As someone who is super interested in genetic engineering, are there any survey papers/online courses/intro textbooks that someone could recommend as an intro to either modern gene editing or using probabilistic techniques to determine gene encodings? I always feel more confident taking recommendations from people than I do scouring the internet for random resources...

</comment><comment><USER20> This is cool! Let's not forget that over time genes variate on their own. Both human-modified genes continue to mutate along with side organic genes.

For folks looking to learn more about Genes in general I recommend the book below.

The Gene: An Intimate History

[https://g.co/kgs/EPDUmk](https://g.co/kgs/EPDUmk)

</comment><comment><USER21> Fulltext: [https://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/editing/2019-wang.pdf](https://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/editing/2019-wang.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER22> It would be nice to one day be able to edit out heritable genetic diseases, e.g., known deleterious BRCA mutations, in humans.

</comment><comment><USER23> All the predictions for the end of Mankind; AI, global warming, asteroids, etc. Wait till they weaponize this. ie Twelve Monkeys. Pick a racial trait of your enemy, find its genetic expression and splice in whatever you want there in its stead. Perhaps just cut the chromosome there and leave the ends dangling. What are the odds this is being worked on already? Our science fiction overtakes us!

<comment><USER24> CRISPR gives us an editing mechanism. But you still need to deliver it to hosts. Perhaps via some kind of viral vector:

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6356701/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6356701/)

But... it's not clear to me that this will work. You'd have all kinds of issues with the viral population mutating. I'd guess the virus would in most cases not kill the host before their natural defenses kick it. Not really spreading in the population etc.</comment></comment>


TikTok to Sue U.S. over Ban - <AUTHOR> https://www.npr.org/2020/08/08/900394707/tiktok-to-sue-trump-administration-over-ban-as-soon-as-tuesday <comment><USER3> Good. We have something called "due process" in the US, and the attempted TikTok ban violates it.

Due process is a bedrock of American law. It means government officials can't just "do what they want" and make arbitrary decisions with specific targets -- which is exactly what the TikTok ban is.

You want to ban TikTok? Great, you need a specific law from Congress that outlines under what circumstances companies may be banned in the US, and then prove the specific company meets those standards.

None of that has been done here. The president is not a dictator. TikTok should absolutely sue.

Note: this is regardless of anything TikTok has actually done privacy- or security-wise. The point isn't whether they're dangerous, the point is whether we can meet some _standard_ of showing that they're dangerous. If they're dangerous, we need to establish how and why _legally_. This is what separates the rule of law from dictatorship.

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

<comment><USER4> Exactly. As far as I'm aware, TikTok is pretty much malware, meant to collect every single possible piece of information it can get access to on your phone, so I would recommend everybody to avoid it, and I'm not opposed to a ban at all.

What matters is the way it's banned. And why. And the current process feels every bit as wrong as TikTok itself.

What the US needs is proper data protection laws. And then it should enforce those laws equally against US and foreign companies. Just arbitrarily banning one thing because you realise that what you always allowed for US companies, is suddenly a problem when it's a Chinese company, is absolutely wrong.

<comment><USER5> TikTok collects less data then Facebook, Linkedin, Google, and thousands of other apps in the app store. "It collects so much info" is pure FUD.. the app doesn't even request the Location permission FFS.

Please provide a source.

<comment><USER6> TikTok might (as far as we know and at any given moment) collect fewer individual pieces of data than other apps, but they have been caught circumventing protections and covertly collecting data.

[https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/tiktok-tracked- use...](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/tiktok-tracked-user-data- using-tactic-banned-by-google/ar-BB17QeHb)

Their actions are not justified by what other apps do. Regardless of whether GP's comment included speculation or was merely using hyperbole, the sentiment is reasonable. At this point, I think it would be irresponsible to defend TikTok.

See also:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23634138](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23634138)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23684950](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23684950)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21725139](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21725139)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> So if the problem is that TikTok is gathering too much invasive data on US citizens (and supposedly siphoning it to China), and their defence is basically "So what, it's legal and everyone else is doing it too!", then isn't the obvious solution making actual digital privacy legislation that would make such data vacuuming illegal? That would solve the problem and make the American market a fair playing field rather than this hamfisted protectionism.

<comment><USER8> That is not the problem. I'm not a US citizen, but let's pretend I am; as a normal citizen (ie, not a politician or high profile important person) would I be more concerned about my personal data being sent to a foreign country who doesn't know me, my family, my job, and very likely will never give a damn about what i think, or rather my own government who has all interests to know what I think, especially during protests? I have zero trust in Chinese government, but if I had to choose, even as the European citizen I am (not high profile, not employed in critical areas etc.), I'd rather send my data to China than to my own government.

<comment><USER9> You make it sound like you are forced to download the app at gunpoint.

<comment><USER8> Ah sorry, that wasn't my intention, I don't even use smartphones or social media, smartTVs or closed source operating systems/software (1).

My point was, if I have to be concerned about privacy (in fact I actually am, see above) why should I fear about a foreign government while my own one is without any doubt more interested in knowing what I think? Of course should one day I become an important public figure, or a key person in some critical environment, all the data about me would suddenly become gold; that's a very valid point by another commenter. Of course my post was from the point of view of someone who doesn't plan, nor could even choose, to become one anytime soon.

(1) hence my comments where very often I argue about closed device drivers and blobs, which are the best possible place for planting spyware.

<comment><USER10> > I don't even use smartphones or social media

you just posted this to a social media site

<comment><USER8> Well, non _those_ social media sites. USENET is also a social media for that matter, though I think nobody would call it as such.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Is this not a freedom of speech issue? The right is guaranteed for foreingners in the US as well.

If they can ban tik tok, they can ban signal or briar because those also might send your encrypted data overseas or because their use among "violent" protestors is a risk. How about VPN apps that siphon your personal data to china and russia! Haha

Here's the thing, US bigtech complies (in secret) with US intel community just like tik tok complies with CCP's MSS. Matter of fact, I happen to know with certainty and with first hand accounts that the US intel community offensively uses american made apps and services to spy against naturalized law abiding americans on american soil just as they would with a foreigner working for the CCP in China.

You might say, China bans US media companies so US should as well. And I will say to you that's absolute nonsense. China is a totalitarian orwelian nightmare state and the US is supposed to be a beacon of liberty and freedom in the world. The US can ban tiktok's usage amongst US government and military and anyone that does business with them. But by what right do they get to restrict communication, an unregulated non-financial interaction between americans and anyone else?

If americans want to be spied on by China in exchange for being able to use tiktok it's their right and this activity is beyond the reaches of any elected government. Even if there is a law allowing congress or the president to ban tiktok, this law is overriden by the bill of rights that restricts the government from making laws that constrain speech and communication between citizens and anyone,and that guarantees tiktok due process and a trial before being found of any wrongdoing. Congress can however restrict commerce, as in financial transaction and for profit activity with tiktok and advertisers, what congress or trump have no authority to do is to tell americans and tiktok they cannot communicate with each other. Freedom of speech is meaningless if no one is allowed to listen to you.

This needs to be done right. Do not throw away your rights by creating a precedent set by the supreme court that lets government restrict your speech. These sneaky bastards will always worm their way into slowly taking away rights from the people in order to preserve their social order.

I don't like tiktok and if you care to go back far enough into my posting history you will see how much I hate the CCP.

What is given can be taken away (if your right to communicate with a foreign entity is given by the government). And if they can ban one app,banning others is a matter of legal mental gymnastics.

<comment><USER12> There's no general First Amendment right to free speech for foreign nationals not physically present in the US.

<comment><USER13> The First Amendment prohibits laws abridging free speech. There is no limit placed on who is entitled to that right.

<comment> _-david-_ There was generally always considered to be 5 things that were not protected under the First Amendment. I doubt think any of the founders would disagree with the notion that the following where not protected under the First Amendment.

1\. Libel

2\. Slander

3\. Treason

4\. Certain threats / incitement to violence (like hiring a hit man)

5\. Obscenity

<comment><USER13> All of those are examples of limiting what is considered free speech, none of them limit who is allowed free speech.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Will a chinese company really comply with the US court system in terms of discovery? I would question if they are going to comply with discovery in a way that a US company might. What exactly is forcing them to hand over actual documentation and not just forgeries? Will the Chinese court system get them in trouble for that? I doubt it.

After all many publically traded chinese companies in the US aren't actually compliant with the same laws as US companies are.

<comment><USER15> I might be missing something, but I don't see the relevance of discovery when TikTok is suing the US government. The government will need to establish that it followed due process in drafting and executing the executive order. I can't see what relevant information TikTok would hold about that? Posisbly they would have correspondence between the government and themselves, but you would expect the government to have copies of that too. It may be that the order was carried out because of TikTok's behaviour, but that would need to be behaviour that the government has documentation of, so it wouldn't come through discovery.

Also, just to be clear, this law suit isn't going to be litigated by Chinese lawyers, the lawyers are going to be US lawyers who have to adhere to the US standards. If they think that TikTok is failing to provide something to the court or are acting unethically they are obligated to tell the court of be disbared.

<comment><USER16> DoJ could ask ByteDance for information about TikTok US data security. It's a no brainer to see why DoJ proving this issue would be hard if the laws were stringent, but it doesn't seem like his entity list (if that's what he's using) power has any restrictions on Chinese foreign commerce - <USER2> it's been interpreted as very broad, so as far as SCOTUS will let him.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I don't get why he decided to ban tik tok and tencent and I'm not the biggest fan of his by any stretch of the imagination, but if America wants to ban 1 Chinese app, why is that an issue? They literally copied silicon valley businesses for decades in China.

The problem I have with this though, is that it's not a way to get protect American interests, it's probably the first in a series of last ditch efforts to portray a certain political stance before the campaign. And the effect of banning wechat, tik tok, and tencent will stoke an already considerable flame of anti chinese perspective, which the chinese americans on our soil, have to suffer for. I say ban the crap out of all Chinese apps if that's just what it is, but let's all make sure not to throw out our own under the bus with it.

<comment><USER5> Because permitting banning apps without due process is a dangerous precedent. Next up will be Signal because you could use it to talk to dangerous foreign nationals, or VPN apps because you could send secret data to the evil-state- du-jour. Process matters, even if this particular app doesn't.

<comment><USER17> You're right, obv. Just got caught up in the fear of what the implications of this are on one side.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Not sure what to feel about this one.

I don't like this company, which has already started censoring foreign nationals based on what CCP allows.

At the same time, how can a single person decide the fate of a company in a different country? What will be next?

Furthermore, what if EU decides Instagram is somehow a threat and must be shut down?

<comment><USER19> > _At the same time, how can a single person decide the fate of a company in a > different country?_

How is TikTok's fate being decided by a US ban? The CCP does this all the time, it isn't uncommon to ban foreign software.

<comment><USER20> because America isn't China?

<comment><USER21> So what is your solution to make sure China plays by the rules?

<comment><USER22> Implement rules that everyone has to follow. A good regulatory privacy framework instead of banning apps from a economic rival.

<comment><USER21> How would that enforce China to play by the rules?

<comment><USER22> Cause if they don't you can punish them according to the law. That's how laws work.

<comment><USER23> Which is what the US seems to be attempting to do. The president does, under the law, have fairly broad powers when it comes to foreign nations.

<comment><USER20> to single company? how about all the other platforms owned by Chinese companies? League of Legends or the like?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Why is congress not involved if it's so important? Should the president really have this power?

<comment><AUTHOR> > _Why is congress not involved if it 's so important?_

Congress creates laws. The President enforces them. This is an enforcement action--it's not unusual for Congress to be uninvolved.

> _Should the president really have this power?_

Multiple Congresses gave these powers to the President [1][2][3]. The current and next ones are free to take them back.

My personal belief is no, the President shouldn't have this power in the absence of clear and present danger. We need a commission, likely under Commerce and/or State, that assesses civil fines and passes prosecution recommendations to the DoJ. Furthermore, we need legislation describing (a) which countries are deemed economically friendly and economically adversarial, (b) how those determinations are made and (c) what companies from those countries can and cannot do as well as (d) how they may achieve "safe harbor" status ( _e.g._ by locally hosting data and submitting code for periodic review).

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

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exon–Florio_Amendment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exon–Florio_Amendment)

[3] [https://www.treasury.gov/resource- center/international/Docum...](https://www.treasury.gov/resource- center/international/Documents/Summary-of-FIRRMA.pdf)

<comment><USER25> IMHO TikTok being owned by the CCP now is a clear and present danger to all Americans using the app.

You make some fair points, but there is no way that I would trust a government agency to actually do code reviews and verify that a company isn't doing something wrong.

I feel increasingly unsafe because this app is being operated by a company that is beyond extradition with the USA. So if they ARE busted for doing bad stuff, who is getting jailed?

In an era where every snapdragon SoC seems rootable from any old application, and you can use machine learning to pick out key words from text streams, do we really need this app in the market?

<comment><USER26> It's owned by ByteDance, not the CPC.

<comment><USER27> ButeDance is a Chinese company responsible for complying with directives from the CCP. If one doesn't trust the CCP, then one should not trust ByteDance.

<comment><USER28> Facebook is American company responsible for complying with directives from the US Government. If one doesn't trust the US, then one should not trust Facebook.

How is this any different? The US is one of the Five Eyes countries. They routinely spy on their own people (see Snowdon et al). I see no difference between the two in this regard, other than the US has a court system that sometimes acts independently and has a Constitution that sometimes is followed.

<comment><USER21> > If one doesn't trust the US, then one should not trust Facebook.

Which is why Facebook is not allowed in China.

<comment><USER22> Because it doesn't comply with local laws. What law does tiktok not comply with?

<comment><USER21> Which local Chinese law is FB not complying with?

<comment><USER29> I guess the one that mandates their participation in Chinese government's national intelligence activities.

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Discovery in this should be fun on both sides.

<comment><USER30> Yes. It is no surprise that they sue, but maybe that was a mistake. Because depending on the result, it might get TikTok banned in the EU as well.

Or the result is that indeed their operation is 100% independent of their Chinese parent company and no US data ever touches mainland China... which would surprise me.

<comment><USER31> Honest question: would it matter if they stored data in mainland china? Wouldn't it still be fine if they are storing data there but not giving it to china gov? (Not that i really believe that any data in china is safe from gov, although i could say the same about usa, but what is the actual bar that the us gov has to meet to show its a national security risk? Is data on china soil sufficient?)

<comment><USER32> > Wouldn't it still be fine if they are storing data there but not giving it > to china gov?

That situation does not exist. Chinese law basically means that any data held in China can be accessed by the government at any time.

<comment><USER18> Yeah, buy according to US law American companies must comply with government requests even if the data is stored abroad.

So basically, why should anyone trust a US company if US thinks tiktok giving data to their government is a problem?

<comment><USER33> American companies have a legal system to protect them against unlawful requests. That rule of law is under attack, but exists, which does not seem to be the case for China.

<comment><USER34> Don't National Security Letters and a Secret Courts bypass that?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Hello, the data angle is just a diversion for kicking out tiktok and we chat getting too big and kicking American tech giants ass. Too dominant. It's protectionism

<comment><USER36> Tiktok maybe, but wechat has negligible market share in the USA (And anywhere outside China), mostly just used by people who come from China.

<comment><USER35> We chat banning US trying to high ball China, it's extra chips in negotiation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> This ban is clearly a distraction by the white house to take attention away from actual national security matters, specifically the foreign hacking of elections. It's absurd that this is a priority but protecting our electoral process is not. Only fools would believe a social network like this is a real threat.

</comment><comment><USER38> > the president's order appeared rushed and did not include carveouts or > exceptions for TikTok to maintain any legal representation, which the > company plans to argue is a violation of due process rights. [...] > Typically, if the federal government launches an investigation, it will > inform the company with a subpoena or some other kind of notice [...] no > such outreach from the White House requesting evidence took place before > Thursday's executive order. TikTok lawyers view that as shortcutting > standard procedure.

These are pretty ironic allegations considering It's all because they are Chinese owned.

</comment><comment><USER39> Big mistake. The position of the USG is National security. The discovery process is going to be ruthless.

</comment><comment><USER40> Imagine US companies suing China for not allowing them to operate there.

People would say "China can decide what they want to allow".

Well if China can decide (which they did first) two can play this game.

Also TikTok says this ban is baseless. If USA's ban of TikTok is baseless, what base does China have for banning everything?

<comment><USER41> China is a totalitarian regime which doesn't follow due process and basic freedoms.

I strongly hope that your strange "tit-for-tat" doesn't extend to basic rights of people and businesses on US soil. US is supposed to be better than that, remember?

<comment><USER42> The free market is a two way thing. What, you wanna allow a totalitarian regime to have it's companies operating in your soil while expanding their influence?

This situation should've been stopped a while ago, China banned every company they wanted while the others let them operate everywhere according to the free market rules.

<comment><USER43> Free market does not need to be a two way thing to function. If the Chinese have to spend their money on non-US goods, those earning thw profits will be more inclined to spend their money on US goods.

Exports is what you pay for your imports. It's better for US citizens to be able to buy Chinese products even if Chinese citizens can't buy us products. They can pay for it by exporting to other countries from which China buys.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> As long as they have standing and a chance of winning (their claims aren't frivolous) then a court might grant an injunction against the 45 day compulsory sale while this lawsuit proceeds.

</comment><comment><USER45> It's a matter of who owns the user activity data on TikTok whether ByteDance retains rights to sell or rent without informing public to someone at some point in future..

</comment><comment><USER46> This is best case scenario. It'll be up to them to prove they're not leaking info to CCP, or prove there was a time they resisted a government mandate to do so.

HFGLWT!

</comment><comment><USER47> I believe this is what the TPP actually wanted American companies to be able to do in China, be able to litigate against the CCP in some global court.

</comment><comment><USER48> Anybody else binging on tiktok before it gets banned and in the remote chance an American can't save it by buying it from bytedance ?

<comment><USER49> In a world with more quality entertainment than one could consume in their lifetime, no. I never even started on tiktok, since it offered so little in comparison to everything else out there.

But, as with everything, that's just my opinion.

<comment><USER48> How do you know if you never tried it ?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Two bads don't make one good, IMO. You can't combat authoritarianism with more authoritarianism.

</comment><comment><USER51> Huawei also to sue the U.S. I wonder if that ever happened?

</comment><comment><USER31> > The app has also been used to antagonize the president, including when > thousands of teens reserved tickets to the president's rally in Tulsa, > Okla., with no intention of going, inflating the Trump campaign's > expectations for the event and causing embarrassment over the disappointing > turnout.

Forgot that was organized on tiktok. All makes sense now. If US was really interested in national security i'm pretty sure zoom would go long before tiktok

<comment><USER52> Forgetting Trumps' feelings about the Tulsa rally, I truly believe the Tulsa thing was the smoking gun. We know that TikTok did manual moderation of topics sensitive to China, as well as some more non-ethical ones (censuring/pushing results back) of disabled and 'ugly' people. My girlfriend was offered a job moderating for TikTok and their package details with the work described left a bad taste in my mouth to be honest.

But forgetting that, can we with 100% certainty say that the Tulsa rally fiasco:

a) Wasn't an idea and orchestrated by the CCP?

b) Was some teen's idea, but then was pushed to the top for political reasons by the CPP?

If you can't say with 100% certain NO to these questions, and taking in account the US and China are in some sort of 'cold war', doesn't it make sense that the US goverment cuts the feet of an app that can change election results?

Yes, Russian interference with facebook is also a possibility, but at the end, Facebook (and twitter, etc) are US entities, and if there is indeed some weird things going on, they can be investigated, banned, etc. the US can't do the same with regards to TikTok.

(ps: Not american, have no skin in who wins the election, just pointing it as an outsider a possible reason)

<comment><USER53> So do you think Congress, both the House and Senate, also overwhelmingly voted to ban Tiktok because of the poor showing at Tulsa rally? smh

<comment><USER12> Congress voted to ban it from federally owned computers which is much different than a blanket nationwide sanction.

<comment><USER53> That's because Congress can't put a blanket nationwide sanction expediently -- it instead limited it to federal employees where they have absolutely authority, and pretty much cleared path for Trump's action.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> I don't want to stir up controversity even more, but with POTUS reigning by decree most of the time, and a self-referential two-party politics cartel, isn't the US already into a constitutional crisis of sort? I mean, the US administration has every reason to question China's asymmetric conditions for investment, and the West turning a blind eye towards China totalitarism due to greed and economic necessity, but the current president's ad-hoc actions against partners (NATO, Canada, EU, Mexico, and others) don't amount to a strategic goal so much as a short-sighted signal of "doing something" in election campaigning. In fact, these actions have made it more difficult or even impossible to side with the US. The TikTok ban, apart from its terrible looks (intrusiveness into an already US-dominated market), seems to only follow Trump's desire to black-out an alleged anti-Trump social platform in upcoming elections. The reasoning for allowing Russia to meddle with elections OTOH should be even more concerning in geo-political terms: that Russia's pro- Trump stance is because Trump staying in power will only serve to weaken Western countries.

</comment><comment><USER55> Both completely unsurprising and entirely justified.

</comment><comment><USER56> I hope they win. Living in China, I told my friends here that at least they will have their day in court - a win would really help show an advantage of the US system in a high-profile way.

Trump is doing so much to hurt the US image among Chinese citizens right now. His administration emphasizes the importance of the distinction between the government and the people, but his actions are only driving the two closer together. Poor strategy in my opinion.

Also, I'm really worried about the supposed Tencent ban. There's no way I can get rid of WeChat...

<comment><USER57> > There's no way I can get rid of WeChat...

Just strong network effects, or what

<comment><USER56> Yeah, including everyone at work and our customers. I could do payments through Alipay, but there's no way people are going to accommodate me in other ways.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> even if any of the allegations against the platform are true, banning a single major platform like this - especially coming from someone as ham-fisted and blatant as Donald Trump - won't solve any of the problems people have with how China runs their businesses

</comment><comment><USER58> "I don't like Trump, so I will side with Tik Tok"

Whether you should side with Tik Tok or not, the above statement applies to a massive percentage of people who don't agree with the Tik Tok ban. This is dangerous thinking

<comment><USER59> Who says that?

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> While I think TikTok is a cesspool, Trump banning TikTok is a wild overextension of Federal power. How any "small gov't" conservative is okay with this, while over 1000 Americans are dying of COVID per day nonetheless, is beyond me.

They need to educate Americans on the predatory nature of TikToks software and move along.

<comment><USER61> > While I think TikTok is a cesspool

Is that referring to the content or the company itself? I don't see how it's any more of a cesspool than any other social platform. Twitter? Facebook? Reddit? Every sufficiently large platform is filled with a very wide range of content, from great to awful.

As a company, I do agree they have shady practices, but again, don't most other social media apps such as Facebook and the gang use similar tracking and data collection? Of course that's a low bar to compare to but I don't see why they're being singled out here.

<comment><USER62> > I don't see how it's any more of a cesspool than any other social platform.

It actually is uniquely bad.

A disproportionate amount of the content consists of the sexualization of underage girls.

The way the thing is set up, there is some kind of audio, someone does a thing (usually a dance), and then other people try to do the same thing to the same sound. The audio is generally nonsense. One of the currently popular ones is a Russian cereal commercial (mepas zoo zoo zoo). Okay, fine. But then somehow the majority of the audio clips are misogynist or misandrist. Every other one seems to contain the N-word. And they're all catchy tunes that get played over and over and get stuck in your head. It's pretty messed up.

<comment><USER61> I've been using TikTok for a year and I have not seen a single girl dance video in months. Not to say that those don't exist but there is far more content, yet people who've never used TikTok is just underage girls dancing to music. That's not too dissimilar than if I went to a subreddit dedicated to posting photos of barely legal girls, and claimed that's what reddit was all about. Similarly, Youtube also struggled with similar issues on its platform.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> TikTok is modified version of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical.ly](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical.ly)</comment>


Breakthrough Study Just Linked Gut Bacteria to Neurovascular Disease - <AUTHOR> https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-made-a-significant-discovery-linking-gut-bacteria-with-neurovascular-disease <comment><USER2> Microbial cause of psychiatric and neurovascular diseases is become more and more studied now (casually). However, this study only finds a correlation between the some some bacteria species and CA disease, no casual relationship shown.</comment>


YouTube's Biggest Threat to the Music Industry Isn't What You Think - <AUTHOR> https://musicindustryblog.wordpress.com/2015/09/18/youtubes-biggest-threat-to-the-music-industry-isnt-what-you-probably-think-it-is/ <comment><USER2> 60% of the content produced for youtube is music centric content, and if you look at the list of most viewed youtube videos of all time you have to scroll to #19 to find something that isn't a music video.

So while I agree that youtubers are changing the way that celebrities and fans interact, I think the stats themselves paint a very different picture from a world in "which music looks set to play much less central role than it has ever done so before for youth."</comment>


FlightCar (YC W13) Raises $5.5M Round to Expand and Hire - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2013/04/15/flightcar-5-5m-funding/ <comment><USER2> These guys are Airbnb-like in another way too: as with Airbnb, I initially thought this was a bad idea. What changed my mind was when I emailed all the YC alumni to recruit users for the closed beta, and large numbers of them immediately and enthusiastically signed up.

There is clearly something to the "sharing economy" that everyone is talking about. There will be glitches along the way, but I'm pretty sure this idea is here to stay. Considering the value of the assets involved, it could be the big economic story of this decade.

<comment><USER3> There is a clear value add for people coming into a city who don't want to rent a normal rental car. But I'm not sure the same value add is there for people renting out their car, unlike Airbnb. If the maximum you can obtain for renting out your car is < $100, is that really what your emotional peace of mind (your car being ticketed, trashed, and scratched, loss in blue book value) is worth?

<comment><USER4> The emotional peace of mind is the exact thing that FlightCar and Airbnb are creating by encouraging this aspect of sharing. Yeah shit can go wrong with your car--that's with anything sharing-based though. As the saying goes, "Shit happens". But at the end of the day, sharing is a good thing and people are opening up to the aspect of it more and more. Essentially, the idea that you are sharing with others is the peace of mind. Hasn't warmed up with everyone, but it has with some and will continue.

As someone else pointed out, I'm sure FlightCar will change their pricing as it gains more traction. For now, the pricing is just a reasonable and simple model.

If there's one thing I disagree with from PG's comment, it's his prediction that this could be the economic story of the decade...no, it has the potential to be the economic story of the century. Not FlightCar by itself, but all these companies disrupting different industries through the simple idea of sharing--it's revolutionary and still young.

<comment><USER2> You're right, but I always try to underestimate things.

It would be pretty big if ownership turned out to be largely a hack people resorted to before they had the infrastructure to manage sharing properly.

<comment><USER5> It's not so much that ownership is a hack, or that sharing will replace ownership, but that as technology improves the transaction costs for trading property rights decreases, allowing "ownership" to be treated in a more fine- grained way than previously possible.

You can see a fairly pure instance of this situation in spectrum management (which is a common area used to study property rights because it's easy to deal with theoretically). In 1960, Ronald Coase said we should break off big chunks of spectrum and sell it off for exclusive use, just like we do with land. Transactions in those rights will help achieve efficient allocations of resources, but there is a limit at which transaction costs dominate and optimal allocations aren't reached. If you think of something very coarse- grained like frequencies for broadcast radio, you're likely to get efficient allocations via trading of property rights. If you think of something very fine-grained like allocation of frequencies to a cell phone as it travels through a busy intersection, the idea of doing micro-transactions to yield an optimal allocation becomes intractable in the face of transaction costs. But as you make the transactions cheaper, through technology, it becomes more practical to do micro-transactions.

This basic phenomenon is generalizable to pretty much any situation where you have property rights that are coarse-grained out of accounting convenience. If you can make it cheap and easy to break off little chunks of the property right and trade in them, you'll achieve a more optimal allocation of rights. That's pretty much exactly what AirBnB and FlightCar are: not sharing, but ways of breaking off a piece of a coarse property right and trading in those little pieces in a fine-grained way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm still hesitant to buy in to the idea because I'm just a fundamentally skeptical person when it comes to letting other people use very personal things like cars as opposed to apartments. Cars have a "feel" to them that many people notice is different after they get used extensively by others. But maybe that's just me.

BUT - I have to admit - there's a kernel here that think makes this different from RelayRides, etc. And that's that unlike the other companies where they "suggest" that the user return the car washed, FlightCar is actually doing the post-rental clean-up themselves, and that makes a difference. I don't like the idea of coming back to a used, possible dirty car sitting in my garage (i.e. w/ RelayRides), but if I'm coming back to a parking lot where I know the car has been professionally washed and inspected, my peace of mind is greater.

I'm still not interested in using the service, but again that's just me (I'm an anal car nerd), and that certainly doesn't mean others won't use it extensively.

Good luck guys! Love seeing awesome car-related businesses take off.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! Hopefully, we can change your mind one day. :)

<comment><USER7> One tip for your website. Calendars From To. When i select a date in From filed, set the To field at least to the same date.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> $10 in gas cards per day seems like low compensation for putting my vehicle at risk. I realize they have insurance but anyone who's had a car get damaged and repaired knows it's never the same as before the damage, especially if it's suspension/steering related.

I wish them the best, though, if any industry is stagnant and in need of being overhauled it's the terrible car rental industry.

<comment><USER2> The main appeal for users is actually the free parking. Long term parking at SFO is $18/day.

<comment><USER9> This is the second time you commented free parking is the main appeal.

I have to say your single sentences can get my mind racing at a hundred mph. Example, Why institute the sharing (AirBnB model) if it is less about sharing and more about not paying for parking? Does this mean there is room for a purely valet model, where one drives to the airport and a valet drives it back their home instead of parking at the airport? Is it going to be a common practice for people to be the AirBnB of "this and that", making the marketing more important than the service, especially when sharing is not the main appeal?

I take what I can from your comments, like your perspective on the sharing model above, but it makes me think getting a YC interview would be bitter- sweet because really I would want to interview you.

<comment><AUTHOR> pg nailed it. In the model you described above, you're still shelling out dollars from your bank account rather than leveraging an under utilized asset of your's.

<comment><USER9> As to the model, honestly it was just one quick thought in a stream of conscience purposely meant to be a contrast to the sharing model, or leveraging an under utilized asset - nice phrasing.

A company out to get me free parking is a company after my own heart. In no way was I challenging the AirBnB/sharing/your model, I agree with you and pg the model I describe would not work specifically b/c "shelling out dollars", yet there is value if a valet model cost $18 once and a trip was longer than 48 hours, which sounds like your not meeting a demand so much as your making one.

Keep working on great things.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm a big fan of Zipcar, but getting to/from the airport from/to your Zipcar has always been a big frustration. I've tried FlightCar and have been surprised how easy and seamless the experience is, given how young the company is. I hope they expand quickly.

</comment><comment><USER11> The challenging thing to me with FlightCar is it seems like one of those things where you need critical mass for it to work. You have to have a close matching of people leaving and wanting to rent to people returning and wanting to rent. AirBnB was a little easier because some people already had rentals, and others had empty rooms.

IE someone has to be arriving in Pittsburgh roughly around the time I'm leaving, and they have to also be leaving before I get home. I think that's the biggest challenge (beyond getting people to know about it and trust it). I'm sure it will take off at SFO at least.

How are the existing car sharing services doing? I haven't actually used one myself yet.

</comment><comment><USER12> The idea is great, I'm sure the'll get the pricing sorted out after the launch. From my point of view $10/Day + free parking ($18) seems low. Maybe if you're leaving a smart car or something, but what if you have a nicer car like a Lexus or Mercedes?

<comment><USER13> If you own a luxury car, you probably don't care about the cost of parking. For extended trips, you're likely being picked up/dropped off by a black sedan anyway.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Am I the only one that was bummed out to learn that FlightCar isn't making hover cars?

</comment><comment><USER15> This, from all the other YC W13 companies, was the one that made my head tilt as I thought "huh... that's a ridiculously cool idea." It has a really fun element to it as far as business ideas go.

Congrats to the founders!

</comment><comment><USER16> There is something to this idea but I am still skeptical. In ATL I park my car for 5$ a day using my wife's corporate discount. I am assuming that most of the regular fliers out of ATL use some sort of discount. So, this might not be the target market for FlightCar on the supply side. But, these are the very people whose cars might be available more often for renting.

On demand side, this idea rocks. I remember renting a compact car for a day for around 150$ (including taxes, fees etc etc).

</comment><comment><USER17> It's awesome to see companies that came out of the startup scene in Cincinnati doing so well.

</comment><comment><USER18> "Cars must have been made by 1999" So my 2010 Honda Civic is too new? They only want pre-2000 cars?

</comment><comment><USER19> FlightCar (along with Uber, Lyft, etc) has been issued a C&D by SFO airport: [http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/transportation/2013/04/sfo-t...](http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/transportation/2013/04/sfo- tells-ridesharing-companies-scram-until-permits-sorted-out)

Surprised that the article didn't mention this.

<comment><AUTHOR> The C&D is old. It applied to an old model of ours where we operated on airport property which was rather grey. Our current operation with a black car, on the other hand, follows all rules and regulations by the airport and in fact pays the airport on every trip.

<comment><USER19> Awesome. In that case I amend my statement. I'm surprised the Examiner didn't mention this in their article!

<comment><AUTHOR> Probably our fault for not getting the press involved with the C&D. :)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Dear Free Software developers, would you mind supplying binaries? - <AUTHOR> http://pastebin.com/cAZgbaFN <comment><USER2> Dear Dependency_Hell,

Do you realize that the program you tried to install, cloc, is written in Perl and has no binary components? You don't need to use Macports, just download cloc from SourceForge ([http://sourceforge.net/projects/cloc/](http://sourceforge.net/projects/cloc/)) and run it on the command line:

$ /usr/bin/perl ./cloc-1.64.pl

Save your rage for Macports.</comment>


End-40-hour-workweek-mainstreet - <AUTHOR> http://finance.yahoo.com/career-work/article/113075/end-40-hour-workweek-mainstreet?mod=career-worklife_balance <comment><USER2> Most peoples' performance and quality of life lowers greatly when the weekly hours go past _30_ and these idiots are talking about going to 50 or 60!</comment>


Emoji Dictionary for MacOS - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/f-a-t-e/b650c124aad1 <comment><AUTHOR> Perform quick emoji definition lookups in MacOS (using Cmd+Ctrl+D) and hypercard deck (using Dictionary.app)</comment>


FBI Turns 18-Year-Old with an IQ of 51 into a Terrorist - <AUTHOR> https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151229/14333133193/fbi-turns-18-year-old-with-iq-51-into-terrorist-dumps-case-into-laps-local-prosecutors.shtml <comment><USER2> Maybe we should just toss "terrorists" into the nearest river, if they float they're a terrorist and get hanged, if they sink, then they die but are innocent...

Wait, no, that's the Salem witch trials, for some reason I always mix up terrorism accusations in 2015, and the Salem witch trials from 1692...

A lot of these cases seem to come up. They seem to fall into two "camps," legitimately dangerous individuals collecting resources for a future event (guns, bombs, etc) and fishing expeditions where they try to borderline entrap the gullible or stupid.

The question is: Do the agents not ever question what they're doing morally? If you need to talk someone into committing a crime are you really serving justice? And if you aren't serving justice then what is the point in any of it?

<comment><USER3> >Do the agents not ever question what they're doing morally?

Somewhat perhaps, but the victims are morally inferior to the agents, so the ends (career advancement for the morally superior agents) justify the means (unjust oppression of the inferior). It's a lot like when Islamist terrorists justify the killing of kafirs; but it's okay in this case because the injustice is committed by educated people wearing nice clothes, and for a good reason (justice!, or the children, maybe? or something else which I can't recall at the moment but I'm sure it's good for America).

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Compare this to the case where someone with a learning difficulties[1] was groomed for terrorism purposes; they are clearly seen as the victim of a crime and the person doing the grooming is convicted of a crime.

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32521780](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32521780)

> Commander Richard Walton, head of the Metropolitan Police's Counter > Terrorism Command, said: "We continue to appeal to anyone who may have > knowledge of people with similar intentions. The earliest we can intervene > to prevent terrorism the better.

> "We also remind the public that there is currently a need to protect > vulnerable or impressionable adults or children from this brand of Islamic > extremism."

There's lots of really terrible[2] things about the way the UK treats people with learning disability, but we try not to imprison them for stuff other people manipulated them into.

[1] UK usage, this is taking over from "learning disability" because that community strongly rejects the disabled label. It used to be defined by low IQ.

[2] Winterborn view, Mazars, etc etc. There's a long list of terrible care homes providing abusive horrible care.

</comment><comment><USER5> Can someone with more insight into this please explain if this can be considered entrapment? The suspect probably would have done or said nothing if it weren't for the "investigators".

<comment><USER6> Here is a webcomic drawn by an attourney which explains what entrapment actually is: [http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=633](http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=633)

<comment><USER3> That comic doesn't explain _" what entrapment actually is"_ but rather it explains how a few trite but common misconceptions about the law as it pertains to those circumstances are not precisely entrapment. I don't think his reasoning is very good. ie: _" It's amazing that this myth has stuck around so long when tons of undercover arrests prove it wrong every day"_ I'm not sure how an arrest can prove that since an arrest is not a finding of fact. IMO lawcomic is rather biased toward a prosecutor's definition of what s/he thinks the law ought to be.

Maybe it's my own cognitive dissonance about the difference in what the law is and what I think it ought to be, but I don't have a favorable opinion of lawcomic. Now you've posted it here in defense of the prosecution of a mentally retarded man/child for an offence which he is probably incapable of committing without a non-trivial degree of assistance, and most likely would not have committed if he'd simply been left alone. Even though this case the prosecution may prevail in court, IMO it does not serve any useful purpose for the gov't to aggressively ferret out easily manipulable people by manipulating them until they sufficiently incriminate themselves.

<comment><USER6> > in defense of the prosecution

I should clarify that I do not condone the actions of law enforcement here. I just think that I think lawcomic is an interesting introductory resource.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> My retarded uncle is really into military subjects and nazis. He has run up other people's phone bills calling 900 number white supremacist phone numbers. I didn't even know that was a thing until it happened. I gather white supremacist groups attract certain types of mental illness.

I'm sure the Muslim version of him would be into jihad. Going to arrest a lot of people if you start locking them up...</comment>


Lorem Dim Sum - <AUTHOR> http://loremdimsum.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> I am not this awesome website's creator; nor do I know who is.

Internet Archive would appear to suggest it was created in 2013, but doesn't seem to have been previously appreciated on HN, and I think it's brilliant.

Now I'm off to start a project, so that I can use it.

<comment><USER2> It was made a little while ago by myself and 2 other people :)

<comment><AUTHOR> It's an absolute gem. Kudos!</comment></comment></comment>


Makefiles in 2019 – Why They Still Matter - <AUTHOR> https://tech.trivago.com/2019/12/20/makefiles-in-2019-why-they-still-matter/ <comment><AUTHOR> Author here, happy to answer questions!</comment>


Time to Ban Stock Repurchases - <AUTHOR> https://www.tbwns.com/2020/03/30/the-bears-lair-time-to-ban-stock-repurchases/ <comment><USER3> It is time to make dividends, rather than capital gains, tax advantaged. They should be deductible against the companies income (akin to LLCs) and shouldn't incur payroll taxes but otherwise should be taxed as income. This would make them more valuable for lower income citizens who suffer under the payroll tax setup, and less valuable for the wealthy since they would be paying a high marginal tax rate on them. It would distribute capital ownership more widely and make planning a retirement income stream much easier to accomplish.

Capital gains should be taxed at windfall rates, say income + 10%.

Prioritize repeatable, stable profits over swing-for-the-fences highly- leveraged moonshots, and watch how many of these problems disappear.

<comment><USER4> > It is time to make dividends, rather than capital gains, tax advantaged.

So this is another example of the US being unable to find solutions to problems only it has.

This came up with the whole passthrough preferential treatment. The argument for it was that dividends were essentially double-taxed. So you end up creating a whole new set of complexity (eg what qualifies for it) when the solution is remarkable simple.

In Australia, dividends issued by companies come with franking credits. That means you get credit for any taxes already paid. The vast majority of dividends are fully-franked, meaning all funds have paid the 30% tax rate. Much less common are unfranked (no taxes paid) or partially-franked.

To give you an example. Say a company makes a profit of $10,000 and wants to pay it as a dividend. It pays 30% tax on it ($3000) and disburses $7000. Alice owns 10% of the company so she receives $700 (10% of $7000, being $10000 - <USER2> $3000 tax) and $300 in franking credits. If Alice's marginal tax rate is 30% she has paid all her taxes. If it's 40% then she owes 40% x $1000 = $400 - $300 in franking credits = $100 in extra taxes. If her marginal tax rate is 15% she gets a refund ($1000 x 15% = $150 is her liability so her refund is $300 - $150 = $150).

So no double taxation and all the recipients pay their marginal rates of tax on the income. Easy.

This is also a far cleaner way to deal with foreign withholding taxes. Let's say the dividend recipient is a foreign corporation, should they pay taxes on the income? Well, they already have. it's a policy decision as to whether they should get the taxes back or not. But again, it's handled by that system without having to create a foreign withholding taxes regime.

> Capital gains should be taxed at windfall rates, say income + 10%.

Yeah so you lose me here. I don't see the justification for this. Investment is typically in already-taxed dollars.

<comment><USER5> Neither "double-taxed" nor "already-taxed" make sense to me as phrases.

From the "regular person" side of the world - dividends vs capital gains vs estate tax, how I would've loved to have such problems for most of my life - I've always seen it as transactions that are taxed, not dollars. I pay income tax. I pay sales tax. That's about it (property tax would be something entirely different, but requires owning real property), but how is it not "double tax" by the same logic? Why all this consternation about "double taxing" in certain investment circles, but not around sales tax? Just because it matters less to the super-wealthy?

<comment><USER6> >"but how is it not "double tax" by the same logic?"

It's not really the same logic. If I own 100% of the shares of company A, and I make a profit of $100, I have to pay a tax on that profit. Now I have $75. Now I want to use that money to buy an XBox, so I move that money from my company account to my bank account (again, I own the company, the money is already mine), but I have to pay another "income" tax. This is the "double" tax, there is no "transaction". But lets ignore that, if you could avoid sales tax, wouldn't you? This is how shopping online worked pretty much up until 2016.

IMO, we should just get rid of the corporate tax and simply tax cap gains and dividends more. It would solve the issue of corporations parking money in Ireland and loading up on debt domestically.

<comment><USER7> ...Are you saying that if you own _shares_ of company A, the value of those shares is extracted from the company's _bank account_?

That...doesn't sound right. I mean, I know I'm not really much of an investor, but my understanding is it works more like this:

If I own 100% of the shares of company A, and the company makes a profit of $100, the company pays a tax on that profit, then has $75 in its bank account.

Separately, when the company reports those earnings, its stock price rises 5%. Now, if I want to realize the value of my stock appreciation, I have to sell shares of stock, which is a completely separate, taxed, transaction.

I can only transfer money from company A's bank account to my own _because I own 100% of the shares, and control the entire company_. I also know that treating the company like my own personal piggy bank is frowned upon (at least by people with scruples and sense), and the much more reasonable thing to do is have the company pay me a salary out of its profits. Which is another, separate, taxed, transaction. Which also makes perfect sense, because in the general case where I am not the only employee, payroll taxes are a perfectly reasonable thing, and in the more specific case where I am, I'm paying for the protection of having the corporation to take liability.

<comment><USER6> > _Are you saying that if you own shares of company A, the value of those > shares is extracted from the company 's bank account?_

Like the sibling comment said, thats how stocks are _supposed_ to work. The entire reason stocks have value is because you were entitled to a dividend. So that $75 would be shared among the people who own the stock.

Now if the stock entitles you to a dividend of $5/year of the company's profits, you then might say that the company's stock is with $25 (just an example). If you think the company may become _more_ profitable, and start paying $6, you may decide the stock is worth $26, and the inverse is true as well. Transferring that ownership of the stock is taxed, naturally.

Now we now live in a world where the largest companies don't pay a dividend, and I'm not sure how much "potential dividend revenue" factors into company valuation, but, as I understand it, this is the "backbone" of how stocks work.

> _and the much more reasonable thing to do is have the company pay me a > salary out of its profits. Which is another, separate, taxed, transaction._

This is taxed separately however. There is no "double-tax" here as payments to employees aren't considered the company's profit. When the company pays its employees, it's taxed once (payroll tax). When the company pays it's owners it's taxed twice (Corporate tax, then dividend tax).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> So I don't get why stock repurchases are being singled out here. The original model for corporations was that companies make a profit, pay taxes on that and then either retain those profits, return them to the shareholders in the form of dividends or both.

This model has disadvantages. Not every shareholder wants to receive a dividend they then have to pay taxes on. The company also drops in value by the amount of money disbursed, which has its own issues (eg triggering wash sale rules).

Share buybacks are an alternative to returning money to investors. You use that same pool of money to buy shares on the open market. The company has lost that same asset (the disbursed cash) to those investors who want to receive that money (ie by choosing to sell) and the stock price remains unchanged.

So this is (IMHO) concentrating on the wrong problem. The real problem is that companies can borrow money to return to shareholders through dividends or buybacks rather than repatriating foreign profits, which would otherwise make those profits subject to US taxes. So this is a near-indefinite deferral of US taxes.

In my opinion, we need to treat any form of borrowing as effective repatriation of retained foreign profits that then get taxed accordingly.

As for bailout funds, I'm totally fine with all of these restrictions until the loan has been repaid:

1\. Any borrowed funds are treated as repatriation of foreign profits as per above. Why bailout companies who are choosing not to pay US taxes?

2\. A freeze on executive compensation, including no extraordinary bonuses, additional stock grants and so forth. Additionally, all such compensation from the previous 12 months needs to be clawed back.

3\. No disbursement of any kind to investors while the bailout loan remains unpaid. This includes dividends and buybacks.

Focusing solely on stock buybacks is misguided.

</comment><comment><USER8> Why should there be a blanket ban on stock repurchases? If a company has excess cash, you're advocating they can't put that cash to work "betting" on their future performance?

I however do agree if a company takes a recent government "bailout" they should be restricted from buybacks until they payback the loan/bailout.

<comment><USER9> I'd could argue that the "excess" cash might be better used to raise employee wages, reduce work hours, etc. etc. All those things that make human workers a bit happier but c'est la vie

<comment><USER10> Exactly stock buyback are a 'too easy' way of driving up stock prices. You want companies to use their capital to increase the real value of the company. At the same time you want to discourage CEO's and stockholders from looting the corporate till.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> One option could be to restrict repurchases (and dividends) that would take the company below some threshold of savings, based on expenses. For example: any company worth over $X needs to hold a years worth of expenses in hand at all times - if they go below, they cannot issue a dividend or buy back any stock.

Of course, the details matter enormously here, including how things like debt factor into the equation.</comment>


Inspired by brain's visual cortex, new AI utterly wrecks CAPTCHA security - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/10/inspired-by-brains-visual-cortex-new-ai-utterly-wrecks-captcha-security/ <comment><USER2> If captchas are gone, is that the end of semi-anonymous online accounts?</comment>


Stop the Abuse of H1B and Other Foreign Worker Programs - <AUTHOR> http://protectusworkers.org/ <comment><USER2> Here's the google cache: [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:C8EN9HS...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:C8EN9HSVDL8J:protectusworkers.org/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)

I can't see much content in the cache but I watched the video. I think she's somewhat right, but we should be careful not to lump all H1Bs in the same category (also not a fan of the slightly nationalistic language, but it's not too bad).

There are essentially two types of H1B. The one that she describes in the video is one kind, where companies like Infosys and Tata bring over thousands of H1Bs, and then provide consulting services (which are banned by H1B). I don't have firsthand experience here, but you can look at the number of H1Bs by these companies (almost 50% of the allocation) which holds up.

The other type is companies like Google and Facebook who can't get enough good engineers, and try to bring in great engineers from abroad. (I've seen it argued that they do this to depress wages, but I'm skeptical of this).

The former seems like an abuse, the latter I don't think is.

(disclaimer: I'm a former H1B holder)</comment>


Legal Curiosities: Fact or Fable? (2015) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/app/uploads/2015/03/Legal_Oddities.pdf <comment><USER2> > It is illegal not to tell the tax man anything you do not want him to know, > but legal not to tell him information you do not mind him knowing.

> Not quite

> This appears to be a simplification of the Tax Avoidance Schemes Regulations > 2006. This requires the disclosure of arrangements securing a tax advantage > where those benefiting wish to keep it confidential in order to facilitate > repeated benefits: the desire for confidentiality is regarded as a hallmark > of an unacceptable tax arrangement.

IANAL, but this seems to be bordering on "If you think it's illegal, it is! If you think it's not illegal, it isn't!"

Apparently the tax code is now so difficult that we can no longer decide what is and isn't legal, and have to resort to deciding based on whether the defendant thinks it is.

I'm all for tougher laws on tax avoidance, but I don't think "Look! He tried to hide it! He must be guilty of something!" is a valid argument.

</comment><comment><USER3> Oi, you got a loisence for that Lunatick, mate?

> "The Madhouses Act 1774 made it an offence to keep "more than one Lunatick" > without a licence for a madhouse. It has now been repealed."

<comment><USER4> ... for _them Lunaticks_ \- you don't need a license if it's only one!</comment></comment>


Show HN: Calculator for car insurance overpayment based on 27k actual policies - <AUTHOR> http://calculator.gabi.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hi, I am Hanno, Founder and CEO of Gabi. The calculator we are showing here is based on 27,126 car insurance policies that we analyzed over the last year. We got those policies as part of the comparison shopping business we are running at gabi.com.

We checked all those insurance policies for potential savings. We compared the current rate with rates from over 25 insurance companies out there to see if we could find the same coverage for a better price.

Our calculator summarizes those findings and shows the likelihood that the user is overpaying on his current car policy and how much he is overpaying.</comment>


More moderators resign from all Stack Exchange sites - <AUTHOR> https://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/389906/3834 <comment><USER2> The more resign, the better. Maybe they can start afresh, but I doubt it.</comment>


Microsoft is updating Notepad - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/12/17563704/microsoft-windows-notepad-app-update <comment><USER2> On a semi-related note: You know what would really get me excited? A GPU accelerated, highly optimized text editor, that could display several gigabytes of text with several thousand columns wide rows, smooth scrolling, zooming and text-highlighting. That would be a real step up from current text editors. The only thing that comes close (that I know of) is still Vim minus the smooth scrolling and zooming. Meanwhile system default text editors often crawl to a near halt when selecting several rows which are a few thousand columns wide.

<comment><USER3> What do you mean by zooming? Increasing the font size?

        :nmap + :let &guifont=substitute(&guifont, '\d\+$', '\=submatch(0) + 1', '')<cr>
        :nmap - :let &guifont=substitute(&guifont, '\d\+$', '\=submatch(0) - 1', '')<cr>
        :nmap _ -

With that, you can increase the font size with normal mode +, and decrease it with - or _.

EDIT: By the way, what are you doing that requires handling text files with thousands of columns and gigabytes of text? That sounds very unusual.

<comment><USER2> It's something I would get excited about - not something I absolutely need. In the past decades so much effort has gone into optimizing rendering speeds for computer games or page rendering on browsers while text editors appear to have pretty much stayed the same (rendering wise).

<comment><USER3> Well, I can understand optimizing rendering speeds for computer games because the general trend has always been wanting ever more realistic graphics.

However, it's surprising to see people want more rendering speed on their text editors, especially to the point that it would excite them. It's something I've never considered them lacking for their purpose. However, that's probably because I've (nearly) never had the need to handle text files with such characteristics (I usually use it for code and configuration files; none get even close to 1MB), and so to me the text editor is among the fastest, lightest programs I typically run.

rch mentioned scientific data. I guess it's a valid point that there are people working with huge datasets in a practical text file format, and if there are people that can work with huge images or videos on their editors, then why can't text editors do the same.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Having been playing with Windows 10 recently since not using it more than an hour or two at a time since Windows 2K, it was pretty amazing how much of Windows really hadn't changed, and how much old chrome there is in there.

I'm not sure if that's more due to a "don't fix what isn't broke" attitude, that Microsoft is obsessed with features rather than fixing things, or simply the sheer size of Windows.

<comment><USER5> The best is this dialog, which is the exact same layout as in Windows 3.1: [http://www.intelliot.com/2008/08/windows-vista-install- font-...](http://www.intelliot.com/2008/08/windows-vista-install-font- crashes/)

The dialog in 3.1: [http://notebooks.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp- content/uploads/...](http://notebooks.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp- content/uploads/2011/06/Install-font-31.jpg)

<comment><USER6> It likely has exactly the same layout because sometime, long ago, some program (e.g. Adobe Type Manager) extended that UI, either by patching its code or by overlaying part of the window with frameless windows containing new controls.

Backwards compatibility doesn't only apply to APIs.

<comment><USER7> It also got used less and less. You had to really try hard to install fonts that way and why bother changing something that (a) works, and (b) only a tiny fraction of your users are ever going to see.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> "You can now even search for words on Bing through Notepad by simply right clicking on them to get a new option"

That's what the world waited for... I am curious about the politics involved in the prioritization of this feature...

<comment><USER9> I dunno, that doesn't sound like a crazy feature. The purpose of Notepad is many times to look through gigantic log files. When you find the error, you can just select it and then Bing it.

<comment><USER10> As a Mac user it seems crazy that it's an app feature. On the Mac, any app using the system text field automatically gets features like that (spellcheck, dictionary, google, text-to-speech, etc), and as I understand it, Notepad is just a basic wrapper around the Windows text control (hence the 32K limit etc)

<comment><USER11> That's the difference. Apple had an actual opportunity to restart from scratch and design it right but Microsoft never did

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I think the line endings support is going to be the most valuable addition, that's definitely bitten me when I used to use Windows.

<comment><USER13> Parsing can be "fun", trying to figure out if text is ended with \n, \r, or both.

<comment><USER14> Unix's \n, Windows' \r\n, and older Mac's \n\r.

Deciding whether a line-end terminated when reading from a network is kinda hard...

<comment><USER15> older macs are just \r not \n\r

<comment><USER16> \r?\n regex?

<comment><USER14> So, you take a `\r` from the network. So, do you wait for a `\n` before returning the line?

<comment><USER17> You wait to peek the next byte, or EOF, and then make the choice.

<comment><USER14> Line protocols do not transmit EOF (and the problem is on each line anyway). And the next byte may only come after you write something on the socket.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I've never understood why they don't license something like notepad++ for $1 a copy, or build their own internal version. The value add creating good default tools instead of paint/notepad/calc/space-cadet is pretty huge.

<comment><USER19> Notepad++ has its fans but it falls between two stools.

It is a bit overblown for editing your /etc/hosts file and a bit underweight as an IDE.

People get stuck using Notepad++ and never give themselves the opportunity to invest that time in a tool that best suits development. This could be a grown up IDE, vi(m) or Wordpress's admin editor.

Being lightweight is all well and good if you have a 486/DX33 running Windows 3.11 but most computers have Pentium chips inside them now.

One thing that will probably remain just as useless with Windows Notepad 2018 is use case number one - editing your /etc/hosts file. What else is Notepad really for?

In the rebooted edition of the classic text editor they will still make /etc/hosts only save if you are an administrator, or 'root' user as it is on more conventional operating systems. This is fine and good for security but it does not let you just type in the 'admin' password after you have opened the file and made your changes. With Vista they got the UAC mostly right but not for Notepad and /etc/hosts.

They also hide the /etc/hosts file in some subdirectory that only a young person could possibly remember the file path for. It is not in the conventional place that is expected. c:\wwindows\system32 is as far as I can remember. Then, when you have found the magic folder, it requires a change of the file type in the file dialog window before you can see it, and that is presuming you have file extensions enabled. There is a confusing hosts.isam file in the same folder. Who knows how you explain to your grandma over the phone how to add some IP address to her hosts file so she can see your development site.

Really the line endings problem should have been fixed a long time ago, actually with Windows 95 as it was apparent even that far back that users might want to open files created on systems that were not 'Wintel' (as it was known then as everything else used different processors).

With Windows 2000 - no winsock.dll needed - they should have made efforts to make /etc/hosts editable that bit more easily. That would have sorted out 90% of real world use of Notepad.

Unix philosophy should apply to Notepad - do just one thing - and the Windows Write product should have been where to go for fancy line numbers and such like. That could have made a neat and basic Notepad++ style product with a print view and raw text mode like what early versions of Word had.

<comment><USER20> Notepad++ is great for handling config files and other miscellaneous files. I seldom use it to write code other than one-off Python scripts - that's VSCode's job. But it's pretty great for inspecting and making light edits. It also has lightweight capabilities for regex search/replace, diffing, and other batch capabilities. And multiple tabs are great.

If you map Notepad, Vim, Emacs, and heavyweight IDE's on a spectrum, I use Notepad++ as a replacement for Notepad and the simpler half of Vim/Emacs, and I use VSCode for the heavier half of Vim/Emacs and typical web dev, and I use heavyweight IDE's for heavyweight dev work (C#/Java/C++ mostly).

> Who knows how you explain to your grandma over the phone how to add some IP > address to her hosts file so she can see your development site.

These days with how easy it is to load a container into a publicly accessible site, I feel like that's a solved problem in most cases?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> This sounds like useful updates and I'm glad they kept it small and simple.

I use Notepad many times a day, frequently on end-user machines as a quicky binary file viewer.

Enter shell:sendto in the address bar or run dialog, then add a new shortcut in there for Notepad. Then right-click a mysterious misbehaving file (like a PDF with a DOCX extension) and Send To, Notepad.

Today though I was doing a bunch of RegEdit work with several remote registries and was really wishing for a multi-tab Registry editor. Hope that app gets an update some day.

</comment><comment><USER22> Thanks but as a windows user I prefer any other editor. My favorite is notepad++

<comment><USER23> I usually have a half dozen windows of Sublime Text open, but I still occasionally launch Notepad to hold some temporary throwaway text, even though there's no need to.

For some reason I just like having something different open for that "scratch data" that also is visibly differentiated in my taskbar.

<comment><USER24> same here, even with my light emacs running I still have the reflex to Win+R notepad RET and paste..

then I run M-x doctor to talk about it because I'm conflicted

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> While I welcome the line endings support, and text zoom makes sense for accessibility, by far my favorite feature of Notepad is that it loads in milliseconds. If new "features" like Bing integration push that startup time into the deciseconds, I hope they will also make Notepad an optional Windows component because installing it will be pointless.

</comment><comment><USER26> I used to code in Notepad. For years. My god.

</comment><comment><USER27> I use Notepad as a quick journal throughout the day, I appreciate its simplicity.

But it really stinks they still don't have a basic "auto-recover" connected to it. When your computer crashes or loses power, an unsaved notepad will NOT be recovered like a Windows document, or Sublime, or Notepad++ file would.

<comment><USER28> Because notepad is meant to be... a notepad, not a full blown text editor.

<comment><USER29> A physical notepad doesn't get erased once I drop it. Sublime behaves much closer to the analogy than notepad in this regard (I can just scribble stuff down, forget about it for a month, and when I rediscover it I can still decide how to file it)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> There's a short but somewhat interesting post about notepad's maintenance here: [https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20180521-00/?p=...](https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20180521-00/?p=98795)

</comment><comment><USER31> > You can now even search for words on Bing through Notepad by simply right > clicking on them to get a new option.

That's great I suppose, for people who will use it. My bet is that this is the biggest driver of the update to notepad.

</comment><comment><USER32> A bit tangentially related, but on macOS people might be interested to learn that TextEdit [0] is open source [1]. It'd be interesting to see Microsoft open sourcing a bunch of their core applications.

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

[1] [https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/samplecode/TextE...](https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/samplecode/TextEdit/Introduction/Intro.html)

</comment><comment><USER33> There's much fuss about having a default text editor on Windows that can edit \n line endings, but WordPad already ships with all versions and can do just that.

</comment><comment><USER34> I'll skip it thanks. Notepad, and EDIT.COM, work well for what they're meant to do - be basic text editors on the Windows/MS-DOS platform.

<comment><USER35> The new version just supports a few new features, like non-Windows line endings. It's otherwise exactly the same simple text editor it always was, except now it's not useless when you happen to get something with Unix line endings.

If you want to talk about them adding a bunch of user tracking features to it, you may have a proper complaint.

<comment><USER34> I mean, I respect that concept; but just for my lifestyle, if someone is sending me .txt files with non-DOS/Windows line-endings, I'm talking to the wrong people.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> The Sets feature linked in the article sounds more interesting. [https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/27/17510344/microsoft- window...](https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/27/17510344/microsoft- windows-10-tabs-sets-feature-update-removal)

</comment><comment><USER37> I use Notepad daily. Linked directly from my Win10 taskbar, I use it to take small notes (duh), hold temporary information I can't retain in my brain, strip formatting when copy+pasting and view-source actions where Notepad++ is overkill.

</comment><comment><USER16> I'd call it a successful update even if they handle new lines well.

I really don't know how windows works. Their cmd can't still resize fluently like the Mac one does.

I can see Mac was the OS liked by devs. Somethings are really well done. It's the small things that matter some times.

</comment><comment><USER38> On a related note - I've started having gitattributes files to * text=auto eol=lf, ie just LF everywhere. Works fine for us

Is there any possible reason in 2018 to keep CRLFs? Even bat files work with LFs

</comment><comment><USER39> > Microsoft is also finally adding in ctrl+backspace support

#1 feature right there.

<comment><USER40> This is also one of the reasons that MacOS keyboard UX is objectively better than Windows UX. Seeing this keyboard shortcuts like this not supported in an application in MacOS would be surprising.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Wonder if Notepad still just wraps the standard edit-control after these changes.

I imagine the latter would have pretty strict backwards compatibility requirements.

</comment><comment><USER42> Notepad was probably the only remaining part of the operating system that didn't spy on it's users to send personal information back to Microsoft and it's advertisers.

I'm sure that will now change with the latest updates. I mean why shouldn't a basic text editor send user data to the internet.

</comment><comment><USER43> I have been using Notepad 3 for a while, and it works great in the meantime.</comment>


Coronavirus: India's race to build a low-cost ventilator - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-52106565 <comment><USER2> This is pretty cool but isn't the jump from artificial lung to the real thing pretty big?

<comment><AUTHOR> They have to go through testing and certification, only then it can be used. But keeping finger crossed. A low cost ventilator can be godsend in other third world countries.</comment></comment>